INDICATOR PASSPORT

For measurement of Outcome-level indicators of the Cross-cutting Public Administration reform

Strategy 2015-2020 of Albania

The purpose of the following Indicator Passport is to provide the detailed methodological description of
measurement for all Output-level indicators that are included into the adopted Public Administration
Reform Strategy 2015-20120 of Albania1.
The document covers only the so-called Output-level (or Performance) indicators, those that are
developed for measuring progress against the set objectives of the Strategy. The naming and numbering
of the indicators in this document is identical to that in the adopted Strategy (Page 35-28).
For each indicator the following elements are included:
 The source of information (data) that serves as the basis of measurement of the indicator;
 The institution responsible for gathering data for the measurement of the indicator (and
providing the information for reporting/monitoring purposes). This assigned responsibility also
includes the accountability for the validity/quality of the data;
 The frequency of the data publication (and/or data gathering);
 A methodological description of the measurement method, allowing for external checking and
better understanding of how certain indicator values were developed;
 The baseline and target values (the latter as set in the adopted PAR Strategy).

The information included in the following Indicator Passport was developed in full co-operation with the
responsible institutions, based on the information provided by the responsible institutions and their
formulation bears the full consent of all responsible institution.

As for the start of measuring some of the indicators additional steps need to be taken (i.e. adoption of
guidelines and instructions, designing/contracting measurement services, additional prior data
collection, etc.) this Indicator Passport is supplemented with a separate document that lists these
necessary steps as well as the deadline of their delivery as provided by the responsible institutions.

1
As approved by the Decision of the Council of Ministers No. 319 (15.04.2015.)
2 Rue André Pascal This document has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union. It should not be reported as
75775 Paris Cedex 16 representing the official views of the EU, the OECD or its member countries, or of beneficiaries participating in the SIGMA
France Programme. The opinions expressed and arguments employed are those of the author(s).
mailto:[email protected] This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the
Tel: +33 (0) 1 45 24 82 00 delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.
Fax: +33 (0) 1 45 24 13 05
www.sigmaweb.org
1.a
Title of Indicator 100% of strategic regulatory framework drafted and implemented
The corresponding general Objective 1 - Improved planning and coordination policies to draft government
or specific objective strategic documents, which turn priorities into concrete actions.
Source of data for
monitoring of performance Evaluation reports prepared by the Strategic Planning Unit
indicator
Institution responsible for
Department of Programming, Development and Foreign Aid
gathering data
Frequency of data
Annually
publication
The indicator will be measured with two separate indicators:
1) Ratio of Strategic Regulatory Framework drafted

RSRFD= Number of SRF Drafted

Total number planned
The Type of documents to be considered as part of SRF are: (i) strategies; (ii)
policy documents;

A brief description of the 2) RSFDI= Strategic Regulatory Framework implemented

methodology
RSRFD= Overall average level of implementation ratio

The indicator will be calculated as an average ratio of individual

implementation ratios of each document and will be calculated based on
individual progress made under each of the policy document/strategy.
For the strategies the implementation will be measured through the
monitoring of the respective action plan. The same will apply for policy
documents.
Information on baseline Year 2015
values Baseline value
Year 2017 2020
Information on target values
Indicator value 100% 100%

2
1.b
Title of Indicator 100% of sector strategies and quality finished (with the action plan costing and set
of indicators with corresponding goals)
The corresponding
Objective 1 - Improved planning and coordination policies to draft government
general or specific
strategic documents, which turn priorities into concrete actions.
objective
Source of data for
monitoring of Evaluation report prepared by the Strategic Planning Unit
performance indicator
Institution responsible
Department of Programming, Development and Foreign Aid
for gathering data
Frequency of data
Annually
publication
A brief description of The indicator is calculated by dividing the total number of sector strategies drafted
the methodology in one year, that are assessed of good quality and that include a clear costing plan
and a clear list of monitoring indicators that are linked with the objectives of the
strategy, with the total number of strategies drafted in one year.

Formula:
RQS = Number of Strategies meeting the quality criteria x 100
Total number of strategies approved in one year

The overall quality will be evaluated through assessing each of the sections of the
drafted strategy document, as per the requirements set out in the PM Order for
drafting strategic documents.
For each section/elements a two-point assessment is used: one point if an element
is drafted, but does not satisfy the requirement established in the instructions and a
maximum of two points is granted if all requirements are met. The overall scores of
the assessment of the document will be a sum of all individual sections of the draft
strategy.
The elements that will be evaluated are as follow:
First: Introduction
 The information provided explain the role of the document in the overall IPS process
 The process of development of the strategy is clearly presented
 The extent to which the major stakeholders have been involved in the drafting process and the
document been consulted with them
Chapter 1: Overall Analyses of the Situation
 The degree to which the target groups /institutions have been identified
 Is the situation analysis sufficiently comprehensive? Are the problems of the target groups sufficiently
presented and analysed?
 The extent to which the document is presenting the progress made in the sector in terms of achieving
government policy objectives in relation to EU integration process
 The extent to which the sector strategy is based on a detailed ‘gaps analysis’ (legislative, social,
economic analyses) and is evidenced based
Chapter 2: Vision, strategic policies, mid – term and short-term goals
 The extent to which the Vision Statement express the clearly vision of the government for the sector.
The extent to which the vision clearly addresses the question: „How we would like the sector to be in
2020?’’.
 The extent to which the strategic priorities are clearly articulating the main areas in which the
government will focus the actions in the sector aiming to reach the established Vision
 The extent to which the policy goals are clearly drafted; the extent to which the policy goals are linked
to the policy areas covered by the strategy
 The extent to which the policy goals have clear outcome indicators established (SMART) and which are
fully affected by the activity of the sector
Chapter 3: Strategic Polices and Strategic Objectives
 The extent to which strategic policies are well defined and elaborated
 Are the strategic objectives drafted according to SMART criteria?
 Are the strategic objectives supported by well-defined outcome indicators?

