政府捐助財團法人係政府為達成特定政策或行政目的，透過組織設置條例或行政命令等方式而捐助成立。然而，近年來我國政府捐助財團法人卻發生諸多問題，例如董事席次的爭議、酬庸退休官員擔任董事，以及財產不當處理或運用等現象，仍無法有效處理與防制等，引起各界的關注。政府捐助財團法人為民法規範之私法人，惟本身兼具「公」與「私」的雙重性格，難免顯現與民主責任政治的衝突本質，實有賴績效考核制度之設置，強化與多元利益關係人的層級課責，以滿足民眾與國會期望。據此，為兼顧政府捐助財團法人短期和長期發展，以及財務與非財務之平衡關係，本文試從平衡計分卡與法人治理相關文獻，建構政府捐助財團法人績效構面與考核項目，藉由層級分析法之實證調查來解析其權重的先後順序，提出政府捐助財團法人績效考核制度設計之建議，俾利監督機關未來建立監督管理的課責機制。研究發現，在N1 或N2 樣本中，依績效構面權重值的排序結果，法人治理的重要性最高，依序為業務活動、財務管理和內部管理。然而，若將N1 樣本區分成學術界與實務界兩類，學術界認為法人治理構面居首，接著為業務活動、財務管理和內部管理；另外，實務界則呈現不同偏好，順次為業務活動、內部管理、財務管理及法人治理。

Government Funded Nonprofit Organizations ( GFNPOs ) are typically established by some government agencies to serve the citizenry as a whole through targeting the needs of particular public policies or fulfilling specific administrative functions. GFNPOs represent one type of hybrid organizations with both public and private sector characteristics. However, these organizations, mostly governed by the private law, have been criticized for the lack of accountability to their constituencies in recent years due to the disputes over those issues of board seats, personnel patronage, property disposition, and so forth. To strengthen public accountability for GFNPOs, this study first reviews the
literatures of corporate governance as well as balanced scorecard, and then seeks to build the system of performance assessment by applying the approach of Analytic Hierarchy Process ( AHP ) for resolving multi-criteria decisions such as developing performance metrics and assigning weights to the most important factors used in the evaluation process.
After the investigation, the research result reveals that in accordance with the weights of four perspectives, the priority order is Corporate Governance first, Service Delivery second, Financial Management third, and Internal Administration last no matter what the samples are in N1 or N210. However, if dividing N1 samples into two categories of Academic Scholars and Practical Experts, the priority order of Academic Scholars is
Corporate Governance first, Service Delivery second, Financial Management third, and Internal Administration last; on the other side, the priority order of Practical Experts is Service Delivery first, Internal Administration second, Financial Management third, and Corporate Governance last.