Methodology for analyzing the implementation of a state program. Assessing the effectiveness of the implementation of government programs

Youtube

The article is devoted to assessing the effectiveness of the implementation of government programs at the present stage. It is considered that the main task obtaining data on the effectiveness of program implementation in the system of program-targeted management of budget expenditures consists of obtaining information on the expenditure of budget funds in terms of legality, feasibility, targeted nature and effectiveness of expenditures.

Key words: federal budget, state program, financing, targets, efficiency

One of the goals of the authorities is to determine the priorities for the development of the state, taking into account all the factors affecting society. In 2015, the federal budget was formed on the basis of a program-target approach, while the financing of state programs, which, in turn, include federal target programs, accounts for 57.8% of federal budget expenditures. Government programs Russian Federation(state programs) - a set of measures and instruments of state policy, interconnected in terms of tasks, implementation deadlines and resources, ensuring the achievement of priorities and goals of state policy in the field of socio-economic development and security.

The state program is a document that defines the goals, objectives, results, main directions and instruments of state policy aimed at achieving the goals and implementing the priorities established by the Concept of long-term socio-economic development of the Russian Federation. The state program includes federal target programs and subprograms. Subprograms are formed to solve specific problems within the framework of the state program. The division of the state program into subprograms is carried out based on the scale and complexity of the tasks solved within the framework of the state program. Subprograms of the state program include, among other things, departmental target programs and individual activities of government bodies. It should be noted that each event has a specific deadline and responsible executors.

The budget of the Russian Federation and the budgets of most constituent entities of the Federation since 2014 have been formed on the basis of state programs, but it is premature to talk about a “programmatic” philosophy in the budget. Real software requires the implementation of two conditions: the adoption of government programs and the availability of an effective tool for assessing the effectiveness of their implementation. These tasks are fully consistent with the promises of the “Main Policy Directions for 2015 and for the Planning Period of 2016 and 2017” in improving the methodology of state programs - the requirements for the target indicators of state programs used and the effectiveness of state programs. Provided that the target indicators are well planned, the current external and internal control over federal budget expenditures for the implementation of target programs is effective, then the values of the target indicators should tend to the planned ones.

In practice, there are both underfulfillment and overfulfillment of indicator values, which indicates an underestimation of the forecast assessment of target indicators and indicators and the need to adjust them together with financial support indicators, since otherwise the result is inefficient use of budget funds. The lack of development of the issue of sanctions for failure to achieve target indicators of target programs is one of the shortcomings of the regulatory framework regulating the issues of bringing to responsibility for violation of budget legislation in the field of program budget.

According to the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation, in 2014, for only 46 federal target programs out of 817 target indicators and indicators envisaged for implementation, 581 target indicators and indicators (71.1%) were fully achieved, 170 were not fully achieved (20.8%), 50 - not fully implemented (6.1%), for 16 indicators (1.9%) information on the level of implementation was not provided. Thus, V. M. Rodionova and V. I. Shleinikov describe the essence of the effectiveness of state control as the ratio of transaction costs for conducting state financial control and the amount of identified and proven financial losses state in the form of excessive transaction costs when implementing redistribution relations. Reducing control costs, as they believe, is the main task of institutions of state financial control.

The study of cost indicators allows us to establish the proportionality of costs incurred and control results. In a number of cases, a comparison of costs and achieved results shows that control was carried out hastily or, conversely, a lot of time was spent, a significant number of people were involved, and the results turned out to be insignificant. We consider it incorrect to determine the effectiveness of state financial control over federal budget expenditures on the implementation of target programs only from the point of view of cost savings. If we consider that one of the main tasks of state financial control of the program budget is the prevention of financial violations, then with an ideal organization of control of violations there should always be significantly less.

Therefore, when organizing high-quality control, the state’s costs for maintaining the state financial committee bodies are one of the necessary conditions preventive control of violations in the field of federal budget expenditures on targeted programs. The effectiveness of budget program expenditures is ensured, in our opinion, by compliance with the principles and requirements for its organization, in particular, a clear delineation of the functions and powers of control bodies, coordination of their activities, and the definition of common methodological approaches to control, as well as the presence of real measures of responsibility for violation of legislation in the field of program budget expenditures. In order to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of expenditures on the implementation of target programs, it is necessary to have a complete understanding of all volumes of financial resources allocated from various sources, since in percentage terms, federal budget funds do not always play a key role.

For example, in the 40 state programs of the Russian Federation approved for 2014, the total amount of resource support for their implementation from all sources of financing (open part) is more than 24.0 trillion rubles, including about 30% of the total amount of resource support from federal funds. budget, about 30% - consolidated budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, less than 10% - state and territorial extra-budgetary funds, about 30% - legal entities.

That is, funds from regional budgets and legal entities make up a significant share in the financial support of state programs of the Russian Federation and the completeness of their receipt affects the final results of program implementation to a greater extent than federal budget funds. Therefore, we believe that it is necessary to ensure that the state programs themselves contain sections on the participation of regions in their financial support, as well as the planned volumes of funding from extra-budgetary sources. The implementation of the principle of responsibility in relation to customers and implementers of target programs is currently difficult, since many issues regarding the application of financial sanctions and disciplinary measures to violators have not yet been resolved.

One of the most important problems The mechanism for holding subjects of program-target planning accountable in the context of implementing the principles of results-based budgeting is the absence of sanctions, which reduces the effectiveness of financial control. We believe that an annual assessment of the effectiveness of control over federal budget expenditures for the implementation of target programs should be carried out, firstly, by the authorities themselves, and, secondly, by the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation. Based on these indicators, it is possible to analyze the key points that influenced the effectiveness of control, draw conclusions about the quality of public financial management, and also interact with law enforcement agencies.

Literature

1. The Constitution of the Russian Federation (adopted by popular vote on December 12, 1993) (taking into account the amendments introduced by the Laws of the Russian Federation on amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation dated December 30, 2008 No. 6-FKZ, dated December 30, 2008 No. 7-FKZ, dated February 5, 2014 No. 2 -FKZ, dated July 21, 2014 No. 11-FKZ) // Collection of legislation of the Russian Federation. - 08/04/2014. - No. 31. - Art. 4398.

2. Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation: adopted by the Government of the Russian Federation on August 2, 2010 “On approval of the Procedure for the development, implementation and evaluation of the effectiveness of state programs of the Russian Federation” // Reference and legal system “ConsultantPlus” Prof. version [Electronic resource]. - Access mode: http://www.consultant.ru (access date: 12/26/2015).

3. Order of the Government of the Russian Federation of June 30, 2010 “On approval of the Program of the Government of the Russian Federation to increase the efficiency of budget expenditures for the period until 2012” // Reference and legal system “ConsultantPlus” Prof. version [Electronic resource]. - Access mode: http://www.consultant.ru (access date: 12/26/2015).

4. “Main directions of budget policy for 2015 and for the planning period of 2016 and 2017” // Legal reference system “ConsultantPlus” Prof. version [Electronic resource]. - Access mode: http://www.consultant.ru (access date: 12/26/2015).

