Measuring Institutional Performance: Can governance indices help?

Working Paper # 172
Measuring Institutional
Performance in Pakistan: Can
governance indices help?
By:
Shehryar Khan Toru, Syed Mohsin Ali, Vaqar Ahmed

All rights reserved.
No part of this paper may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or
mechanical, including photocopying, recording or information storage and retrieval system, without
prior written permission of the publisher.
A publication of the Sustainable Development Policy Institute (SDPI).
The opinions expressed in the papers are solely those of the authors, and publishing them does not in
any way constitute an endorsement of the opinion by the SDPI.
Sustainable Development Policy Institute is an independent, non-profit research institute on
sustainable development.
First edition: July 2019
© 2019 by the Sustainable Development Policy Institute
Mailing Address:
PO Box 2342, Islamabad, Pakistan
Telephone: 0092-51-2278134, 2278136, 2277146, 2270674-76
Fax: 0092-51-2278135,
URL: www.sdpi.org

Acknowledgement
We acknowledge the data related support provided by Ahmad Durrani, Maryam Waqar, and Syeda
Rubab. We are grateful for support and cooperation by United Nations Development Program (UNDP),
Pakistan Office, NADRA, CDA and NHMP. Ashfaq H. Khan, Nohman Ishtiaq and Shahid Sattar
provided experts’ input on the methodology. The team is grateful for their support and services. The
usual disclaimer applies.

Abstract
In Pakistan, several efforts have been made to measure the government performance at national and
sub-national levels. Our efforts build on an existing framework for measuring service delivery. Though
the previous tool, which has been applied to study the select federal government ministries includes
supply side governance and accountability indicators, there is, however, a need to also incorporate
demand side indicators to capture community satisfaction from publicly provided services. In this study,
an effort has been made to formulate an augmented index and by using survey data, application of this
index on three public sector entities has been analyzed. Results show that this approach has the benefit
of validating supply and demand side information and perceptions.
Keywords: Governance, BGI, Public sector institutions,

Table of Contents
1. Introduction.....................................................................................................................................1
2. Literature Review............................................................................................................................2
3. Methodology...................................................................................................................................6
4. Construction of Performance Index ................................................................................................8
4.1. Performance Indicators for Demand Side...............................................................................8
4.2. Performance Indicators for Supply Side.................................................................................8
5. Findings-I: Citizen Feedback survey ............................................................................................10
6. Findings-II: Results from augmented performance index ............................................................12
7. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................14
References.............................................................................................................................................15
Annexure-I: (Detailed computation of index).......................................................................................16
a. Construction of demand side governance index............................................................................16
b. Construction of supply side index.................................................................................................22

1
1. Introduction
The study aims to measure the performance of a select number of public sector institutions using both
supply and demand side indicators. Our starting point is Better Governance Index (BGI) framework
developed by Moriani and Rehman1
. We supplement the effort from 2015 using a demand side client
satisfaction survey to be explained later. The study, on the one hand, provides a conceptual tool to
merge internal and external outcome measures, while on the other it goes on to apply this tool on a
select number of select public sector entities, including National Database & Registration Authority
(NADRA), National Highways and Motorway Police (NHMP), and Capital Development Authority
(CDA). These institutions have been selected on the basis of their public interface as well as the high
frequency with which their services are demanded by the society.
At the outset, the performance measurement framework adopted in BGI2
sets the basis of engaging
different frameworks for measuring institutional performance in public sector institutions. The
importance of inputs, outputs and strategic goals are mentioned to illustrate -institutional efficiency in
more general terms. The terms and process indicators of BGI are explained to gain familiarity with
types of performance frameworks. The rationale behind gauging performance is to benchmark
performance indicators on a set of pre-selected indicators, namely quality of governance, accountability,
inclusion and openness, effectiveness and responsiveness.
Measurements of institutional efficiency generally focus on the relationship between institutional
resources and activities on the one hand, and institutional outcomes, on the other (Cristescu et al. 2010;
Castro 2011; Gokey et al. 2013; Khattri and Roberts, 2012. Systems of measuring performance
efficiency have indicators functioning both at the individual level such as the qualitative service delivery
survey (Bold et al. 2011; Dehn et al. 2003), and the institutional level such as the results framework
(Trivedi 2014).
Measurements of institutional effectiveness focus on the relationship between the intended and actual
outcomes and impacts, or the ratio between outputs and outcomes (Cristescu et al. 2010). However,
while such calculations are often straightforward in the private sector, they are harder to make in the
public sector due to the difficulty of conclusively establishing causal link between the level of activities
and outcomes (Davies 1999).
Owing to the considerable difficulties in measuring institutional efficiency and effectiveness within the
public sector, evaluation experts have developed another set of indicators that measure the nature of
policy implementation such as whether it supports accountability and citizens participation. These are
known as process indicators (Landman 2003). The Weberian Comparative State Data project is a
comparative assessment framework that includes a number of process indicators with its focus on
measuring various dimensions of bureaucratic structure and institutional meritocracy.
With its twofold objective, the study would first augment BGI framework for Pakistan with inclusion
of citizen satisfaction indicators, and then make an effort to apply the augmented index to gauge the
performance of select public sector entities. to the study also suggests as to how such performance index
can be institutionalized by the government institutions concerned.
1
Farrukh Moriani and Hira Hafeez ur Rehman (2015) produced a report in 2015 on “Better Governance Index: a conceptual
framework for measuring institutional performance”. This report uses a conceptual framework having process indicators
(………) for measuring institutional performance of select institutions.
2 Adopted from Better Governance Index report authored by (Moriani & Rehman, 2015).