Chapter 4: Financial cost and source of financing

 The extent to which costing includes calculations of all potential incremental costs required to

3
 implement the strategy. The extent to which costing is realistic and based on the implementation of the
potential costs for implementation of the actions and delivery of planned outputs
 The extent to which financial resources are well identified
 The extent to which the budget contribution is well presented and is accurate
 The extent to which a mid-term financial plan is developed
Chapter 5: Accountability, Monitoring and Evaluation
 The extent to which the monitoring system is well designed
 The extent to which a clear monitoring and reporting system is design
 The extent to which the institutional set up for monitoring is clearly developed
Chapter 6: Action Plan for Implementation of the Strategy
 Implementation Plan is broken down into individual measures/activities defined per each objective
 Responsible structure for implementation of the actions are established in the A/P
 Time-lines are well defined within the time-frame of implementation of the strategies
 Other institutions involved in the implementation of the actions are defined in the plan
 Source of verification are clearly indicated

An average quality score will be calculated which will indicate the average level of
the quality of strategic document submitted for approval to the Council of Ministers
(CoM) within a calendar year.

AQAL = Σ Average Score of all Draft Strategies

Number of Strategies Reviewed

Information on baseline Year 2015

values Baseline value
Information on target Year 2017 2020
values Indicator value 100% 100%

4
1.c
Title of Indicator 70% of policy-making staff of LM trained, at least, once on issues of strategic
planning
The corresponding
Objective 1 - Improved planning and coordination policies to draft government
general or specific
strategic documents, which turn priorities into concrete actions.
objective
Source of data for
monitoring of Evaluation reports prepared by the Strategic Planning Unit
performance indicator
Institution responsible Department of Programming, Development and Foreign Aid / Albanian School of
for gathering data Public Administration
Frequency of data
Annually
publication
The ratio provides the share of staff working in the policy making units in the Line
Ministries who receive at least one training and it is calculated by dividing all
ministerial staff trained on issues of strategic planning by the total ministerial staff
dealing with policymaking/strategy development

Formula:
TPolicy Making= ∑ Number of staff trained on strategic planning per ministry in a year x 100
∑ Total number of staff dealing with policy planning

A brief description of Distribution of staff will be reported as per the following categorization:
 General Director
the methodology  Director of Department
 Head of Sector
 Specialist

Training Courses to be provided by ASPA related to strategic planning are:

 IPS Management System
 Management Cycle of Public Policies and Strategies
 Policy Impact Assessment (PIA)
 Monitoring system of strategies and public policies
 Advanced Training on the MTBP and the Annual Budget Preparation

Information on baseline Year 2015

values Baseline value
Information on target Year 2017 2020
values Indicator value 50% 70%

5
1.d
Improvement of Transparency Index during the policy-making process by the
Title of Indicator
Government, according to the World Economic Forum
The corresponding
Objective 1 - Improved planning and coordination policies to draft government
general or specific
strategic documents, which turn priorities into concrete actions.
objective
Source of data for
monitoring of According to the WEF evaluation
performance indicator
Institution responsible Department of Programming, Development and Foreign Aid / Albanian School of
for gathering data Public Administration
Frequency of data
Annually
publication
For a detailed methodology please see: http://reports.weforum.org/global-
A brief description of
competitiveness-report-2014-2015/
the methodology

Information on baseline Year 2015

values Baseline value 4
Information on target Year 2017 2020
values Indicator value 5 6

6
2.a
Title of Indicator Quality of impact assessment analysis and evaluation of the implementation of
relevant drafted and published legal acts
The corresponding
Objective 2: Transparent and all-inclusive system of drafting laws, which is based on
general or specific
the policies and, which ensures alignment with the acquis
objective
Source of data for
monitoring of Progress reports drafted by the Programs and Legislation Monitoring Unit
performance indicator
Institution responsible
Programs and Legislation Monitoring Unit
for gathering data
Frequency of data
Annually
publication
A brief description of The current methodology for measuring this indicator is based on the quality criteria
the methodology developed by the Unit for Monitoring and Evaluation for assessing the quality of draft
legislation when submitted for approval to the CoM.
The current methodology defines 10 criteria as below with the respective scores:
Nr Quality Assessment Criteria Scores
1 Are the goal and specific objectives that must be achieved 10
The degree that the draft legal act is addressing and is linked with the Political Programme of the
2 15
Government. Links with Annual Legislative Agenda and other policy document.
Presentation of information related to priorities, analyses of sector-cross sector issues and
3 25
expected impact
The degree of compliance of the legality, constitutionality and harmonization with national and
4 10
international legislation in force
5 The degree of assessment of the level of approximation with acquis (for normative acts) 10
6 Clear summary of explanatory note of the draft legal act 2
7 Clear listing of the institutions and entities in charge of execution of the draft law 2
8 Persons contributing to preparation of the draft law 1
Information on fiscal impact assessment of the draft law in terms of public revenues and
9 25
expenditures
Total scores 100

