PERFORMANCE MONITORING _ EVALUATION PLAN by maclaren1

VIEWS: 142 PAGES: 34

									                           PERFORMANCE
                           MONITORING &
                           EVALUATION
                           PLAN




July, 2009
This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for
International Development. It was prepared by Jordan Fiscal Reform Project
Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
July 2009




                JORDAN FISCAL REFORM PROJECT
                CONTRACT NUMBER: GEG-I-05-04-00004-
                00




                PERFORMANCE MONITORING &
                     EVALUATION PLAN




 PREPARED BY: JORDAN FISCAL REFORM PROJECT
 SUPPORTING THE JORDAN MINISTRY OF FINANCE (MOF)

 SUBMITTED TO: USAID/JORDAN 0FFICE OF ECONOMIC
 OPPORTUNITIES

 DISCLAIMER:
 The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the
 views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United
 States Government.
i
USAID Funded – Jordan Fiscal reform Project
Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
July 2009


               TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.    Introduction                                                                     2
2     Results Framework                                                                2

3.    Identification of Critical Assumptions                                           4
4.    Development of Performance Indicators                                            6
5.    Identification of Data Sources & Collection Methods and Collection of Baseline   6
      Data and Establishment of Performance Targets
6.    Summary of Results                                                               7

7.    Appendixes                                                                       10
      Appendix A         Table of Performance Indicators Summary                       10
      Appendix B:        Table of Performance Indicators                               15
      Appendix C:        Scoring Methodology for Selected indicators                   27




1

USAID Funded – Jordan Fiscal reform Project
Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
July 2009


INTRODUCTION

The USAID/Jordan Fiscal Reform Activity (hereafter Project) was awarded to BearingPoint,
Inc. under contract No. GEG-I-00-04-0000-00 signed on May 26, 2006. The Monitoring and
Evaluation process for the Project will play a central role in guaranteeing that this program
reaches its objectives of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the fiscal system in
assisting the government of Jordan (GOJ) to achieve its fiscal goals, as defined in the most
recent Jordan National Agenda (JNA) reform plan. The Project supports USAID/Jordan’s
Strategic Objective: Improved Economic Opportunities for Jordanians, and directly supports
the Intermediate Result 1.0: More Transparent, Efficient and Responsive Public Sector. The
results of the Project also support the Intermediate Result 2.0: More Effective Legal and
Regulatory Environment.
BearingPoint’s project-level Performance Monitoring and Evaluation (PME) process will
allow BearingPoint, together with the Mission, to monitor project activities against the
beneficiary results necessary to achieve the USAID’s goals stated in the task order and
evaluate our performance on a regular basis. Accurate and timely measures to track
performance are needed to keep USAID continually informed of progress and to support
real-time changes in approach or tactics as conditions change. The PMEP will provide
ongoing direction to project management by verifying that program activities are producing
tangible results and serve as a warning system if performance indicators show that
adjustments are required.

This Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (PMEP) were developed in August of
2006 by Project’s resident advisors, the Chief of Party, and our short-term PME team. The
process began in early August of 2006 with a PME and Training Workshop in Amman
attended by all advisors and key local staff. At this workshop, the PME Advisor presented
four training sessions on PME methodology and facilitated two working sessions. By the end
of the workshop, the team finalized the results statements, the results framework, and the
critical assumptions and began developing indicators. After the workshop, the advisors, with
the help of the PME expert, further developed the indicators identified data sources, data
collection methodology, frequency of reporting, and party responsible for data collection.
Finally, baselines were calculated and targets set for each indicator.
The PMEP is a living document. As the project began working it became apparent that some
of the measures initially selected were not relevant to the work and others were difficult to
establish baselines and obtain accurate data. Accordingly, some of the measures have
been revised. Appendix B shows the revised measures, the baselines and the most recent
results. It also includes discussion of the results and the prognosis for achieving the targets
before the end of the project. Appendix C provides details and methodology for selected
Indicators.



R E S U L T S F R AM E W O R K
The BearingPoint PMEP for Jordan Fiscal Reform Activity is an extension of the Mission’s
Results Framework. BearingPoint defines and refines the project-level results statements


2

USAID Funded – Jordan Fiscal reform Project
Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
July 2009


based on two crucial objectives: that these results support the development hypothesis
underlying the Mission’s framework, and that the results link directly to the work plan. We
ask two questions in order to verify the linkages to the work plan. First, are there sufficient
activities in the work plan to bring about each result? Second, do all of the activities in the
work plan contribute to at least one of the defined results? In effect, the PMEP and the work
plan serve as checks against each other to ensure that the project is always on target to
achieve the results underlying the Mission’s Strategy.
The results framework for Jordan Fiscal Reform Activity is presented below.




3

USAID Funded – Jordan Fiscal reform Project
Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
July 2009


IDENTI FIC ATION        OF    C R I TI C AL AS S U M P TI O N S

A key part of the results framework is the set of assumptions that underlies it. These critical
assumptions represent economic, political and environmental factors beyond the control of
the Jordan Fiscal Reform Activity that can impinge on Project’s performance. We identify the
critical assumptions for each result in the Table 1 below. All of our advisors will be
responsible for monitoring these critical assumptions in order to bring attention to any
violations that may hinder the achievement of the Project results. When events offer
evidence that these assumptions are not being met or are delayed, we have noted these
facts in our performance reports.


Table 1: Critical Assumptions


    Results                                 Critical Assumptions

    Tax Policy
    Tax equity is improved                  Political will to undertake necessary reforms.
                                            Assumes that no significant changes are made in the
                                            law during 2006. Based on the experience of the
                                            project in the summer of 2006, it appears that there
                                            may be political forces that will undermine the
                                            successful passage of a revised income tax law that
                                            increases equity
    Tax base is expanded                    Political will to undertake necessary reforms.
                                            Assumes that no significant changes are made in the
                                            law during 2006.
    Tax policy of Jordan rationalized       Continued support of Minister and Ministry Officials
    through a unified Tax Code that         and Cabinet for the introduction of a new Tax Code.
    contains all relevant and up-to-date    Without such support, it is unlikely that a Tax Code
    tax legislation                         will be considered.
    Functioning, competent Fiscal           Secretary General/Minister of Finance is willing to
    Policy Unit (FPU) established           modify the structure of the Ministry of Finance and to
                                            provide adequate funding in support of the FPU
    Quality of tax policy analysis is       Secretary General/Minister of Finance is willing to
    improved                                modify the structure of the Ministry of Finance and to
                                            provide adequate funding in support of the FPU
    Tax Administration
    Automation of tax collection, follow-   ISTD is committed to implementing recommended
    up, functions                           reforms
    Automation of audit functions           ISTD is committed to implementing recommended
                                            reforms
    Effective internal audit capability     Project Resources available to implement change,
    using “best practice” auditing          based on assessment
    methods
    Improved customer service               ISTD is committed to implementing recommended
                                            reforms. Institutional capacity in terms of personnel
                                            available within the ISTD or available for recruitment
                                            exist to implement the changes