2
2. Literature Review
This section provides a brief literature review with case studies from the select countries. We also
provide current gaps in literature and how some of these are addressed. This is followed by findings
and conclusion section.
How countries measure institutional performance?
A review of literature was carried out to understand governance indices used by other studies, and
countries in South Asia and elsewhere. Existing literature on institutional performance and their utility
in different country contexts are cited as useful performance frameworks. The intention behind this
effort is to strengthen the BGI framework. Efforts have been made to see in-depth at least three case
studies with respect to objectives, methodology, rollout and sustainability of performance measurement
frameworks (see Table 1).
The criteria used for selecting country examples consists of i) governance context and relevance (to
Pakistan) which captures accountability and other attributes (similar to local milieu); ii) indicators
description, i.e. process and micro level indicators (similar to processes seen in Pakistan’s public
sector); and iii) sustainability and institutionalization. A number of developed and developing countries
have designed and implemented performance measurement systems within their domains and varying
contexts. This section includes a brief review of such systems, which are: i) applicable to agency-level
public sector performance; ii) broad enough to facilitate inter-agency comparison of performance; based
on both subjective and objective means of data collection.3
Table 1: Select Examples of Performance Measurement Frameworks
Framework
Details
Results Framework
Document [RFD]
(Khattri and
Roberts, 2007;
Trivedi, 2014)
Rwanda Joint Governance
Assessment [JGA]
(Kwakwa and Musoni,
2008; Rwanda Governance
Advisory Council, 2011)
Open
Government
Directive [OGD]
(Bertot et al.
2012)
Governance
Report 2013/2014
(Lodge and
Wegrich, 2013)
Description Used in India, this
tool compares the
performance of
individual
departments against
standardized
indicators,
objective targets
and measurement
criteria (Khattri and
Roberts, 2012)
A country-specific tool
developed with the aim of
creating a common
understanding of
governance issues and
measurement frameworks
in Rwanda, and identifying
future areas for
performance improvement
and priority action.
Measurement areas
include: Ruling Justly,
Investment Climate, and
Government Effectiveness.
Majority of indicators
geared towards country-
level governance
performance.
Rolled-out in
USA to measure
the success of
transparency and
open government
initiatives within
different public-
sector agencies.
Assessments
were undertaken
in three key
areas:
Transparency,
Participation, and
Collaboration.
A highly
adaptable
assessment
framework that
functions at the
national, sub-
national and
agency levels of
governance.
Measures
government’s
administrative
capacity
(resilience and
preparedness) to
address
contemporary
3
There may also be other measurement systems, e.g. see Hertie School of Governance Indicators:
http://www.governancereport.org/home/governance-indicators/2016-governance-indicators/

3
challenges,
including the
identification of
problems, the use
of tools to address
problems, and
types of responses
generated towards
problems.
Assessments are
carried out on the
basis of aggregate
subjective
indicators
measuring
capacity for
Delivery,
Regulation,
Coordination and
Analytical
capacities.
Objectives a. Planning
strategies and
selecting
appropriate
interventions to
address
challenges in
question
b. Building
consensus and
ownership
between
different
stakeholders of
a policy
intervention
c. Providing
objective
performance
data to inform
programme
decisions
d. Improved intra
and inter-
agency
communication
and reporting
e. Performance
evaluation
Harmonization and
rationalization of
procedures
a. Consolidating peace
and security in the
country
b. Promoting inclusive
governance
c. Strengthening rule of
law and accountability
d. Linking government
operations and
activities to broader
development goals
Assessing the
impact of
transparency and
open government
initiatives within
government
agencies.
Developing an
understanding of
how
administrative
capacity of
governments can
be improved in
terms of
understanding and
responding to
emerging
challenges in
better and
innovative ways
Methodology
& roll-out
i. Consultation
between
Ministers and
line
i. Consultations with
diverse base of
government and non-
government
i. Experts from
government
and non-
government
i. Governance
and public
administration
and

4
departments on
departmental
objectives,
proposed
activities to
achieve
objectives, and
corresponding
success
indicators
(micro, macro
and process)
and time-bound
targets
ii. Devising
weighted
scores for each
success
indicator and
target
iii. Defining level
of coordination
required with
outside
departments for
achievement of
objectives
iv. Critique and
approval by
Cabinet
Secretariat
v. Review by
centralized
Performance
Management
Division and
non-
government
sector experts
vi. Review by
Cabinet
Committee on
Government
Performance
Final RFD placed
on departmental
website
stakeholders to design
draft indicators
framework
ii. Management structure
established, including
Steering Committee to
oversee roll-out and
indicators
development,
Technical Committee
to advise on
methodological and
analytical issues, and
Consultant team
reporting to Steering
Committee on
implementation
iii. Regular meetings
between different tiers
in management
structure to discuss
progress, earlier drafts
and way forward
iv. Quality Control by
consultant team
during roll-out
v. Production of
evaluation reports by
Consultant Team
Training of Governance
Advisory Council (GAC)
staff for implementation.
GAC to function as
centralized secretariat for
JGA implementation after
pilot.
sectors, and
employees
from
agencies
being
assessed
brought
together in
Open
Government
Working
Group to
devise
assessment
criteria and
data
collection
methods and
tools
ii. Pre-testing
of
assessment
methods and
tools, and
incorporation
of feedback
iii. 3-point
ordinal scale
developed to
eliminate
problems
resulting
from poor
goal
description
or inter-rater
variations in
scoring
iv. Expert
evaluators
employed to
assess
agency
compliance
with OGD
requirements
v. Agency-level
self-
assessments
also
conducted
Performance data
displayed
publicly
management
experts design
indicators
framework
and selected
data sources
ii. Aggregation
of subjective
and objective
data to
generate
composite
scores in each
assessment
area
iii. Borda
scoring:
scores
assigned to
individual
institutions
and then
aggregated to
provide
country-level
scores
Scores
represented at
three different
levels: agency,
national and
transnational
Consultative
process
Consultation and
review at different
levels, with
multiple
Consultation and review at
different levels, with
multiple stakeholders, both
Consultation and
review at
different levels,
with multiple
Consultations
among experts of
Hertie School

5
stakeholders, both
government and
non-government
government and non-
government
stakeholders,
both government
and non-
government
Sustainability Consultations at
multiple levels of
government to
ensure stakeholder
buy-in and
ownership
Creation of
electronic Results-
Framework
Management
System, that aids in
RFD preparation
and monitoring on
monthly and annual
basis
Consultations at multiple
levels of government to
ensure stakeholder buy-in
and ownership
Centralized Secretariat for
monitoring of JGA
implementation
Consultations at
multiple levels of
government to
ensure
stakeholder buy-
in and
ownership.
Sustainability
hampered due to
lack of
centralized
control, and
resistance at
agency-level
against
assessments by
non-government
sector
Lack of
evaluation
criteria,
especially at the
level of impacts,
prevents
comparison of
effectiveness of
OGD
implementation
between different
agencies
No information
provided
Evidence of
impact
Covers 80
departments of
Government of
India and being
implemented in 18
Union territories
Improved
Grievance Redress
after mandatory
inclusion of
corresponding
indicators within
departmental RFDs
Improved social
indicators
Transparency in public
procurement
Increase in competitive
bidding for award of
government contracts
Decrease in corruption
Determination of new
salary schemes
Increase in number of
public sector reform
initiatives
Open Data 500
US studies the
variety of
different
companies and
innovators using
the data made
accessible by
different
government
agencies.
Positive
correlation among
different
capacities
identified
Relevance to
BGI
Allows
comparisons of
inter-agency
governance
performance
Aside from indicators
measuring Government
Effectiveness, JGA is
unsuited to measuring
agency-level governance
Allows for
comparison of
inter-agency
compliance with
Allows
comparisons of
inter-agency
governance

