11.04. Performance Auditing in the Public Sector

Key Questions

Briefly reflect on the following before we begin:

• How does performance auditing in the public sector assess value for money regarding economy, efficiency, and effectiveness?
• What methodologies are used in performance auditing to evaluate program performance against established criteria?
• How can performance audit findings contribute to policy development and operational improvement?
• What are the challenges of conducting performance audits in the public sector, and how are they addressed?

Performance auditing in the public sector is vital for evaluating government programs and the efficiency, effectiveness, and economy of various activities. Focusing on assessing program performance against predefined objectives and criteria, performance audits provide stakeholders with valuable insights into the value delivered by public investments. By defining clear goals, scope, and methodologies, performance auditors ensure that their assessments are rigorous, objective, and aligned with the public sector’s expectations of transparency and accountability.

One of the critical aspects of performance auditing is the evaluation of value for money, which entails assessing whether government programs deliver services as cost-effectively and efficiently as possible. This involves scrutinizing various aspects such as resource utilization, process efficiency, and the extent to which intended outcomes are achieved. Performance auditors employ multiple techniques for gathering and analyzing performance data, including interviews, surveys, data analytics, and comparative analysis. The findings of performance audits are presented through comprehensive reports that highlight areas of strength, weakness, and opportunities for improvement. These reports play a crucial role in informing policymakers and program managers about the effectiveness of government initiatives and facilitating evidence-based decision-making and policy development. Through illustrative case examples, the significance of performance audits in driving positive change and enhancing public sector performance is underscored, demonstrating their impact in improving service delivery and ensuring accountability to taxpayers and citizens.

Defining Performance Auditing: Objectives, Scope, Methodologies, and Implementation

Performance auditing is a specialized branch that assesses whether government programs and services operate efficiently, effectively, and economically. Unlike financial audits, which primarily focus on the accuracy of financial statements, performance audits delve into the operational aspects of public sector entities, aiming to enhance public accountability and optimize resource utilization.

By systematically evaluating government activities, performance audits provide valuable insights and recommendations that support transparency, accountability, and continuous improvement. The structured methodologies and comprehensive scope of performance auditing ensure that it addresses critical issues and contributes to better governance and resource management in the public sector. This in turn ensures that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and public services deliver their intended benefits.

Objectives

The primary goals of performance auditing are to evaluate the efficiency, effectiveness, and economy of government activities.

• Efficiency refers to the relationship between the resources used and the outputs produced, emphasizing minimal wastage of resources.
• Effectiveness assesses the extent to which intended outcomes and objectives are achieved, focusing on the quality and impact of public services.
• Economy involves ensuring that resources are procured at the lowest cost while maintaining quality standards.

Performance audits aim to provide stakeholders, including government officials, legislators, and the public, with a clear understanding of how well public sector entities perform. These audits identify areas where improvements can be made, highlight best practices, and offer actionable recommendations to enhance public sector operations. By doing so, performance audits support transparency, accountability, and continuous improvement in government services.

Scope

The scope of performance auditing is broad and encompasses various aspects of government programs and activities. This includes the following activities:

• Examining the design and implementation of policies.
• Assessing the management and use of resources.
• Evaluating the outcomes and impacts of programs.

Performance audits can be conducted on specific projects, programs, or cross-cutting issues spanning multiple departments or agencies. In defining the scope of a performance audit, auditors consider several factors, including the program’s significance, its financial and social impact, and the potential for improvement. Stakeholder concerns, legislative priorities, and previous audit findings may also influence the scope. Performance audits maximize their relevance and impact by focusing on areas of high risk or importance.

Methodologies

Performance auditing employs various methods to gather and analyze information, ensuring a comprehensive and objective assessment. These methodologies include:

• Document Review: Auditors examine relevant documents, such as policy papers, program plans, financial records, and performance reports. This review helps to understand the program’s objectives, activities, and results.
• Interviews and Surveys: Auditors interview key stakeholders, including program managers, staff, beneficiaries, and external experts. Surveys may also be used to gather information from a broader audience. These techniques provide insights into the program’s implementation and stakeholder perspectives.
• Data Analysis: Quantitative data assesses performance metrics, such as cost efficiency, output quality, and outcome achievement. Data analysis helps identify trends, correlations, and areas needing improvement. Advanced analytical tools and software can enhance the accuracy and depth of this analysis.
• Field Observations: Direct observations of program activities and site visits allow auditors to verify information, assess operational conditions, and observe the program. This hands-on approach provides a practical perspective on program implementation and challenges.
• Benchmarking: Auditors compare the program’s performance against established benchmarks or best practices from similar programs or jurisdictions. Benchmarking helps identify performance gaps and opportunities for improvement.
• Case Studies: Detailed case studies of specific components or phases of the program provide in-depth insights into particular issues or successes. Case studies help illustrate broader findings and highlight practical examples.