5. Conclusion of the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation on the federal draft. Law of December 2, 2013 No. 349-FZ “On the federal budget for 2014 and for the planning period of 2015 and 2016” [Electronic resource] // Official. website of the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation. - Access mode: http://audit.gov.ru/activities/audit-of-the-federalbudget/9109/ (access date: 12/27/2015).

6. Materials of the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation for the meeting on the topic: “On the state of control and analytical work in the Russian Federation and the role of financial control bodies in ensuring the stability of the state” (Federation Council Committee on Budget and Financial Markets, Moscow) [Electronic resource] . - Access mode: http://www.council.gov.ru/media/files/41d453c010aa274aa9cc.doc (access date: 12/26/2015). 7. Rodionova, V. M. Financial control: textbook / V. M. Rodionova, V. I. Shleinikov. - M.: ID FBK - PRESS, 2012. - 320 p.

State programs are developed based on the provisions of the concepts of long-term socio-economic development of the Russian Federation and the main directions of activity of the Government of the Russian Federation for the corresponding period, federal laws, decisions of the President of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Russian Federation.

The development of state programs is carried out on the basis of a list of state programs approved by the Government of the Russian Federation. The draft list of state programs is formed by the Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation together with the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation and interested federal executive authorities. The list determines the names of state programs and responsible executors.

The state program includes federal target programs and subprograms, including departmental target programs and individual activities of government bodies. Subprograms are aimed at achieving goals and solving problems within the framework of the state program.

The development of the project and implementation of the state program is carried out by the responsible executor together with co-executors. The draft state program is subject to mandatory approval by the Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation and the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation; they also evaluate the draft state program. State programs of the Russian Federation and changes made to them are subject to public discussion on a single portal for disclosing information on the preparation by federal executive authorities of draft legal regulations and the results of their public discussion (www.regulation.gov.ru) and preliminary discussion at public councils of federal executive authorities, with the exception of annexes to government programs containing information classified as state secrets or information of a confidential nature.

From development to completion of implementation, the program goes through a number of stages, namely:

1. Identifying the problem. The content of the problem is clarified and the need for its solution is justified using software methods. The significance of the problem, the impossibility of solving it through market mechanisms, the fundamental novelty and high efficiency of the measures, etc. are taken into account.

2. Concept development. A general concept is formed and the most effective options for solving the problem are justified.

3. Preparation of proposals. Under development specific proposals To solve the problem using program methods, the “consumers” of the program are determined and a financial and economic analysis is carried out.

4. Decision making. The Government of the Russian Federation or other executive authorities decide to begin developing the program.

5. Development of a draft program. Organizational work is being carried out to develop a draft program; the main goals and objectives of the program, the timing and stages of its implementation, resources and performers are determined.

6. Development of program activities. Work begins on drawing up the actual content of the program, a business plan is prepared and a preliminary budget request is drawn up.

7. Conducting an examination. In accordance with the nature and type of the program, its examination is carried out: legal, environmental, etc. Coordination of the draft program. The program is being coordinated with interested ministries and departments, government bodies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

8. Making a decision by a government body (the Government of the Russian Federation, a ministry, government bodies of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation) on the start of implementation of the program in the form of an official document.

9. Program implementation. Those responsible for the implementation of sections of the program are approved, tasks and resources are distributed, and the implementation of program activities begins.

10. Program evaluation and monitoring. The results and consequences of the program are assessed, its implementation and expenditure of financial resources are monitored, and, if necessary, the issue of its modification is discussed.

11. Financing of the program during the implementation of the program is carried out in accordance with the budget request.

The standard version of the structure and content of sections of the state program, as a rule, consists of several blocks:

The main goals and objectives of the program, terms and stages of its implementation;

System of program activities: legal, organizational, research, personnel, technical;

Resource support for the program, volume and sources of funding;

Program implementation mechanism;

Organization of program management and control over the progress of implementation;

Assessing the effectiveness of the socio-economic and environmental impacts of the program;

Program passport.

The annex to the draft state program provides:

Explanatory note;

Business plan with socio-economic and feasibility study;

Preliminary budget request for federal appropriations to fund the program for the next fiscal year;

Agreement sheet with interested federal executive authorities.

If the program is long-term in nature, then it certainly contains:

Feasibility study;

Forecast of expected socio-economic (environmental) results of implementation;

Name of the program customer;

Information on the distribution of volumes and sources of financing.

The implementation of the state program is carried out in accordance with the state program implementation plan, containing a list of state program activities, including activities of subprograms and departmental target programs, indicating the timing of their implementation, budget allocations, as well as information on expenses from other sources.

In the process of implementing the state program, the responsible executive has the right, in agreement with co-executors, to make decisions on making changes to the lists and composition of activities, the timing of their implementation, as well as in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation in the volume of budgetary allocations for the implementation of activities within the approved limits of budgetary allocations for implementation the state program as a whole.

For the high-quality implementation of the state program, it is important to organize its effective execution, ensure a clear distribution of roles and proper interaction between performers, debug information channels, and establish strict control over the expenditure of material and financial resources, intellectual, time and other resources.

One of the priority sections of the state program is the methodology for assessing its effectiveness. This methodology should be based on an assessment of the achievement of planned results, taking into account the amount of resources allocated to implement the program, as well as socio-economic effects that influence changes in the relevant sphere of socio-economic development of the Russian Federation.

It should be noted that the evaluation methodology should be built into the program management system and linked to ongoing activities.

To identify the degree of achievement of planned results and intended goals, the actual results achieved are compared with their planned values with the formation of absolute and relative deviations.

The result of assessing the effectiveness of the implementation of a state program affects the fate of the program. There are usually several options, including:

Successful completion of the program;

Continuation of the program;

Program modification;

Terminate the program if it fails.

The reliability of the information provided is carefully checked by the bodies monitoring the implementation of the state program.

Student's name

Job title

Supervisor

Faculty

Program

Year of protection

Today in Russia, saving budget funds for the implementation of government programs is an urgent problem. Evaluating government programs is one way to solve this problem. Evaluation of state programs is a tool that allows you to get a picture of the progress of programs and helps to obtain information for making decisions regarding the further implementation of programs. When implementing any project or program, it is advisable to take into account the experience already gained. This opens up opportunities to avoid typical mistakes and, at the same time, integrate into management processes the most successful approaches that have proven their effectiveness in practice. Despite the fact that our country has already officially adopted a methodology for assessing the effectiveness of the implementation of government programs, analysis best practices can improve the efficiency of government program management. The work analyzed the experience of managing and evaluating government programs of such leading foreign countries as the USA, Canada and Australia. Today, not a single country has a unified approach and a unified methodology for evaluating government programs. The common approach in all these countries is to use logical models. The author proposes the use of logic models in the development and evaluation of government programs. The work builds a logical model of the state program “ Information society", describes the types of assessment that can be used in the author's approach

Final qualifying works (GQT) at the National Research University Higher School of Economics are completed by all students in accordance with the university and Rules defined by each educational program.

