Measuring up: How good are the Government's data systems for
monitoring performance against Public Service Agreements?
Every two to three years the Government
undertakes a Spending Review, agreeing the financial settlements
for each Government Department. As part of this process Departments
and the Treasury negotiate Public Service Agreements (PSAs). PSAs
set objectives for the priority areas of Government's work and are
a public agreement of the performance to be achieved for Government
Spending.
Following the recommendation set out in
Lord
Sharman's 2001 report, the Government, in March 2002, invited
the C&AG to review the reliability of data systems underlying
the reporting of progress against PSAs.
The objectives of the work are to:
- provide Parliament and the public with assurance that
Departments are operating sound data systems for the purposes of
monitoring and reporting progress against their PSA and;
- help improve the quality of Departments' data systems and
support better performance management.
Good quality data is essential to track progress against specified
indicators and we review the data systems providing the data.
The review considers four questions:
- Does the organisation have appropriate policies and practices
in relation to data quality?
- Does the data system measure the intention of the
objective?
- Does the data system operate well?
- Does the data get reported in a way that can be fully
understood?
On the basis of our review, we provide a
'Traffic Light' rating and a conclusion for each data system,
indicating whether the system is:
- fit for purpose (green);
- broadly appropriate but needs strengthening (amber); or
- not fit for purpose (red).
|
Rating
|
Meaning …
|
|
GREEN (fit for purpose)
|
The data system is fit for the purpose
of measuring and reporting performance against the indicator
|
|
GREEN (disclosure)
|
The data system is appropriate for the
indicator and the Department has explained fully the implications
of limitations that cannot be cost-effectively controlled
|
|
AMBER (Systems)
|
Broadly appropriate, but needs
strengthening to ensure that remaining risks are adequately
controlled
|
|
AMBER (Disclosure)
|
Broadly appropriate, but includes
limitations that cannot be cost-effectively controlled; the
Department should explain the implications of these.
|
|
RED (Systems)
|
The data system does not permit
reliable measurement and reporting of performance against the
indicator
|
|
RED (Not
established)
|
The Department has not yet put in place
a system to measure performance against the indicator
|
Departments can prepare for the Data System Validation by
undertaking a
Self-Assessment.
Previous findings
Earlier NAO published reports on Validation of
Data Systems were:
Validation reports for individual Departments
and PSAs under the Comprehensive Spending Review 2007 will be
included on this site when they are finalised.
Useful Links:
HM Treasury
website: The Comprehensive Spending Review 2007 – HM Treasury
website
Independent Reviews of
reported CSR07 Value for Money savings