Implementation

Implementing a performance audit typically follows a structured process, ensuring systematic and thorough examination. This process includes the following steps:

1. Planning: The audit team defines the objectives, scope, and criteria. A detailed audit plan is developed, outlining the methodologies, data sources, and timeline. Stakeholder consultation ensures that the audit addresses relevant concerns and priorities.
2. Fieldwork: Auditors collect and analyze data through document reviews, interviews, surveys, observations, and other methodologies. The fieldwork phase involves rigorous examination and validation of information to ensure accuracy and reliability.
3. Analysis: The collected data assesses program performance against the defined criteria. Auditors identify strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement. This analysis forms the basis for the audit findings and recommendations.
4. Reporting: The audit findings and recommendations are documented in a comprehensive report. The report presents the evidence, analysis, and conclusions. It highlights critical issues, provides actionable recommendations, and suggests practical steps for improvement.
5. Follow-up: Auditors may conduct follow-up reviews to ensure that the audit recommendations are implemented. This follow-up assesses the progress made by the audited entity in addressing the identified issues and implementing the recommendations.

Evaluating Program Performance Against Established Criteria

Evaluating program performance against established criteria ensures that government programs and initiatives achieve their objectives, deliver value for money, and meet stakeholders’ expectations. Performance evaluation involves systematically comparing actual outcomes against predefined standards and benchmarks, identifying areas for improvement, and making recommendations to enhance program effectiveness and efficiency.

Step 1: Establishing Clear and Measurable Criteria

The first step in evaluating program performance is establishing clear and measurable criteria. These criteria are derived from the program’s goals, objectives, and expected outcomes, providing a framework for assessment. Typical criteria include the following:

• Relevance assesses whether the program’s objectives align with current policy priorities and stakeholder needs.
• Effectiveness measures the extent to which the program achieves its stated goals and objectives.
• Efficiency evaluates how well the program utilizes resources to accomplish its outcomes.
• Impact analyzes the broader effects of the program on the community, economy, or environment.
• Sustainability considers whether the program’s benefits are likely to continue over time.

Step 2: Data Collection

Auditors gather data to assess program performance once the evaluation criteria are established. Data collection methods may include document reviews, interviews and surveys, field observations, and data analysis.

• Document reviews examine program plans, reports, budgets, and other relevant documents to gather information on program activities and outcomes. This helps auditors understand the program’s structure and intended results.
• Interviews and surveys are conducted with program managers, staff, beneficiaries, and other stakeholders to gather qualitative insights into program performance. These interactions provide valuable perspectives on the program’s implementation and effectiveness from those directly involved or affected.
• Field observations are another critical method for data collection. By visiting program sites and observing operations firsthand, auditors can verify information provided in documents and interviews, assess the implementation of program activities, and identify potential issues or challenges. This hands-on approach offers a practical perspective on the ground realities of program execution.
• Quantitative data analysis is also essential. Auditors analyze performance metrics, such as cost efficiency, output quality, and outcome achievement, to draw objective conclusions about the program’s effectiveness. This analysis may involve statistical methods, trend analysis, and benchmarking against similar programs or industry standards.

Step 3: Evaluation

Auditors compare the program’s performance against the established criteria after collecting and analyzing data. This comparison highlights areas where the program performs well and needs improvements. Key aspects of this analysis include the following:

• Assessing whether the program has met its goals and objectives.
• Evaluating how efficiently the program uses its resources.
• Analyzing the quality and timeliness of the program’s outputs.
• Gauging the satisfaction of program beneficiaries and other stakeholders.

The evaluation process often reveals areas where the program can be improved. Common issues identified during performance evaluations include inefficiencies, gaps in service delivery, lack of coordination, and data and reporting issues.