Abstracts of all thesis are necessarily published in the public domain on corporate portal National Research University Higher School of Economics.

The full text of the thesis is posted in the public domain on the HSE portal only with the consent of the student - the author (copyright holder) of the work or, in the case of a team of students, with the consent of all co-authors (copyright holders) of the work. After being posted on the HSE portal, the thesis acquires the status of an electronic publication.

In the case of using VKR, including by quoting, indicating the name of the author and the source of borrowing is mandatory.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru

Introduction

The relevance of research. For each state in modern society One of the main tasks is to ensure its sustainable economic development. Measures to improve the efficiency of public expenditure management are becoming increasingly relevant in the context of slowing government revenue growth. One of the tools that allows you to achieve this is program-target planning and management.

In Russia, since 2010, a discussion began on the transition to program-targeted management and planning, which, according to V.V. Putin (Chairman of the Government of the Russian Federation in 2010), “... allows us to link the activities of each federal executive body with the priorities recorded in program documents. Every government ruble should be aimed at the final result.” Since 2014, Russia has undergone a complete transition to a program budget.

A program budget differs from a traditional budget in that all or virtually all government spending is carried out through the implementation of government programs. The goals of government programs are linked to the strategic directions, and as a consequence, to the results of the activities of ministries and departments.

Program-targeted management requires constant monitoring and monitoring the implementation of government programs. This makes it possible to identify the degree of achievement of goals and deviations from target indicators, and adjust measures to achieve the final goals of programs. A tool such as program evaluation allows not only to track the degree of achievement of planned results and the degree of utilization of resources, but also helps to more deeply and fully understand the ongoing processes during the implementation of the program.

In his annual address to the Federal Assembly in December 2014, President V. Putin set the task of spending budget funds more efficiently: “... as for budget expenditures, the key requirements here should be frugality and maximum return, right choice priorities, taking into account the current economic situation. Over the next three years, we must set a goal to annually reduce costs and ineffective budget spending by at least five percent of total expenses in real terms.”

This goal can be achieved, in particular, by reducing or completely eliminating funding for ineffective programs. To do this, it is necessary to evaluate their effectiveness on an ongoing basis. In addition, the transition to a program budget is impossible without a high-quality and realistically applicable methodology, taking into account the available capabilities. All of the above factors determine the relevance of the chosen dissertation topic.

Main hypothesis scientific research is that the accepted criteria for assessing the effectiveness of the implementation of Russian government programs can be improved by using criteria for assessing the effectiveness of the implementation of similar programs adopted in industrialized countries.

The purpose of the work is to analyze and compare methods for assessing the effectiveness of the implementation of approved government programs in Russia and abroad and, on this basis, to develop proposals for improving the management of government programs in Russia. In particular, the dissertation will examine the experience accumulated over the past few years in the United States, Australia and Canada.

To achieve the research goal, it is necessary to solve the following main tasks:

1. Define the concept of the effectiveness of the implementation of a state program.

2. Identify the differences between program evaluation and program implementation evaluation.

3. Analyze the experience of managing government programs and assessing the effectiveness of government programs in the USA, Canada and Australia.

4. Formulate proposals for the use in Russia of foreign experience in managing and assessing the effectiveness of government programs.

1. Theoretical aspects of evaluating government programs

According to the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated August 2, 2010 No. 588 “On approval of the Procedure for the development, implementation and evaluation of the effectiveness of state programs of the Russian Federation,” the state a gift program is “a strategic planning document containing a set of planned activities interconnected in terms of tasks, implementation deadlines, performers and resources, and state policy instruments that ensure, within the framework of the implementation of key state functions, the achievement of priorities and goals of state policy in the field of socio-economic development and provision of national security."

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) defines government programs as follows: “A program is government activities grouped according to their relationship to a specific set of objectives. Program budgeting proposes to apply cost-benefit analysis to allocation decisions, allocate costs across programs, and evaluate program results in relation to goals.”

State programs consist of a set of activities that can be grouped into subprograms. Subprograms are aimed at solving existing problems and use various resources (people, cash, materials, equipment, technologies, etc.) for this. To understand whether the adopted program has any impact on the existing problem, its implementation is constantly monitored and evaluated. In generalized form, the program can be represented by the following diagram:

Figure 1. Schematic representation of the state program

Programs are the main “material” from which the concept of program-targeted management is built. This tool is characterized by a focus on achieving results step by step: goals are set for subprograms and activities that together help achieve the final goals of the program. In addition, one of the most important characteristics of program-targeted management is design form its implementation. This form allows for more efficient use of resources, concentrating them on individual program activities, makes it possible to “maintain the flexibility of the mechanism for managing and implementing programs and projects, and also makes it possible to carefully monitor funding and the results obtained during the implementation of the program.”

History shows that the introduction of the institution of evaluation of policies and programs occurs following the implementation of reforms government controlled, and the importance of this institution for the success of reforms became generally recognized. The focus of the program-target method on results and reporting makes assessing the progress of implementation and evaluating programs one of the most important components in reforming public administration.

Evaluation process and types of assessment government programs m .

“Program evaluation is a systematic study using research methods to collect and analyze data to evaluate how well a program is being implemented and why.” Program evaluation is the collection of information about the components and results of a program, on the basis of which it is possible to determine or change the way the program is implemented, improve the effectiveness of the program, and draw conclusions about the need and value of the program in general. Program evaluation is the most important stage when planning and implementing government programs, as it provides information on necessary changes and reporting.

The program evaluation process can be described in three broad stages. The first stage is planning the assessment. When planning evaluation, it is necessary to develop a program evaluation plan. It is necessary to determine the goals and objectives of the assessment. The use of so-called “logic models” helps to identify the relationship between various program components - input resources and program goals and results. A more detailed discussion of logic models will be at the end of this chapter. Next, it is necessary to develop relevant approaches that will help achieve the assessment objectives. Then you need to choose an assessment design, determine which methods (quantitative and (or) qualitative) will be used in the assessment. The second stage is conducting an assessment (collecting and analyzing data, drawing up a report). The final stage is making decisions based on the data obtained. Evaluation results are provided to program managers, on the basis of which they draw conclusions about the effectiveness of the program, obtain information and data that were required to be obtained in accordance with the objectives of the study. Decision makers can understand the reasons for deviations from set goals and make changes in the ways and methods of implementing programs.

There are many classifications for evaluating policies and programs in the scientific literature. Most general classification These are process evaluation and output evaluation. Process evaluation is aimed at assessing the activities and activities that are carried out as part of the implementation of programs. Process evaluation provides insight into how the program is functioning and helps ensure that the program is being implemented within established and planned frameworks. Outcome evaluation aims to obtain general information about the program while assessing specific established indicators and indicators for the program.

