This paper contains in-depth evaluation on the structure and the contents of Performance report of 2010 fiscal year. First of all, the paper reviews if the Performance report has been written faithfully reflecting the purpose of the performance management system.

  In addition, this paper analyzes programs which failed to achieve targeted objective or committed poor performance compared to its budget scale to support performance-based deliberation on budget and settlement of accounts. Based on that analysis, steps to improve its performance have been suggested.

  According to ‘FY 2010 Performance Report’ submitted by the government, 4,477 performance indicators (82.7 percent of whole 5,410) had achieved the originally targeted level of performance.

In many cases, however, the government set performance indicators which are easily achievable or passively set same to the last year’s level without considering amounts of budget to be increased. In other cases, the report presented inaccurate information and even missed basic performance information. Moreover, only small portion of government outlay program was covered in the ‘Performance Plan’ or ‘Performance Report.’

  Based on the results of evaluation, this paper suggests measures to improve performance management system, such as restoring credibility of the Performance report and intensifying linkage between performance evaluation results and budget. Also, the paper emphasizes that the scope of managing performance report should be expanded.