1. no 1 Possibilities of evaluation of SAI performance efficiency and effectiveness and evaluation criteria Ms Eva Lindblom, SNAO

2. no 2 − Does Riksrevisionen give the tax- payers “value for money”? Internal follow up: What have SNAO accomplished? External review: Do we actually audit efficiency? →External and internal conclusions and “solutions”

3. no 3 Why this follow-up? To comply with a request from the Committee on Finance of the Riksdag (Swedish Parliament) Transparency To create a basis for internal development work

4. no 4 Scope Performance audit – 80 review reports Financial audit – 47 auditor’s reports with a qualified opinion Focus What has the SNAO’s Board done? What has the Riksdag done? What has the Government done? What have agencies and enterprises done?

5. no 5

6. no 6 Important background information The Government, the agencies and the enterprises are not forced to take independent action following our review reports However, the Government must report to the Riksdag on measures it has taken or intends to take

7. no 7 Examination by the Board and the Riksdag 120 review reports 48% representations (proposals) 23% Yes77% No 30% reports (information) 100% No further action 22% not forwarded to the Riksdag

8. no 8 Reception by the Riksdag of audits Review reports submitted by the Board to the Riksdag 8.7 months from publication to decision by the Riksdag Positive reception (words) Usually negative decision (action) Justification for “No”: action planned or already taken by the Government All review reports: Used to inform debate – private bills, questions put to ministers, reporting of ministers to the Committee on the Constitution of the Riksdag The Board has an important role in making findings known to the Riksdag

9. no 9 Requests – recommendations SNAO would like … A more coherent reporting from the Government to the Riksdag Introduce an obligation for the Agencies to report to the Government upon their actions following our review reports

10. no 10 Do we actually audit efficiency? External review by scientists at the University of Stockholm Describe and analyse our performance audit reports since the start in 2003. All together 120 reports

11. no 11 Goal Activity Input Output Effects EffectivenessEconomyEfficiency Keeping the costs low Making the most of available resources Achieving the stipulated aims Performance audits and the input – output model

12. no 12 The results from the review were mixed The researchers found that we were actually doing eight different types of performance audits – and their conclusion was that performance audits are not uniform but rather a mixed bag.

13. no 13 The mixed bag 1.Economy audit (8) 2.Efficiency audit (6) 3.Effectiveness audit (2) 4.Policy audit or value-for-money audits (3) 5.Operational audit (18) 6.Goal-related audit (22) 7.Internally oriented audit (41) 8.Empirically grounded audit (20)

14. no 14 Explanations - reflections New mandate – new requirements Auditor generals areas of interest Do not manage to audit as far as we had in mind (planned) Choice of method limits the scope – need to increase the use of quantitative methods

15. no 15 SNAO strategic agenda - 2012 Efficiency-audits shall cover the whole executive chain - from the Parliament, to the government and further down to the governmental agency and our ambition is to increase the amount of audits where we clarify consequences and costs and efficiency in activities financed by the state-taxes.

16. no 16 Yes, Riksrevisionen give the tax- payers “value for money”, but In order to have a larger impact in the decision-making process in the Riksdag and to auditees we will focus more on the “traditional” three E´s We hope for a smoother and more serious process concerning our reports, by the Government and by the Riksdag