4

USAID Funded – Jordan Fiscal reform Project
Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
July 2009


    Results                                Critical Assumptions

    Simplification of procedures for tax   ISTD is committed to implementing recommended
    payers to ask a question and           reforms. Institutional capacity exist to implement the
    receive an answer from Taxpayer        changes
    Service Department
    Budget Management
    A comprehensive central budget         Ministry leadership remains committed to
    that utilizes a budget execution       implementing recommended reforms.
    system consistent with international
    standards
    Integrated database of all planned     Ministry leadership remains committed to
    and funded investment projects         implementing recommended reforms, and necessary
    established and includes treasury-     resources are made available by the government to
    financed and donor-financed            develop data base. The Ministry of Finance’s
    projects                               General Budget Department and the Ministry of
                                           Planning and International Cooperation must
                                           cooperate in the data base’s development and
                                           maintenance.
    Improved decisions on capital          Ministry leadership remains committed to
    budget utilizing cost-benefit          implementing recommended reforms, and there is
    analysis and other techniques          sufficient stability among staff to implement results of
                                           training for sustained period.
    The central budget is reflective of    Ministry leadership remains committed to
    better informed policy decisions       implementing recommended reforms.
    regarding government allocation of
    resources
    PMO is successful in the               Ministry leadership remains committed to
    implementation of GFMIS in pilot       implementing recommended reforms. Funding is
    sites                                  budgeted and committed to procurement of
                                           necessary hardware and software.
    An amended budget law consistent       Ministry leadership remains committed to
    with international best practices      implementing recommended reforms. National
    permitting the implementation of       Assembly passes bill.
    ROB, GFMIS, and other related
    reforms
    Public Awareness
    Improved information flow between      Acceptance of the “message” and cooperation of the
    the MoF and the Parliament             MoF
    Improved public awareness of tax-      None
    law related issues
    Increased public awareness of          None
    benefits of tax compliance




5

USAID Funded – Jordan Fiscal reform Project
Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
July 2009


DEVELOPMENT          OF   P E R F O R M AN C E I N D I C ATO R S

For each of the results defined in the framework, we develop indicators to measure progress
toward the result, and we present these indicators in Appendix B. We also specify data
sources and collection methodology for each indicator, frequency of reporting and analysis,
as well as party responsible for acquiring and reporting data. There are two reasons why
there may be more than one indicator for a single result. Often no single indicator can fully
capture the result, and thus different indicators measure different aspects of a general result.
Sometimes, however, different indicators represent different stages in the achievement of a
general result and can thus be important for managing performance throughout the life of the
project.
This PMEP includes a mix of qualitative and quantitative indicator types in order to best meet
the criteria recommended for USAID indicators: direct, objective, useful, practical,
attributable, timely, and adequate. Designed indicator types include: frequencies, economic
variables, scorecards, milestone scales, survey responses, and focus-group interviews. We
avoid indicators that involve arbitrary weighting schemes, undefined rating scales, and
indices that combine too much information into one number, as such indicators generally do
not meet the objective and useful criteria. We present in Appendix B indicators for each of
the Project’s results. Appendix C presents details, scoring methodology and assessment
techniques for selected indicators, such as scorecards and milestones.




IDENTI FIC ATION OF D AT A SOU RC ES & COLL EC TIO N ME THO DS                        AN D
C O L L E C TI O N O F B AS E L I N E D AT A AN D E S T AB L I S H M E N T O F
P E R F O R M AN C E T AR G E TS

We have identified a variety of data collection techniques in order to guarantee the highest
quality data for each indicator. Data sources include counterparts, government statistics,
other donors or partners, NGOs and universities, project documents, and project initiatives
(such as commissioning surveys and focus-group interviews). In the case where
assessments will be conducted by project staff, we establish specific guidelines for the
assessments so that data collected maintain integrity and are comparable across time. We
also require that more than one person be involved in the assessment; where possible, we
involve one or more officials from the counterpart being assessed.

Much of the collection will involve working closely with and collecting documents from our
counterparts. The data collection costs for the most part are subsumed under regular project
activities.
Appendix B describes data sources, collection methodologies, and frequency and timing of
data collection and reporting. We also specify party responsible for data collection and
reporting.


6

USAID Funded – Jordan Fiscal reform Project
Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
July 2009


Baseline represents the condition or level of performance that exists prior to implementation
of the Project. Baselines are our reference points. When the baselines are determined, we
then set targets to evaluate our future performance. Targets represent the expected level of
achievement within a given period of time, presented in terms of performance indicator.
Appendix B presents baselines and targets for each indicator designed to monitor progress
of the Project. BearingPoint verifies data quality based on USAID standards: validity,
reliability, timeliness, precision, and integrity. We pay particular attention to identifying
potential biases, and, as noted above, we establish procedures to govern assessments
conducted by project advisors.
Performance targets are set with the expectation that progress will occur over time and to
ultimately define conditions for sustainability. Appendix B includes periodic targets (based on
reporting frequency identified for each indicator) that reflect ambitious but realistic
performance goals for each result of the Project. The targets for our indicators will not
necessarily be the highest possible scores but rather scores reflecting improvement over
time that indicate sustainability in future (after the project ends).
Management of the PME process will be carried out by our component leads under the
supervision of the Chief of Party.




S U M M AR Y   OF   RESULTS

The project has progressed well, and has achieved most of the results as planned, though in
several areas there were changes in the schedule and the implementation plan. Of the 44
targets, 30 were met or exceeded, 8 were partially met, 5 were not met and no data were
available for one target. Each of the components is discussed below.
Tax Policy
One of the critical assumptions was that there was sufficient political will to implement a new
tax code. As advisors began working, they determined that a more extensive analysis of the
existing tax provisions would be necessary to develop the support for reform and more
extensive changes would be needed. Accordingly, progress was delayed somewhat. In
2007 a detailed analysis was completed and presented to the Minister of Finance including
recommendations for the new tax code. In December 2007 a committee was formed to draft
the new code and in June 2008 a first draft was completed that met all of the criteria in the
plan though the unification of the rates did not include financial institutions because policy
makers are reluctant to reduce taxes on banks. That draft went to the Cabinet in July but at
the time the Government lacked the political will to push it through Cabinet and Parliament.
In February 2009 a new Minister of Finance was appointed who put a much higher priority
on tax reform. The draft was amended to reflect his priorities and is now moving through
Cabinet and Parliament. The Tax Policy Unit was established and is improving the quality of
tax policy analysis.


7

USAID Funded – Jordan Fiscal reform Project
Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
July 2009


Ten of twelve tax policy targets were met or exceeded while two were partially met.


