Evaluation of Cantonal/Municipal Financial Budgets
As part of the evaluation of financial budgets, BAK systematically reviews cantonal/municipal tasks and structures with the help of intercantonal benchmarking. Based on the analyses, the necessary measures are derived to convince the majority in parliament as well as the population of your financial strategy.
Professional support in strategic as well as operational processes including well-founded classification of regional and market developments.
|Financial strategy with a sound data basis|
Preparation of a budget and financial plan based on economic analyses and forecasts. Specific financial models embedded in the BAK models serve as a basis.
|Increasing efficiency and effectiveness|
Basis for a long-term sustainable development of the cantonal public finances.
|Achieve your financial goals|
Developing measures and eliminating structural deficits.
The aim of benchmarking is to identify and quantify cost differentials by task area. Since the mode of task distribution differs in part considerably between the 26 cantons and their respective municipalities, a direct comparison of the cantons' net expenditures would be severely limited in its informative value. This is counteracted by carrying out the analysis on the basis of the consolidated net expenditure of the cantons including their municipalities. The net expenditure corresponds to the expenditure in a task area minus the revenue in the same task area. The analysis is carried out in several steps.
In a first step, a comparative benchmarking analysis of the net expenditures of all relevant cantonal task areas is established. This standard benchmarking includes a simple intercantonal comparison of net expenditure for each task area. For the classification of the supply in the intercantonal context, a standardisation of the net expenditure is carried out. This standardisation is carried out for each task area on the basis of the permanent resident population.
In a further step, the standard index is broken down into two factors: The first component shows how high the case costs per care unit are in comparison. Above-average case costs indicate that inefficiencies exist in the corresponding task area or that an above-average level of service per care unit prevails. The second component absorbs intercantonal differences in case frequency (demand structure), e.g. due to different socio-demographic, geographical or topographical conditions. Since cost differences due to these factors are of a structural nature (structural costs), they cannot be influenced in the short term or can only be influenced with difficulty.
Subsequently, the costs are differentiated: BAK identifies the task fields with conspicuous cost structures, differentiates case costs and structural costs. The following can be achieved:
Identification of task areas with conspicuous cost structures
Differentiation in case costs and structural costs
|Cost differential 1 (case cost differential)|
|Cost differential 2 (structural cost differential due to higher case frequency)|
|Cost differential 3 (task fields without case costs/case frequency)|
For those task areas for which it was not possible to segment the cost differences into quantity and price effects, the cost differential 3 denotes the total amount by which the costs in the corresponding canton are higher than in the reference group taken as a basis.