1 – STUDY ON REFERENCE INDICATORS+ The aim of the study was that of assessing the feasibility of building up a system for benchmarking of the quality of public services through the use of performance indicators

2 – STUDY ON REFERENCE INDICATORS Since January 2001, with 12 Countries participating, the study has: 1 – defined a theoretical and methodological model for building up a set of indicators; 2 – developed a survey between member States to identify the most preferred sectors; 3 – prepared a set of indicators (handbook) for the policies/services chosen;

3 – STUDY ON REFERENCE INDICATORS The most preferred sectors are: 7 preferences: fiscal affairs/tax adm.; 6 preferences: police services; 4 preferences: labour market policy, food&drugs adm., waste management, pension adm.; 3 preferences: fiscal affairs/customs, hospital services, fire protection services, driving licence, company reg., tertiary education.

4 – STUDY ON REFERENCE INDICATORS 4 – conducted a pilot phase aimed at investigating the possibility of measuring the performances in the field of tax administration by mean of feasible and meaningful reference indicators.

1 - PILOT PHASE The pilot phase implied: A – the revision of the indicators, that were previously identified, with the national tax administrations; B – preparation of protocols for data collection; C – the actual measurement of indicators

2 - PILOT PHASE Seven Countries participated at the pilot phase and communicated the data needed for the measurement of indicators: Austria, Belgium, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain.

17 indicators identified: 3 - PILOT PHASE 17 indicators identified: Accessibility: administrative complexity; Effectiveness: quota of adverse in the appeal procedure, time to issue refunds, prevention(3), size of debt, age of debt, compliance levels (2); Efficency: audits per employee, productivity of audits, administrative costs; Quality: standards of quality of costumer services; Equity: Productivity of audits, tax evasion Modernization: access via the Internet.

4 - PILOT PHASE The results of the pilot phase: - 12 out of 17 indicators measured had data from at least 5 Countires; - in 13 out of 17 indicators the variance between the Countries can be considered at a low or medium level.

5 - PILOT PHASE To develop benchmarking, indicators must be measured: - for a significant number of Countries; - with a limited variance. From the Pilot phase of the study the conclusion is that at least 8 indicators meet these conditions

1 - MAIN CONCLUSIONS The survey conducted on the policies/ services more suitable for comparison shows that States have very different priorities. There is a convergence on the identification of the dimensions of the performance of the different policies/ services: accessibility, effectiveness, efficiency, quality, equity, modernization.

2 - MAIN CONCLUSIONS The pilot phase showed that the main data necessary to measure meaningful indicators are available. Generalising this result we can conclude that measuring reference indicators is possible and cost-effective.

1 – FINAL CONSIDERATIONS A way to bring about a real comparison of the performance of public services and policies in Europe is to link the exercise to the national administrative reform policies. Furthermore in several countries the attempts to create strategic planning and evaluation systems could benefit from the availability of figures on the results achieved abroad.

2 – FINAL CONSIDERATIONS Countries showed a reluctanct approach to comparing performances because; - doubting on the feasibility of such an exercise; - worried of the political consequences of comparison; - separateness between centres in charge of PA and sectorial administrations.

3 – FINAL CONSIDERATIONS Those Countries that share the interest towards a comparative measurement of public policies and services performance could proceed by proposing a mechanism of open co-ordination in this field based upon two main pillars:

4 – FINAL CONSIDERATIONS the creation of a common set of Indicators (handbook). A task force should: - agree a shared “basket” of policies; - agree a common set of indicators; - agree data collecting protocols; b) a framework agreement under which Countries make accessible, on demand, the data needed in order to calculate the indicators, under condition of non disclosure.