Tax Administration
Excellent progress is being made in the area of tax administration. In several cases the
measures that were initially selected were determined to be poor indicators of progress and
alternative measures have been identified. Some of the work in tax collections was delayed
but it is now being implemented.
Nine of thirteen targets were met or exceeded. Three targets in the area of tax collections
were partially met. Although the required new systems were developed they are still in the
process of being implemented as many changes were required in the way collections
officials do their work. No data were available to assess one target regarding the public
perception of integrity at ISTD because the cost of the survey necessary to collect this
information was deemed excessive and a World Bank survey showed that there is very little
bribery of tax officials in Jordan .


Budget Management
At the request of counterparts, the schedule for implementation of results oriented budgeting
was significantly accelerated. The original statement of work anticipated starting with six
pilot projects which would eventually be rolled out to other ministries. Instead, the system
was implemented for all ministries at the end of 2007. As a result of this change there are
many more budget officers who must be trained and thus each officer has received less
intensive training. In part due to this change in priorities, less attention has been devoted to
analyzing capital projects.

The new chart of accounts and budget classification has been completed and is being
adopted throughout the government. A new Organic Budget Process Law clarifying
responsibilities for developing the budget and institutionalizing results oriented budgeting
was approved by Parliament in 2008.
The Government awarded a contract for the new Government Financial Management
Information and the Project Management Office supported by the Project is now working
closely with the contractor to ensure that the new system will perform as required.

Of the fifteen targets in the area of budget management, seven were met or exceeded and
three were partially met. Two of those partially met related to provisions of the new Organic
Budget Process Law which achieved 80% conformance with one target but was somewhat
weak in specifying responsibilities of organizations other than the General Budget
Department. Four of the targets not met related to the lack of analysis of capital projects.
The accelerated implementation of results oriented budgeting plus the extensive time
requirements for implementing the GFMIS system resulted in budget analysts having
insufficient time for training in analysis of capital budgets. Meeting the final target, that the
budget be prepared using GFMIS is delayed because of the slower than planned
implementation of the GFMIS system.


8

USAID Funded – Jordan Fiscal reform Project
Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
July 2009


Public Awareness
The first set of tasks in the area of public awareness relate to informing taxpayers of their
responsibility to file in a timely manner. A public education campaign was successfully
completed in the winter of 2007. The second set of tasks is associated with informing
citizens about the need for tax reform and then their changed rights and responsibilities
under the new tax code. As discussed above, development of the new tax code took longer
than initially planned so public awareness activities in this area were delayed until the new
tax code was drafted. Informing taxpayers of changes will take place after a new code is
adopted. All four targets were met or exceeded.




9

USAID Funded – Jordan Fiscal reform Project
Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
July 2009


AP P E NDIX ES

APPENDIX A: TABLE OF PERFORMANCE INDICATORS SUMMARY

Result                                   Measure                                                                   met   partial   not met
Tax Policy
Tax equity is improved              1    Maximum spread in statutory rates applicable to CIT taxpayers as
                                         defined by economic sector                                                      x
                                    2    Shares of direct vs. indirect tax revenues in total tax revenue           x
                                    3     Ratio of PIT revenues to GDP after normalization for any changes
                                         in rates                                                                  x
                                    4    Ratio of CIT to GDP after normalization for any changes in rates
                                                                                                                   x
                                    5    Ratio of Sales Tax to GDP after normalization for any changes in
                                         rates                                                                     x
                                    6    Unified law containing all provisions affecting tax liability presented
                                         – yes or no                                                               x
                                    7    Recommendations presented on the harmonization of the tax
                                         administration procedures code – yes or no                                x
                                    8     Recommendations presented on unified tax administration
                                         procedures code – yes or no                                               x
Functioning, competent tax          9     Milestone indicator for establishing Tax Policy Unit (the Milestone
policy unit established                  is described in the Appendix)                                             x

Quality of tax policy analysis is   10   Score from training application and value matrix
improved                                                                                                                 x

                                    11   Number of reports developed by the TPU and submitted to either
                                         the Minister or the public                                                x

                                    12   Number of macro and micro simulation models, statistical, and
                                         forecasting tools utilized by TPU                                         x



10
USAID Funded – Jordan Fiscal reform Project                                                                                                  10
Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
July 2009
Tax Administration
Tax collection process is          13   Tax collection process is automated, yes or no
automated                                                                                                         x

                                   14   Number of ways taxpayers can pay has increased                        x
                                   15   Number of days needed to issue demand for payment for Income
                                        Tax due                                                               x
                                   16   Number of steps necessary to process enforced collection case to
                                        resolution                                                                x

                                   17   Number of days necessary to process enforced collection case to
                                        resolution                                                                x

                                   18   Number of manual steps necessary to assign a case to audit and
                                        schedule an audit appointment                                         x

Audit function is automated        19   Scorecard on automation of post-audit reporting process
                                        (scorecard is presented in the Appendix B)                            x

Effective internal audit           20   Scorecard on effectiveness of Internal Audit function (scorecard is
capability using “best practice”        presented in the Appendix B)
auditing methods established                                                                                  x


                                   21   Level of public perception of integrity of ISTD                               not measured
                                   22   Number of program audits performed                                    x
                                   23   Number of program/process adjustments/findings proposed
                                                                                                              x

                                   24   Level of management awareness on internal audit function
                                                                                                              x

Procedures for tax payers to       25   Number of procedures for a customer to interact with Taxpayer
ask questions and receive               Service Department in ISTD
answers from Taxpayer
Service Department simplified                                                                                 x




11
USAID Funded – Jordan Fiscal reform Project                                                                           11
Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
July 2009
Budget Management
A comprehensive central         26   Degree of compliance of the new budget classification structure
budget that utilizes a               and chart of accounts with GFS2001 standards (assessment of
classification system which          economic and functional structure compliance)
meets international standards                                                                               x



                                27   Percent of a ministry expenditure expressed in programmatic
                                     terms (as opposed to line-item terms) in the pilot ministries
                                                                                                            x

Integrated database of all      28   Percentage of treasury/budget-funded investment projects
planned and funded                   included in the database
investment projects
established and includes                                                                                    x
treasury- and donor-financed
projects


                                29   Percentage of the new projects in the and percentage of current
                                     spending subjected to cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness analysis
                                                                                                                x

                                30   Number of people trained that successfully pass post-training
                                     evaluation                                                                 x

                                31   Level of satisfaction of the end-users with user-friendliness of the
                                     database                                                                   x

Improved decisions on capital   32   Percent of new projects presented for budget decision-making
budget utilizing cost-benefit        which includes cost-benefit analysis or other project evaluation
analysis and other techniques        techniques                                                                 x




12
USAID Funded – Jordan Fiscal reform Project                                                                         12
Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
July 2009
                                33   Degree to which National Agenda priorities are reflected in the
                                     budget (Percent of projects presented for budget decision-making
                                     which includes specific reference for the National Agenda)          x