The methodology includes also the quality assessment grades based on which the
overall quality of the policy impact assessment of the draft laws will be evaluated:
Very poor Poor Moderate Good Very good
Less than 30 31 to 40 41 to 60 61 to 80 More than 81

Based on such quality assessment grades the following indicator will be used:

IQA = ∑ Total Score of Assessment of the draft laws

Number of draft laws assessed

Information on baseline Year 2015

values Baseline value
Information on target Year 2017 2020
values Indicator value Growing trend Growing trend

7
 2.b
Title of Indicator Percentage of legal acts, which have passed through an extensive public consultation
process and evidences of involvement of the public and stakeholders in the process
The corresponding
Objective 2: Quality of impact assessment analysis and evaluation of the implementation
general or specific
of relevant drafted and published legal acts.
objective
Source of data for
Progress reports and reports drafted by the Programs and Legislation Monitoring Unit
monitoring of
/Minister of Relations with the Parliament
performance indicator
Institution responsible
Programs and Legislation Monitoring Unit /Minister of Relations with the Parliament
for gathering data
Frequency of data
Annually
publication
A brief description of the The evaluation is made based on the existence and level of information on fulfilment of
methodology requirements (criteria) established in the Law Nr. 146/2014 “For the Information and
Public Consultation”:
 Information on the publication of information into the government information systems2;
 Report on the public consultations held and stakeholders groups involved in consultation process;
 Report on the overall number of recommendations issued by interested groups and stakeholders;
 Information on the accepted/reflected comments versus submitted comments.
A two-point assessment is used: one point if evidence exists on fulfilment of the Law’s
requirements and one point if the information is comprehensive at the expected level.
0 1 2 3 4
None of the 1-3 4-5 6-7 8
elements met points points points points
No The draft laws The draft laws are The draft laws are The draft laws are published
information is are published published into the published into the into the government
provided for into the government government information information system,
public government information system, report on sufficient information is
consultation information system, no report stakeholders provided on extensive
system , but no on stakeholders involvement has been consultation with
stakeholders involvement has issued and sufficient stakeholders; sufficient
involvement been issued and evidence on their evidence on their feedback
has taken place no sufficient feedback is maintained, is maintained, a good
evidence on their but there is no degree of reflection of
feedback is information whether the stakeholders feedback is
maintained feedback is reflected reflected into the new draft
into the new draft

The measurement of the indicator will be done in two steps:

1. Index of Public Consultation for Draft Laws (IPCDL)= % of laws passed though the
consultation process ;
IPLDC = ∑ Number of Draft Laws passing the consultation process in a year x 100
∑ Total number of laws approved by the Government
2. Average assessment score of the quality of consultation process ( as per score’ scales
above)

Information on baseline Year 2015

values Baseline value
Information on target Year 2017 2020
values Indicator value Growing trend 100% of acts

2
The government information systems for information of the public and transparency includes: (i) electronic
register of draft legal acts; (ii) transparency programme;

8
2.c
Title of Indicator The number of legal acts as amended within the first year since the
adoption
The corresponding general or Objective 2: Quality of impact assessment analysis and evaluation of the
specific objective implementation of relevant drafted and published legal acts.
Source of data for monitoring Progress reports and reports drafted by the Programs and Legislation
of performance indicator Monitoring Unit /Minister of Relations with the Parliament
Institution responsible for Programs and Legislation Monitoring Unit /Minister of Relations with the
gathering data Parliament
Frequency of data publication Annually
A brief description of the This indicator is measured as number of changes made to the legal acts as
methodology amended within the first year of their adoption.
The period of “year” will be considered 365 calendar days, starting from the
date that the amended law has been enacted. (E.g. if a law is approved on 14
March 2015, then every amendment made to the law between 14 March
2015 to 14 March 2016 will be monitored. All laws passed from these date
will be monitored afterwards.)

Indicator on Legislation Amendments ( ILA)

ILA = Number of laws which have been amended within one year of their adoption.

