GOVERNANCE INDICATORS:
FROM GOVERNMENT AT A GLANCE TO
BUILDING CIVIL SERVICE CAPACITY
21 June 2017
What are your school’s priorities for the biennium?
National schools of government priorities
• Comparative benchmarking
– How good are we doing?
– Do we need to do more?
• Evidence-based decision-making
– Prioritisa...
COMPARATIVE
BENCHMARKING
SDG 16: Peace , justice and strong institutions
• Target 16.7: ensure responsive, inclusive participatory and representati...
SDGs 16: Peace , justice and strong
institutions
Target 16.6: develop effective, accountable and transparent
institutions ...
7
Serving Citizens – Scorecards
First attempt to compare across sectors!
Top third group.
Middle third group.
Bottom third...
Engaging employees to improve
governance outcomes
8
 Engaged employees are “committed to their
organisation's goals and v...
Data trends from the U.S. Federal
employee viewpoints survey
9
80% 77%
66% 63%
56% 54%
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Employee E...
EVIDENCE BASED
DECISION MAKING
Data and Research: The G@G framework
Extent of the use of performance assessments in
HR decisions in central government, 2016
Source: OECD (2016) SHRM – Prelim...
Performance budgeting –
A tool for accountability & transparency
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
LAC average
O...
Adopting a culture of evaluation
Adoption of RIA: Formal requirements and practice (2015)
Source: Government at a Glance L...
ARG
BRA
CRI
DOM
SLV
GTM
HTI
HND
JAM
MEX
PAN
PRY
PER
BRB
COL
ECU
CHL
Between 6 and 10 years
17.6%
Between 11 and 30 years
5...
Risk governance and communication –
Policy design, evaluation and engagement
Existence of a national
strategy with an all ...
Collection of HR administrative data in
central government, 2016
Source: OECD (2016) SHRM – Preliminary findings
OECD OURdata Index: Open, Useful, Reusable Data
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
COL URY MEX BRA CHL PER ARG CRI DOM ...
INSPIRATION
The Observatory of Public Sector
Innovation
19-Oct-2016 OECD Observatory of Public Sector Innovation: Horizon 2020 update ...
Public sector innovation included in...
Source: OECD (2016) SHRM
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Employee surveys
Promotion criteria
Wo...
Is there an award to promote public
sector innovation in the civil service?
Source: OECD (2016) SHRM
Yes
22
No
13
0
5
10
1...
ARE THERE ANY INNOVATION NETWORKS ACROSS THE
CIVIL SERVICE?
23
Yes
22
No
13
The networks are mainly supported by:
• Centra...
Many OECD countries are investing in
leadership
Source: OECD (2016) SHRM – Preliminary findings
Use of separate HRM practi...
Source: OECD (2016) SHRM
What kind of leaders are they looking
for?
Competencies valued in the Recruitment and development...
SIX CORE SKILLS AREAS FOR
PUBLIC SECTOR INNOVATION
26
Iteration
Data literacy
User centred
Curiosity
Storytelling
Insurgen...
Innovation skills in Chile’s public sector
Iteration
Data literacy
User centricity
Curiosity
Storytelling
Insurgency
Perce...
Objectives of the OECD Network
of Schools of Government
Supporting countries in securing long-term sustainability of publi...
Key findings: Learning arrangements in the
civil service
Is there a single institution responsible for co-ordinating, prom...
Type of institutions
Key findings: learning arrangements in the
civil service
Key findings: alignment between the top
ranked learning areas and gaps in skills
Key findings: Modes and methods of evaluation of
national schools of government activities
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
...
G@G 2017 – Table of Contents
Inputs
2. Public finance &
economics
3. Public employment
& compensation
Processes
4. Institu...
 Second edition, 2014 and 2017
 Joint effort between the OECD and IDB
 Based on the OECD methodology
 Comparative pers...
Thank you!
www.oecd.org/gov/govataglance.htm
Próximos SlideShares
Carregando em…5
×

Edwin Lau e Daniel Gerson - Indicadores de governança: do governo em relance para a construção de capacidade no Serviço Público

116 visualizações

Publicada em

Edwin Lau e Daniel Gerson - Indicadores de governança: do governo em relance para a construção de capacidade no Serviço Público

Publicada em: Governo e ONGs
0 comentários
0 gostaram
Estatísticas
Notas
  • Seja o primeiro a comentar

