The National Audit Office (NAO) has found that HM Treasury is effectively controlling public spending and the Cabinet Office, with support from cross-government functions such as finance, is helping to improve business planning in government departments. But it concludes that, unless government makes use of a more integrated planning and spending framework to ensure its plans are deliverable and affordable, the cycle of over optimism, short-termism and silo decision-making will continue – risking value for money for UK taxpayers in the long term.
Through its planning and spending framework, the centre of government sets priorities, plans activity, allocates money and monitors progress and performance. Departments plan and deliver their objectives and manage delegated budgets. HM Treasury – through its 20 spending teams – distributes and controls funding to departments, runs spending reviews and sets rules for how money should be spent. For example, HM Treasury scrutinises the value for money of new proposals for projects and programmes with support from project management and commercial experts. The Cabinet Office monitors delivery of departments’ objectives and government priorities, and oversees departmental business planning. The Spending Review in 2015 allocated £4 trillion of public spending for the five years to 2020-21 and the next Review is expected in 2019.
HM Treasury has begun to focus more on the longer-term. It now provides guaranteed funding to support 10-year plans in some sectors such as defence and has also committed funding for investment in housing, infrastructure, and research and development. It is also increasingly focusing on long-term risks to public finances. However, this has yet to make a difference to the way HM Treasury monitors departments’ performance, and is not supported by a good understanding of the long-term value for money being delivered. HM Treasury recognises this and is developing a new approach to understanding value, but this is at an early stage. It will need to be supported by new success measures for HM Treasury itself, which balance spending control and long-term value, and by enhanced skills and capacity.
Since 2015, the Cabinet Office has required departments to prepare Single Departmental Plans (SDPs), which set out how they will implement their objectives, deliver services and track performance. Working with HM Treasury and cross-government functions, it is helping departments improve business planning and is working on how to use SDPs to challenge funding bids and inform allocations at the next spending review. As yet, SDPs are not central to decision-making in all departments, do not fully match delivery plans to resources, and are weak on measures of success. This creates a risk of unachievable commitments being made and departments failing to see when they are off-track.
Departments have had to plan to deliver more with less, and several are having to deliver complex, long-term programmes to transform public services. Yet the structure of government means departments plan and deliver in silos, which can undermine value for money and negatively affect local services. While various cross-government working groups exist, there is no visibility of their plans or impact, and HM Treasury is considering how best to allow for cross-departmental bids in the next Spending Review. Departments’ Accounting Officers are not adequately incentivised to prioritise, make realistic business plans and protect long-term value. NAO reports repeatedly show over-optimistic plans resulting in failure to deliver, lower quality service or need for further funding and an unwillingness to reprioritise or drop activity despite the pressures of EU Exit work.
Since the NAO last reported on the framework in July 2016, HM Treasury and Cabinet Office have recognised the need to move towards a more integrated approach to assessing and measuring value. The benefits of an integrated framework are self-evident: it would support government in achieving long-term value from projects and programmes; guarding against unrealistic and optimistic assumptions; and understanding the impact of in-year decisions on longer-term delivery. Without it, the system is vulnerable to short-term thinking, leading to poor outcomes for public services and poor value for money.
Full report (PDF 78pp)
Showing posts with label NAO. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NAO. Show all posts
Thursday, 29 November 2018
Tuesday, 12 December 2017
The higher education market
a Press Release from the National Audit Office (8 December 2017)
Only 32% of higher education students consider their course offers value for money, and competition between providers to drive improvements on price and quality has yet to prove effective, according to today’s report from the National Audit Office.
The Department for Education’s (the Department’s) up-front public funding for higher education students in England is now over £9 billion a year, up from £6 billion in 2007/08. In recent years, the government has increasingly delivered higher education using market mechanisms, in particular relying more on student choice and provider competition to improve quality, and value for money. Some 85% of up-front funding now follows students directly, in the form of tuition fee loans, up from 23% over the same period.
Prospective students are in a potentially vulnerable position when deciding whether to enter higher education and take on a student loan. Graduates earn, on average, 42% more than non-graduates. However, graduate earnings for some providers and subjects are lower than for non-graduates, emphasising the importance of making an informed choice. The average student debt, for a three-year course, on graduation is £50,000.
The NAO finds that the Department needs a more comprehensive approach to the oversight of the higher education market, and must use the proposed regulatory reforms to help address the deficiencies identified in this report, if students and the taxpayer are to secure value for money. The Department began consulting on a new regulatory framework for higher education in October 2017, focusing on improving student choice and outcomes, and seeking to address a number of weaknesses in the market.
Higher education has a more limited level of consumer protection than other complex products such as financial services. The Department has improved information available to help prospective students choose their course and provider, but only one in five use it and additional support does not adequately reach those who need it most. The Department plans further improvements as part of its new regulatory framework, but requirements for higher education providers to ensure that prospective students understand their prospects are limited.
The report outlines that the proportion of young people from disadvantaged backgrounds entering higher education has increased, but participation remains much lower than for those from more advantaged backgrounds. The percentage of 18- and 19-year-olds attending higher education from the lowest participation areas of the country (which correlates closely to lower socio-economic status) increased from 21% to 26% between 2011 and 2016. However, 59% attend from the highest participation areas, a difference that is mostly explained by educational achievement at school. Furthermore, increased participation among disadvantaged students is weighted towards lower-ranked providers, which risks creating a two-tier system.