Ratio of legislation changes during one year

RLA = Nr of laws which have been amended within reporting year of their adoption x 100%
Total Number of Laws adopted in reporting year

Year 2015
Information on baseline values
Baseline value
Year 2017 2020
Information on target values
Indicator value Decreasing trend Decreasing trend

9
3.a
Title of Indicator Percentage of monitoring and evaluation reports for important strategies
drafted and published annually
The corresponding general Objective 3: Building of an effective monitoring and evaluation system of
or specific objective strategies, programs and legal framework in force, based on the following: 1)
collection of data through a neutral and transparent process for drafting and
implementation of strategies, programs and legislation, and 2) drafting of
analysis to evaluate the effects generated by the implementation.
Source of data for
Reports prepared by the SPU / Department of Programming, Development and
monitoring of performance
Foreign Aid
indicator
Institution responsible for Department of Programming, Development and Foreign Aid/Programs and
gathering data Legislation Monitoring Unit
Frequency of data
Annually
publication
A brief description of the This index is calculated by dividing the total number of the strategies for which
methodology monitoring and evaluation reports are drafted and published in one year.
In case the monitoring and evaluation reports are drafted but not published the
Index will be broken in two levels:
Individual Formula:
RM&ERD = % of M&E Reports drafted and submitted for review in the IPMGs/SWGs

Number of M&E Reports drafted and discussed in IPMG/SWG x 100%

Total Number of Strategies

RM&ERP= % of M&E Reports published

Number of M&E Reports published x 100%

Total Number of Strategies

Aggregate Formula:
IM&ER = Number of M&E Reports drafted + Number of M&E Reports published x 100%
(Total Number of Strategies)*2

Note: The Strategies must envisage preparation of Annual M&E report. Some of them
include bi-annual reports, but for the purpose of monitoring of this indicator, only
Annual Reports will be considered.

Information on baseline Year 2015

values Baseline value
Information on target Year 2017 2020
values Indicator value Growing trend Growing trend

10
3.b
Title of Indicator The extent to which reporting provides information on the results achieved
(SIGMA indicator)
The corresponding Objective 3: Building of an effective monitoring and evaluation system of
general or specific strategies, programs and legal framework in force, based on the following: 1)
objective collection of data through a neutral and transparent process for drafting and
implementation of strategies, programs and legislation, and 2) drafting of analysis
to evaluate the effects generated by the implementation.
Source of data for
monitoring of SIGMA Evaluation Reports
performance indicator
Institution responsible for Department of Programming, Development and Foreign Aid/Programs and
gathering data Legislation Monitoring Unit
Frequency of data Bi-annually
publication
A brief description of the The evaluation is made based on the existence and level of information of regular
methodology reporting on following key Government central planning documents: 1) Budget
report; 2) Government Work Plan implementation report; 3) Legislative Plan
implementation report; 4) EI Plan implementation report; and 5) Implementation
reports of sector strategies.
A two-point assessment is used: one point if each type of regular report
document exists and one point if the document is comprehensive at the expected
level. A report is considered comprehensive if it covers both reporting on
implementation (output) and ample quality monitoring of outcomes. An
exception is made in the case of the Legislative Plan report and the EI report;
these reports are considered comprehensive even if outcome reporting is not in
place.

0 1 2 3 4 5
None of the elements 1-3 4-5 6-7 8-9 10
met points points points points points

Information on baseline Year 2014

values
Baseline value 3
Information on target Year 2017 2020
values Indicator value Growing trend Growing trend

11
3.c
Title of Indicator Number of public consultations /presentations held to discuss monitoring
and evaluation reports
The corresponding general or Objective 3: Building of an effective monitoring and evaluation system of
specific objective strategies, programs and legal framework in force, based on the following: 1)
collection of data through a neutral and transparent process for drafting and
implementation of strategies, programs and legislation, and 2) drafting of
analysis to evaluate the effects generated by the implementation.
Source of data for monitoring Website of the Government. Programs and Legislation Monitoring Unit
of performance indicator Reports
Institution responsible for
Programs and Legislation Monitoring Unit
gathering data
Frequency of data publication Annually
A brief description of the The indicator is the total number monitoring and evaluation reports that are
methodology available to the public.

Year 2015
Information on baseline values
Baseline value
Year 2017 2020
Information on target values
Indicator value Growing trend Growing trend

12
4.a
Title of Indicator The extent to which the structures of ministries and other institutions are
rational and coherent (SIGMA indicator)
The corresponding general or Objective 4: Strengthening the structures of public administration in order to
specific objective improve service delivery to the public.
Source of data for monitoring
SIGMA Evaluation Reports
of performance indicator
Institution responsible for
DoPA/Line Ministry
gathering data
Frequency of data publication Bi-annually
A brief description of the The methodology is based on an assessment that will meet 5 elements: 1)
methodology the regulations define the typology/types of all state organisations; 2) the
status of autonomous bodies is clearly and coherently regulated; 3) rules
governing the relation between ministries and reporting bodies are clear
and coherent; 4) key policy making functions remain in the ministries and 5)
the ministries have assigned responsibilities for steering and controlling for
the reporting bodies, including performance management scheme

One point is awarded for each element. For element 3 up to 2 points is

possible (one for the existence of rules, one for having coherent solutions
across the public administration)

0 1 2 3 4 5
None of the elements met 1-2 points 3 points 4 points 5 points 6 points

Information on baseline values Year 2014

Baseline value 2
Information on target values Year 2017 2020
Indicator value Growing trend Growing trend

13
5.a
Title of Indicator Number of windows with improved standard of service in central institutions
and their branches. The range of services provided at the one-stop-shop center.
The corresponding general Objective 5: Improved and concentrated public services by reducing the causes of
or specific objective corruption and strengthening a civic based ethic for public service delivery.
Source of data for
Monitoring reports of Ministry for Innovation and Public
monitoring of performance
Administration/ADISA/ISDA Project
indicator
Institution responsible for
Ministry for Innovation and Public Administration/ADISA
gathering data
Frequency of data
Annually
publication
A brief description of the This indicator will measure the number of services that will be provided to
methodology citizens through improved service windows and standards of delivery