  • Seja a primeira pessoa a gostar disto

Sem downloads
Visualizações
Visualizações totais
116
No SlideShare
0
A partir de incorporações
0
Número de incorporações
0
Ações
Compartilhamentos
0
Downloads
19
Comentários
0
Gostaram
0
Incorporações 0
Nenhuma incorporação

Nenhuma nota no slide
  • Addressing the challenges, delivering on priorities: similar to other public institutions, schools are under pressure to achieve more with less and demonstrate value for money

    Recognising the importance of learning for effective public sector and the delivery on citizen expectations, Schools identify leadership development (in 80% of cases), promoting excellence in government services and policies (47%), alignment of civil service learning activities with the priorities of government (45%) and career development for new public servants (20%) as their priorities.
    Some of the key challenges reported by the Schools include limited funding (67 %), insufficient qualified human resources (50%), uneven mechanisms for co-ordination with other civil service bodies (40%) and the need to enhance its monitoring and impact evaluation activities. In this context, Schools will need to find ways to become more cost-efficient, embrace innovation and modernise their approaches to learning.
  • Milestones:
    First edition in 2009 : focus on inputs and processes
    Second edition in 2011: outputs and outcomes are added
    Key strength in documenting governance processes in member countries and beyond
    Regional editions
  • Data for New Zealand not included in the OECD average (NZ responses: Not able to answer. Decentralised model. Not possible to tell)
    Gaag 2011: “Data for Luxembourg, New Zealand and Slovak Republic are not available”
    Iceland does not have formalized performance assessment mandatory for government employees

    Indicator changed since 2010. The following items were removed: Meeting w/superior 2 levels above or HR officer ; other tools for performance assessment; Activities undertaken; Timeliness of activities undertaken; Timeliness of outputs; Cost-effectiveness of outputs' production; Quality of outputs; other performance criteria.

    Questions:
    Q49 [Q61] Is formalized performance assessment mandatory for all government employees? (Yes for all or almost all; No only for some; No not used at all)
    Q50 [Q63] Which tools are used for regular performance assessment and how often are they applied? (Meeting w/ immediate superior, Written feedback from superior, 360 feedback)
    Q51 [Q64] What are the current performance criteria explicitly used in most organisations? (Outputs / achievement of objectives; Improvement of competencies; Values, discipline and inputs; Interpersonal/management skills)
    Q54 [Q67] How important, according to legal criteria, is having a good performance assessment with regard to (career advancement, remuneration, contract renewal)
  • New indicator.

    The index measures the existence of the following administrative data records at the Central/federal level:
    number of employees; level; function; age; gender; disabilities; other minority status; level of education; length of service; languages spoken; type of contract; union membership; part time; other flexible working arrangements; total sick days used; training days used; special leave used; mobility within the civil service; turnover data; retirements; resignations; dismissals. Responses to individual variables consider the following options: 1 (Yes, standardized data records are available and are centralised for the whole or most of the national/federal civil service); 0.5 (Yes, however standardized data records only exist at line ministry level, ie not aggregated centrally) and 0 (No, currently no standardized administrative data record exists).
  • Fresh index!
    Data for the LAC OURdata index were collected in 2016, with the exception of MEX and CHL (both 2014, included in OECD ourdata index)

    13 countries replied, 3 don’t have a portal (so therefore we can’t calculate an index). We are still validating some aspects of the data with Paraguay therefore it is for now excluded from the index.

    Noteworthy: Colombia is a (the only) country we have two data points for: one in 2014 and one 2016, showing progress, especially on the availability dimension!

    On the Southeast Asian Government at a Glance we have not collected any data yet. However, as part of the SEA G@G initiative we will start collecting as of November 2016 data on OGD in ASEAN countries (including Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Viet Nam). We will use the latest version 3.0 of the OGD survey which we presented in a workshop in Thailand 2 weeks ago. The data should be ready in the fall 2017.
  • Data comes from Strategic Human Resources Management (SHRM) survey, 2016
    13 topics including new areas (innovation, data collection, learning), ~ 130 questions
    5 composite indicators (senior civil service, delegation, performance assessment, performance-related pay, data collection)
    All OECD countries + accession
  • Last year we worked together with the NCP on refining the skills framework for innovation in the public sector and this is where we have gotten it to… [describe]
  • Key gaps:

    IT1 Iterative project management

    IT3 Experiments

    UC5 Behavioural insights
  • The OECD Network of Schools of Government is a world-wide network of schools of government, research and training institutions that serves as a consultative and knowledge diffusion body for the work of the OECD Public Governance and Territorial Development Directorate.