• Inefficiencies may be due to bureaucratic hurdles, redundant procedures, or inadequate resource allocation. For instance, a program designed to provide healthcare services might need more time due to cumbersome administrative processes, resulting in underutilized resources and unmet health needs.
• Gaps in service delivery could be due to insufficient coverage, poor quality of services, or delays in implementation. An example would be an educational initiative that fails to reach remote communities, leaving significant portions of the target population underserved.
• Lack of coordination between different departments or agencies can hinder program performance. This is often seen in large-scale initiatives that require collaboration across multiple government entities. For example, a program to improve urban infrastructure might need more coordination between planning, transportation, and public works departments to avoid delays and cost overruns.
• Deficiencies in data collection, reporting, and monitoring can undermine the accuracy of the evaluation. Reliable data is crucial for evaluating program performance, and weaknesses in this area can lead to incorrect conclusions and ineffective recommendations.

Step 4: Recommendations

Based on the evaluation findings, auditors make recommendations to improve program performance. These recommendations aim to address identified issues and enhance the program’s effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability.

Typical recommendations include suggesting changes to streamline operations, reduce bureaucratic hurdles, and eliminate redundancies. For example, automating specific administrative tasks could reduce processing times and free up resources for direct service delivery.

Other recommendations can include improving data collection, monitoring, and reporting systems to ensure accurate tracking of program performance and timely identification of issues. For instance, implementing a centralized data management system could enhance the quality and accessibility of performance data.

Auditors may also advise on training and capacity-building initiatives for program staff to strengthen their skills and knowledge. This could involve workshops, courses, and other professional development opportunities to improve staff capabilities in critical areas such as project management, data analysis, and stakeholder engagement.

Additionally, a recommendation may be made to encourage greater involvement of beneficiaries and other stakeholders in program planning and implementation to ensure that the program meets the needs of those it serves and fosters greater accountability. This might involve regular feedback sessions, advisory committees, or participatory planning processes.

Assessing Value for Money: Economy, Efficiency, and Effectiveness

Assessing value for money (VfM) in public sector programs ensures that public resources are used effectively to achieve desired outcomes. VfM focuses on three key dimensions: economy, efficiency, and effectiveness. Together, these dimensions provide a comprehensive framework for evaluating how well public funds are managed and utilized.

Economy

Economy refers to the careful management of resources to minimize costs while maintaining quality. It emphasizes acquiring goods and services at the lowest possible price without compromising standards. The public sector’s economy is about prudent financial management, ensuring that funds are spent wisely on inputs such as labour, materials, and equipment.

For instance, a public health program aiming to procure medical supplies would be assessed for its economy by examining procurement processes. The audit would check whether the supplies were purchased competitively, whether bulk purchasing options were explored, and if cost-saving measures were in place. The program can allocate more resources to critical areas by ensuring that inputs are obtained economically, enhancing overall performance.

Efficiency

Efficiency measures the relationship between inputs and outputs, assessing how healthy resources are converted into results. An efficient program maximizes outputs (such as services delivered) with the minimum necessary inputs (such as funds, labour, and time). Efficiency is concerned with reducing waste and optimizing processes to ensure every dollar spent produces the maximum possible benefit.

Consider a government-funded educational initiative aimed at improving literacy rates. An efficiency audit would evaluate how well the program converts financial and human resources into educational services and improved literacy outcomes. This involves analyzing administrative processes, staff deployment, and resource utilization. If the program could be more efficient, the audit may recommend streamlining administrative procedures, adopting better resource allocation strategies, or employing technology to enhance service delivery.

Effectiveness

Effectiveness evaluates whether a program achieves its intended outcomes and goals. It focuses on the actual impact of the program and whether it fulfills its objectives. Effectiveness goes beyond outputs to consider the broader effects of a program on its target population.

For example, an effectiveness audit of a social welfare program would assess whether the program successfully alleviates poverty and improves the quality of life for beneficiaries. This involves measuring the program’s impact on income levels, access to essential services, and the participants’ overall well-being. If the program falls short of its goals, the audit may explore reasons such as inadequate program design, insufficient funding, or implementation challenges and provide recommendations for improvement.

