Toolbox · The structure of a SEESALT report

The SEESALT assessment framework.

A systematic way to evaluate and report on public-finance management in poverty-reduction and sustainable-development projects, so that every SEESALT assessment is written up in the same order and results can be compared.

Oct 2025Latest update

7Scored dimensions

2Worked examples

Download the full framework

What it is for

Baseline, monitor, reform, partner.

The framework draws on international practice — its dimensions follow the PEFA logic — while staying adaptable to local context and capacity. It serves practitioners, government agencies, NGOs and international organisations in four ways: a rigorous baseline of a project’s financial management; ongoing monitoring of budget execution and fiscal performance so that problems surface early; identification of reform opportunities and capacity gaps with actionable pathways; and a shared language with local governments about what good financial governance looks like.

Its purpose is not a score. It is trust between governments, implementing partners and the communities they serve, built on evidence that all three can read.

Report structure

What every report contains, in this order.

Executive summaryTwo to three pages for decision-makers: the three findings that demand immediate attention, the immediate actions recommended, and how the project aligns with local, national and international goals.
Introduction and rationaleWhy this assessment matters for poverty reduction and sustainable development, and how financial management connects to outcomes for poor and vulnerable people.
Evaluation management and quality assuranceHow the team was organised, how conflicts of interest were handled, and the peer review, data validation and stakeholder consultation used.
Dimensional assessmentSeven scored dimensions, each with evidence, a score and a note on data quality.
Budget reliability
Transparency
Asset management
Fiscal strategy
Budget execution
Accounting and reporting
External audit
Financial sustainabilityRevenue projections against actuals; debt-service capacity and coverage; sustainability horizon.
Reform roadmapShort-term (0–6 months) and medium-term (6–18 months) actions, each with an owner, a cost where known and an expected effect on the score.
Lessons and replicable practiceWhat worked, what did not, and what another project could copy.

Worked examples illustrative — figures are invented to show the method

Two reports, read side by side.

Neither example is a real assessment. They exist to show what a completed report looks like at two scales, and the figures are chosen to make the structure visible.

Illustrative · rural county

Sustainable-finance assessment in a rural county

A mountainous county in south-west China, population 450,000, 68 per cent rural; a poverty-alleviation project centred on agriculture; assessment January–June.

Strengths. Political commitment visible in allocations; e-government transparency beyond expectation for a rural county; community participation in budget priorities; innovative financing for smallholders.

Weaknesses. Limited asset management; high staff turnover in the finance department; weak procurement controls; audits completing more than nine months late.

Budget reliability	78
Transparency	82
Asset management	62
Fiscal strategy	75
Budget execution	71
Accounting	76
External audit	68
Overall	74 · C+

Reforms. 0–6 months: recruit an asset-management officer; a simplified asset registry sized to local capacity; procurement training; an audit committee. 6–18 months: upgrade financial software; a multi-year fiscal framework; internal-audit capacity; a performance dashboard.

After twelve months. Asset management 62 → 75; audit completion nine months → five; procurement compliance 73 → 89 per cent; budget variance 14 → 9 per cent.

What it teaches. Leadership championship is necessary; simple solutions sized to capacity beat sophisticated ones; peer exchange with neighbouring counties outperforms external training; open-source software and community scorecards are affordable and work; incremental beats big-bang.

Illustrative · urban infrastructure

Urban infrastructure project assessment

A provincial capital of 8.5 million people in eastern China; a five-year, ¥12 billion transport-and-water programme with municipal bonds, development-bank loans, PPPs and commercial co-financing; assessment March–September.

Strengths. Budget reliability 88 (contingencies, inflation factors, quarterly reviews; variance 6 per cent). Transparency 92 (real-time dashboard, monthly public hearings, open-data portal, proactive disclosure). Accounting 85 (integrated FMIS, IPSAS compliance, automated reporting, clean audit opinions).

Weaknesses. Asset management 71: incomplete registers for inherited infrastructure, inconsistent valuation, little lifecycle costing. Internal controls 74: IT-security vulnerabilities found in penetration testing, undocumented control overrides, weak contract-variation management.

Sustainability. User fees 95 per cent of target; land-value capture 87; transfers 102; commercial revenue 78. Debt-to-revenue 2.8:1 against a 3.5:1 ceiling; coverage 1.4× against a 1.2× floor; adequate capacity for fifteen years if commercial revenue is addressed.

Reform roadmap. Asset-management overhaul (18 months, ¥45m, target 71 → 85); risk-based internal audit (12 months, ¥8m, 30 per cent more weaknesses detected); contract-management system (15 months, ¥22m, 5 per cent saved on variation orders ≈ ¥60m a year).

What it teaches. Inter-agency coordination, a professional project-management office, third-party monitoring and citizen engagement worked. Over-ambitious timelines, thin change management, over-complex technology and weak transition planning did not. Governance first, capacity before systems, phased rollout, room to adapt.

播种光明，收获永恒