Policy programmes Visa Paajanen National Audit Office of Finland

2 Contents of presentation Policy programmes in Finland Performance audit Findings and recommendations Accountability

3 Policy programmes as steering instruments iniative for policy programmes 2001 central government reform 1st time used electorial period, also in use objective was: - strengthen steering and implementation - improve cross-sector preparation and implementation - programmes were intented to form closer connection between admistrative sectors

4 Development of programs , big expectations - intended role as instruments for integrating the Council of States strategic planning and horizontal framework and budget preparation efforts - integrated to budget ceilings - evaluation 2006 => , realistic approuch - no clear connections to budget or ceilings - NAOFs audit >?

5 Programmes fundamental character Despite their official standing, the policy programmes have not been given a role among the principal tasks of the government The lack of collective commitment by the government is reflected not only in the resources the programmes command but also in the fact that the present means of influence of the ministerial workgroups or the coordinating minister have not been utilised The ministers have not participated in the budget preparation or budget talks of the central administrative sectors. Initiatives and lists of policy programme allocations have not had any significant impact on budget preparation. =>The fundamental character and role of the programmes is not clear

6 The strategic core of the programmes Measures in programmes are very fragmented form, forming a set of projects that are considered important by different ministries, institutes and other partners The programmes lack a strategic core Programmes easily turns into a list of measures that work in different directions and without synergy benefits =>principal objective of the programmes was not achieved

7 Relationship with ongoing policy actions When the policy programmes were initiated, no review of ongoing development processes was performed and there were no picture of ongoing reform and development projects Review would have proven very useful. New programmes included measures more or less identical to the measures already existing Extensive projects focusing on the same issues may be underway in parallel and simultaneously within programme The policy programme has no significant methods for collecting together or integrating individual projects or actions with relevance to the policy programme =>most of the implementers saw no special need for coordinating the project actions

8 Organisation, resources and the relationship with the principal decision-making processes resources of the policy programmes were very limited the limited availability of expert support and the lack of ability to influence appropriations that are relevant to the programmes was major problem =>Since most measures with immediate resource impact had been excluded from the programmes, direct contact with the ceiling process or budget planning was no longer considered necessary for the second programme period

9 Progress of measures and added value of programmes most of these measures would have been implemented even without the policy programme that most of these measures will be implemented independently of the programme and according to existing plans programmes had no significant effect added value of the programmes is limited

10 Future development NAOF stated: there have been progress during this 8 years period and with improvements in policy programmes it could be possible to continue new government 2011: => ??