Auditing VfM in the Public Sector—Common Challenges

Assessing VfM in public sector programs presents the following challenges:

• A significant challenge is the complexity and diversity of public programs, making applying a one-size-fits-all approach difficult. Each program has unique objectives, contexts, and constraints that require tailored evaluation methods. Data availability and quality can also pose significant challenges.
• Accurate and comprehensive data is essential for meaningful VfM assessments, but data gaps, inconsistencies, and delays in reporting often plague public sector programs. Auditors must employ robust data collection and analysis techniques to overcome these issues and provide reliable assessments.
• Another challenge is balancing the three dimensions of VfM. Focusing too much on the economy might lead to cost-cutting measures compromising quality, while prioritizing efficiency might overlook the program’s actual impact on beneficiaries. Achieving a balance requires a nuanced understanding of the program’s goals and careful consideration of trade-offs.

Examples of Audit Recommendations

To enhance VfM in public sector programs, auditors can provide several recommendations:

• Strengthen Procurement Processes: Implementing competitive bidding, bulk purchasing, and transparent procurement procedures to ensure economical acquisition of inputs.
• Optimize Resource Allocation: Adopting best practices in resource management, reducing administrative overheads, and leveraging technology to improve efficiency.
• Focus on Outcomes: Designing programs with clear, measurable goals and regularly evaluating their effectiveness to ensure they achieve their intended impact.
• Capacity Building: Providing training and development opportunities for staff to enhance their skills in managing resources efficiently and effectively.
• Stakeholder Engagement: Involving beneficiaries and other stakeholders in program design and evaluation to ensure that programs meet their needs and expectations.

Techniques for Gathering and Analyzing Performance Data

Gathering and analyzing performance data involves collecting relevant information to evaluate the efficiency, effectiveness, and economy of government programs and services. The techniques must ensure the data’s accuracy, reliability, and comprehensiveness, providing a solid foundation for making informed assessments and recommendations.

Engaging stakeholders and addressing data quality challenges further enhance the audit process, ultimately supporting better decision-making, accountability, and program improvement in the public sector.

Methods of Data Collection and Analysis

Let’s explore various methods for gathering and analyzing performance data, highlighting their importance and application in public sector audits.

Document Review

Document review is one of the primary techniques for gathering performance data. This involves examining various official documents, including strategic plans, budget reports, operational manuals, performance reports, and policy documents. By reviewing these documents, auditors can gain insights into the program’s objectives, resources, processes, and outcomes. Document review helps auditors understand the context and framework within which the program operates, identify KPIs, and assess compliance with regulations and standards.

Interviews and Surveys

Interviews and surveys are essential tools for collecting qualitative data. Interviews are conducted with program managers, staff, beneficiaries, and other stakeholders to gather in-depth information about the program’s implementation and impact. These interviews can uncover insights that are not evident from documents alone, such as challenges faced by staff, beneficiary satisfaction, and areas for improvement. On the other hand, surveys can collect quantitative data from a larger sample size. They are handy for gathering standardized information on stakeholder perceptions, service quality, and program outcomes. Both interviews and surveys help auditors comprehensively understand the program from multiple perspectives.

Field Observations

Field observations involve visiting program sites and observing activities firsthand. This technique allows auditors to verify information from documents and interviews, assess the operational environment, and identify discrepancies between reported and actual practices. For example, in an audit of a healthcare program, auditors might visit clinics to observe service delivery, inspect facilities, and interact with staff and patients. Field observations provide a practical and immediate perspective on program operations, helping to identify issues that may not be captured through other data collection methods.

Data Analysis

Data analysis is a critical step in evaluating program performance. It involves processing and interpreting quantitative data to draw meaningful conclusions. Standard data analysis techniques include descriptive statistics, trend analysis, and comparative analysis. Descriptive statistics summarize data using mean, median, and standard deviation, providing a clear picture of the program’s performance metrics. Trend analysis examines data over time to identify patterns, trends, and anomalies, helping auditors understand how performance has evolved. Comparative analysis involves comparing the program’s performance against benchmarks, targets, or similar programs to assess relative performance and identify best practices.

Benchmarking

Benchmarking is the process of comparing a program’s performance with that of similar programs or industry standards. This technique helps auditors identify performance gaps, set realistic targets, and adopt best practices. Benchmarking can be conducted internally, comparing different units within the same organization, or externally, comparing the program with other organizations or jurisdictions. For example, in an audit of educational programs, benchmarking might involve comparing student achievement levels, resource allocation, and teaching practices with those of other schools or districts. This comparative approach provides valuable context for evaluating program effectiveness and efficiency.