This indicator is calculated as:

Iservices = Number of services offered at improved front offices

Information on baseline Year 2015

values Baseline value 0
Information on target Year 2017 2020
values Indicator value 150 services provided. 300 services delivered

14
5.b
Title of Indicator Number of one-stop-shops established in local government units
The corresponding general Objective 5: Improved and concentrated public services by reducing the causes of
or specific objective corruption and strengthening a civic based ethic for public service delivery.
Source of data for
Monitoring reports of Minister of Local Government Affairs and Ministry for
monitoring of performance
Innovation and Public Administration
indicator
Institution responsible for Minister of Local Government Affairs/Ministry for Innovation and Public
gathering data Administration
Frequency of data
Annually
publication
A brief description of the The indicator presenting the decree of opening of the one-stop-shop in the local
methodology government units is measured by dividing the total number of one-stop-shops
established in one year in the LGUs, with the total number of 61 LGUs and
multiply by 100%.

Formula:
IOne-Stop-Shops = Total number of O-S-Shs established x 100%
61 LGUs

Information on baseline Year 2014

values
Baseline value 1 (pilot)
Information on target Year 2017 2020
values In 80% of the In 100% of the
Indicator value
municipalities municipalities

15
6.a
Title of Indicator Annual turnover (mobility) of management level staff at all levels of the civil
service in the institutions of central administration
The corresponding general Objective 6: Improved capacities for the implementation of civil service
or specific objective legislation and facilitated enforcement procedures.
Source of data for
monitoring of performance Annual reports of DoPA, SIGMA Evaluation Reports
indicator
Institution responsible for
DoPA
gathering data
Frequency of data
Annually
publication
A brief description of the This indicator is calculated by dividing the number of management staff at all
methodology levels of the civil service in the institutions of central administration that has
left (or removed) their position in one year / divided by total number of
management staff in the central administration in the given year.

RMSTurnover = Total number of management staff who left during the year x 100%
Total number of management staff at the beginning of the year

Information on baseline Year 2014

values
Baseline value 0%
Information on target Year 2017 2020
values Indicator value Decreasing trend Decreasing trend

16
6.b
Title of Indicator The average number of participants in a recruitment procedure for
recruitment from outside and from within (mobility) in the civil service
The corresponding general Objective 6: Improved capacities for the implementation of civil service
or specific objective legislation and facilitated enforcement procedures.
Source of data for
monitoring of performance Annual reports of DoPA, SIGMA Evaluation Reports
indicator
Institution responsible for
DoPA
gathering data
Frequency of data
Annually
publication
A brief description of the Two individual indicators will be measured over the years:
methodology
1: Average number of participants from outside civil services participating in a
recruitment procedure

Total number of participants from outside of civil service applying for

I.ROCS = an executive position
Total number of recruitment procedures

2: Average number of participants within the civil service participating in a

requirement process.

Formula
I.RWCS = Total number of participants from civil service (all groups)
Total number of recruitment procedures

Information on baseline Year 2015

values Baseline value
Information on target Year 2017 2020
values Indicator value Growing trend Growing trend

17
6.c
Title of Indicator The number of complaints relating to recruitment in the civil service
accepted by the court (starting from the second half of 2014) is decreasing
The corresponding general or Objective 6: Improved capacities for the implementation of civil service
specific objective legislation and facilitated enforcement procedures.
Source of data for monitoring
Annual reports of DoPA, SIGMA Evaluation Reports
of performance indicator
Institution responsible for
DoPA
gathering data
Frequency of data
Annually
publication
A brief description of the The methodology for measuring this indicators will be based on the data
methodology collected by two institutions:
 DoPA for the complaints related to recruitment processes carried
out in the Line Ministries and other central institutions and
 Civil Service Commissioner, for the complaints related to
independent institutions and municipalities.

NrComplaints = NrComplaintsDoPA + NrComplaintsCSC

Information on baseline Year 2015

values Baseline value
Year 2017 2020
Information on target values
Indicator value Decreasing trend Decreasing trend

18
6.d
Title of Indicator The extent to which the training system of civil servants is functional and
applied in practice (SIGMA indicator)
The corresponding general or Objective 6: Improved capacities for the implementation of civil service
specific objective legislation and facilitated enforcement procedures.
Source of data for monitoring
SIGMA Evaluation Reports
of performance indicator
Institution responsible for
DoPA
gathering data
Frequency of data
Bi-annually
publication
A brief description of the The following 3 elements should be met: 1) training as a right and duty of
methodology civil servants is established; 2) training needs assessment (TNA) is carried
out regularly; 3) strategic plans for public servants are developed.

A three point assessment is used for each element: one point for having
primary legislation in place; two points for having it enforced through
secondary legislation and or relevant guidance; and three points for the
elements being applied in practice with no or minor shortcomings.

