Q. 4.1 To justify a rating, can I give the name and phone number of the person who gave me the information?
A. The evidence for a rating should cite the source, but it is normally sufficient to identify the agency, unit or document providing the information, without naming individuals.
Q.4.2 The summary relates PFM weaknesses to the 3 goals of the budgeting process. Would it not be more useful to relate the weaknesses to the country’s developmental goals?A. The 3 goals of the budgeting process underpin the developmental goals of every country, so the Performance Report Summary should make this standard analysis. However, if it is possible to attribute particular goal shortfalls to particular weaknesses, this could be added to strengthen the report and add to the relevance of its findings.
Q.4.3 The quality of PEFA-PR reports is very variable. Shouldn’t there be mandatory QA on all reports, e.g. by the PEFA Secretariat?
A. It is very desirable that the concept note and terms of reference of every PEFA assessment include the arrangements for quality assurance. Some large donors have institutionalized systems of peer review. The PEFA Secretariat offers a review service on request, but it is up to the sponsors and funding agencies how they quality assure their reports and whether they include the PEFA Secretariat in that process.
Q.4.4 How do we manage if we cannot respect the number of pages required for the PFM report?
A. The coverage and quality of the report, and its conformity to the requirements of the TOR, are more important than the number of pages. However, report authors should focus closely on what is required by the Framework, avoiding prolixity and repetition. Additional annexes may be used to elaborate further as the authors think fit or as the TOR require.
Q.4.5 During the final workshop, every stakeholder was satisfied with the ratings but the storyline I prepared in the summary assessments was not accepted and every stakeholder had a different interpretation of the results – what do we do?
A. It is up to the members of a group (in a training context) or the assessment team (in an operational context) to resolve their differences of interpretation as far as they can. After full discussion, the group spokesperson or team leader makes the final decision on the story line.
Q.4.6 What do you do if the government disagrees with your ratings?
A. The first line of action would be to identify the exact cause of disagreement and obtain additional evidence if possible. If this does not resolve the issue, any disagreement remaining after the draft final report should be reflected in the report. Disagreements on particular points in the text or ratings should be mentioned against the relevant text, e.g. by a footnote. General or wide-ranging disagreements may be included in a separate annex, which would be referred to in the Summary Assessment.
Q.4.7 My client wants the assessment to also include corruption. This subject is hardly mentioned in the Framework. How can I include corruption in the PFM-PR?
A. The Framework does not require an assessment of corruption, which impacts many areas besides financial management. However, if it is included in the TOR, it could be covered by a separate chapter of the PFM-PR or an annex, as the client prefers.