Small measures of large values – proposal of indicators to follow up the administrative policy objective
The Government has commissioned Statskontoret (the Swedish Agency for Public Management) to propose indicators to follow up the administrative policy objective.
The Government will use the indicators to report results in the area of administrative policy to the Riksdag, the Swedish Parliament. The objective is “an innovative and collaborative central government administration that is legally certain and efficient, has a high degree of quality, service and accessibility, and thereby contributes to Sweden’s development and effective EU work”. Statskontoret sees the objective as the Government’s and the Riksdag’s vision of the features that should characterise a well-functioning central government administration.
Statskontoret proposes a total of 13 indicators to follow up each of the features in the objective. Together they can give a picture of how well the central government administration is functioning. But the indicators are measures of large and elusive values. The Government therefore needs to analyse the picture presented by the indicators so as to be able to draw correct conclusions and so as to be able to identify suitable action.
Statskontoret’s assessment is that the indicators can contribute new information that can be used to develop administrative policy and the central government administration. But the Government needs to give new commissions to agencies to produce the indicators, and, in some cases, these agencies need new funding. This will, in that case, increase the cost for central government by around SEK 975 000 per year, plus a start-up cost of around SEK 750 000. The indicators also require the whole of the central government administration to provide data, which increases the information-provision burden for agencies. The indirect cost of the working time that agency staff need to put into contributing data is around SEK 7.6 million per year.
Statskontoret’s proposal of indicators to follow up the administrative policy objective
Feature |
Indicator |
|
Innovative |
The share of innovation-active agencies, measured as agencies that state that they have performed at least one innovation activity. |
|
|
The share of innovative agencies, measured as agencies that state that they have introduced at least one innovation in their activities. |
|
Collaborative |
The share of central government employees who state that, in the past month, they have worked together with employees at another agency to solve a task. |
|
|
The share of central government employees who state that, in the past month, they have worked together with employees in a municipality or region to solve a task. |
|
Legally certain |
The number of decisions in which the Parliamentary Ombudsmen (JO) direct serious or very serious criticism at an agency. |
|
|
The number of decisions in which the Chancellor of Justice (JK) directs criticism at an agency. |
|
High degree of service |
The average share of private persons who feel that they have been given the help they need in their contacts with the agency (for a sample of 15 agencies). |
|
High degree of accessibility |
The average response rate to phone calls to agencies’ main switchboards and contact centres (for a sample of 15 agencies). |
|
|
The average share of calls to agencies’ main switchboards and contact centres replied to within 10 minutes (for a sample of 15 agencies). |
|
|
The share of the population aged over 16 years who can reach a central government service office within 40 minutes on foot, by public transport or by car. |
|
|
The share of central government websites or mobile applications that have good accessibility according to the Agency for Digital Government’s supervision under the Act on Accessibility of Digital Public Services. |
|
High degree level of quality |
The weighted development of the indicators we propose for following up innovativeness, collaboration, legal certainty, service and accessibility in the central government administration, measured as an annual percentage change. |
|
Efficient |
The ratio between the indicator we propose for following up the quality of the central government administration and the annual percentage change in the central government administration’s inflation-adjusted costs of activities. |