0 1 2 3 4 5
None of the 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9
elements are met points points points points points

Information on baseline Year 2014

values
Baseline value 3
Information on target values Year 2017 2020
Indicator value Growing trend Growing trend

19
7.a
Title of Indicator De-compression of the salary system and achieving of the proportion
22.1 in 2020 report between maximum and minimum salary
The corresponding general or Objective 7: Organization of the civil service wage system based on job
specific objective evaluation, on the evaluation of annual achievements of civil servants
and on compulsory training outcomes.
Source of data for monitoring of
Monitoring reports of DoPA
performance indicator
Institution responsible for
DoPA/MF
gathering data
Frequency of data publication Annually
A brief description of the The de-compression index is calculated by dividing the maximum salary
methodology with the minimum salary.

Formula
IDe-compression = Maximum Salary in ALL
Minimum Salary in ALL

Information on baseline values Year 2014

Baseline value 11,7
Information on target values Year 2017 2020
Indicator value 11,7 22,1

20
7.b
Increased variation / number of positions in the salary scheme based on the
Title of Indicator
job description
Objective 7: Organization of the civil service wage system based on job
The corresponding general
evaluation, on the evaluation of annual achievements of civil servants and on
or specific objective
compulsory training outcomes.
Source of data for
monitoring of performance Monitoring reports of DoPA
indicator
Institution responsible for
DoPA/MF
gathering data
Frequency of data
Annually
publication
This indicator will be measured based on the changes that the following
salary scheme3 in place is going to have, after the study on salaries will be
carried out.
Category I - II – Civil Servants High Management Level
Class Position
1 Secretary General of the Council of Ministers, the Presidency, Parliament and
independent constitutional institutions.
2 Secretary General of the line ministries, independent institutions established by law
/ department head / heads of institutions under the Prime Minister’s or Ministers’
subordinates
3 General Secretary of the regions, municipalities, General Director of the PMO,
ministries, independent institutions established by law / heads of institutions under
the Prime Minister’s or Ministers’ subordinates
Category II – Civil Servants Mid Management Level
A brief description of the Class Position
1 General Director of regions, municipalities, department director in the PMO,
methodology
ministries, independent institutions established by law, heads of institutions under
line ministers, department director in institutions under the Prime Minister’s or
Ministers’ subordinates
2 Directors of Departments in institutions under the Council of Ministers, line
ministries, regions and municipalities.
Category III - Civil servants Low Management level
Class Position
1 Head of Unit Level A;
2 Head of Unit Level B.
Category IV - Civil servants of the executive category
Class Position
1 Specialist Level A;
2 Specialist Level B;
3 Specialist Level C;
4 Specialist Level D.

Information on baseline Year 2015

values Baseline value
Year 2017 2020
Information on target
Increase with, at least, 3 Increase with, at least, 3
values Indicator value
levels levels4

3
Approved by the CoM Decree 142/2014 http://dap.gov.al/images/tedhenainst/vkm/VKM_142_12032014.pdf
4
Compared to the baseline situation. Hence target for 2020 is the same as for 2017.

21
7.c
Title of Indicator The extent to which the system of remuneration of civil servants is fair and
transparent and applied in practice (SIGMA indicator)
The corresponding Objective 7: Organization of the civil service wage system based on job evaluation,
general or specific on the evaluation of annual achievements of civil servants and on compulsory
objective training outcomes.
Source of data for
monitoring of SIGMA Evaluation Reports
performance indicator
Institution responsible
DoPA/MoF
for gathering data
Frequency of data
Bi-annually
publication
A brief description of The following 4 elements should be met: 1) remuneration principles are
the methodology established; 2) allowances and benefits are explicitly regulated; 3) managerial
discretion with regard to salary decisions us limited; 4) the remuneration system
provides reasonable conditions for recruiting professional public servants

A three point assessment is used for each element: one point for having primary
legislation in place; two points for having it enforced through secondary legislation
and/or relevant guidance; and three points for the element being applied in
practice with no or minor shortcomings.

0 1 2 3 4 5
None of elements 1-2 3-5 6-8 9-10 11-12
met points points points points points

Information on baseline Year 2014

values
Baseline value 4
Information on target Year 2017 2020
values Indicator value Growing trend Growing trend

22
8.a
Title of Indicator Number of public services provided to the public after simplifying the procedure
The corresponding general Objective 8: Simplified procedure for the provision of services by facilitating
or specific objective communication with the public and avoiding corruption.
Source of data for
monitoring of Monitoring reports of Ministry for Innovation and Public Administration
performance indicator
Institution responsible for
Ministry for Innovation and Public Administration/ADISA/Line Ministry
gathering data
Frequency of data
Annually
publication
A brief description of the This indicator will be measured based on the new process maps produced and
methodology adopted for core central government administrative services. These maps
represent the simplified work processes for service delivery in the front as well as
back office, including also the list of documents required for submission by the
citizens, and the timeline.