    Established in 2014, the Networks counts now some 87 member institutions from 51 countries, including Russia (RANEPA), CIS-countries (Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine).

    The Network provides direct access to OECD governance expertise, and allows schools to exchange experiences and good practices in ensuring that public sector employees have the skills and competencies to address current and future priorities.



  • In most respondent countries, a single institution within government is responsible for co-ordinating, promoting and administering learning for civil servants (the respondent school).
    When that is not the case, responsibility is usually shared between several governmental institutions at the central/federal level.
    Both governmental and non-governmental institutions share responsibility in four respondent countries: Netherlands, Australia, Egypt and Mexico.
    Government is not involved in co-ordinating, promoting and administering learning for civil servants in the UK; this is handled entirely at the non-governmental level.

    Greater mandate clarity and strengthened institutional framework for learning and development would be beneficial to drive high Schools’ performance.
    Effective schools’ governance and management are critical to ensure relevance of their programmes to government priorities and civil service capacity needs

    While all participating countries reported having in place an institution responsible for civil service learning, they differed in their institutional form, mandate, autonomy and relationship to government and non-governmental stakeholders.
    The internal Schools’ governance and management models reflect a variety of factors such as the civil service model, Schools’ legal structures, institutional model (i.e. academic versus public administration), relationships or partnerships with other institutions. While most Schools operate under an institutional head, some have also established a board of directors/trustees (20% of respondents) and a council of members (27% of respondents) as the main governance or management bodies to separate the division of duties between day-to-day administration and strategy-setting.
    All respondents were established through a form of legal instrument, although further clarity of mandates, roles and responsibilities would be beneficial.
  • Respondent schools are mostly affiliated with the government, independently of the number of institutions responsible for co-ordinating, promoting and administering learning for civil servants.

    Greater mandate clarity and strengthened institutional framework for learning and development would be beneficial to drive high Schools’ performance
    While all participating countries reported having in place an institution responsible for civil service learning, they differed in their institutional form, mandate, autonomy and relationship to government and non-governmental stakeholders.
    The internal Schools’ governance and management models reflect a variety of factors such as the civil service model, Schools’ legal structures, institutional model (i.e. academic versus public administration), relationships or partnerships with other institutions. While most Schools operate under an institutional head, some have also established a board of directors/trustees (20% of respondents) and a council of members (27% of respondents) as the main governance or management bodies to separate the division of duties between day-to-day administration and strategy-setting.
    All respondents were established through a form of legal instrument, although further clarity of mandates, roles and responsibilities would be beneficial.
  • Schools of Government are increasingly innovating in their programmes. Innovation and quality assurance in learning programmes are essential to ensure their responsiveness

    While most survey respondents indicated a preference for traditional classroom training, other teaching methods, such as team-based activities and study tours are increasingly being used (in about 50% of cases). Importantly, while still a minority, approximately 40% of Schools of Government are providing training to civil servants in the form of online self-study courses. There is also a growing trend of combining several training methods (e.g., executive training may integrate classroom teaching with peer-and in-service learning).
    There seems to be a general alignment between the top most ranked learning areas offered by Schools of Government and the potential skills needs in civil services. Although some disparities exist, people management, ICT applications, change management and project management are the areas highly ranked as both learning offerings and skills needs. At the same time, while risk evaluation, programme evaluation, innovation, stakeholder engagement and policy analysis have been identified among the areas with greatest skills gaps across civil services, learning offerings in these areas generally appear to be scarce.
    Over half of respondents (18 out of 23) indicated that they are engaged in knowledge development and research, especially applied research and primarily in the areas where Schools provide training and development programmes (with the exception of information technology, project management and administrative law).