6
Objective means of
data collection
Includes process
indicators such as
effectiveness of
public grievance
redress mechanisms
Objective and subjective
means of data collection
Includes process indicators
OGD
requirements
Lack of
evaluation
criteria at level of
impacts prevents
comparisons of
agency
performance in
terms of
producing social
benefits
Includes process
indicators
Objective means
of data collection
Flexible enough
to allow same
capacity to be
measured through
both objective and
subjective means.
In the case of Pakistan and to our best knowledge, the BGI framework encompasses supply side
concepts that include quality of governance, internal accountability, inclusion and openness,
effectiveness (e.g. in the context of usage of financial resources), and responsiveness (e.g. in the context
of ability to respond to the expectations of citizens), however to make such an index truly
comprehensive indicators which reflect citizen satisfaction need to be incorporated. We make this effort
in the sections ahead.
3. Methodology
Methodology encompasses mixed methods’ approach where quantitative and qualitative research tools
are employed. After undertaking a literature review to learn about the utilization, roll-out and
institutionalization of performance measurement tools, we embarked upon the construction of index.
Our point of departure was to revise BGI through revisiting the criteria of governance index, sources of
data available on indicators, and suggest possibilities of future research on BGI framework, with a
particular focus on possible inclusion of qualitative indicators.
Data collected through different sources (such as official documents, websites, and secondary research)
was triangulated. An added feature of validating data pertains to the feedback of local experts on
governance and institutional performance. This particular activity entails the constitution of a feedback
mechanism, thus allowing critical reflection of public sector institutions on governance indicators.
While supply side indicators remain similar to BGI (and frameworks from other countries mentioned
in section 2), a survey was designed to gauge the perception of citizens on the functions of select
institutions. The survey included specific questions regarding experiences of citizens, process of
service, outcome, and grievance redressal processes. To validate findings, key informant interviews
were held with experts who have in the past either developed or used performance measurement
frameworks.
There are certain challenges in the way of implementation of this methodology. This also gives rise to
limitations of this study. First, since governance index involves performance assessment of public sector
entities, the project team faced informational and public disclosure challenges. The public officials were
sometimes reluctant to provide information on matters which fall in official domain. For example,
seeking information on employees might raise eyebrows. The institution may not like to share such
information. Similarly, some specific budget-related information at a disaggregated level is difficult to
obtain.

7
The public officials asked SDPI for completing unanticipated written approvals. This resulted in
unnecessary delay which may have changed the political economy context of our analysis. This
however should not affect the conceptual value of the tool developed in this study.
The following public-sector institutions are selected for applying the augmented performance index.
Highway and Motorway Police are mandated to ensure safe and citizen centric safety environment for
drivers. Their core functions are issuance and renewal of driving licenses, assurance of road safety,
enforcement of traffic rules, and assistance of driver in accidents and emergences.
National Database & Registration Authority (NADRA) is a federal institution having branches
across the country. It provides services related to: issuance of Computerized National Identity Cards;
Juvenile card4
; National Identity Card for Overseas Pakistanis; Child registration certificate;
Cancellation certificate5
; Family registration certificate6
; and Pakistan Origin Card7
.
Capital Development Authority (CDA) provides municipal services in Islamabad which include (but
are not limited to): residential and commercial property registration and transfer; refuse (waste)
collection; approval of construction of houses; collection of property tax; ensuring health and safety of
residents; approval for the construction of commercial buildings; imposition and collection of water
charge; development of new residential sectors; water supply connection; land accusation for new
schemes; and streetlighting.
The aforesaid institutions are selected on the basis of following criteria:
Access: One of the most influential criteria of acquiring information from government institutions is
access. The criterion of access is selected on the basis of good professional relations of SDPI with
selected institutions and on the basis of receptivity and ownership for the pilot study amongst the
institutions.
Public Interface and service provision: The selected institutions are public sector entities mandated
to provide public and collective services to clients. As a result of state officials’ interaction with citizens
on the diverse services, these institutions have a public interface considered essential to understand
governance perceptions and benchmarking institutional performance.
Regarding the citizen feedback survey, a quantitative research methodology was adopted to acquire
answers to multiple options of inquiry. In some instances, descriptive qualitative inquiry is also
included. A purposive sampling technique is adopted to ensure the selection of stakeholders from pre-
determined pool. This pool includes beneficiaries of the select public sector entities. One of the
advantages of such sampling approach is that it allows targeted questions specific only to the users of
public services. The overall sample size for the survey is 300, selected from the stratum of service users.
The team ensured at least 100 responses per institution. This minimum response rate can increase if a
single respondent also wishes to answer questions related to multiple public sector entities and services,
accessed during the past. All respondents are above 18 years of age and 50 per cent respondents for
each institution are women. The final gender mix of our respondents varies depending upon the refusal
rate.
4 “Juvenile card is an identity card issued to children under the age of 18 years”.
5
Cancellation certificate is a registration document issued to register the termination of ID card in case of death of any
citizen.
6
“Family Registration Certificate (FRC) is a mean of being identified with your NADRA’s record”.
7 “Pakistan Origin Card is issued to facilitate the eligible foreigners. This card is for those foreigners who have some roots in
Pakistan i.e., they are natives of Pakistan.

8
Prior to the pre-testing and implementation, enumerators were trained on how to use the survey
instrument. To ensure accuracy of data and its analysis, enumerators ensured the elimination of
inconsistencies and incorrect responses during the phase of data collection.
4. Construction of Performance Index
4.1. Performance Indicators for Demand Side
The criteria used for each measurement area are presented in Table 2. A total of 19 indicators are
proposed for eight criteria under five measurement areas. Since in the pilot phase of index is to be
developed for the selected three institutions, (e.g. NADRA, CDA, and NHMP), the indicators aim at
measuring performance at that level.
Table 2: Demand Side Indicators
Measurement
Area
Criteria (C) Indicators (I)
Quality of
Governance
No Corruption
No informal payments or gifts in lieu of accessing services
Transparency in service delivery
Accountability
Customer
Feedback
Availability of criteria for Customer Service Feedback
Inclusion and
Openness
Inclusion Not internally-deprived during accessing service
Openness
Complaint procedure is easy and accessible
No social discrimination
Effectiveness
Service
Delivery
Availability of services in the vicinity
Quality of service
Institution and its staff are trustworthy
Payment system is very convenient and transparent
Cost of services are affordable
Accuracy in the cost of service
Responsiveness
Mechanisms
for facilitating
access to
information
Designated official nominated under Right to Information Act 2010
Accessibility of source of information
Standards for access to information services
Mechanisms
for public
grievance
redress
Complaint mechanism is available for desired service
Acknowledgement of complaints by relevant department
Standards for grievance redress services
Use of ICT
tools
Availability of online services for complaints, information, registration,
social media
4.2. Performance Indicators for Supply Side
List of performance indicators given in table 3, for measuring supply side index are proposed on the
basis of:
i) classification of each indicator;
ii) ii) an evaluation of each indicator with respect to its relevance, coverage and cost-
effectiveness.