                                34   Budget is based on GFMIS-generated budget data – yes or no
                                                                                                                 x

                                35   Capital budget database provides updated and accurate
                                     information financial (F)and physical progress (PP) or public
                                                                                                             x
                                     service results (PSR) – yes or no

                                36   Budget decisions are presented in programmatic terms – yes or no
                                                                                                         x

PMO is successful in the        37   Milestone scale for GFMIS implementation
implementation of GFMIS in
                                                                                                         x
pilot sites

An amended budget law           38   Milestone scale for amendment of budget law
consistent with international
best practices permitting the
implementation of ROB,                                                                                   x
GFMIS, and other related
reforms


                                39   Scorecard assessing the new law against the requirements
                                                                                                             x

                                40   Compatibility and / or linkages with the other 3 laws that govern
                                     the financial                                                           x




13
USAID Funded – Jordan Fiscal reform Project                                                                          13
Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
July 2009

Public Outreach
Improved information flow       41   Number of briefings between the MOF and the members of the
between the MOF and the              Government and Parliament
                                                                                                        x
Parliament

                                42   Score on Press Releases issued by the counterparts which reflect
                                     the process/information flow, weighted by Clipping Quality
                                                                                                        x
                                     Reporting scheme

                                43   Number of calls received by ISTD Call Centers and visits to
                                     Customer Care Centers                                              x

                                44   Number of filers who have filed their income tax                   x
TOTAL                                                                                                   30   8   5




14
USAID Funded – Jordan Fiscal reform Project                                                                          14
Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
July 2009

APPENDIX B: TABLE OF PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Result                   Indicator(s)                                       Baseline    Targets              Actual

Tax Policy
Tax equity is improved   1. Maximum spread in statutory rates               20          June, 2007 –10       2007 – 20%,
                            applicable to CIT taxpayers as defined by                   June, 2008 –5        2008 – 20%. The draft income tax law
                            economic sector                                             June, 2009 –0        proposes a decrease of the spread from 20 to
                                                                                                             13 percentage points, effective in 2010. A
                                                                                                             spread of 0 is unlikely, given the political
                                                                                                             realities in Jordan and the timing of tax
                                                                                                             reform.
                         2. Shares of direct vs. indirect tax revenues      Direct      June, 2007           2007 – 20.0%
                            in total tax revenue                            taxes:      Direct – 16.50%,     2008 – 21.8% (preliminary),
                                                                            16.1% of    June, 2008           2009 projection – 21.7%.
                                                                            total tax   Direct – 18.00%
                                                                                        June 1, 2009
                                                                                        Direct – 20.00 %
Tax base is expanded     3. Ratio of PIT revenues to GDP after              0.5%        June, 2007 –0.55%    2007 – 0.8%,
                            normalization for any changes in rates                      June, 2008 –0.65%    2008 – 0.9% (preliminary),
                                                                                        June, 2009 –0.8%     2009 projection - 0.9% after recent GDP and
                                                                                                             budget projection revisions.
                         4. Ratio of CIT to GDP after normalization         2.2%        June, 2007 –2.35%    2007 – 3.4%,
                            for any changes in rates                                    June, 2008 –2.50%    2008 – 3.4% (preliminary),
                                                                                        June, 2009 –2.75%    2009 projection – 3.1% after recent GDP and
                                                                                                             budget projection revisions.
                         5. Ratio of Sales Tax to GDP after                 11.2%       June, 2007 –11.25%   2007 – 12.5%
                            normalization for any changes in rates                      June, 2008 –11.30%   , 2008 – 12.2% (11.8% not normalized),
                                                                                        June, 2009 –11.40%   2009 projection – 11.9% (11.5% not
                                                                                                             normalized) after recent GDP and budget
                                                                                                             projection revisions.
Tax policy of Jordan     6. Unified law containing all provisions           No          Yes                  Complete. The Project designed a
rationalized through a      affecting tax liability presented – yes or no                                    comprehensive tax reform program (CTRP),
unified Tax Code that                                                                                        which was submitted to the MOF in February
contains all relevant                                                                                        2007. Government counterparts completed


15
USAID Funded – Jordan Fiscal reform Project                                                                                                  15
Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
July 2009
Result                 Indicator(s)                                  Baseline   Targets   Actual

and up-to-date tax                                                                        their extensive review of recommendations
legislation                                                                               provided in the CTRP in late 2007. The
                                                                                          drafting of the Tax Code was completed in
                                                                                          June 2008 and was presented to the Ministry
                                                                                          of Finance.
                                                                                          The measure has been completed as the
                                                                                          draft tax code has been presented to the
                                                                                          Ministry of Finance and it was presented to
                                                                                          the Cabinet in July, 2008. A revised unified
                                                                                          tax code was presented to the Minister of
                                                                                          Finance and Transmitted to Cabinet in April
                                                                                          2009. While the Project will continue efforts
                                                                                          to generate support for this initiative, whether
                                                                                          the draft approved by Parliament is largely
                                                                                          dependent on political decisions that are
                                                                                          outside the control of the Project.
                       7. Recommendations presented on the           No         Yes       Yes. Completion date: February, 2007.
                          harmonization of the tax administration                         The CTRP provides numerous
                          procedures code – yes or no                                     recommendations on how to harmonize tax
                                                                                          administration provisions in areas such as
                                                                                          filing and record-keeping requirements,
                                                                                          audits and appeals. These recommendations
                                                                                          were reviewed and approved by the GOJ's
                                                                                          Tax Administration Expert Group in the latter
                                                                                          half of 2007.
                                                                                          For verification refer to VI. Legal Framework
                                                                                          section of the CTRP report and the
                                                                                          Cumulative Expert Group Report.
                       8. Recommendations presented on unified       No         Yes       Yes. Completion date: February, 2007.
                          tax administration procedures code – yes                        To decrease taxpayer compliance burdens
                          or no                                                           and reduce tax administration costs the
                                                                                          CTRP recommends that all tax administration
                                                                                          provisions be included in a Tax
                                                                                          Administration section of the Tax Code.
                                                                                          Under the current system tax administration

16
USAID Funded – Jordan Fiscal reform Project                                                                                 16
Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
July 2009
Result                   Indicator(s)                                      Baseline   Targets                 Actual

