V Konferencja Ewaluacyjna Warszawa, 23.10.2009

1. V Konferencja EwaluacyjnaWarszawa, 23.10.2009 Peter van der Knaap Ewaluacja w procesie budżetowania zadaniowego – doświadczenia holenderskie

2. Evaluations for a cost-effective and responsive governmentExperiences from The Netherlands Peter van der Knaap, PhD. Director, Netherlands Court of Audit V Evaluation Conference, Warsaw 2009

3. Outline • Introduction: performance based budgeting and evaluation in The Netherlands • Regulations and management • Results and challenges • Outlook: next steps V Evaluation Conference, Warsaw 2009

4. Holland • 16,5 million inh. • decentralised unitary state • State expenditure 272 billion Euro (income: 240) • top 10 TI index • christian-social democratic coalition • old ties with Poland V Evaluation Conference, Warsaw 2009

5. I. Performance based budgetting in The Netherlands • 1999: ‘From policy budgetting to policy accountability’ • Objectives and indicators plus evaluation • Initiative: Parliament! V Evaluation Conference, Warsaw 2009

6. V Evaluation Conference, Warsaw 2009

7. To be answered by Governments’s budget: What do we want to achieve? What will we do to achieve it? What will be the costs? To be answered by Annual Report: Did we achieve what we wanted to achieve? Did we do what we promised to do? Did it cost what we estimated? Structure of Budgets and Annual Accounts V Evaluation Conference, Warsaw 2009

8. Scores for “Accountability Day” V Evaluation Conference, Warsaw 2009

9. NCA MAD MAD IC IC IC IC Auditor Auditor Auditor IC IC IC IC IC IC II. The formal audit and evaluation system • ministers = responsible • 5 year (6, 7…) • ‘adding up’ evaluations: • objectives • ↑ • instruments Parliament Minister Agencies V Evaluation Conference, Warsaw 2009

10. Levels of evaluation V Evaluation Conference, Warsaw 2009

11. Evaluation quality: requirements and management • Standards and guidelines: process transparancy and checks • Professionalism and education (State Finance Academy) • Exchange / Pool / Central Audit Directorate • Evaluation of evaluation quality • Peer reviews (NCA) V Evaluation Conference, Warsaw 2009

12. Results? ☺Political debate, cabinet priorities, media attention ☺Focus in monitoring systems, ex ante and ex post evaluation ! Bureaucracy, data dumping and perception of “audit tower” ! Negative effects: tunnel vision, rigidity, strategies ! No real adding-up evaluations ! Questions concerning quality V Evaluation Conference, Warsaw 2009

13. V Evaluation Conference, Warsaw 2009

14. V Evaluation Conference, Warsaw 2009

15. V Evaluation Conference, Warsaw 2009

16. V Evaluation Conference, Warsaw 2009

17. Results? ☺Political debate, cabinet priorities, media attention ☺Focus in monitoring systems, ex ante and ex post evaluation ! Bureaucracy, data dumping and perception of “audit tower” ! Negative effects: tunnel vision, rigidity, strategies ! No real adding-up evaluations ! Questions concerning quality V Evaluation Conference, Warsaw 2009

18. V Evaluation Conference, Warsaw 2009

19. V Evaluation Conference, Warsaw 2009

20. V Evaluation Conference, Warsaw 2009

21. V Evaluation Conference, Warsaw 2009

22. Next steps: • Quality: indepence and transparancy • Reporting • Keeping it managable: adding up and sizing down! • Responsivenes: citizen centered evaluations • “Accountable for learning” V Evaluation Conference, Warsaw 2009

23. V Evaluation Conference, Warsaw 2009

24. Thank you! peter.vanderknaap@rekenkamer.nl V Evaluation Conference, Warsaw 2009