    The top priority themes for teaching in the respondent schools are: leading institutional and organisational transformation; organisational effectiveness and quality management; policy and programme formulation and analysis (one of the biggest identified gaps); people management (ditto); and, at an equal level, administrative and constitutional law (one of the smallest identified skill gaps); delivery of public goods and services (one of the biggest identified gaps); and budgeting and financial management.
  • Further investments are needed to advance monitoring and evaluation for enhanced impact and relevance of Schools of Government’s programmes.
    Monitoring and evaluation is an essential but underutilised tool

    Most Schools of Government have put in place evaluation and monitoring mechanisms for their learning programmes, although most of these are internally managed and carried out using traditional methods. Further investment in independent evaluations and in measuring the impact of training on behavioural changes will be important to ensure ongoing relevance and effectiveness of learning programmes.
    While most of the Schools of Government report actively evaluating their learning programmes, only 14% of them conducted evaluations of their research activities. As research activities are also subject to demonstrating their value for money, this may also prove to be an area in which Schools may need to undertake further investments.
  • Objectives of the Gag:

    Provide internationally comparative data on how governments work and their performance
    Allow countries to benchmark their own performance
    Improve public governance in countries
  • Areas highlighted in yellow are new to the second edition
    New policy networks, (e.g. health systems joint ELS/GOV network meeting, OECD LAC network on regulatory governance)

    Focus of the 2017 edition: Strengthening public governance requires the development of public sector capacities
    Budgeting and fiscal institutions
    Human resources management
    Open and Digital government
    Regulatory governance and policy
  • Edwin Lau e Daniel Gerson - Indicadores de governança: do governo em relance para a construção de capacidade no Serviço Público