9
Table 3: Supply Side Indicators
Measurement
Area
Criteria Indicators
Indicator
Classification
Evaluation
(relevance,
coverage,
cost)
Quality of
Governance
Clarity of
institutional vision
and mission
Statements are clear, brief and
reflect the values, philosophy and
culture of the institution
Process
indicator
Relevant,
global, and
cost effective
Vision statement expresses in
sensory terms, the future position
or image of the institution
Process
indicator
Relevant,
global, and
cost-effective
Mission statement focuses on one
or a few strategic goals
Process
indicator
Relevant,
global, and
cost-effective
Budget Accuracy
Variance between revised budget
and budget estimates
Micro-level
Relevant,
global, and
cost-effective
Gender Equity in
HR
Proportion of female employees in
total working staff
Process
indicator
Relevant,
global, and
cost-effective
Investment in
Capacity Building
Training budget as a proportion of
total Personnel budget
Micro-level
Relevant,
global and
cost-effective
Political
Accountability
Regular submission of briefings to
the Standing Committees of
Parliament
Process
indicator
Relevant,
global and
cost-effective
Accountability
Accountability to
citizens
Publication of Annual Budget on
institution’s website
Process
indicator
Relevant,
global and
cost-effective
Publication of Yearbook
Process
indicator
Relevant,
global, and
cost-effective
Majority of tenders follows PPRA
rules
Process
indicator
Relevant,
global and
cost-effective
Use of social accountability tools
Process
indicator
Relevant
Citizens’ Charter issued
Process
indicator
Relevant and
cost-effective
Inclusion and
Openness
Participatory and
inclusive decision
making and
oversight
No. of forums on which citizens,
private sector, academia or civil
society are represented
Process
indicator
Relevant,
global, and
cost-effective
Proactive public
disclosure
Publication of updated policies,
strategies on website
Process
indicator
Relevant,
global, and
cost-effective
Availability of expenditure data
Process
indicator
Relevant,
global, and
cost-effective
Effectiveness Budget execution
Proportion of released annual
budget actually utilized
Micro-level
Relevant,
global, and
cost-effective

10
Implementation of
priority programs
Completion level of priority
programs
Micro-level
Relevant and
global
Responsiveness
Linkage with
National/Provincial
priorities and
strategies
Explicit linkage of priority
programs with the Vision 2025
Process
indicator
Relevant and
global
programs with relevant sector
policy
Process
indicator
Relevant and
global
Mechanisms for
facilitating access
to information
Designated Official nominated
under Right to Information Act
Micro-level
Relevant,
global, and
cost-effective
Standards for access to
information services clearly
mentioned on website
Process
indicator
Relevant,
global, and
cost-effective
Mechanisms for
public grievance
redress
Designated Official for public
grievance redress and addressing
references from Ombudsmen
Micro-level
Relevant,
global, and
cost-effective
Standards for grievance redress
services clearly mentioned
Process
indicator
Relevant,
global, and
cost-effective
Use of ICT tools
Availability of online services for
complaints, information,
registration, social media
Micro-level
Relevant,
global, and
cost-effective
5. Findings-I: Citizen Feedback survey
The highest percentage of respondents had availed services related to NADRA. For example, 72% male
and 58% female respondents availed the services of acquiring Computerized National Identity Card
(CNIC). Furthermore, 10% males and 19% females acquired Child Registration Certificate. Only 3%
males and 2% females availed the service of cancellation certificate; whereas only 2% males and 3%
females availed family registration certificate. Getting Juvenile card was the least availed service as
only one female respondent opted for it. The reason for the higher percentage of service acquisition in
the case of CNIC is its requirement on daily basis; the Juvenile card is not in common usage as most of
the people are not aware of its utility. The quality of services provided by NADRA was also termed
very satisfactory.
In the case of CDA, the highest percentage of respondents benefitted from ‘Residential or Commercial
Property Registration and Transfer’, which accounts for 59% males and 48% females. ‘Approval of
construction of houses’ is the second most commonly availed service by 25% males and 19% females.
None of the male respondents availed facilities of ‘collection of property tax’, ‘Ensuring health and
safety of residents’ and ‘Approval of construction of commercial building’, only 4% (constitutes one
female) availed the aforementioned services. Similarly, none of the female respondents benefitted from
services of ‘imposition and collection of water charges’ and ‘refuse (waste) collection,’ and only 03%
(constitutes only 1 man) availed the aforementioned services. The service of ‘water supply
connection/reconnection’ was availed by 6% males and 7% females. Similarly, 03% males and 15%
females availed the service of land accusation for new schemes.

11
Upon inquiring about the quality of services provided by CDA, more than half of the respondents
indicated low priority for services (including Residential or commercial property registration and
transfer, Collection of property tax, Water supply connection/reconnection, Ensuring health and safety
of residents, Land accusation for new schemes, Approval of construction of houses, and Approval of
construction of commercial buildings) due to high rate of corruption and informal payments. Around
25% respondents ranked residential and commercial property registration and transfer, and Approval of
construction of houses somewhat lowest due to unspecified duration of time span. Few respondents
held a neutral stance, asserting keeping quite as their specific request for a service may be unnecessarily
delayed by CDA.
From the services being offered by National Highways and Motorway Police (NHMP), issuance of
driving license was availed by 63% males and 64% females. The issuance of international standard
driving licenses had been the least common among the respondents as they accounted for only 4%
female. On the other hand, 17% males and 32% females availed the service of renewal of driving license
and 20% respondents availed the service “acquittal from challan”.
Considering the quality of services, 16% respondents were of the view that the quality was somewhat
satisfactory. In the case of 6% respondents, the services of ‘Issuance of driving license’ and ‘Acquittal
from challan’ were least satisfactory. Whereas 44% beneficiaries indicated entire services of ‘highest’
rank. In the case of 14% respondents, issuances of driving license, renewal of driving license and
acquittal from challan were ranked less satisfactory.
In terms of lodging of a complaint, majority complaints were lodged against NHMP as they
accounted amongst 20% male and 48% females. The least number of complaints was lodged against
NADRA, i.e. 4% amongst female and 28% amongst male respondents. In the case of CDA, 18%
respondents lodged complaints. The reason for lodging least complaints against NADRA is the
effective, timely and transparent provision of services.
Around 88% NHMP service users were satisfied with their complaints as they were addressed within a
reasonable time. Similar response concerning timely redressal of complaints was observed in the case
of NADRA. A glaring observation relates to CDA’s non-redressal of complaints in more than 70% male
and 60% female respondents.
When probed for not lodging a compliant, 19% consumers in the case of CDA were not aware of the
complaint procedure; whereas 5% consumers made reference to a complicated procedure for lodging
complaint. Similarly, only 3% respondents found complaint procedure of NHMP complex. In the case
of CDA, 36% consumers found the complaint procedure ineffective, which constitutes the highest
proportion of complaints when compared with 19% NHMP and 2% NADRA. In the case of CDA, 19%
service users lodged complaints because of the fear of harassment.
Concerning the source of information, 74% respondents learned about NHMP through the word of
mouth, followed by 62% in the case of NADRA and CDA. Upon inquiring about accessibility of
information, 98% respondents in the case of NADRA were able to access information. On the other
hand, 30% respondents in the case of CDA opted for 'somewhat accessible' option. The following
reasons were cited for not having comprehensive access to information
 Physical access to information faced by 94% respondents in the case of CDA.
 Non-cooperation of NHMP’s staff faced by 26% respondents.