                                                                                                              provisions are included in multiple tax laws.
                                                                                                              For verification refer to VII. Tax
                                                                                                              Administration Framework section of the
                                                                                                              CTRP report and the Cumulative Expert
                                                                                                              Group Report.
Functioning, competent   9. Milestone indicator for establishing Tax       No         June 2007 – Step 2      June, 2007 – steps 1 and 2 completed.
tax policy unit             Policy Unit (the Milestone is described in                June 2008 – Step 4      January, 2008 – steps 3 and 4 completed.
established                 the Appendix)                                             June 2009 – Step 7      June, 2008 – steps 6 and 7 completed
Quality of tax policy    10. Score from training application and value     No score   June, 2007 – 3 points   Training is ongoing. Training work plan has
analysis is improved         matrix                                                   for each matrix         been developed and training is ongoing.
                                                                                      component category      Initial training needs analysis was performed
                                                                                      June, 2008 – 3 points   in October of 2008. Final training success
                                                                                      for each matrix         analysis to be completed in September 2009.
                                                                                      component               Chances of successful completion are
                                                                                      June, 2009 – 3 points   excellent.
                                                                                      for each matrix
                                                                                      component
                         11. Number of reports developed by the TPU        0          June, 2007 – 5          TPU staff participate in:
                             and submitted to either the Minister or the              June, 2008 – 10         monthly publications on revenue and
                             public                                                   June, 2009 – 20         economy monitoring and forecasting
                                                                                                              daily memos on a wide range of topics
                                                                                                              reports to the Minister, as requested.
                                                                                                              Some reports come from individuals while
                                                                                                              others are delivered under the name of the
                                                                                                              research Department which oversees the
                                                                                                              work of TPU staff. Accordingly it is difficult to
                                                                                                              count the number of reports specifically
                                                                                                              attributable to the TPU, but they contributed
                                                                                                              to many more than 20 reports.
                         12. Number of macro and micro simulation          0          June, 2007 – 2          2007 – 4,
                             models, statistical, and forecasting tools               June, 2008 – 4          2008 – 8,
                             utilized by TPU                                          June, 2009 – 7          2009 projected - 9.
                                                                                                              Two additional models scheduled for delivery
                                                                                                              in the following 3 months. Verified through


17
USAID Funded – Jordan Fiscal reform Project                                                                                                       17
Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
July 2009
Result                    Indicator(s)                                  Baseline      Targets                    Actual

                                                                                                                 discussions with the TPU staff.

 Tax Administration
 Tax collection process    13. New measure: Tax collection process is    no            June 2009: yes             June 2009: for Stop Filer Section completed
 is automated                  automated, yes or no                                                               and LTO operational. MTO’s ready to take on
                                                                                                                  pending main frame technical updates. It is
                                                                                                                  expected that the process will be completed
                                                                                                                  next year.
 Tax collection process    14. Number of ways taxpayers can pay has      1 – pay in    Nov, 2007 – 2              As of Nov, 2007 :2 -- taxpayer can pay at
 is automated                  increased                                 tax office    June, 2009 – 4 (office,    office or banks ( 4 banks are participating),
                                                                                       banks, credit card, on-    June, 2009 – 4 (office, banks, credit card, on-
                                                                                       line)                      line).
 Tax collection process    15. Number of days needed to issue demand     30 45 days    5 days automated           5 days automated
 is automated                  for payment for Income Tax due
 Tax collection process    16. Number of steps necessary to process      9 steps       6 steps – June, 2009       Assessment of Department made, Business
 is automated                  enforced collection case to resolution                                             process analysis completed, automation and
                                                                                                                  expedited process recommended. Partly
                                                                                                                  achieved for Stop Filer regime only
 Tax collection process    17. Number of days necessary to process       6 months      3 months – June 2009       All of these Collection function measures will
 is automated                  enforced collection case to resolution                                             be impacted favorably by the successful
                                                                                                                  implementation of the pilot Enforced
                                                                                                                  Collection Division. Target expected to be
                                                                                                                  achieved in October 2009.
 Audit function is         18. Number of manual steps necessary to       6             Nov, 2007 – 5              Nov, 2007 – 5
 automated                     assign a case to audit and schedule an                  June, 2009 – 4             June 2009 – 3
                               audit appointment                                                                  Initial selection of case automated, automatic
                                                                                                                  distribution of cases from main offices to
                                                                                                                  Districts automated according to ranking
                                                                                                                  criteria. Automated Risk Selection System in
                                                                                                                  place, distribution to Districts automated
                                                                                                                  under new ranking system. Program deemed
                                                                                                                  success as it also identifies those cases who
                                                                                                                  do not require audit and can be accepted as


18
USAID Funded – Jordan Fiscal reform Project                                                                                                        18
Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
July 2009
Result                      Indicator(s)                                      Baseline          Targets                 Actual

                                                                                                                         filed.



 Audit function is           19. Scorecard on automation of post-audit         .25               June, 2007 – 0.50       June, 2009: 1.00
 automated                       reporting process (scorecard is presented                       June, 2008 – 1.00       Management Information System for Audit
                                 in the Appendix C)                                                                      activities proposed, accepted. Reporting
                                                                                                                         template in place, standard language
                                                                                                                         accepted. Reports for periodic issuance
                                                                                                                         have been developed to measure results,
                                                                                                                         inventory, track resources.
 Effective internal audit    20. Scorecard on effectiveness of Internal        0.0               June, 2007 – 0.0        June, 2009 -- 1.0
 capability using “best          Audit function (scorecard is presented in                       June, 2008 – 0.75       Final training given in March 2009 Internal
 practice” auditing              the Appendix C)                                                 June, 2009 – 1.00       Audit Division now equipped to carryout
 methods established                                                                                                     system audit and the staff are gradually
 (Task start in June, 07)                                                                                                putting into practice the methodology learned
                                                                                                                         during the training.
                             21. Level of public perception of integrity of    World bank        25% of respondents      Level of public perception of ethics is
                                 ISTD                                          survey            cite Improvement        increasing due to improved program audits
                                                                               showed                                    and enforcement of findings, which impacts
                                                                               that there                                the way ISTD does business with the public.
                                                                               is very little                            The cost of surveys would be excessive
                                                                               bribery of
                                                                               tax officials
                                                                               in Jordan
                                                                               compared
                                                                               with other
                                                                               countries.
 Effective internal audit    22. Number of program audits performed            -0-               3 by September,         4 Completed by December 2008.
 capability using “best                                                                          2008
 practice” auditing                                                            -0-               4 by September, 2008    On average each audit made 5
                             23. Number of program/process
 methods established                                                                                                     recommendations to improve processes and
                                 adjustments/findings proposed
                                                                                                                         procedures



19
USAID Funded – Jordan Fiscal reform Project                                                                                                             19
Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
July 2009
Result                      Indicator(s)                                  Baseline       Targets                    Actual