    1. 1. GOVERNANCE INDICATORS: FROM GOVERNMENT AT A GLANCE TO BUILDING CIVIL SERVICE CAPACITY 21 June 2017
    2. 2. What are your school’s priorities for the biennium? National schools of government priorities
    3. 3. • Comparative benchmarking – How good are we doing? – Do we need to do more? • Evidence-based decision-making – Prioritisation – Allocation – What requires more attention? – What works? • Inspiration – How could things be done differently? – Operationalising governance principles – Understanding the implications of the data What evidence do leaders need?
    4. 4. COMPARATIVE BENCHMARKING
    5. 5. SDG 16: Peace , justice and strong institutions • Target 16.7: ensure responsive, inclusive participatory and representative decision-making at all levels : “Proportion of positions ( by sex ….) in public institutions compared to national distribution” 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Senior Management Middle Management Professionals Source: OECD (2016) Survey on the Composition of Employees in Central/Federal Governments Share of women in selected central government positions, 2015
    6. 6. SDGs 16: Peace , justice and strong institutions Target 16.6: develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels : Proportion of population satisfied with last experience of public services OECD Serving Citizens framework: ACCESS RESPONSIVENESS RELIABILITY/QUALITY Affordability Citizen centred approach (courtesy, treatment and integrated services) Effective delivery of services and outcomes Geographic proximity Match of services to special needs Consistency in service delivery and outcomes Accessibility of information Timeliness Security ( safety) In key public sectors including in the latest edition health care, education, and justice.
    7. 7. 7 Serving Citizens – Scorecards First attempt to compare across sectors! Top third group. Middle third group. Bottom third group. Note: Countries are listed in alphabetical order. The number in the cell indicates the position of each country among all countries for which data are available. The arrows indicate whether the situation is improving (), staying the same () or worsening () in absolute terms (i.e. not relative to other countries). Years of reference for each indicator are specified in the figure notes. No symbol means no trend data available. For detailed description of the indicators see "Chapter 14: Serving Citizens" Indicator Mortality rate - Acute Myocardial infaction (heart attack) Mortality rate - Cerebrovascular disease (stroke) Breast cancer mortality in women PISA mean score in science PISA mean score in mathematics PISA mean score in reading Effective enforcement of civil justice Civil justice is free from improper government influence People do not use violence to redress personal grievances Austria 20 9 19 20 15 25 5 10 6 Belgium 14 12 31 14 10 17 11 12 13 Canada 18 3 15 4 5 1 13 6 5 Denmark 10 18 35 15 7 15 8 3 3 Finland 29 22 7 3 8 2 6 7 2 France 1 1 23 21 19 16 15 19 22 Hungary 31 33 30 28 28 30 25 26 10 Italy 11 24 20 27 23 26 27 20 26 Japan 2 17 4 1 1 6 4 15 7 Korea 5 25 1 5 2 5 9 17 19 Mexico 35 19 3 35 35 35 28 27 27 Netherlands 9 13 28 11 6 12 7 1 16 Norway 23 11 9 18 14 7 1 2 8 Sweden 25 14 8 22 17 14 2 8 1 United Kingdom 17 15 26 9 20 19 12 9 15 United States 16 5 13 19 31 20 17 18 18 Health care (including prevention and care) Education Justice Pillar 3: Quality of Services
    8. 8. Engaging employees to improve governance outcomes 8  Engaged employees are “committed to their organisation's goals and values, motivated to contribute to organisational success, and are able at the same time to enhance their own sense of well-being”.  Research (mostly private sector) suggests that employee engagement supports:  Profit: higher net income, operating margins, revenue growth, and shareholder value.  Customer satisfaction: more satisfied & loyal clients, who actively promote service or product within their personal network.  Productivity: higher job performance, efficiency, employee retention and wellbeing.  Innovation: show more personal initiative, contribute more creativity to their work.
    9. 9. Data trends from the U.S. Federal employee viewpoints survey 9 80% 77% 66% 63% 56% 54% 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Employee Engagement Index High Department Score Governmentwide Low Department Score 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Employee Engagement Index 66 67 65 64 63 Leaders Lead 55 56 54 53 50 Supervisors 71 72 71 70 71 Intrinsic Work Experience 72 72 71 69 68
    10. 10. EVIDENCE BASED DECISION MAKING
    11. 11. Data and Research: The G@G framework
    12. 12. Extent of the use of performance assessments in HR decisions in central government, 2016 Source: OECD (2016) SHRM – Preliminary findings
    13. 13. Performance budgeting – A tool for accountability & transparency 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 LAC average OECD average Use of performance budgeting practices at the central level of government (2013) Source: OECD (2014) Government at a Glance Latin America and the Caribbean
    14. 14. Adopting a culture of evaluation Adoption of RIA: Formal requirements and practice (2015) Source: Government at a Glance Latin America and the Caribbean 2017 Source: OECD Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance (iREG) for Latin America 2016; OECD Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance (iREG) 2015, www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/indicators-regulatory-policy-and-governance.htm 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 Peru Chile Colombia Ecuador Brazil Costa Rica Mexico LAC OECD Written guidance Outside body reviews quality Done in practice Requirement to conduct
    15. 15. ARG BRA CRI DOM SLV GTM HTI HND JAM MEX PAN PRY PER BRB COL ECU CHL Between 6 and 10 years 17.6% Between 11 and 30 years 5.9% Up to 5 years 76.4% Time spam of long-term fiscal budgetary projections (2013) Source: Government at a Glance Latin America and the Caribbean 2017  Better coordination  Discussion of a broader policy agenda  Identify probable future challenges that could affect economic conditions in the future Adopting a longer term perspective in budgeting
    16. 16. Risk governance and communication – Policy design, evaluation and engagement Existence of a national strategy with an all hazards approach for the management of critical risks, 2016 Source: OECD (2016), Survey on the Governance of Critical Risks DenmarkNorway Portugal Chile Estonia Japan Turkey Australia Austria Canada Finland France Germany Greece IcelandIrelandItaly Korea Latvia Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Poland Slovak Republic Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom United States Yes and all-hazards approach : 77% Yes but no all hazards approach: 13% No: 10% Average number of disasters per year across OECD countries, 1980-2016