12
 88% respondents do not have access to the offices of NADRA in their vicinity, so they often have
to travel a long distance to access the nearest office. Similar response was recorded in the case of
CDA. In the case of NHMP, 46% users opined that they have no concerning offices in their vicinity.
About half of the respondents travel between 30-60 minutes to reach NADRA, 30% users travel
between 1-2 hours and 10% users travel more than two hours to reach CDA and NHMP respectively.
Concerning distance travelled, 68% users travel more than 10 kilometers to reach CDA which is the
highest percentage when compared with 44% users in the case of NADRA and 38% users in the case
of NHMP. Almost 66% customers of NADRA stated that their required service is being delivered within
stipulated time. Within the same category, the percentage was lower in the case of NHMP users.
However, 50% service users in the case of CDA narrated procrastination or unwarranted delay. 42%
CDA customers were of the view that the delay in the provision of services is due to corruption. In the
case of NHMP, 48% service users found unpredictable service delivery time. More than half (56%) of
the CDA service users felt intentionally deprived because of inordinate delay in pushing files through
the counter to higher authorities for approval. To push files, they have to resort to informal payments
or use the right kind of reference. 67% NADRA users found high work load to be the main cause of
intentional deprivation; whereas, 46% respondents reported rent seeking to be main factor of
deprivation. On the other hand, 40% NHMP customers found “low economic status” a stagnating factor
in acquiring the desired level of service, 40% users believed not to have the right kind of political
affiliation to be the main factor of intentional deprivation. 75% NADRA service users never reported
an incident of deprivation. According to them, reporting an incident would fall on deaf ears. Similar
reasons were found in the case of 89% CDA and 67% NHMP service users.
Majority users of NADRA and NHMP services were of the view that incidents of withholding services
rarely take place. Whereas, more than half (58%) CDA customers experience such incidents more often.
According to 84% users, CDA has no dedicated feedback channels to deal with customer complaints.
More than 45% users of NHMP and NADRA did observe feedback channels concerning customers’
complaints and feedback.
According to 88% users of NADRA, customer payment system was found to be very convenient,
followed by 60% users of NHMP. With regard to CDA, 60% service users found payment system to be
somewhat convenient. Majority users of all three institutions found the payment system in accordance
with expected cost of service. However, in the case of CDA, more than 60% female showed
apprehension concerning a mismatch between the cost of service and the available information. In the
case of NADRA, 67% users found cost of services as per their expectations followed by NHMP. In the
case of CDA, the response was divided between those who found the service in accordance with their
expectations and those who are unsatisfied with the services. More than 56% respondents in the case of
CDA cited frequent informal payments from service users. Similar experience is found in 40% service
users of NHMP. Majority respondents cited lack of internal and external accountability which directly
contributes to less than optimal performance. Some respondents cited political pressure which
undermines performance. Very few attributed bad performances to understaffing.
6. Findings-II: Results from augmented performance index
On the basis of the measurement criteria and weights provided in Annexure-I, ranking of institutional
performance is given below8
:
8 See also technical note on scoring method for demand and supply side computation in Annex-II.

13
Table 4: Ranking of Demand Side Indicators
Name of Institution(s) Average Score Ranking
National Highways & Motorway Police 2.86 2
National Database & Registration Authority (NADRA) 3.249 1
Capital Development Authority (CDA) 1.053 3
The above table elucidates the total scores and ranking of each institution on the basis of the selected
measurement areas of demand side variables. In this regard, NADRA scored the highest, i.e. 3.249, and
ranked 1st, for having good quality of governance, being least corrupted and no deprivation and
discrimination of its service beneficiaries. NADRA is followed by NHMP scoring 2.860. However,
CDA accounted for least average score, i.e. 1.053, because its service users felt internally deprived of
getting their required services, corruption rate is high, and there is a lack of availability of criteria for
customer service feedback.
Table 5: Ranking of Supply Side Indicators
Institution Average Score Ranking
The aforementioned table of supply side score demonstrates the recorded scores and the ranking of
three institutions, based on the selected measurement areas, according to which CDA leads by scoring
0.880 for having full budgets available for all the three years (Fiscal Year 2011-14) in English only, for
updated policies, strategies and plans, and for budget execution, if not up-to the mark but at least, 65-
80% and execution of priority programs less than 50%. This is followed by NHMP scoring 0.845 and
NADRA is at third position with 0.358 average score. Moreover, it is interesting to note that all the
three institutions performed very poorly on accountability and responsiveness, which confirms the
intuitive analysis that Pakistan’s public-sector institutions are unaccountable to the public and
stakeholders and unresponsive to their needs.
Table 6: Final Rank
Institution Average Score Ranking
Combining all the scores of demand side and supply side together, it is evident from the above table
that NADRA is top-ranked, having average score of 0.04619, followed by NHMP which ranked second
the score of 0.04576. However, CDA accounted for least average score which caused its third position
in ranking table.

14
7. Conclusion
The paper makes an effort to combine supply and demand side accountability measures and apply an
augmented performance index framework on select public institutions in Pakistan. This pilot phase (i.e.
application of three government entities) helped us in analyzing performance indicators on the one hand,
and citizens’ feedback on the other. The supply side indicators are useful as they provide information
on how institutions perform core functions. The demand side indicators are useful in knowing how
citizens evaluate performance through access and informational indicators. Based on the strengths of
this index and learning from the weaknesses such as the actual performance may be political in nature,
the scope of the index would be enhanced, by including in it other public-sector institutions as well as
the provincial governments. It will be made a comprehensive index, which would work as a mirror for
the institutions. It is hoped that some of the learning from our findings could motivate the federal and
provincial governments towards more objective measurement of service delivery.