                             24. Level of management awareness on          -0-             All Directors aware of    Yes.
                                 internal audit function                                  new purpose of             Presentation to the Department Directors of
                                                                                          Internal Audit             the ISTD, June, 2008, explained the new
                                                                                                                     purpose and activity of the Internal Audit
                                                                                                                     function. Interviews will determine if directors
                                                                                                                     are aware. Follow up presentation carried out
                                                                                                                     in March 2009. Briefing document developed
                                                                                                                     for the Directorate for issue to Managers prior
                                                                                                                     to the audit taking place to explain the role
                                                                                                                     and responsibilities of the Internal Audit
                                                                                                                     Division.
                                                                                                                     Central Civil Service ethics Code retained as
                                                                                                                     the ISTD Code.
 Procedures for tax          25. Number of procedures for a customer to    Taxpayer       4 ways to interact with    Achieved. Taxpayer now has four ways to
 payers to ask questions         interact with Taxpayer Service            had one        Taxpayer service           interact with the ISTD, (Website and e-filing,
 and receive answers             Department in ISTD                        way to ask     Department                 call center, mail inquiry and in person,
 from Taxpayer Service                                                     questions                                 Training (mentioned above) has also
 Department simplified                                                     and receive                               increased the ability of Customer Service
                                                                           answers                                   personnel to answer questions promptly.
                                                                           from the
                                                                           ISTD
Budget Management
A comprehensive             26. Degree of compliance of the new budget    0              June, 2007 – 100%          The task has successfully completed.
central budget that             classification structure and chart of                                               FY2008 budget prepared according to the
utilizes a classification       accounts with GFS2001 standards                                                     GFS2001 compliant classification structure
system which meets              (assessment of economic and functional                                              was approved by legislature. The economic
international standards         structure compliance)                                                               and functional classifications in the new
                                                                                                                    budget classification structure are compliant
                                                                                                                    with GFS2001 standards.
                                                                                                                    Budget user ministries and departments are
                                                                                                                    using the new classification standards in
                                                                                                                    implementing the FY2008 budget and
                                                                                                                    presenting the reports on budget execution
                                                                                                                    and financial operations. Standard

20
USAID Funded – Jordan Fiscal reform Project                                                                                                           20
Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
July 2009
Result                 Indicator(s)                                   Baseline   Targets             Actual

                                                                                                     classification structure is now in use for
                                                                                                     budget management and accounting
                                                                                                     purposes.
                                                                                                     The new classification structure provides
                                                                                                     framework to manage the implementation of
                                                                                                     ROB and to monitor the budget performance
                                                                                                     from function, agency, program, project,
                                                                                                     economic and geographic location
                                                                                                     perspectives.
                                                                                                      In Fall 2008 additional work was completed
                                                                                                     to extend the GFSM2001 compliant budget
                                                                                                     classification structures to independent
                                                                                                     institutions.
                                                                                                     The new budget classification structure and
                                                                                                     consistent Chart of Accounts forms a basis
                                                                                                     to build the accounting and reporting
                                                                                                     framework in GFMIS.
                       27. Percent of a ministry expenditure          0          June, 2007 – 0%     Jan 2008 - 98%
                           expressed in programmatic terms (as                   June, 2008 – 0%     More work is needed in many Ministries in
                           opposed to line-item terms) in the pilot              June, 2009 – 100%   developing a program structure that relates
                           ministries                                                                more clearly to major public service
                                                                                                     deliverables.
                                                                                                     The 2008 and 2009 budgets presented to
                                                                                                     Parliament continued the use of significant
                                                                                                     (excessive) line-item detail, but, in a change
                                                                                                     from previous years,this was a secondary
                                                                                                     classification within programs. As of this
                                                                                                     writing, the proposed format for the main
                                                                                                     document to be presented to the COM and
                                                                                                     Parliament for the 2010 budget reduces line-
                                                                                                     item detail, and adds:
                                                                                                               More program narrative;
                                                                                                               Manpower counts by staff level
                                                                                                               group; and


21
USAID Funded – Jordan Fiscal reform Project                                                                                            21
Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
July 2009
Result                    Indicator(s)                                    Baseline   Targets            Actual

                                                                                                                 (where relevant) service distribution
                                                                                                                 information among governorates.
Integrated database of    28. Percentage of treasury/budget-funded        0          June, 2007 – 0%    Jan 2008 – 80%
all planned and funded        investment projects included in the                    June, 2009– 100%   June, 2008 – 85%
investment projects           database                                                                  June, 2009 – 100%
established and
includes treasury- and
donor-financed projects
                          29. Percentage of the new projects in the       0          June, 2007 – 0     Jan 2008 – 0%
                              budget subjected to cost-benefit or cost-              June, 2008 – 5%    June, 2008 – 0%
                              effectiveness analysis                                 June, 2009 – 10%   June, 2009 – 0%
                                                                                                        While discussions with budget analysts
                                                                                                        reveal that some are asking the types of
                                                                                                        questions that are basic to cost-benefit or
                                                                                                        cost-effectiveness analysis, formal write-ups
                                                                                                        of results are scarce and do not appear in the
                                                                                                        published budget materials. In view of the
                                                                                                        time requirements on GBD during 2009 for
                                                                                                        getting improved program narrative and
                                                                                                        developing GFMIS, no additional general
                                                                                                        formal training in cost-benefit or cost-
                                                                                                        effectiveness analysis was held. The Budget
                                                                                                        Advisor at the beginning the year had
                                                                                                        suggested a more individualized training
                                                                                                        method using a case study approach in which
                                                                                                        analysts would be assigned specific issues-
                                                                                                        projects-or current activities to evaluate, but
                                                                                                        this was not pursued by the GBD because of
                                                                                                        time pressures for getting other tasks
                                                                                                        completed (primarily GFMIS development
                                                                                                        and getting improved ministry program
                                                                                                        narrative and other budget format changes
                                                                                                        started).




22
USAID Funded – Jordan Fiscal reform Project                                                                                                22
Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
July 2009
Result                     Indicator(s)                                      Baseline       Targets                  Actual

Explanation                The timing and technique for training of the budget staff in cost-benefit techniques has been revised to obtain a more effective result
                           and ensure implementation of other priority activities. A case study approach working with individual analysts on assigned “live”
                           issues, projects, or activities is the preferred training method.
                           The later date for achieving training targets will mean that evaluation and cost-benefit/effectiveness analyses will be deferred until the
                           2011 budget (completed by end of December 2010).
                           30. Number of people trained that                     0           June, 2007 –0%            Jan 2008 – 0% (revised plan)
                               successfully pass post-training evaluation                    June, 2008 – 0%           June, 2008 – 0% (revised plan)
                                                                                             June, 2009 – 90%          June, 2009 – 0% (revised plan)
                                                                                                                       (See Above).
                           31. Level of satisfaction of the end-users with       0           June, 2007 – 0%           Jan 2008 – 0%
                               user-friendliness of the database                             June, 2008 – 25%          Since the current projects database will be
                                                                                             June, 2009 – 70%          replaced by a GFMIS module, this
                                                                                                                       questionnaire will be delayed until the module
                                                                                                                       is completed and tested (Fall 2009)
Improved decisions on      32. Percent of new projects presented for             0           June, 2007 – 0%           Jan 2008 – 0%
capital budget utilizing       budget decision-making which includes                         June, 2008 – 0%           June, 2008 – 0%
cost-benefit analysis          cost-benefit analysis or other project                        June, 2009 – 5-10%        June, 2009 – 0%
and other techniques           evaluation techniques                                                                   (See above Explanation for # 28)