Iservices = Number of services offered at improved front offices

Information on baseline Year 2015

values Baseline value 0
Information on target Year 2017 2020
values Indicator value 150 300

23
8.b
Title of Indicator Level (%) of public satisfaction vis-à-vis the quality of service delivery
The corresponding general Objective 8: Simplified procedure for the provision of services by facilitating
or specific objective communication with the public and avoiding corruption.
Source of data for
monitoring of Delivery Unit (OPM)
performance indicator
Institution responsible for
Delivery Unit (OPM)/ Ministry for Innovation and Public Administration/ADISA
gathering data
Frequency of data
Bi-annually
publication
A brief description of the The indicator will be calculated based on ISDA Project Baseline Survey data,
methodology that will be carried out on early 2016 and through another omnibus survey,
that will be carried out by July 2017
Key questions to be include on the both surveys will be:
 Demographic questions: like gender, age, education, profession,
occupation, income level, and ethnicity.
 Perception about the overall quality of public services(s) (very poor,
poor, average, good, very good)
 Time frame for service delivery (elapsed time) to that specified officially
 Clarity and simplicity of rules and procedures
 Mechanism to file complaints and provide feedback to the concerned
department
 Service area facilities
 Convenience of working hours of office
 Clarity and simplicity of application forms
 Management of queuing

A household survey is expected to be carried out by means of face-to-face

interviews, using CAPI to register all responses. The total sample size should be
representative at the country level and across 5 strata: rural and urban areas in
each of the three macro regions of Albania (North, Center and South).
In order to conduct) statistically robust analyses a sample size of 8 HH per
cluster will be used and levels of precision should be at a minimum of 7.5% for
90% confidence interval for estimates of population proportions
(percentages)/prevalence of all variables asked as proportions (percentages). A
listing exercise should be carried out in each of the selected clusters, gathering
the observed population totals in each selected cluster for the purpose of
weight adjustments.

Information on baseline Year 2016

values Baseline value
Information on target Year 2017 2020
values Indicator value Growing trend Growing trend

24
8.c
Title of Indicator The extent to which policies for the provision of services focusing on the
citizen are adopted and applied in practice (SIGMA indicator)
The corresponding general Objective 8: Simplified procedure for the provision of services by facilitating
or specific objective communication with the public and avoiding corruption.
Source of data for
monitoring of SIGMA Evaluation Reports
performance indicator
Institution responsible for
Ministry for Innovation and Public Administration/ADISA
gathering data
Frequency of data
Bi-annually
publication
A brief description of the The following elements should be met: 1) Service delivery policy is outlined in
methodology at least one of the government planning document; 2) An inventory of the
services at the state level exists; 3) Mechanisms are in place to analyse and
avoid red tape in the legal drafting process; 4) Draft legislation is analysed in
order to avoid creating additional red tape; 5) Systematic processes to simplify
administration are applied or were applied in the “Baseline year’’; 6) Significant
reform initiatives have been introduced to improve service delivery in the
baseline year; 7) A comprehensive action plan for service improvements is in
place

One point is awarded for each element applied

0 1 2 3 4 5
None of elements met 1-2 points 3-4 points 5 points 6 points 7 points

Information on baseline Year 2014

values
Baseline value 2
Information on target Year 2017 2020
values Indicator value Growing trend Growing trend

25
9.a
Title of Indicator Enhanced IT systems for service delivery
The corresponding Objective 9: Developing an ICT infrastructure capable of supporting the daily
general or specific activities of public administration and efficiency increase by reducing the time to
objective access, process and transmit information while improving the flow of
information.
Source of data for
monitoring of Monitoring reports of Ministry for Innovation and Public Administration
performance indicator
Institution responsible
Ministry for Innovation and Public Administration/ADISA/NAIS
for gathering data
Frequency of data
Annually
publication
A brief description of the This indicator will measure the implementation and functionality of document
methodology management, workflow and decision making IT systems for improved delivery of
public services.

Formula:
I ICT Systems = Number of agencies

Information on baseline Year 2014

values
Baseline value 0
Information on target Year 2017 2020
values Indicator value 3 agencies 8 agencies

26
9.b
Title of Indicator The extent to which political and administrative pre-conditions for the
provision of e-services are applicable (SIGMA indicator)
The corresponding Objective 9: Developing an ICT infrastructure capable of supporting the daily
general or specific activities of public administration and efficiency increase by reducing the time to
objective access, process and transmit information while improving the flow of
information.
Source of data for
monitoring of SIGMA Evaluation Report
performance indicator
Institution responsible
Ministry for Innovation and Public Administration/ADISA/NAIS
for gathering data
Frequency of data
Bi-annually
publication
A brief description of the Meeting of the following elements is assessed: 1)E-service delivery policy is
methodology outlined in at least one of the government planning documents; 2) A legal
framework is in place that provides the bases for the e-service delivery; 3) Sound
reform initiatives have been applied to improve e-service delivery; 4) The
percentage of individuals using internet (according to UN statistics 2013) is
above 57%; 5) Interoperability among key administrative bodies and registers
exists, or serious projects are in place in this regards; 6) A government portal or
gateway providing access to most government e-services is in place

One point is awarded to each elements applied

0 1 2 3 4 5
None of elements met 1-2 points 3 points 4 points 5 points 6 points

Information on baseline Year 2015

values Baseline value 5
Information on target Year 2017 2020
values Indicator value Growing trend Growing trend

