Performance benchmarks were of seven different types. The most frequently used benchmarks were outputs, followed by outcomes and aggregate results. Table 1: Types of performance benchmarks for 2014-15 Benchmark type Definition Example Milestone A significant point in a contract/program Papua New Guinea: Master planning phase of ANGAU Hospital completed and approved by DFAT and PNG Government stakeholders by mid-2015. Output Good/service delivered by the intervention Laos: 115 schools have and sanitation facilities meeting Government of Laos quality standards with district funded operation and maintenance plans in place. Aggregate result Intended results of the program, often relating to targeted beneficiaries Burma (Myanmar): 6,300 households with increased access to financial services, and markets. Outcome Changes that the interventions aim to deliver for targeted beneficiaries Short term: changes in knowledge, skills, attitudes and motivation Medium term: behaviour change Afghanistan: 70 per cent of civil servants trained in public sector management have improved their work practices and ability to perform their job. Program management Related to administration of the aid program; may cover aspects of efficiency, or how the program is targeted/aligned Pacific Regional Program: Reduce the number of investments from 75 to 55 by June 2015. Partnership Related to the relationship between DFAT and partners Philippines: Facilitate six partnership agreements between Philippine and Australian academic institutions.
countries, including Papua New Guinea, Indonesia and the Solomon Islands, to improve public sector governance, budget processes, government asset management and public financial management. Annex B Independent Evaluation Committee and Office of Development Effectiveness Assessment As was the case last year, the 2015 Performance of Australian Aid report provides a and credible summary of the effectiveness of Australia’s aid program and the progress made in meeting the Government’s aid policy priorities. Drawing on an array of program and project performance reports and evaluations, the report also highlights the fundamental strengths of Australia’s aid management systems and reviews many of the accomplishments of and the risks facing the aid program. The report shows there has been commendable progress towards meeting the Government’s policy objectives, with seven of the aid program’s ten high-level targets having now been met. Clearly targets can and do drive organisational change. With this in mind, the Independent Evaluation Committee believes it would now be appropriate to revisit the list of targets and consider other areas that would benefit from the additional momentum and focus that targets bring. The report details a number of significant changes to DFAT’s aid performance reporting during which have the potential to improve the Department’s aid management capability. For this potential to be fully realised, it will be critical that the Department continues to invest in clear and easily accessible guidance and support for the staff that monitor and assess performance. Equally, emphasis needs to be placed on supporting a culture of constructive debate and contestability over performance assessment results. The Independent Evaluation Committee is pleased to continue playing its role in this process. Jim Chair Independent Evaluation Committee Office of Development Effectiveness