Case Studies

Case studies provide an in-depth analysis of specific aspects or components of a program. They are handy for exploring complex issues, innovative practices, or notable successes and challenges. A case study might focus on a specific project, initiative, or geographic area, examining it in detail to draw broader lessons and insights. For instance, a case study of a thriving community health project can highlight effective strategies, stakeholder engagement practices, and measurable outcomes, offering valuable lessons for other similar programs.

Performance Metrics

Developing and applying performance metrics is essential for systematic data analysis. Performance metrics are specific program performance indicators, such as input efficiency, output quality, and outcome achievement. Metrics should be aligned with the program’s goals and objectives, providing a clear basis for evaluation. Standard performance metrics include cost per unit of service, service delivery time, beneficiary satisfaction rates, and outcome success rates. By consistently applying these metrics, auditors can quantitatively assess program performance and identify areas for improvement.

Using Technology and Data Analytics

Technology and data analytics have become increasingly crucial in gathering and analyzing performance data. Advanced data analytics tools can process large volumes of data quickly and accurately, uncovering patterns and insights that might be missed through manual analysis. Techniques such as data mining, predictive analytics, and geographic information systems (GIS) enhance the depth and precision of performance audits. For example, GIS can map the geographic distribution of program services and outcomes, highlighting spatial disparities and informing targeted interventions.

Engaging Stakeholders

Engaging stakeholders throughout the data gathering and analysis process is crucial for ensuring the relevance and accuracy of the audit. Stakeholders, including program staff, beneficiaries, and external experts, can provide valuable insights and feedback, helping to refine data collection methods and interpret findings. Regular communication with stakeholders fosters transparency, builds trust, and enhances the credibility of the audit process.

Gathering and Analyzing Performance Data—Common Challenges

• Data availability and quality can be significant issues, as public sector programs often lack complete, updated, and consistent data. Auditors must employ robust data validation techniques to ensure the reliability of their findings.
• Balancing qualitative and quantitative data can be challenging, requiring auditors to integrate different data types to provide a comprehensive evaluation. To address these challenges, auditors should adopt a mixed-methods approach, combining multiple data collection and analysis techniques to triangulate findings and enhance validity. Continuous professional development and training in data analytics and audit methodologies can also improve auditors’ capabilities and effectiveness.

Reporting on Performance Audit Findings and Recommendations

As discussed in the previous chapter, an internal audit report serves as the primary vehicle for communicating the audit’s outcomes, insights, and suggestions for improvement to stakeholders, including government officials, policymakers, and the public. A well-crafted audit report enhances transparency, accountability, and decision-making, fostering improvements in public sector governance.

Characteristics of a Good Report

Effective communication of findings and recommendations is essential for the impact of the audit report. The language should be clear, precise, and free of technical jargon to ensure it is understandable to a broad audience. Visual aids such as charts, graphs, and tables can help illustrate key points and make complex data more accessible.

It is also essential to present balanced findings, acknowledging areas of good performance and areas needing improvement. This balanced approach enhances the report’s credibility and encourages constructive responses from stakeholders.

Engaging stakeholders throughout the reporting process can improve the acceptance and implementation of audit recommendations. Before finalizing the report, auditors may share preliminary findings with the audited entities to verify facts and gather feedback. This collaborative approach helps ensure the report’s accuracy and fosters a sense of ownership among those responsible for implementing the recommendations.

Once the report is finalized, it should be disseminated widely to relevant stakeholders, including government officials, policymakers, and the public. Public release of the report promotes transparency and allows citizens to hold their government accountable for its performance.

Follow up Actions

The effectiveness of performance audits depends not only on the quality of the report but also on the follow-up actions taken. Auditors should establish mechanisms for tracking the implementation of recommendations. Follow-up audits or reviews can be conducted to assess progress and ensure the recommendations are addressed. Regular updates to stakeholders on the implementation status can maintain momentum and encourage continuous improvement.