People involved in program evaluation, including government program evaluation, tend to use program outcome evaluation in most cases because this type of evaluation provides useful information for decision makers regarding program implementation. However, using outcome evaluation without evaluating program processes may lead to incorrect conclusions about program progress. Therefore, it is advisable to use combined evaluations (process-outcome evaluations), that is, evaluate processes and program results simultaneously. This type of evaluation involves collecting data about program processes, measuring the effectiveness and final results of the program. Using outcome and process assessments provides a clearer picture of how a program's internal processes affect its results. It is this type of assessment that will be used in developing author’s recommendations regarding the use of an assessment tool in Russia.

Depending on the purposes of program evaluation, one or another type of evaluation may be used. Below is a table that provides a classification of assessment types.

Table 1. Classification of types of evaluation of policies and programs

Classification sign of assessment	Types of Policy and Program Evaluation
1. Level of analysis	Micro level	Project evaluation as a time-limited activity aimed at creating a product (service)
	Meso level	Evaluation of the program as a set of activities (actions) aimed at achieving strategic and other goals
	Macro level	Assessment of policy as a certain way of directed state activity in various areas
	Meta level	Meta-evaluation as a check of the sufficiency of the methods and evaluation methods used for the final conclusion on the object of evaluation
2. Subject of assessment	Internal assessment	Evaluation of the program by employees of the executive authority implementing the program
	External assessment	Assessment by regulatory authorities or third parties
3. Steps to evaluate policies and programs	Determining the potential for "evaluability"	Analysis of the context of the assessment object, with the help of which the possibility of carrying out the assessment procedure is determined
	Preliminary assessment	Analysis of the quality of the underlying program project idea before the stage of its implementation, preliminary assessment of potential costs, benefits and effects in order to adjust the program project
	Accompanying (interim) assessment	Analysis of the program in the sequence of implemented stages for the current analysis of reserves for increasing its effectiveness and efficiency in the process of program implementation
	Summative (generalizing) assessment	Determining the degree of achievement of set goals, the degree of influence on the socio-economic status of recipients upon completion of the program
4. Objectives of the assessment	Evaluation focused on program objectives	Determining the degree to which program objectives have been achieved, assessing the effectiveness of program activities
	Program Management Oriented Evaluation	Evaluation of program implementation from the point of view of optimizing management decisions
	Consumer-oriented assessment	Assessing the extent to which program goals have been achieved in terms of impact (effect) on recipients
	Conflict-oriented assessment	Predictive assessment alternative options program implementation
	Assessing the need for policies or programs	Assessment of socio-economic conditions that determined the need to implement policies and programs
	Implementation Potential Assessment	Examination of the content and resource provision of the program from the point of view of determining the degree of compliance of actual activities with plans
	Evaluation of results	Determining the extent to which outcome targets have been achieved
	Efficiency mark	Comparison of program results and its resource support
	Productivity assessment	Measuring positive outcomes and other benefits provided by the program per recipient
	Impact assessment	Identification of cause-and-effect relationships between development parameters and policies (program measures), assessment of the degree of impact of policies and programs on the socio-economic development of the territory

In the English-language literature, there are two concepts that are often replaced with each other in Russian: “program evaluation” and “performance program measurement” (“program evaluation” and “program implementation evaluation”).

Program performance evaluation is “the ongoing monitoring and reporting of program results achieved throughout the life of the program in comparison with planned goals.” That is, it is tracking the degree of achievement of program goals, comparing actual and planned goals, program indicators, monitoring program implementation. Typically, this type of assessment is carried out by employees of the department that is responsible for implementing the state program.

“Program evaluation is a systematic study using research methods to collect and analyze data to evaluate how well a program is being implemented and why.” Evaluations answer specific questions about program implementation, can focus on both processes and outcomes of a program, and are a deep dive into program processes. Evaluation allows you to obtain information about the reasons for non-compliance with planned results, assess the effectiveness of the program, and determine how to improve program implementation and resource allocation. Program evaluation is more focused not on control, but on obtaining new knowledge about the program. Program evaluation is usually carried out by experts, independent organizations.

Both tools help assess the progress of the program, help allocate resources in the program, and make any management decisions. At the same time, the evaluation of program implementation is, so to speak, a warning system that allows you to identify deviations before any Negative consequences. Evaluation of program implementation is a tool that allows us to improve the system of reporting to society on public expenditures. Program evaluation allows you to understand the reasons for deviations from planned values, and periodically make decisions regarding program adjustments that will contribute to the effective implementation of the program and the achievement of goals.

In most countries, both instruments are used when implementing the program. At the same time, only the departments implementing the program are involved in assessing the implementation of the program; government bodies, or departments that monitor the expenditure of budget funds (OMB in the USA).

Based on the analysis of scientific literature in the field of evaluation of government programs, the following main elements of this procedure were identified.

Firstly, this is the effectiveness of the program (in English literature - effectiveness). In this case, the degree of achievement of planned indicators is assessed, calculated as the ratio of planned and actual results. This indicator is used both to evaluate program implementation and to evaluate program effectiveness.

Secondly, this is an analysis of the costs incurred. One of the components of evaluating government programs is efficiency in the economic sense, which is the ratio of the useful result (effect) and the amount of resources used or expended for this.

It should be noted that both terms are translated into Russian as “efficiency,” but in fact these are two different aspects of efficiency. Effectiveness - to do the correct, planned actions, efficiency - to implement actions correctly.

The next component that is measured when evaluating programs is the social result from the implementation of the program. “The effectiveness of program implementation is a socio-economic category; it reveals the relationship between the results of management activities, expressed as economic and social results, with decision-making on ways to achieve goals and perform work, as well as the costs of achieving them.” To measure social efficiency when comparing the achieved result with the costs, the task is set not only to show the degree of efficiency, but also to answer the question by what methods this approach to the goal was achieved, and whether it was possible to adopt a more effective alternative solution. Efficiency in the social sense is expressed as the ratio of a unit of a certain social result per unit of cost.

One important but often overlooked component is the evaluation of program management. It is necessary to evaluate how effectively management processes are proceeding, whether their optimization is possible, how people involved in the implementation and management of the program interact with each other, etc.

Using Logic Models in Evaluating Government Programs .

Different types of assessment require different approaches to assessment - for each separate program It uses its own logical model and requires the development of a specific assessment design. As noted above, when evaluating government programs, a tool such as building a program logic model is usually used. A logic model is a diagram that describes the strategy or logic of program implementation: how the use of resources will help achieve the final goals of the program. The logic model allows you to understand the cause-and-effect relationships between the following characteristics:

· results and changes that are planned to be achieved;

· actions that are planned to be taken;

· resources needed to implement the program.

By developing and describing the specific steps of a program and tracing the cause-and-effect relationships between program components, this tool helps determine what assumptions and expected results may occur. Once the expected results are known, the logic model helps evaluators and program developers identify program metrics and indicators that can be used to achieve their goals.

The main components that are used to build a logical model: resources (inputs), actions (activities), immediate results (outputs), final results (outcomes), influence (impact).