15
References
1. Bertot, JC, McDermott, P and Smith, T 2012, Measurement of Open Government: Metrics and
Processes, 45th Hawai International Conference on System Sciences, Hawai
2. Bold, T, Svensson, T, Gauthier, B, Mæstad, Q and Wane, W 2011, Service Delivery Indicators:
Pilot in Education and Health Care in Africa. Chr. Michelsen Institute, Norway.
3. Brown, K and Repucci, S 2009, A User’s Guide to Measuring Public Administration Performance.
Oslo Governance Centre, United Nations Development Programme, Oslo.
4. Burall, S, Gavelin, K and Wilson, R 2009, Open Government: beyond static measures. Organization
of Economic Cooperation and Development,
5. Castro, MF 2011, Defining and Using Performance Indicators and Targets in Government M&E
Systems. Special Series on The Nuts & Bolts of M&E Systems (no. 12). The World Bank,
Washington, D.C.
6. Cristescu, M, Mihaiu, D and Opreana, A 2010, Efficiency, Effectiveness and Performance of the
Public Sector, Romanian Journal of Economic Forecasting, vol. 4.
7. Davies, I 1999, Evaluation and Performance Management in Government. Evaluation, SAGE
Publications, London.
8. Dehn, J, Reinikka, R and Svensson, J 2003, Survey Tools for Assessing Performance in Service
Delivery, Toolkit for Evaluating the Poverty and Distributional Impact of Economic Policies.
World Bank, Washington, D.C.
9. Gokey, C, Parsons, J and Thornton, M 2013, Indicators of Inputs, Activities, Outputs, Outcomes
and Impacts in Security and Justice Programming, Department for International Development,
London.
10. Khattri, N and Roberts, D 2012, Designing a Results Framework for Achieving Results: A How-
To Guide. Independent Evaluation Group, Washington, D.C.
11. Kwakwa, V and Musoni, P 2008, Rwanda: Joint Governance Assessment report. Rwanda Joint
Governance Assessment Steering Committee, Kigali.
12. Landman, T 2003, Map-making and Analysis of the Main International Initiatives on Developing
Indicators on Democracy and Good Governance. University of Essex – Human Rights Centre,
Essex.
13. Lodge, M and Wegrich, K 2013, Setting the Scene: Challenges to the State, Government Readiness
and Administrative Capacities, Hertie School of Governance, Berlin.
14. Trivedi, P 2014, India: Performance Monitoring and Evaluation System, Proceedings of Global
Roundtable on Government Performance Management, Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India,
New Delhi.

16
Annexure-I: (Detailed computation of index)
a. Construction of demand side governance index
Table 20: Results for NADRA
BETA TEST RESULTS FOR NADRA
Measurement
Area
Criteria (C) Criteri
a
Weigh
t (CW)
Weighte
d Score
of
Criteria
(WSC)=
Sum of
WSI ×
CW
Indicators (I) Raw
Scor
e on
a
Scal
e of
1-10
(RS)
Indicato
r
Weight
(IW)
Weighte
d Score
of
Indicator
(WSI)=
RS × IW
Sum
of
WSI
Quality of
Governance
No
Corruption
1.00 9.5 No informal
payments or gifts
in lieu of
accessing
services
10.0 0.50 5 9.5
Transparency in
service delivery
9.0 0.50 4.5
Accountabilit
y
Customer
Feedback
1.00 2.3 Availability of
criteria for
Customer
Service Feedback
4.6 0.50 2.3 2.3
Inclusion and
Openness Inclusion 0.50 4.7
Not internally
deprived during
accessing service
9.4 1.00 9.4
9.4
Openness 0.50 0
Complaint
Procedure is easy
and accessible
0.0 0.50 0
0
No social
discrimination
0.0 0.50 0
Effectiveness
Service
Delivery
1.00 6.969
Availability of
services in the
vicinity
1.2 0.17 0.204
6.96
9Quality of service 6.6 0.17 1.122

17
Institution and its
staff is
trustworthy
9.4 0.15 1.41
Payment system
is very
convenient and
transparent
8.8 0.17 1.496
Cost of service is
affordable
6.7 0.17 1.139
Accuracy in cost
of service
9.4 0.17 1.598
Responsivene
ss
Mechanism
s for
facilitating
access to
information
0.34 2.45956
Designated
official
nominated under
Right to
Information Act
2010
4.0 0.34 1.36
7.23
4
Accessibility of
source of
information
9.8 0.33 3.234
Standards for
access to
information
services
8.0 0.33 2.64
Mechanism
s for public
grievance
redress
0.33 0
Complaint
mechanism is
available for
desired service
0.0 0.34 0
0
Acknowledgeme
nt of complaints
by relevant
department
0.0 0.33 0
Standards for
grievance
redress services
0.0 0.33 0
Use of ICT
tools
0.33 0.066
Availability of
online services
for complaints,
information,
0.2 1.00 0.2
0.2

18
Total Score
(Simple
Average of
WSC)
registration,
social media
3.249
Table 21: Results for CDA
BETA TEST RESULTS FOR CDA
Measurement
Area
Criteria ( C
)
Criteri
a
Weigh
t (CW)
Weighte
d Score
of
Criteria
(WSC)=
Sum of
WSI ×
CW
Indicators ( I )
Raw
Scor
e on
a
Scal
e of
1-10
(RS)
Indicato
r
Weight
(IW)
Weighte
d Score
of
Indicator
(WSI)=
RS × IW
Sum
of
WSI
Quality of
Governance
No
Corruption
1.00 1.7
No informal
payments or gifts
in lieu of
accessing
services
3.0 0.50 1.5
1.7
Transparency in
service delivery
0.4 0.50 0.2
Accountabilit
y
Customer
Feedback
1.00 0.3
Availability of
criteria for
Customer
Service
Feedback
0.6 0.50 0.3
0.3
Inclusion and
Openness
Inclusion 0.50 2.2
Not internally
deprived during
accessing service
4.4 1.00 4.4
4.4
Openness 0.50 0
Complaint
Procedure is easy
and accessible
0.0 0.50 0
0
No social
discrimination
0.0 0.50 0
Effectiveness
Service
Delivery
1.00 2.625
Availability of
services in the
vicinity
1.8 0.17 0.306
2.62
5
Quality of
service
0.0 0.17 0

19
Institution and its
staff is
trustworthy
2.2 0.15 0.33
Payment system
is very
convenient and
transparent
1.4 0.17 0.238
Cost of service is
affordable
5.0 0.17 0.85
Accuracy in cost
of service
5.3 0.17 0.901
Responsivene
ss
Mechanism
s for
facilitating
access to
informatio
n
0.34 1.3
Designated
official
nominated under
Right to
Information Act
2010
2.4 0.34 0.816
3.91
8
Accessibility of
source of
information
6.4 0.33 2.112
Standards for
access to
information
services
3.0 0.33 0.99
Mechanism
s for public
grievance
redress
0.33 0
Complaint
mechanism is
available for
desired service
0.0 0.34 0
0
Acknowledgeme
nt of complaints
by relevant
department
0.0 0.33 0
Standards for
grievance redress
services
0.0 0.33 0
Use of ICT
tools
0.33 0.264
Availability of
online services
for complaints,
information,
registration,
social media
0.8 1.00 0.8
0.8
Total Score (Simple Average of WSC) 1.053

