Forecasting in government to achieve value for money
Published on:Inadequate forecasting is an entrenched problem for government departments, leading to poor value for money and increased costs for the taxpayer.
Inadequate forecasting is an entrenched problem for government departments, leading to poor value for money and increased costs for the taxpayer.
This memorandum sets out background information about the Crossrail programme and the current position
Monitor has achieved value for money in regulating NHS foundation trusts, and has generally been effective in helping trusts in difficulty to improve.
In this guide we highlight National Audit Office reports which illustrate the different approaches departments take to initiating projects. We show how they develop a realistic understanding of the risks, benefits and deliverability of projects.
Better access to public information can improve accountability and service delivery. Government needs a firm grasp of whether that potential is being realised.
The Government’s ability to show that its spending decisions represent the best value for money is being hindered by the patchy availability of good information.
Option appraisal is crucial to ensure Government decisions are fully informed and based on robust evidence. Appraisals can be applied at project, programme or policy levels, and have particular value when there is pressure to reduce costs while minimising effects on frontline services or the wider economy.
In 2007, the five UK audit agencies jointly launched a set of indicators for each of five corporate service activities – estates management, finance, human resources, ICT, and procurement. Two further services were subsequently added – communications and legal.
We have reported regularly through our Value for Money audit programme that more effective risk management would enable departments to be better informed in their decisions, have a greater likelihood of meeting their aims and objectives, and help them to avoid costly mistakes.
Being able to measure performance is a key step to managing performance. Most organisations in the public and private sectors use formal performance frameworks as a means to secure coherent performance management and report progress to their boards.
Two government programmes aiming to help families with multiple challenges, such as unemployment and anti-social behaviour, are starting to provide benefits but considerable challenges remain.
This review examines whether the Department for Transport has in place suitable arrangements to secure value for money from Regional Funding Allocation Programme investment.
The MOD acted promptly to revert to the decision to buy the vertical take-off version of the Joint Strike Fighter but will have to manage significant risks.
The competition to let this franchise lacked oversight. The full cost to the taxpayer is unknown, but likely to be significant.
The National Audit Office has published a survey report on the performance reporting arrangements between 41 NDPBs and their 12 sponsor departments.
The HS1 project has delivered a high performing line, which was subsequently sold in a well-managed way. But international passenger numbers are falling far short of forecasts and the project costs exceed the value of journey time saving benefits.
A third of major government projects due to deliver in the next five years are rated as in doubt or unachievable unless action is taken to improve delivery. Greater transparency on project performance is required.
In its final review of the quality of the data systems used by departments to measure progress against PSAs, the NAO underlines the vital importance of measuring government performance.
This report sets out good practice in developing a performance framework, reporting performance information, and ensuring performance information is used. Based on a survey and case studies, the report includes a model that organisations can apply to evaluate the maturity of their own performance system.
In June 2015, the Secretary of State for Transport announced that two large rail electrification schemes would be paused because the rail investment portfolio was costing more and taking longer.