Reporting on Performance Audits—Common Challenges

Reporting on performance audit findings and recommendations can present several challenges. One common challenge is ensuring that recommendations are both practical and impactful. Auditors must balance the need for specific, actionable suggestions with the broader goal of driving significant improvements. Another challenge is managing stakeholder expectations and potential resistance to findings. Some stakeholders may be reluctant to acknowledge shortcomings or disagree with the audit’s conclusions. Effective communication, stakeholder engagement, and a collaborative approach can help mitigate these challenges and foster a positive response to the report.

The Role of Performance Audits in Policy Development and Improvement

Performance audits examine government programs and activities, assessing their efficiency, effectiveness, and economy. The insights gained from performance audits are invaluable for policymakers, helping them to make informed decisions, improve existing policies, and develop new ones that better serve the public interest.

Common Insights Gained through Performance Audits

Highlight Inefficiencies

Through performance audits, auditors can pinpoint operational shortcomings and resource wastage by evaluating how well programs and services meet their objectives. This detailed scrutiny helps to reveal bottlenecks, redundant processes, and other inefficiencies that may need to be monitored through regular oversight mechanisms. For example, a performance audit of a public transportation system might uncover that specific routes are underutilized. In contrast, others are overcrowded, leading to recommendations for route optimization and better resource allocation.

Enhance Transparency and Accountability

Performance audits also enhance transparency and accountability, which are crucial for effective policy development. The findings of these audits are typically made public, providing stakeholders, including citizens, legislators, and advocacy groups, with a clear view of how government programs are performing. This transparency fosters a culture of accountability where government agencies are motivated to improve their performance and address identified issues. Moreover, the public disclosure of audit findings encourages a more informed and engaged citizenry, which can advocate for better policies and hold public officials accountable.

Provide Recommendations

Another significant role of performance audits in policy development is their ability to provide evidence-based recommendations. Auditors use rigorous methodologies to collect and analyze data, ensuring their findings are based on solid evidence. These recommendations are specific, actionable and grounded in an objective assessment of program performance. Policymakers can rely on these recommendations to make data-driven decisions that enhance the effectiveness of public services. For instance, a performance audit of a healthcare program might recommend adopting certain best practices that have been proven to improve patient outcomes, thereby guiding policymakers in refining healthcare policies.

Promote Continuous Improvement

Performance audits also contribute to continuous improvement by promoting a cycle of feedback and adaptation. When audit recommendations are implemented, they change how programs are managed and delivered. Subsequent audits can then assess the impact of these changes, providing further insights and recommendations. This iterative process helps to ensure that policies remain relevant and effective in addressing emerging challenges and changing circumstances. For example, a series of performance audits on educational programs can lead to incremental improvements in teaching methods, curriculum design, and resource allocation, resulting in better academic outcomes over time.

Highlight Best Practices

In addition to identifying areas for improvement, performance audits can highlight successful programs and best practices that can be replicated elsewhere. By showcasing examples of effective policy implementation, audits provide valuable benchmarks for other programs and agencies. This dissemination of best practices helps to improve overall public sector performance by encouraging the adoption of strategies that have been proven to work. For instance, a performance audit identifying a successful job training program can serve as a model for similar initiatives in other regions or sectors, fostering policy innovation and diffusion.

Manage Risks and Inform Policies

Performance audits are important in risk management and policy development. They help identify and mitigate program implementation risks, such as financial mismanagement, compliance issues, and operational inefficiencies. By proactively addressing these risks, auditors help safeguard public resources and ensure that programs achieve their intended outcomes. Policymakers can use the risk assessments in audit reports to develop more robust and resilient policies that are less prone to failure.

Support Legislative Oversight

Furthermore, performance audits support legislative oversight by providing lawmakers with independent and objective assessments of government programs. Legislators rely on audit reports to scrutinize the executive branch’s performance, ensuring that public funds are used effectively and programs deliver value to citizens. The findings and recommendations from performance audits inform legislative debates, shape budget allocations, and guide the formulation of new laws and regulations. For example, audit findings on environmental programs might lead to legislative action to strengthen environmental protections and ensure sustainable resource management.

Promote Public Trust

The role of performance audits in policy development is also evident in their impact on public trust. When audits reveal that government programs are being managed efficiently and effectively, they enhance public confidence in governmental institutions. Conversely, when audits uncover issues, they provide a basis for corrective action, demonstrating a commitment to accountability and improvement. This dynamic helps to build and maintain public trust, which is essential for the legitimacy and effectiveness of government policies.