Resources are everything we need to implement the program: personnel, money, time, materials, equipment, technology, etc. Actions are activities that need to be carried out to achieve planned goals. Immediate results are what we get when successful implementation planned actions. In this case, immediate results can be both short- and medium-term.

It is worth noting that in some cases one or another component of the expected results is not used. Some studies do not focus on long-term immediate results, but rather focus on the final results of the program. The end result is real change. target audience that are planned to be achieved during the implementation of the state program (for example, socio-economic changes, reducing unemployment, increasing wage plans in a certain industry, etc.). Often the impact component is not used, since the impact of the program is assessed for major programs, which involve major changes in society.

When developing a program, a logical model allows stakeholders to clearly explain the essence and idea of the program, and clearly understand the sequence of steps and results that will be achieved. This useful tool to analyze the logical validity of the draft program and its compliance with the situation and the main directions of the department’s activities, which will identify logical inconsistencies or unexpected environmental factors. Program logic models allow you to demonstrate expected significance external factors influencing the immediate and final results and impact of the program.

During the program implementation phase, the logic model allows you to track progress and determine exactly what data is needed to monitor and improve the program. Program logic models help clarify the various program components, so they provide the basis for defining indicators for program components. By identifying the sequence of cause-and-effect relationships between different program components, logic models help determine what types of monitoring are needed and prioritize them. This may require consideration of a number of issues:

A program logic model helps identify the key outputs that are needed to achieve the program's outputs. For example, the immediate results of one action may create conditions, remove obstacles, or serve as resources for another action. Monitoring and evaluation efforts should focus on the activities and results that are most critical.

As you develop a program logic model, it becomes clear which assumptions are most critical and therefore need to be monitored. Such monitoring will be especially important in times of crisis and instability, when many factors affecting the program may be constantly changing.

During the evaluation and reporting phase, the logic model provides stakeholders with information about the program's progress relative to its goals, and what adjustments were made to the project during implementation. The program logic model serves as a basis for identifying priority evaluation issues. It helps identify the assumptions and program components about which the greatest uncertainty exists. In addition, logic models help identify the outcomes that various stakeholders consider most important. The use of logic models makes it easy to separate evaluation issues related to resources, activities and immediate results, which are located closer to the beginning of the cause-and-effect chain, from evaluation issues related to outcomes and impact, which are usually achieved later in the program implementation. It also helps determine where different types of assessment can be used to answer assessment questions that require the same level of analysis (where along the chain of cause can sources of information be found to answer a particular question).

Using logic models makes it easier to understand how to use a particular type of assessment. The diagram presented below reveals the relationship between the components and types of assessment.

Comparing the immediate result and the resources used to achieve it gives an efficiency indicator. As noted in many sources, this indicator is quantitative.

Comparing the desired and final results gives us a performance indicator. Performance is assessed as the extent to which planned goals have been achieved.

The relationship between the final result and the resources used is a cost-effectiveness indicator.

Foreign countries, whose experience was analyzed in this work, use logic models specifically when assessing government programs. In this case, the assessment is carried out once every three to five years.

To date, in Russian practice, the tool of logical models is not used in the development and evaluation of government programs. Analysis of government program management will be discussed in the next chapter.

2. Management of government programs in Russia

In accordance with the instructions given in the Budget Message of the President of Russia on budget policy in 2014–2016 and the amendments to the Budget Code of the Russian Federation adopted in 2013, program-targeted management methods are being developed. Federal Law No. 104-FZ dated May 7, 2013 “On amendments to the Budget Code of the Russian Federation and certain legislative acts of the Russian Federation in connection with the improvement of the budget process” was adopted. According to these changes, the federal budget for 2014 and for the planning period of 2015 and 2016 was formed for the first time on the basis of 39 state programs of the Russian Federation approved by the Government in 2012–2013, covering the main areas of activity of federal executive authorities.

The share of “program” expenditures of the federal budget in 2014 amounted to 58.6%. After the adoption of the state programs “Development of the pension system of the Russian Federation”, “Ensuring the country’s defense capability” and “Socio-economic development of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation for the period until 2020”, the share of federal budget expenditures that will be carried out through the programs will be more than 90%.

According to changes made The above-mentioned legal acts define the maximum level of expenses for the implementation of state programs for the period until 2020. The introduction of a “ceiling” of expenses for the implementation of state programs should create incentives and expand opportunities for responsible executives to identify reserves and redistribute expenses within programs.

In accordance with Federal Law No. 1-FZ of February 3, 2014, state programs must be brought into compliance with the Federal Law “On the Federal Budget for 2014 and for the planning period of 2015 and 2016” by May 1, 2014. Previously, state programs had to be brought into line with the federal budget no later than three months from the date it came into force.

New editions of 39 state programs were approved on April 15, 2014. The experts carried out work to clearly define priorities, re-evaluate the content of state programs, and bring the volumes of their financing in line with the parameters of the federal budget and the maximum federal budget expenditures for state programs approved by the Government for the period until 2020.

Page structure of government programs.

As already mentioned in the first chapter, a state program is a strategic planning document that contains a set of activities interconnected by tasks, deadlines, performers and resources, and state policy instruments. These activities and tools ensure the achievement of the priorities and goals of state policy in the field of socio-economic development and national security.

State programs (SP) include federal target programs (FTP) and subprograms (SP). At the same time, subprograms consist of departmental target programs (DTP) and main activities (MA).

According to the Methodological Guidelines for the development and implementation of state programs of the Russian Federation, the state program must contain:

1. Title page;

2. GP passport;

3. Passports of subprograms (PP);

4. Federal Targeted Program passports;

5. The text part of the GP, which includes:

1) Priorities and goals of state policy, including general requirements for the policy of constituent entities of the Russian Federation in the relevant area;

6. Applications, which include:

1) List and information about target indicators and indicators of the State Program with a breakdown of planned values by year of its implementation;

2) List of TCPs and OMs indicating the timing of their implementation, expected results, information on the relationship of activities and the results of their implementation with the indicators of the GP;

3) Basic measures of legal regulation in the relevant area of GP, aimed at achieving the goal and expected results of GP; it is also necessary to indicate the required basic provisions and deadlines for the adoption of the necessary regulatory legal acts;

4) Information on the financial support of SOEs from the federal budget.

According to the procedure for the development, implementation and evaluation of the effectiveness of the RF GP, the GP Passport contains the following information:

1. Co-executors of the program.

2. Program participants.

3. Subroutines of the program (including federal targeted programs).

4. Program goals.

5. Program objectives.

6. Target indicators and indicators of the program.

7. Stages and timing of the program.

8. Volumes of budgetary allocations of the program.

9. Expected results of the program implementation.

When coordinating programs, in accordance with the Methodological Guidelines for the development and implementation of state programs of the Russian Federation. The passport of the RF GP subprogram contains the following information:

1. Responsible executor of the subprogram (co-executor of the program).

2. Participants of the subprogram.

3. Program-targeted subroutine tools.

4. Goals of the subprogram.

5. Subroutine tasks.

6. Target indicators and indicators of the subprogram.

7. Stages and timing of the subprogram implementation.

8. Volumes of budgetary allocations for the subprogram.

9. Expected results of the implementation of the subprogram.

When developing government programs, a lot of additional and supporting materials are compiled. However, there is no single mandatory approved list of required supporting documents, that is, you can provide all or several documents from the approved list. Among the supporting documents are the following:

1) Forecast of the expected results of the state program, which characterize the desired target state of the level and quality of life of the population, social sphere, economy, etc.