20
Table 22: Results for Motorway Police
BETA TEST RESULTS FOR Motorway Police
Measurement
Area
Criteria
(C)
Criteria
Weight
(CW)
Weighted
Score of
Criteria
(WSC)=
Sum of
WSI ×
CW
Indicators ( I )
Raw
Score
on a
Scale
of 1-
10
(RS)
Indicator
Weight
(IW)
Weighted
Score of
Indicator
(WSI)=
RS × IW
Sum
of
WSI
Quality of
Governance
No
Corruption
1.00 7.4
No informal
payments or
provides gifts in
lieu of accessing
services
9.0 0.50 4.5
7.4
Transparency in
service delivery
5.8 0.50 2.9
Accountability
Customer
Feedback
1.00 2.4
Availability of
criteria for
Customer Service
Feedback
4.8 0.50 2.4
2.4
Inclusion and
Openness
Inclusion 0.50 4.5
Not internally
deprived during
accessing service
9.0 1.00 9
9
Openness 0.50 0
Complaint
Procedure is easy
and accessible
0.0 0.50 0
0
No social
discrimination
0.0 0.50 0
Effectiveness
Service
Delivery
1.00 6.366
Availability of
services in the
vicinity
5.2 0.17 0.884
6.366
Quality of service 4.2 0.17 0.714
Institution and its
staff is trustworthy
6.4 0.15 0.96
Payment system is
very convenient
and transparent
6.0 0.17 1.02

21
Cost of service is
affordable
8.2 0.17 1.394
Accuracy in cost
of service
8.2 0.17 1.394
Responsiveness
Mechanisms
for
facilitating
access to
information
0.34 1.5
Designated
official nominated
under Right to
Information Act
2010
1.2 0.34 0.408
4.368
Accessibility of
source of
information
7.0 0.33 2.31
Standards for
access to
information
services
5.0 0.33 1.65
Mechanisms
for public
grievance
redress
0.33 0
Complaint
mechanism is
available for
desired service
0.0 0.34 0
0
Acknowledgement
of complaints by
relevant
department
0.0 0.33 0
Standards for
grievance redress
services
0.0 0.33 0
Use of ICT
tools
0.33 0.726
Availability of
online services for
complaints,
information,
registration, social
media
2.2 1.00 2.2
2.2
Based on the above-mentioned results of all the three selected institutions, main results of the Demand
Side Better Governance Index (BGI) is as follow:

22
Table 23: Scoring of Demand Side
Institution Average Score
National Highways & Motorway Police 2.86
National Database & Registration Authority (NADRA) 3.249
Capital Development Authority (CDA) 1.053
Scoring methods can be found in annexure I (Table 1)
b. Construction of supply side index
Table 24: Results for NADRA
BETA TEST RESULTS FOR NADRA
Measurement
Area
Criteria
(C)
Criteri
a
Weigh
t (CW)
Weighte
d Score
of
Criteria
(WSC)=
Sum of
WSI ×
CW
Indicators
(I)
Raw
Scor
e on
a
Scal
e of
1-10
(RS)
Indicato
r
Weight
(IW)
Weighte
d Score
of
Indicato
r
(WSI)=
RS × IW
Su
m
of
WS
I
Quality of
Governance
Clarity of
institutional
vision and
mission
0.35 0
Statements
are clear,
brief and
reflect the
values,
philosophy
and culture
of the
institution
0 0.4 0
0
Vision
statement
expresses, in
sensory
terms, the
future
position or
image of the
institution
0 0.3 0
Mission
statement
focuses on
one or a few
strategic
goals
0 0.3 0
Budget Accuracy 0.40 0
Variance
between
revised
budget and
budget
estimates
0 1.0 0
0

23
Gender Equity in
HR
0.25
Proportion
of female
employees
in total
working
staff
0 1.0 0
0
Investment in
Capacity
Building
1.00
Training
budget as a
proportion
of total
Personnel
budget
0 1.0 0
0
Accountabilit
y
Political
Accountability
0.40 0
Timely and
complete
responses to
PAC review
queries
0 0.5 0
0
Regular
submission
of briefings
to the
Standing
Committees
of
Parliament
0 0.5 0
Accountability to
citizen
0.60 0
Publication
of Annual
Budget on
institution’s
website
0 0.2 0
0
Publication
of Yearbook
0 0.2 0
Majority of
tenders
follow
PPRA rules
0 0.2 0
Use of
social
accountabilit
y tools
0 0.2 0
Citizens’
Charter
issued
0 0.2 0
Inclusion and
Openness
Participatory and
inclusive decision
making and
oversight
0.50 0
Forums on
which
citizens,
private
sector,
academia or
civil society
are
represented
0 1.0 0
0

24
Proactive public
disclosure
0.50 0.75
Publication
of updated
policies,
strategies on
website
3 0.5 1.5
1.5
Availability
of
expenditure
data
0 0.5 0
Effectiveness
Budget execution 0.40 0
Proportion
of released
annual
budget
actually
utilized
0 1.0 0
0
Implementation
of priority
programs
0.40 0.4
Completion
level of
priority
programs
1 1.0 1
1
Strengthening
institutional
capacities for
implementation
0.20 0
Training
expenditure
as a
proportion
of total
Personnel
expenditure
0 1.0 0
0
Responsivene
ss
Linkage with
National/Provinci
al priorities and
strategies
0.25 0
Explicit
linkage of
priority
programs
with the
Vision 2025
0 0.5 0
0
Explicit
linkage of
priority
programs
with
relevant
sector policy
0 0.5 0
Mechanisms for
facilitating access
to information
0.25 0.5
Designated
official
nominated
under Right
to
Information
Act 2010
0 0.5 0
2
Standards
for access to
information
services
clearly
mentioned
4 0.5 2
Mechanisms for
public grievance
redress
0.25 0.5
Designated
official for
public
0 0.5 0
2

25
grievance
redress and
addressing
references
from
Ombudsmen
Standards
for
grievance
redress
services
clearly
mentioned
4 0.5 2
Use of ICT tools 0.25 2.5
Availability
of online
services for
complaints,
information,
registration,
social media
10 1.0 10
10
Table 25: Results for CDA
BETA TEST RESULTS FOR CDA
Measurement
Area
Criteria (C)
Criteria
Weight
(CW)
Weighted
Score of
Criteria
(WSC)=
Sum of
WSI ×
CW
Indicators ( I )
Raw
Score
on a
Scale
of 1-
10
(RS)
Indicator
Weight
(IW)
Weighted
Score of
Indicator
(WSI)=
RS × IW
Sum
of
WSI
Quality of
Governance
Clarity of
institutional
vision and
mission
0.35 0
Statements are
clear, brief and
reflect the
values,
philosophy
and culture of
the institution
0 0.4 0
0
Vision
statement
expresses, in
sensory terms,
the future
position or
image of the
institution
0 0.3 0
Mission
statement
focuses on one
0 0.3 0

