Minutes of the 58th Independent Administrative Institution Evaluation Committee
Overview
At its 58th meeting, the Independent Administrative Institution Evaluation Committee reported that two units of the Evaluation Subcommittee would review 12 independent administrative institutions whose medium- to long-term target periods end in FY2026, and presented issues and questions for each institution. The Committee said it would hold hearings with the institutions and provide feedback on the issues to their supervising ministries to help formulate the next targets. It also confirmed that it would review evaluation reports, including those on FY2025 business performance, in line with the Basic Approach to the Operation of the Independent Administrative Institution Evaluation System.
Key points
- The Evaluation Subcommittee divided the 12 institutions under review into two units: Unit 1 covered five institutions and Unit 2 covered seven.
- Annual evaluations and related assessments will be reviewed from the perspectives set out in the Basic Approach to the Operation of the Independent Administrative Institution Evaluation System.
- The Committee said it would convey issues identified in hearings with the institutions to their supervising ministries to help formulate the next targets.
Overview
The meeting addressed deliberations on independent administrative institutions whose medium- to long-term target periods end in FY2026, as well as reviews of evaluations related to FY2025 business performance. For the institutions under review, potential issues and questions for each were reported following discussions with the supervising ministries in May and unit meetings in June.
Impact
The Committee said it was important to use evaluations in institutions’ business operations and management, drive operational improvements, promote the PDCA cycle, and maximize policy implementation capacity.
Details
Issues raised for individual institutions included oversight of contractors and public outreach at the Japan Postal Savings and Insurance Management and Support Organization; governance and organizational structure at JICA; prioritization of cultural and arts programs at the Japan Foundation for Culture and International Exchange; specialized personnel at JST; performance indicators at JETRO; and personnel and evaluation indicators at JILPT. At the National Centers for Advanced and Specialized Medical Care, issues included common matters such as finances and personnel, as well as institution-specific conditions such as aging facilities and carried-forward deficit balances. At NASVA, outreach indicators to raise awareness of the system were also discussed.
The review will check whether annual evaluation items rated C include analysis of causes and improvement plans; whether measures that have fallen below their initial results for multiple years have been assessed against previous corrective actions; and whether institutions have responded to misconduct and findings by the Board of Audit of Japan. For performance evaluations covering an entire target period and interim evaluations, the review will check whether the social impact of results and the direction of future efforts are explained clearly.
The Evaluation Subcommittee planned to have auditors attend this fiscal year’s institutional hearings and said it would hear about governance from auditors as well as presidents. Committee member Fujikawa suggested that reviews of evaluation reports and hearings should consider long-term visions and responses to environmental change; the secretariat said it would take that perspective into account.