2) Description of the risks of implementing the GP, risk management tools and measures to minimize them;

3) Justification for the set of subprograms and federal target programs;

4) Description of state regulation measures in the sphere of implementation of the State Program;

5) Justification of the necessary financial resources for the implementation of the State Program;

6) Methodology for assessing the effectiveness of GP;

7) Information on the procedure for collecting information and the methodology for calculating indicators (indicators) of the state program.

It is worth noting that the assessment of the planned effectiveness of the GP is carried out by the responsible executor at the stage of its development and the results of this assessment are presented as part of the supporting materials. When assessing WTP, the connection between WTP indicators and changes in the relevant area of socio-economic development should be shown. When assessing the effectiveness of subprograms, the relationship between indicators of subprogram implementation and changes in the values of GP implementation indicators should be displayed.

At the stage of development of the GP, an analysis of social, financial, economic and other risks of the implementation of the GP also takes place. In addition, a description of risk management mechanisms during the implementation of GP is provided. However, how this information is used during program implementation is unclear.

Let us consider the requirements that apply to the formation of the goals and objectives of the State Enterprise. According to the methodological guidelines for the development and implementation of the RF GP, the GP goals must have the following properties:

1) Specificity. The purpose of the GP must clearly correspond to the scope of implementation of the GP.

2) Specificity. The objectives of the SIP must be clearly stated and must be interpreted unambiguously.

3) Measurability. The goal must be measurable and its achievement can be verified.

4) Reachability. The GP goal must have a deadline and must be achievable within this period.

5) Relevance. The objectives of the GP must be consistent with the expected end results of the GP.

Achieving the goals of the state program should be ensured by solving the tasks of the state program. The results of the implementation of interrelated activities within the framework of achieving the goal of the State Program should contribute to solving the objectives of the state program.

The main activities and TCPs must also be sufficient to achieve the goals and solve the tasks of the subprogram; when forming them, it is necessary to highlight control events for their implementation. These control events should make it possible to evaluate the intermediate or final results of the implementation of OM and TCP for the reporting period.

“The scale of the main event should provide the ability to monitor the progress of the state program, but not complicate the control and reporting system. As a rule, the main activity should be aimed at solving a specific task of the subprogram.” Several main activities can be aimed at solving one problem. But it is not allowed to form a set of main activities that would be aimed at achieving more than one goal of the subprogram.

Certain requirements are also imposed on indicators and indicators of GP. State program indicators must meet the following requirements:

· Adequacy. The indicator should clearly characterize progress towards achieving the GP goal.

· Accuracy. If errors occur when measuring an indicator, they should not lead to a distorted view of the results of the implementation of the SIP.

· Objectivity. GP indicators should objectively reflect changes in the target audience for GP implementation.

· Comparability. The selected indicators should be comparable with indicators of similar subprograms, as well as with indicators used in international practice.

· Unambiguity. The indicators used in the GP must be interpreted equally by all program participants and must have clear and generally accepted definitions and units of measurement.

· Cost-effective. The collection of data for reporting should be as cost-effective as possible, since the selected indicators should, whenever possible, be based on data collection methods and procedures already in use.

· Credibility. Indicators must be generated in such a way that their accuracy and reliability can be verified in the process of independent monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of the SIP.

· Timeliness and regularity. All data required for reporting must be collected in a strictly certain time and with precisely defined frequency.

It is worth noting that in Russian practice, when developing GPs, target indicators can only be quantitative; no qualitative indicators are used. When forming GP indicators, indicators characterizing the achievement of goals and solution of tasks approved by the President of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Russian Federation within the framework of strategic and program documents are taken into account. That is, the goals of the GP should not contradict or coincide with the indicators established in these documents.

The procedure for developing state programs .

The development and implementation of state programs are carried out by responsible executors. The development of the State Program is carried out on the basis of a list of state programs approved by the Government of the Russian Federation. This list is compiled by the Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation (MED RF) jointly with the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation (MinFin RF). It is formed on the basis of the provisions of federal laws providing for the implementation of state programs in pursuance of individual decisions the President of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Russian Federation, as well as taking into account the proposals of the federal executive authority.

Since 2015, draft state programs have been coordinated and developed on the state programs portal - www.programs.gov.ru- all co-executors and program participants. GP participants are developing proposals for the formation of GP events. Co-executors, taking into account the proposals of the GP participants, develop, in accordance with the methodological instructions, proposals for the formation of a subprogram of the state program, additional and supporting materials for it. The responsible executor on the GP portal forms a draft GP taking into account the proposals of co-executors and places all additional and supporting materials for it. Next, the draft GP using the GP portal is sent for approval to co-executors, in Federal service state statistics (Rosstat of the Russian Federation) and for consideration by interested federal executive authorities, with the exception of the Ministry of Economic Development and the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation.

Rosstat of the Russian Federation must, within 20 days, review the target indicators (indicators) of the GP project, the formation of official statistical information on which is carried out in accordance with the Federal Statistical Work Plan, and the values of these indicators for the reporting period and provide an appropriate conclusion.

The GP participants agree on the GP draft insofar as it relates to the main activities (activities) and (or) departmental target programs they are implementing. If the draft GP provides for the inclusion of a federal target program, the draft GP is agreed upon only with state customers - coordinators of the federal target program. In addition, the draft GP must be agreed upon with the Ministry of Economic Development and the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation. Next, the draft GP is sent to the Government of the Russian Federation for coordination and approval.

From July 2015, interested federal executive authorities and organizations that are not co-executors and participants of the State Program will be able to consider the State Program projects on their own initiative within 10 days from the date of its posting on the state programs portal. They can present their conclusions on the draft GP, which reflect comments and suggestions regarding the competence of the specified federal executive authorities in accordance with the provisions on the relevant bodies and organizations.

To ensure effective monitoring and control of the implementation of GP activities, the responsible executive, based on proposals from co-executors, participants in the state program and the state customer-coordinator, develops a detailed schedule for the implementation of the state program for the next year and planning period. This schedule must be agreed upon with the Ministry of Economic Development and the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation.

Assessment of the implementation of government programs .

After the end of the next year, the responsible executive, together with co-executors and participants, prepares an annual report on the progress of implementation and assessment of the effectiveness of the GP (annual report) before March 1 of the year following the reporting one. Participants provide information for this report to co-executors, they, in turn, transmit the information to the responsible executor by February 20. The preparation of the annual report is carried out in accordance with the methodological guidelines developed by the Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation. Previously, annual reports were published on the websites of responsible executors; now all approvals and publications of final reports take place on the website of government programs.