    17. 17. Collection of HR administrative data in central government, 2016 Source: OECD (2016) SHRM – Preliminary findings
    18. 18. OECD OURdata Index: Open, Useful, Reusable Data 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 COL URY MEX BRA CHL PER ARG CRI DOM GTM PAN SLV OECD LAC Data availability Data accessibility Government support to the re-use
    19. 19. INSPIRATION
    20. 20. The Observatory of Public Sector Innovation 19-Oct-2016 OECD Observatory of Public Sector Innovation: Horizon 2020 update meeting 20 Source of information  More than 400 case studies of public sector innovation projects  Developing partnerships with EPSA, ENAP (Brazil) and Harvard Kennedy School to bring hundreds more in 2017 Advisory unit  Practical advice on how to make innovation work in the public sector  Latest research in innovation knowledge and practice  Important innovation events, resources, and publications Practitioner community  Bringing together public sector innovation experts from across OECD member and partner countries  Sharing experiences and collaborating on new approaches and ventures, peer support to work through challenges
    21. 21. Public sector innovation included in... Source: OECD (2016) SHRM 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Employee surveys Promotion criteria Workforce development strategy Recruitment strategy / guidelines Performance assessment Competence framework Leadership development Training and development Government-wide strategic objectives Number of OECD countries
    22. 22. Is there an award to promote public sector innovation in the civil service? Source: OECD (2016) SHRM Yes 22 No 13 0 5 10 15 20 25 Shared publicly Held in a data-base Transformed into case studies for learning material Replicated in other public institutions Other Winning innovations Shortlisted innovations If yes, how are the innovations used?
    23. 23. ARE THERE ANY INNOVATION NETWORKS ACROSS THE CIVIL SERVICE? 23 Yes 22 No 13 The networks are mainly supported by: • Central HRM Unit (6) • Central innovation institution (3) • National School of Government (3) • Informal network/ supported independently (10) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Experience sharing among members Capacity building activities Regular meetings Specific innovation projects Online community building Advice and guidance to ministries / public agencies Main activities of innovation networks
    24. 24. Many OECD countries are investing in leadership Source: OECD (2016) SHRM – Preliminary findings Use of separate HRM practices for senior civil servants in central government, 2016
    25. 25. Source: OECD (2016) SHRM What kind of leaders are they looking for? Competencies valued in the Recruitment and development of Senior Management (2016) 25
    26. 26. SIX CORE SKILLS AREAS FOR PUBLIC SECTOR INNOVATION 26 Iteration Data literacy User centred Curiosity Storytelling Insurgency  Rapid and incremental development  Developing and refining prototypes  Experimentation and testing  Basing decisions on data and evidence  Building systems that collect the right data  Communicating data effectively  Identifying new ideas, ways of working  Adapting approaches used elsewhere  Reframing problems and perspectives  Using narratives to explain 'the journey'  Including 'user stories' to outline benefits  Progressing the story as situations change  Challenging the usual way of doing things  Working with unusual/ different partners  Building alliances for change  Policies and services solve user needs  Considering users at every stage  Users that say: "I would do that again"
    27. 27. Innovation skills in Chile’s public sector Iteration Data literacy User centricity Curiosity Storytelling Insurgency Perception of self Perception of manager Perception of organisation IT-1 IT-2 IT-3 IT-4 DL-1 DL-2 DL-3 DL-4 DL-5 UC-1 UC-2 UC-3 UC-4 UC-5 CU-1 CU-2 CU-3 CU-4 ST-1 ST-2 ST-3 ST-4 ST-5 IN-1 IN-2 IN-3 IN-4 IN-5 Perception of self Perception of manager Perception of organisation
    28. 28. Objectives of the OECD Network of Schools of Government Supporting countries in securing long-term sustainability of public sector reforms through: •Strengthening the link between international policy dialogue and national public service capacity-building efforts; •Informing the OECD policy dialogue with lessons and good practices on implementation on the ground; and •Supporting exchange among national schools of government on current policy priorities and capacity-building, policy implementation and research needs. •“National Schools of government: Building Civil Service Capacity” (2016 Report) • Objective: to support policy dialogue across OECD and partner countries on the role of the Schools of Government in 1) shaping and supporting the implementation of the governmental agenda ; 2) developing necessary skills of public servants to respond to government priorities and citizen expectations.
    29. 29. Key findings: Learning arrangements in the civil service Is there a single institution responsible for co-ordinating, promoting and administering learning for civil servants in your country at the central/federal level of government?
    30. 30. Type of institutions Key findings: learning arrangements in the civil service
    31. 31. Key findings: alignment between the top ranked learning areas and gaps in skills
    32. 32. Key findings: Modes and methods of evaluation of national schools of government activities 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Performance indicators Satisfaction surveys Feedback cardsRegular evaluations In-depth impact studies Training future civil servants Training current civil servants Training for senior managers Online programmes As your school monitors and evaluates its activities, how does it monitor and evaluate their impact?
    33. 33. G@G 2017 – Table of Contents Inputs 2. Public finance & economics 3. Public employment & compensation Processes 4. Institutions 5. Budget practices & procedures 6. Human Resource Management 7. Public sector integrity 8. Regulatory governance 9. Public procurement 10. Open government 11. Public sector innovation and digital government 12. Risk management & communication Outputs and outcomes 13. Core government results 14. Serving Citizens
    34. 34.  Second edition, 2014 and 2017  Joint effort between the OECD and IDB  Based on the OECD methodology  Comparative perspective (within the region and to the OECD)  It includes on average 15 LAC countries  Contributed to the creation of policy networks in the region Government at a Glance: Latin America and the Caribbean 2017 Policy chapter (the effects of fiscal policy in equity) Public finances and economics Public employment Centres of Government (CoG) Budget practices and procedures (health budgeting) Human resources management Regulatory policy and governance Open and digital government Public procurement
    35. 35. Thank you! www.oecd.org/gov/govataglance.htm

    ×