Strategic area
Governance and Institutional Capacity
Public responsibilities matched by capability, resources and effective remedy
The proposed governance approach would connect public mandates to the people, cash, records and decision rights required to deliver them. Country compacts would identify authorised institutions and funding before expanding duties. Transparent decisions and independent challenge would support accountable domestic authority.
Proposed approach
Match commitments to available resources
Authorities would distinguish appropriations, cash releases, paid bills and arrears. Service plans would include staff, maintenance and replacement costs, credible cash forecasts and lawful responses to shortfalls. Material reallocations would disclose consequences and continuity measures before additional obligations arise.
Build competence through operating practice
Recruitment would use published competencies, conflict declarations and practical assessment. Supervised work and succession records would develop actual budgeting, procurement, payroll, maintenance and reporting capability. Training attendance alone would not justify delegated authority.
Separate controls and close findings with evidence
Institutions would separate requests, selection, payment approval, custody and reconciliation, using compensating controls where staff numbers are limited. Protected reports of diversion or interference would receive independent examination. Corrective actions would retain responsible officers, finance and dates until independent validation confirms effective correction.
Provide accessible complaints and remedy
People would be able to challenge exclusion, charges, missed care and abuse without depending on internet access or safe travel. Case handling would assign urgency, independent review where appropriate and understandable progress updates. Acknowledgement, substantive response, resolution and effective remedy would be reported separately.
Publish reconciled accounts and meaningful decisions
Quarterly reports would connect allocations, receipts, spending, commitments, arrears and outputs to original records. Competitive procurement would retain transparent exceptions and challenge routes. Consultation would occur while choices remain open, with public reasons showing how feedback affected decisions and protection against discriminatory interference.
Intended outcomes
Planned outcomes are more complete, reconciled public service finance reports published on time and more eligible complaints receiving timely substantive responses. The framework also proposes separate measures of domestic execution and domestic payment of running costs. A response letter, clean checklist or low complaint count would not by itself establish effective remedy, compliance or integrity.
Protection and access
Confidential complaint channels would protect against retaliation, separate urgent safeguarding and preserve lawful entitlements during review. Participation would address language, distance, disability, displacement and discrimination. Payment restrictions would include continuity plans, and public reports would protect personal information.
Long term direction
Transfer would require capable domestic staff and replacement cash reaching the service, verified over repeated operating cycles. Records would preserve active contracts, legal authority, arrears, maintenance gaps and unresolved obligations. Donor pass-through would remain externally financed even inside national accounts.
Who would do what
| Party | Role |
|---|---|
| Public authorities and authorised officials | Retain statutory powers, decisions, oversight and correction with clearly assigned resources and obligations. |
| Institutional staff and delivery partners | Execute funded functions, maintain reconciled records, separate controls and support accessible participation and complaints. |
| Communities and independent review bodies | Influence open decisions, challenge exclusion and scrutinise grant obligations; independent reviewers examine evidence and validate remedies within their mandates. |
| THESO | Appraise country responsibilities, finance agreed capability and records, monitor exposure and require evidence before wider delegation or transfer. |
Scroll sideways to see all columns.
Planned measures
These are planned indicators. No result has been measured or verified yet.
- Indicator 15. Reconciled public service finance reports
- Indicator 16. Substantive responses to complaints
Discuss this area
Discuss an institutional capability priority
Identify the public function, lawful authority, current operating constraints, required resources and the evidence that would demonstrate independent execution.
Draft framework wording