26
or a few
strategic goals
Budget
Accuracy
0.40
2
Variance
between
revised budget
and budget
estimates
5 1.0 5
5
Gender
Equity in
HR
0.25
Proportion of
female
employees in
total working
staff
0 1.0 0
0
Investment
in Capacity
Building
1.00
Training
budget as a
proportion of
total Personnel
budget
0 1.0 0
0
Measureme
nt Area
Criteria ( C )
Criteri
a
Weigh
t (CW)
Weighte
d Score
of
Criteria
(WSC)=
Sum of
WSI ×
CW
Indicators ( I
)
Raw
Scor
e on
a
Scal
e of
1-10
(RS)
Indicato
r
Weight
(IW)
Weighte
d Score
of
Indicato
r (WSI)=
RS × IW
Sum of
WSI
Accountabili
ty
Political
Accountabili
ty
0.40 0
Timely and
complete
responses to
PAC review
queries
0 0.5 0
0
Regular
submission
of briefings
to the
Standing
Committees
of
Parliament
0 0.5 0
Accountabili
ty to citizens
0.60 0.24
Publication
of Annual
Budget on
institution’s
website
2 0.2 0.4
0.4

27
Publication
of Yearbook
0 0.2 0
Majority of
tenders
follow PPRA
rules
0 0.2 0
Use of social
accountabili
ty tools
0 0.2 0
Citizens’
Charter
issued
0 0.2 0
Inclusion
and
Openness
Participatory
and inclusive
decision
making and
oversight
0.50 0
Forums on
which
citizens,
private
sector,
academia or
civil society
are
represented
0 1.0 0
0
Proactive
public
disclosure
0.50 2.25
Publication
of updated
policies,
strategies
on website
5 0.5 2.5
4.5
Availability
of
expenditure
data
4 0.5 2
Effectivenes
s
Budget
execution
0.40 0.8
Proportion
of released
annual
budget
actually
utilized
2 1.0 2
2
Measuremen
t Area
Criteria ( C )
Criteri
a
Weig
ht
(CW)
Weight
ed
Score of
Criteria
(WSC)=
Indicators (
I )
Raw
Scor
e on
a
Scal
Indicat
or
Weight
(IW)
Weight
ed
Score of
Indicato
Sum of
WSI

28
Sum of
WSI ×
CW
e of
1-10
(RS)
r (WSI)=
RS × IW
Implementation
of priority
programs
0.40 0.4
Completio
n level of
priority
programs
1 1.0 1
1
Strengthening
institutional
capacities for
implementation
0.20 0
Training
expenditur
e as a
proportion
of total
Personnel
expenditur
e
0 1.0 0
0
Responsiven
ess
Linkage with
National/Provin
cial priorities
and strategies
0.25 0.75
Explicit
linkage of
priority
programs
with the
Vision
2025
0 0.5 0
3
Explicit
linkage of
priority
programs
with
relevant
sector
policy
0 0.5 0
Mechanisms for
facilitating
access to
information
0.25 1.25
Designate
d official
nominated
under
Right to
Informatio
n Act 2010
6 0.5 3
5
Standards
for access
to
informatio
n services
clearly
mentioned
4 0.5 2

29
Mechanisms for
public grievance
redress
0.25 1.25
Designate
d official
for public
grievance
redress
and
addressing
references
from
Ombudsm
en
6 0.5 3
5
Standards
for
grievance
redress
services
clearly
mentioned
4 0.5 2
Use of ICT tools 0.25 2.5
Availability
of online
services
for
complaints
,
informatio
n,
registratio
n, social
media
10 1.0 10
10
Table 26: Results for Motorway Police
BETA TEST RESULTS FOR Police
Measure
ment
Area
Criteria
( C )
Crit
eria
Wei
ght
(C)
Weight
ed
Score
of
Criteria
(WSC)
= Sum
of WSI
× CW
Indicators ( I )
Raw
Scor
e on
a
Scale
of 1-
10
(RS)
Indicato
r
Weight
(IW)
Weighte
d Score
of
Indicator
(WSI)=
RS × IW
Su
m
of
WS
I
Quality
of
Clarity
of
0.35 0.7175 Statements are clear, brief
and reflect the values,
4.0 0.4 1.6

30
Governa
nce
institutio
nal
vision
and
mission
philosophy and culture of
the institution
2.0
5
Vision statement expresses
in sensory terms, the future
position or image of the
institution
0.0 0.3 0
Mission statement focuses
on one or a few strategic
goals
1.5 0.3 0.45
Budget
Accurac
y
0.40
2
Variance between revised
budget and budget estimates
5.0 1.0 5 5
Gender
Equity
in HR
0.25
Proportion of female
employees in total working
staff
3.0 1.0 3 3
Investm
ent in
Capacity
Building
1.00
Training budget as a
proportion of total Personnel
budget
0.0 1.0 0 0
Accounta
bility
Political
Account
ability
0.40 0
Timely and complete
responses to PAC review
queries
0.0 0.5 0
0
Regular submission of
briefings to the Standing
Committees of Parliament
0.0 0.5 0
Account
ability
to
citizens
0.60 0.12
Publication of Annual
Budget on institution’s
website
0.0 0.2 0
0.2
Publication of Yearbook 1.0 0.2 0.2
Majority of tenders follow
PPRA rules
0.0 0.2 0
Use of social accountability
tools
0.0 0.2 0
Citizens’ Charter issued 0.0 0.2 0
Inclusion
and
Participa
tory and
inclusiv
e
0.50 0
Forums on which citizens,
private sector, academia or
civil society are represented
0.0 1.0 0 0

31
Opennes
s
decision
making
and
oversigh
t
Proactiv
e public
disclosu
re
0.50 2
Publication of updated
policies, strategies on
website
5.0 0.5 2.5
4
Availability of expenditure
data
3.0 0.5 1.5
Effective
ness
Budget
executio
n
0.40 0.4
Proportion of released
annual budget actually
utilized
1.0 1.0 1 1
Impleme
ntation
of
priority
program
s
0.40 0
Completion level of priority
programs
0.0 1.0 0 0
Strength
ening
institutio
nal
capacitie
s for
impleme
ntation
0.20 0
Training expenditure as a
proportion of total Personnel
expenditure
0.0 1.0 0 0
Responsi
veness
Linkage
with
National
/Provinc
ial
prioritie
s and
strategie
s
0.25 0.75
programs with the Vision
2025
0.0 0.5 0
3
programs with relevant
sector policy
0.0 0.5 0
Mechani
sms for
facilitati
ng
access
to
0.25 1.25
Designated Official
nominated under Right to
Information Act 2010
6.0 0.5 3
5
Standards for access to
information services clearly
mentioned
4.0 0.5 2

32
informat
ion
Mechani
sms for
public
grievanc
e redress
0.25 1.25
Designated Official for
public grievance redress and
addressing references from
Ombudsmen
6.0 0.5 3
5
Standards for grievance
redress services clearly
mentioned
4.0 0.5 2
Use of
ICT
tools
0.25 2.5
Availability of online
services for complaints,
information, registration,
social media
10.0 1.0 10 10
Total Score (Simple
Average of WSC) 0.845

Measuring Institutional Performance: Can governance indices help?

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Measuring Institutional Performance: Can governance indices help? (20)

More from Vaqar Ahmed (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Measuring Institutional Performance: Can governance indices help?