                           33. Degree to which National Agenda               0              June, 2007 – 0           Very little narrative was provided in the 2008
                               priorities are reflected in the budget                       June, 2008 – 5%          and 2009 budgets for programs or projects.
                               (Percent of projects presented for budget                    June, 2009 – 10%         However, as indicated in above sections
                               decision-making which includes specific                                               changes are underway for the 2010
                               reference for the National Agenda)                                                    document to revise the format of the 2010
                                                                                                                     budget to reduce the amount of line-item
                                                                                                                     spending detail and add more policy-focused
                                                                                                                     explanatory material. Senior officials in the
                                                                                                                     GBD traveled to Australia in June 2008 and
                                                                                                                     witnessed the emphasis on policy-focused
                                                                                                                     explanatory material in the budget materials
                                                                                                                     prepared by Australia’s ministries.
The central budget is      34. Budget is based on GFMIS-generated            No             June, 2007 – No          GFMIS final Acceptance Tests are scheduled
reflective of better           budget data – yes or no                                      June, 2008 – No          to complete in January 2010. The system will
informed policy                                                                             June, 2009 – Yes         be used to prepare FY2011 budget during
decisions regarding                                                                                                  May to Oct 2010. In the meantime FY2010

23
USAID Funded – Jordan Fiscal reform Project                                                                                                             23
Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
July 2009
Result                  Indicator(s)                                     Baseline   Targets            Actual

government allocation                                                                                  budget will be prepared using the data
of resources                                                                                           generated from the existing systems.
                        35. Capital budget database provides             No         June, 2007 – No    Jan 2008 – Yes(F), Partial (PP), No (PSR)
                            updated and accurate information                        June, 2008 – No    June, 2008 – Yes (F), Partial (PP), No (PSR)
                            financial (F)and physical progress (PP) or              June, 2009 – Yes   June, 2009- Yes (F), Partial (PP), No (PSR)
                            public service results (PSR) – yes or no                                   Many projects in the Capital Budget are not
                                                                                                       capital projects. Information on the results of
                                                                                                       that spending is scarce.
                        36. Budget decisions are presented in            No         June, 2007 – No    Jan 2008 – Yes But Format Not User
                            programmatic terms – yes or no                          June, 2008 – No    Friendly and Program Structure in Some
                                                                                    June, 2009 – Yes   Ministries Needs Adjustment
                                                                                                       June, 2008 – Yes , But Format Not User
                                                                                                       Friendly and Program Structure in many
                                                                                                       Ministries Needs Adjustment
                                                                                                       June, 2009– Yes , But Format Not User
                                                                                                       Friendly and Program Structure in many
                                                                                                       Ministries Needs Adjustment
                                                                                                       Changes are in process for the 2010 budget.

PMO is successful in    37. Milestone scale for GFMIS                    0          Step 9             Step 9.
the implementation of       implementation (Milestones are presented                                   PMO has been established. Project Manager,
GFMIS in pilot sites        in the Appendix B)                                                         Functional Team Leader, and IT Team Leader
                                                                                                       are now on board. A local consulting firm was
                                                                                                       engaged through a sub-contract to lead the
                                                                                                       Change Management component. The
                                                                                                       government signed the contract with the
                                                                                                       winning bidder on 8 March 2008.
                        Step 1 – Appoint full-time Project Manager                                     The Project Manager assumed his role on 15
                                                                                                       November 2007.
                        Step 2 – Obtain Cabinet approval for GFMIS                                     Cabinet approved the project and
                        project                                                                        establishment of the Steering Committee, the
                                                                                                       Special Tender Committee and the Project
                                                                                                       Management Office on 10 October 2006.
                        Step 3 – Revise RFP                                                            Completed the RFP revision in November


24
USAID Funded – Jordan Fiscal reform Project                                                                                              24
Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
July 2009
Result                     Indicator(s)                                    Baseline   Targets                 Actual

                                                                                                              2006 and the Special Tender Committee
                                                                                                              approved the revised RFP on 21 December
                                                                                                              2006.
                           Step 4 – Invite Expressions of Interest                                            Invited applications for pre-qualification
                                                                                                              through local and international media in
                                                                                                              September 2006. Completed the short-listing
                                                                                                              of 7 international consortia on 17 December
                                                                                                              2006. The Minister of Finance approved the
                                                                                                              short-list on 24 February 2007.
                           Step 5 – Release RFP to short-listed                                               Released the RFP to the seven short-listed
                           Suppliers                                                                          international consortia on 25 February 2007.
                           Step 6 – Complete evaluation of proposals                                          Submitted the Final evaluation report to the
                                                                                                              Special Tender Committee on 21 November
                                                                                                              2007. The Minister of Finance approved the
                                                                                                              recommendations on 28 Nov 2007.
                           Step 9 – Award contract to the winning bidder                                      Signed contract with the winning bidder on 8
                                                                                                              March 2008.
                           Step 10 – Project Startup                                                          The PMO and the GFMIS contractor
                                                                                                              commenced the joint activities concerning the
                                                                                                              project implementation on March 2008.
An amended budget          38. Milestone scale for amendment of budget     0          June, 2007 – 0           Jan 2008 – Step 1
law consistent with            law (Milestone is presented in the                     June, 2008 – Step 2      June 2008, Step 2
international best             Appendix C)                                            July, 2008-Step 3        June, 2009, Step 5
practices permitting the                                                              Aug, 2008- Step 4        Ratification of a new Organic Budget Law by
implementation of ROB,                                                                Sept, 2008-Step 5        Parliament was achieved in Fall 2008.
GFMIS, and other                                                                      (See Milestone Scale
related reforms                                                                       3.1 in Appendix B)
                           39. Scorecard assessing the new law against     0          June 2007 – 0           Jan 2008 – 20%
                               the requirements (Scorecard is presented               June 2008 – 100%        June 1 2009 – 80%
                               in the Appendix C)                                     See milestone scale      The adopted law is weak in specifying the
                                                                                      3.3 for assessment of   roles and responsibilities of organizations
                                                                                      the Budget Law.         receiving funds. It is primarily internally
                                                                                                              focused on GBD authorities.



25
USAID Funded – Jordan Fiscal reform Project                                                                                                    25
Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
July 2009
Result                 Indicator(s)                                   Baseline   Targets             Actual

                       40. Compatibility and / or linkages with the   0          June 2007 – 0       While significant progress has been made
                           other 3 laws that govern the financial                June 2008 – 33%     since project inception in achieving
                           management of the government will be                  June 2009 – 100%    compatibility/integration of processes,
                           assessed                                                                  additional efforts should be made as the
                                                                                                     capabilities of GFMIS are discovered.