According to the changes that were made to the procedure for developing, implementing and assessing the effectiveness of the RF GP, the annual report must contain:

1. Specific results achieved during the reporting period;

2. List of control events completed and not completed (indicating the reasons) within the established time frame according to the implementation plan;

3. List of activities completed and not completed (with reasons) within the established time frame;

4. Analysis of factors that influenced the progress of the implementation of the State Program;

5. Data on the use of funding;

6. Information about changes made by the responsible executor to the GP;

7. Assessing the effectiveness of the state enterprise;

8. Proposals to make various changes in GP;

9. Other information.

The annual report is sent to the Ministry of Economic Development and the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation for consideration; within 20 days from the date of receipt of the report from the responsible executor, the ministries send their conclusions to the Government of the Russian Federation.

The Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation compiles a consolidated annual report on the progress of implementation and assessment of the effectiveness of state programs based on reports submitted by the responsible implementers of state programs, and sends it to the Government of the Russian Federation.

Based on the results of assessing the effectiveness of the state program, the Government of the Russian Federation may decide to reduce budget allocations for its implementation for the next financial year and the planning period. Also, the Government of the Russian Federation may decide to early terminate the implementation of certain activities within the framework of the program or to terminate the implementation of the program altogether. However, not a single regulatory legal act stipulates in what case a decision is made to terminate the implementation of programs or activities.

In addition, the Government of the Russian Federation may decide to impose (submit proposals to the President of the Russian Federation to impose) disciplinary sanctions on the heads of responsible executors, co-executors and participants in the state program in connection with the failure to achieve the planned results of the implementation of the State Program.

The Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation sends a quarterly report to the Government of the Russian Federation on the implementation of milestones of state programs specified in their implementation plans. These reports are a tool for monitoring the implementation of the SIP.

As was stated earlier, in the annual report on the progress of the implementation of the State Program, responsible executors must evaluate the effectiveness of the State Program. The Budget Code of the Russian Federation outlines the principle of efficient use of budget funds, which means “achieving specified results using the least amount of funds (economy) and (or) achieving the best result using a certain amount of funds determined by the budget (effectiveness).” Based on this principle, in 2013 the Ministry of Economic Development revised the methodology for assessing the effectiveness of government programs.

Until 2014, Russia did not have a unified methodology for assessing the effectiveness of SOEs. In 2013, new Guidelines on the development and implementation of state programs of the Russian Federation, which came into force on April 15, 2014. Previously, each ministry could develop its own methodology for assessing the effectiveness of SOEs, which made it impossible to compare the results of different programs. In addition, there were no criteria for making decisions about the further implementation of programs.

Today, state programs are assessed using a unified methodology. Bottom-up evaluation involves the following approach: first, the degree of implementation of activities is assessed, then subprograms and the program as a whole. With a unified methodology, it becomes possible to compare programs with each other based on the results of the assessment.

Let us consider the methodology for assessing efficiency, adopted today in Russia, in more detail. Evaluation of the effectiveness of program implementation is assessed in terms of achievement of planned indicators and the degree of compliance with the planned level of costs.

The effectiveness of the implementation of the state program is assessed using the following formula:

ERgp = 0.5* SRgp + 0.5*?jERp/p*kj / j,

SRgp - the degree of implementation of the state program;

ERp/p - efficiency of implementation of the subprogram (FTP);

kj - coefficient of significance of the subprogram (FTP) for achieving the goals of the state program;

j - number of subroutines.

In this case, the degree of implementation of the state program is calculated as the sum of the degrees of achievement of target indicators/indicators of the State Program:

SRgp = ?SDgppz / M,

SDgppz - the degree of achievement of the planned value of the indicator (indicator) characterizing the goals and objectives of the state program;

M is the number of indicators (indicators) characterizing the goals and objectives of the subprogram.

That is, in state programs there are indicators that relate only to the goals of the state program, and there are those that relate to the goals of subprograms.

The effectiveness of the implementation of the subprogram is calculated as the ratio of the degree of implementation of the subprogram and the efficiency of using federal budget funds:

ERp/p = SRp/p*Eis,

SRP/p - degree of implementation of the subprogram (FTP);

Eis is the efficiency of using federal budget funds.

The efficiency of using federal budget funds is calculated as the ratio of the planned and actual level of costs.

Table 2. Effectiveness of government programs

Evaluation of government programs is not carried out in Russia, that is, at the legislative level there are no requirements that departments must evaluate programs.

In Russia, the transition to a program budget has just begun. The Government, the Ministry of Economic Development and the Ministry of Finance are making changes to regulations governing budget issues, the development and implementation of state programs. To date, significant steps have already been taken to develop program control in Russia (requirements for the development and implementation of programs were approved, amendments were made to the Budget Code, etc.). The main characteristics of program management in Russia are the presentation of clear requirements for the main components of the state program, the connection of the main activities and indicators of the final goals of the program, as well as the establishment of personal responsibility of the managers of the responsible executors for achieving the goals of state programs.

Russia has built a clear system for monitoring state programs. However, assessing the effectiveness of state programs is not a tool that really helps make management decisions regarding the implementation of programs. At the moment, it is not clear how changes are made to state programs, how performance evaluation affects the program, whether it is used at all, in what cases and on what grounds a decision is made to reduce funding or terminate the program.

In order to understand what the situation is in the field of government program management in foreign countries, it is necessary to analyze their experience, which will be done in the next chapter.

3. Analysis of experience in managing government programs and evaluating their implementation in foreign countries

To analyze best practices in the field of management and evaluation of government programs, it is advisable to select countries in which the budget process is similar to the Russian one. Therefore, the table provides summarized information about budget processes in various countries where program management is used.

Table 3. Comparison of budget elements

	Level of detail	A period of time
			Fixed/sliding	Revision frequency
Finland (since 2003)	Total expenditures for 13 ministries		Fixed	Every 4 years
Netherlands (since 1994)	4 sectors, 1 subsector		Fixed	Every 4 years
UK (since 1998)	25 departments			Every 2 years
France (since 2008)			2 fixed + 1 sliding	Every 2 years
Sweden (since 1997)	Total expenses, 27 expense areas		2 fixed + 1 sliding	Every year
Canada (since 2007)	90 departments, 25 functions		Sliding	Every year
Australia (since 1999)	20 departments 267 programs		Sliding	Every year
USA (since 2011)	Total expenses for 21 functions	5 + 5 analytically	1 fixed + 4 sliding	Every year
Russia (since 2014)	39 programs		Sliding	Every year

As can be seen from the table, the time period for implementing countries' budgets is 3-5 years, while the frequency of budget revisions in most countries occurs once every year or two. Based on this information, countries were selected in which the budgeting process is conditionally similar to the budget of the Russian Federation. To analyze the methodology for evaluating government programs, countries such as the USA, Australia and Canada were selected.

