By Helen Mooney
23 October 2009
The government is failing to monitor its progress in meeting its Public Service Agreements, according to the National Audit Office.
An NAO report, published on October 21, found that weaknesses remained in more than a third of the data systems used by the government to monitor progress. Eleven per cent had remained unsatisfactory since 2007, when the government introduced a new performance framework to streamline PSAs, indicators and targets.
Many of the weaknesses in the data systems stemmed from departments failing formally to consider the quality of data needed to check progress on their PSAs, the report said. There was also an associated lack of formal risk assessment.
Despite the fact that the Treasury has issued ‘good, comprehensive guidance on the development of indicators, which help departments know if PSAs were being met’, government departments did not consistently apply this guidance and the Treasury did not enforce its application. PSAs were introduced in 1998 to promote performance improvement and increase accountability for government resources.
Amyas Morse, head of the NAO, said: ‘For any organisation, monitoring and measuring performance are fundamental to improving the management of resources and the delivery of services. So the slow progress being made by some government departments in achieving better quality information about their own performance is a matter for concern.
‘Departments now have the benefit of lessons from a decade or more of outcome-oriented performance management. The Treasury has issued good guidance reflecting that experience: it now needs to enforce its application.’
23 October 2009
The government is failing to monitor its progress in meeting its Public Service Agreements, according to the National Audit Office.
An NAO report, published on October 21, found that weaknesses remained in more than a third of the data systems used by the government to monitor progress. Eleven per cent had remained unsatisfactory since 2007, when the government introduced a new performance framework to streamline PSAs, indicators and targets.
Many of the weaknesses in the data systems stemmed from departments failing formally to consider the quality of data needed to check progress on their PSAs, the report said. There was also an associated lack of formal risk assessment.
Despite the fact that the Treasury has issued ‘good, comprehensive guidance on the development of indicators, which help departments know if PSAs were being met’, government departments did not consistently apply this guidance and the Treasury did not enforce its application. PSAs were introduced in 1998 to promote performance improvement and increase accountability for government resources.
Amyas Morse, head of the NAO, said: ‘For any organisation, monitoring and measuring performance are fundamental to improving the management of resources and the delivery of services. So the slow progress being made by some government departments in achieving better quality information about their own performance is a matter for concern.
‘Departments now have the benefit of lessons from a decade or more of outcome-oriented performance management. The Treasury has issued good guidance reflecting that experience: it now needs to enforce its application.’