Public Awareness
Improved information   41. Number of briefings between the MOF        0          2007 – 4 meetings   2007: 0.
flow between the MOF       and the members of the Government and                 2008 – 6            2008: 6.
and the Parliament         Parliament                                            2009 – 6            2009: 8.
                                                                                                     After many delays, public affairs
                                                                                                     responsibilities have been taken on by Senior
                                                                                                     Management in MOF. A draft tax code was
                                                                                                     presented to Cabinet in July 2008. A revised
                                                                                                     Tax Code was presented to Cabinet in April
                                                                                                     2009, core aspects of which were submitted
                                                                                                     to Parliament in June 2009. The Ministry has
                                                                                                     undertaken a number of briefings for the PM,
                                                                                                     key Cabinet Ministers, and the Cabinet.
                                                                                                     Briefings for Parliament took place prior to
                                                                                                     transmittal of the draft to Parliament.
                       42. Score on Press Releases issued by the      3          2007 – 4            2007: 4
                           counterparts which reflect the                        2008 – 5            2009: 5
                           process/information flow, weighted by                 2009 – 5            With MOF senior management taking
                           Clipping Quality Reporting scheme (the                                    responsibility for public affairs and
                           indicator is discussed in detail in                                       considerable assistance from the Project, the
                           Appendix B)                                                               quantity, quality and consistency of press
                                                                                                     releases has increased dramatically. The
                                                                                                     sudden increase in the number of press
                                                                                                     releases and newspaper articles made it
                                                                                                     impossible to systematically apply the criteria
                                                                                                     in the Appendix but many articles were
                                                                                                     published meeting the criteria.




26
USAID Funded – Jordan Fiscal reform Project                                                                                            26
Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
July 2009
Improved public         43. Number of calls received by ISTD Call   3,050    2007 – 3,500    2007: 3,750
awareness of tax-law        Centers and visits to Customer Care              2008 – 4,000    2009: 25,000
related issues              Centers                                          2009 – 4,000
Increased public        44. Number of filers who have filed their   60,063   2007 – 65,000   2007: 65,000
awareness of benefits       income tax                                       2008 – 70,000   2008: 78,694
of tax compliance                                                            2009 – 75,000   2009 78,000 to date
                                                                                             The income tax filing season public education
                                                                                             campaign resulted in an increase of income
                                                                                             tax filers




27
USAID Funded – Jordan Fiscal reform Project                                                                                  27
Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
July 2009


APPENDIX C: SCORING METHODOLOGY FOR SELECTED
INDICATORS

1. Tax Policy Indicators

   1.1   Milestone scale for establishing Fiscal Policy Unit (FPU)

Step 1:        Strategic plan to establish FPU established
Step 2: MOF adopts strategic plan to establish TPU
Step 3: Personnel recruited in accordance with position requirements defined in strategic
plan
Step 4: Personnel trained in basic principles of FPU operations; training consistent with
requirements of each position
Step 5: FPU produces a tax expenditures report as part of the budget cycle
Step 6: Micro-simulation models developed for CIT and PIT; FPU personnel trained in their
use
Step 7: FPU assumes primary responsibility for revenue forecasting and tax policy analysis


2. Tax Administration Indicators

   2.1 Scorecard on automation of post-audit reporting process
Electronic-based archiving

Reporting Template in place

Standardized Language by Issue exists and is utilized

Automated delivery of reports


Scoring: Each of the score-items above gets 1 point. The final score will be assessed as a
ratio of points earned over the total possible points

Score = Number of points earned
  Total possible points


    2.2   Scorecard on Effectiveness of Internal Audit function Security
Ethics Manual in place

Recurring ethics training scheduled

Hot-line for anonymous reporting in place

Identified Ethics Officer

28
USAID Funded – Jordan Fiscal reform Project




                                                                                      28
Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
July 2009



Scoring: Each of the score-items above gets 1 point. The final score will be assessed as a
ratio of points earned over the total possible points

Score = Number of points earned
  Total possible points

3. Budget Management Indicators

   3.1     Milestone scale for amendment of budget law
Step 1:         Create Task Force for revision of the Budget Organization Law of 1963.
Step 2:         Draft new Organic Budget Law consistent with international practices
Step 3:         Collaborative review of the new Organic Budget Law by MOF, GBD, Auditor
General Office and selected key ministries.
Step 4: Presentation of the new Law to Cabinet for deliberation
Step 5: Ratification of the new Organic Budget Law by the parliament


   3.2     Milestone scale for GFMIS implementation
Step 1:       Appoint full-time Project Manager
Step 2:       Obtain Cabinet approval for GFMIS project
Step 3:       Revise RFP
Step 4:       Invite Expressions of Interest
Step 5:       Release RFP to the short-listed Suppliers
Step 6:       Complete evaluation of proposals
Step 9:       Award Contract to the winning bidder
Step 10:              Project startup

   3.3     Scorecard for assessment of the new budget law

The new law presents and discusses the long-term policies that are to be followed in
addressing the national priorities and the MTEF

The new law presents and discusses the roles and responsibilities of the public sector
organizations that receive budget funds and thus must adhere to the requirements of the
budget process

The new law requires the description of the programs that are to be conducted by the
government organizations in order to implement the Government’s policies and priorities

The new law requires the description of the goals and objectives for each program as well as
ways in which the progress of those programs can be measured

The new law requires the provision of information about the previous year, the coming year,
and 2-3 future years, and it will require the provision of information (as relevant) for more
previous years and/or more future years, according to the nature of the program or activity
for which funds are requested.

29
USAID Funded – Jordan Fiscal reform Project




                                                                                        29
Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
July 2009



Scoring: Each of the score-items above gets 1 point. The final score will be assessed as a
ratio of points earned (one point for each checked box) over the total possible points

Score = Number of points earned
  Total possible points




30
USAID Funded – Jordan Fiscal reform Project




                                                                                      30
Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
July 2009


4. Public Outreach Indicators

The methodology for collecting and monitoring the number of press releases issued, and
published, in local newspapers by counterparts will be as follows:

A score [see point system below] will be awarded to each press release based on:
Placement which represents position on the page
Number of core messages mentioned (two or more).
Number of times ISTD and/or MOF are mentioned in Headline.
Number of times ISTD and/or MOF are mentioned in the first paragraph.
Number of quotes made by ISTD/ MOF spokesperson
Usage of photos or graphics in pres releases

The scoring system is based on a maximum of 30 points.
Articles with a monthly average score of 30 and above are considered excellent (Score
Weight 5)
Articles with a monthly average score of25 – 30 are considered very good (Score Weight 4)
Articles with a monthly average score of 15-25 are considered adequate (Score weight 3)
Articles scoring less than 15 are poor.




31
USAID Funded – Jordan Fiscal reform Project




                                                                                    31
JORDAN FISCAL REFORM PROJECT
P.O. BOX 840126 |     AMMAN 11181 JORDAN
TEL: 00962 6 592 2819 |   FAX: 00962 6 592 2893

								
To top