USA .

Target-based management has been successfully used in the United States for several decades. It is characteristic that currently in the United States about 50% of government funds are spent in accordance with the program-targeted approach. Program evaluation is also built into the public administration system - each program must be reviewed at least once every five years, regardless of what stage of implementation it is at. These checks allow you to save resources, time and effort at all stages of the formation and implementation of programs.

Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART).

In 2001-2009 in the USA, the PART (Program Assessment Rating Tool) assessment tool was used. This tool was developed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of government programs.

PART was intended to increase program transparency, provide objective information about program implementation that would help allocate resources more efficiently and encourage agencies to be more effective.

The PART instrument consisted of approximately 30 questions (the number may vary depending on the type of programs). The advantage of this method is that it gives an integral assessment of efficiency based on all important aspects programs - from the moment of development of program documentation to the evaluation of the final results of the program. All questions were divided into four assessment areas:

1. Purpose and design of the Program. The clarity and clarity of the goals were assessed, and the extent to which the program was correctly designed to achieve these goals. The weight of this block is 10%.

2. Strategic planning. The validity of the program results and their importance for long-term results were assessed. The weight of this block is 20%.

3. Program management. The effectiveness of the agency's management of the program was assessed - how often and completely data on the implementation of the program was collected, what procedures exist for this. In addition, the financial side of the program was assessed - how budget resources distributed among the program implementers, how effective their use is. Block weight - 20%.

4. Final results of the Program. The degree of achievement of planned goals, efficiency in an economic and social sense was assessed. Block weight - 50%.

The questions that were included in the PART were binary in nature, that is, the answer was “yes” or “no”. The answers had to be objectively justified.

After answering all blocks of questions, an integral indicator was calculated, the result of the evaluation was the assignment of a certain number of points to each program - from 0 to 100 (one hundred points is the best result), and the final rating. The program could be:

...

Bibliography

Constitution of the Russian Federation. Adopted by popular vote on December 12, 1993.
Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of August 2, 2010 N 588 "On approval of the Procedure for the development, implementation and evaluation of the effectiveness of state programs of the Russian Federation"
Atamanchuk G.V. Theory of public administration. – M.: Omega-L, 2014. P.534.
Public administration system: Textbook for universities / Pikulkin, Alexander Vasilievich; Ed. Morozova T. G. - M.: Law and Law: Yu NITI, 2013.
GARANT system: http://base.garant.ru/70284810/#ixzz3yfCLi8Gf
THE REAL BOSS. EXPERIENCE OF ASSESSING THE BUSINESS REPUTATION OF TOP MANAGERS ON THE EXAMPLE OF EUROPEAN COUNTRIES Khannanova T.R. Russian entrepreneurship. 2007. No. 10-2. pp. 72-76.
BUSINESS REPUTATION AS AN ELEMENT OF HUMAN CAPITAL Khannanova T.R. Man and work. 2009. No. 4. P. 45-46.
DEVELOPMENT OF LEGAL SUPPORT OF THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR OF THE ECONOMY ON AN INNOVATION BASIS Khannanov R.A., Khannanova T.R. Agrarian Bulletin of the Urals. 2010. No. 2 (68). pp. 79-82.
AGRARIAN LAW: PROBLEMS AND WAYS OF DEVELOPMENT Khannanov R.A. Law and politics. 2008. No. 4. P. 933-940.
MODERN PROBLEMS OF LEGAL REGULATION OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS Voronin B.A., Khannanov R.A., Khannanova T.R. Agrarian Bulletin of the Urals. 2012. No. 10-1 (102). pp. 52-56.
CLUSTERIZATION OF THE ECONOMY AND STATE CLUSTER POLICY: THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC PREREQUISITES Khannanov R.A., Khannanova T.R. Eurasian legal journal. 2012. No. 12 (55). pp. 129-135.
PROBLEMS OF INCREASING THE EFFICIENCY OF THE JUDICIAL AUTHORITY Khannanov R.A., Shaposhnikova R.R. Basic and applied research in modern world. 2013. T. 3. No. 4 (04). pp. 86-88.
PROMOTION OF A HEALTHY LIFESTYLE AMONG THE POPULATION, INTRODUCTION OF GTO STANDARDS Pogorelova D.S., Shaposhnikova R.R. website. 2014. No. 26. P. 200-201.
ELECTRONIC GOVERNMENT AS A FACTOR OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Mukhametshin A.R., Garifullina A.F. In the collection: Management of a modern innovative society in the post-crisis period (economic, social, philosophical, legal aspects) Materials of the International scientific-practical conference. Editorial Board: V.I. Dolgiy (executive editor), A.E. Makhmetova, M.A. Eremeev. 2011. pp. 52-53.
INFORMATION PROTECTION Tukaeva I.O., Garifullina A.F. In the collection: Development of information technologies and their importance for the modernization of the socio-economic system. Materials of the international scientific and practical conference. 2011. pp. 165-166.
STRATEGY AND TACTICS FOR IMPLEMENTING CORPORATE INTERESTS IN THE SYSTEM OF AUTHORITY-MANAGERIAL RELATIONS IN MODERN RUSSIA Valieva A.R. dissertation for the degree of candidate of political sciences / Ufa, 2007
AUTHORITY, BUSINESS AND SOCIETY: DEVELOPMENT OF RELATIONSHIPS Valieva A.R. Bashkir State Agrarian University. Ufa, 2010.
PROBLEMS OF EMPLOYMENT OF YOUTH AND WAYS TO SOLUTION Abrarova A.F., Galimyanova L.F., Valieva A.R. In the collection: Youth policy and social development in Russia and its regions. Materials of the All-Russian Scientific and Practical Conference. Institution of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Socio-Economic Research of the Ufa Scientific Center. Ufa, 2009. pp. 17-22.
THE PROBLEM OF YOUTH EMPLOYMENT Starikova A.S., Valieva A.R. In the collection: Youth policy and social development in Russia and its regions. Materials of the All-Russian Scientific and Practical Conference. Institution of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Socio-Economic Research of the Ufa Scientific Center. Ufa, 2009. pp. 122-125.
ANALYSIS OF THE EFFICIENCY OF GRAIN PRODUCTION IN ORGANIZATIONAL AND LEGAL FORMS OF ECONOMY Rafikova N.T., Valishina N.R. In the collection: Current issues of economic-statistical research and information technology collection of scientific articles: dedicated to the 40th anniversary of the creation of the Department of Statistics and information systems in economics". Ministry of Agriculture of the Russian Federation, Bashkir State Agrarian University. Ufa, 2011. P. 36-38

Methodology for analyzing the implementation of a state program. Assessing the effectiveness of the implementation of government programs

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Similar documents

Degree of achievement of results

Complete use of budget allocations

Efficiency of spending funds for the implementation of government programs

Execution of planned activities

Bibliography

Popular articles

Latest articles

Sections

Pages

Special projects

Contacts