27
10.a
Title of Indicator The extent to which the legal framework for the good administration is
approved and implemented in practice (SIGMA indicator)
The corresponding
general or specific Objective 10: Enhancement of the efficiency and accountability of public officials.
objective
Source of data for
monitoring of SIGMA Evaluation
performance indicator
Institution responsible
DoPA/Ministry for Innovation and Public Administration/Line Ministry
for gathering data
Frequency of data
Bi-annually
publication
A brief description of The following nine elements should be met: 1) Law exists on general
the methodology administrative procedures and has a broad scope; special regulations are limited
and an inventory of special regulations exists; 2) Key principles of good
administrative behaviour are defined in administrative procedures legislation; 3)
the right of hearing before the final decision is ensured in legislation; 4)
authorities are required to state the reasons for decisions and to inform the right
of appeal; 5) procedural and substantial rules are defined for the amendment,
suspension or repeal of an administrative act; 6) mechanisms supporting
implementation of the legislation (training; guidance etc) are applied and 7) the
legal framework of administrative procedures is applied in practice by all state
administrative bodies5

Element 2 has a maximum value of three points. One point is awarded for all
other elements applied. The one point for element 7 can be given only if elements
1 through 5 are met.

0 1 2 3 4 5
None of elements
1-2 points 3-4 points 4-5 points 7-8 points 9 points
met

Information on baseline Year 2014

values
Baseline value 2
Information on target Year 2017 2020
values Indicator value Growing trend Growing trend

5
If elements 1 through 5 are met, a sample analyses shall be conducted, which would analyse a sample of decisions; 3 negative administrative
decisions regarding the registration of a company; 3 negative decisions regarding rejection to provide public access to information. These
decisions should be checked against the existence of the following elements: citation of legal bases; provision of reasons for the decision;
information about the right and procedures for appeal.

28
11.a
Title of Indicator The number of complaints filed each year with the Commissioner responsible for
freedom of information
The corresponding
Objective 11: Enhancement of control over the activities of public administration,
general or specific
guaranteeing the rights of citizens and access to information.
objective
Source of data for
Annual Reports of the Commissioner for the Right of Information and Personal
monitoring of
Data Protection
performance indicator
Institution responsible
Commissioner for the Right of Information and Personal Data Protection
for gathering data
Frequency of data
Annually
publication
A brief description of the The indictor will be calculated based on the number of complaints filed each year
methodology by the citizens to the Commissioner responsible for freedom of information, for
which the right is granted by the Commissioner.
Formula:
IFOI Complaints = Total Number of Complaints granted the right.

After 2015 the indicator will also measure the number of sanctions applied by the
Commissioner against institutions after the inspections carried out, based on the
citizens reporting on omitting the provision of information.

IFLOS = Number of Sanctions

Number of Inspection
Information on baseline Year 2015
values
Baseline value 58
Information on target Year 2017 2020
values Indicator value Decreasing trend Decreasing trend

29
11.b
Title of Indicator Percentage of recommendations implemented by the supervisory institutions of
central government institutions in the past two years
The corresponding
Objective 11: Enhancement of control over the activities of public administration,
general or specific
guaranteeing the rights of citizens and access to information.
objective
Source of data for
monitoring of Annual Reports of the Commissioner for the Right of Information and Personal Data
performance Protection / Ombudsman
indicator
Institution
responsible for Commissioner for the Right of Information and Personal Data Protection /Ombudsman
gathering data
Frequency of data
Annually
publication
A brief description of This indicator shows the decree of implementation of the recommendations issued by
the methodology the Ombudsman by the central institutions.
From the People Advocate the indicator will be measured through three indicators:
(i) recommendations for which no answer were provided by the institutions; This indicator is based
on the assumption that Ombudsman must receive an answer from the respective institutions
acknowledging that they received the letter with the recommendations issued by Ombudsman and
inform that actions must be undertaken to address the recommendations.
(ii) recommendations for which answers were provided by the institutions but no actions have been
taken and
(iii) number of recommendations implemented.
Three ratios will be calculated:
1. The ratio of the recommendations issued by Ombudsman with no answer provided
by concerning institution:

R NoA = Nr of Ombudsman’s recommendations not answered x 100%

Nr of recommendations issued by Ombudsman

Of the total number of the recommendations issued, the number of recommendations

falling under the “under review” group will be excluded.

2. The ratio of the recommendations implemented versus of recommendations

accepted by the institutions;
R Acc. = Nr of Ombudsman’s recommendations implemented x 100%
Total Nr of recommendations accepted

Note: Ombudsman submits many recommendations to public institutions, but not all
the institutions acknowledge the recommendations and commit (accept) themselves
to address them. Therefore the indicator will measure only the proportion of those
recommendations which are implemented, versus the total number of
recommendations which were acknowledged by institutions, admitting thus that the
problem exists and must be addressed.

3. The ratio of Requests For Clarifications issued by Ombudsman, for which no answer
is provided by institutions.
R RfC = Nr of Request for Clarification Answered x 100%
Total Number of Requests for Clarification

Information on Year 2014

30
baseline values RNoA 20%
Baseline value R Acc. 6%
RRfC = 43%
Information on Year 2017 2020
target values R NoA = Decreasing Trend R NoA = Decreasing Trend
Indicator value R Acc. = Growing Trend R Acc. = Growing Trend
RRfC = Growing Trend RRfC = Growing Trend

31