There is no meaningful price competition in the sector and market incentives for higher education providers to compete for students on course quality are weak. In 2016, 87 of the top 90 English universities charged the maximum permissible fee of £9,000 a year for all courses. The relationship between course quality and providers’ fee income is also weak. The NAO finds that, on average, a provider moving up five places in a league table gains just 0.25% of additional fee income.
Students can do little to influence quality once on a course. The sector ombudsman considers that providers have improved their handling of complaints and feedback, with a 25% drop in student complaints referred to it since 2014. However, students are unable to drive quality through switching providers. There is also not yet evidence that more providers entering and exiting the market will improve quality in the sector, and protections for students are untested.
The Department provides grant funding for high-cost courses, many of which it considers strategically-important. Providers’ costs vary from £7,000 for some subjects to £20,000 for others. The NAO finds that the cheaper a course is to run, the more likely a provider is to maintain offers in the face of declining applications or expand student numbers in response to more applications.
Only 32% of higher education students consider their course offers value for money, and competition between providers to drive improvements on price and quality has yet to prove effective, according to today’s report from the National Audit Office.
The Department for Education’s (the Department’s) up-front public funding for higher education students in England is now over £9 billion a year, up from £6 billion in 2007/08. In recent years, the government has increasingly delivered higher education using market mechanisms, in particular relying more on student choice and provider competition to improve quality, and value for money. Some 85% of up-front funding now follows students directly, in the form of tuition fee loans, up from 23% over the same period.
Prospective students are in a potentially vulnerable position when deciding whether to enter higher education and take on a student loan. Graduates earn, on average, 42% more than non-graduates. However, graduate earnings for some providers and subjects are lower than for non-graduates, emphasising the importance of making an informed choice. The average student debt, for a three-year course, on graduation is £50,000.
The NAO finds that the Department needs a more comprehensive approach to the oversight of the higher education market, and must use the proposed regulatory reforms to help address the deficiencies identified in this report, if students and the taxpayer are to secure value for money. The Department began consulting on a new regulatory framework for higher education in October 2017, focusing on improving student choice and outcomes, and seeking to address a number of weaknesses in the market.
Higher education has a more limited level of consumer protection than other complex products such as financial services. The Department has improved information available to help prospective students choose their course and provider, but only one in five use it and additional support does not adequately reach those who need it most. The Department plans further improvements as part of its new regulatory framework, but requirements for higher education providers to ensure that prospective students understand their prospects are limited.
The report outlines that the proportion of young people from disadvantaged backgrounds entering higher education has increased, but participation remains much lower than for those from more advantaged backgrounds. The percentage of 18- and 19-year-olds attending higher education from the lowest participation areas of the country (which correlates closely to lower socio-economic status) increased from 21% to 26% between 2011 and 2016. However, 59% attend from the highest participation areas, a difference that is mostly explained by educational achievement at school. Furthermore, increased participation among disadvantaged students is weighted towards lower-ranked providers, which risks creating a two-tier system.
There is no meaningful price competition in the sector and market incentives for higher education providers to compete for students on course quality are weak. In 2016, 87 of the top 90 English universities charged the maximum permissible fee of £9,000 a year for all courses. The relationship between course quality and providers’ fee income is also weak. The NAO finds that, on average, a provider moving up five places in a league table gains just 0.25% of additional fee income.
Students can do little to influence quality once on a course. The sector ombudsman considers that providers have improved their handling of complaints and feedback, with a 25% drop in student complaints referred to it since 2014. However, students are unable to drive quality through switching providers. There is also not yet evidence that more providers entering and exiting the market will improve quality in the sector, and protections for students are untested.
The Department provides grant funding for high-cost courses, many of which it considers strategically-important. Providers’ costs vary from £7,000 for some subjects to £20,000 for others. The NAO finds that the cheaper a course is to run, the more likely a provider is to maintain offers in the face of declining applications or expand student numbers in response to more applications.
Sunday, 16 July 2017
The new generation electronic monitoring programme
a press release from the National Audit Office published on 12 July 2017
“The case for a huge expansion of electronic monitoring using GPS was unproven, but the Ministry of Justice pursued an overly ambitious and high risk strategy anyway. Ultimately it has not delivered. After abandoning its original plans, the Ministry’s new service will now, ironically, be much closer to its existing one. Even if it launches in 2018, it will still be five years late. The Ministry has learnt costly lessons from its failings but significant risks still remain.”
Amyas Morse, head of the National Audit Office
Full press release (HTML)
Full report (PDF 51pp)
Hazel’s comment:
I am almost fearful of saying anything about this.
Promising programmes of work are cancelled for lack of support, now this mess!
“The case for a huge expansion of electronic monitoring using GPS was unproven, but the Ministry of Justice pursued an overly ambitious and high risk strategy anyway. Ultimately it has not delivered. After abandoning its original plans, the Ministry’s new service will now, ironically, be much closer to its existing one. Even if it launches in 2018, it will still be five years late. The Ministry has learnt costly lessons from its failings but significant risks still remain.”
Amyas Morse, head of the National Audit Office
Full press release (HTML)
Full report (PDF 51pp)
Hazel’s comment:
I am almost fearful of saying anything about this.
Promising programmes of work are cancelled for lack of support, now this mess!
Thursday, 14 March 2013
Responding to change in Jobcentres
This report from the National Audit Office did not quite have me foaming at the mouth but very nearly.
OK, so maybe I was already in a grumpy mood this morning but …
First, it took me ages to find the actual document having seen a short report about it in another publication; then it insisted that it would only load in Adobe Reader not my preferred Foxit and to finish me off it does not allow simple copy and paste to bring you the highlights.
Moan over!
It’s here and is actually worth reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
