House of Commons - Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions

Select Committee on Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions First Report

2 Consistent Management

6. The 2003 Annual Report (CM 5906) is the first since the ODPM was created in May 2002 and covers the period between May 2002 and March 2003. The new Department meant a new set of ministers took charge. In May 2003, there was a further ministerial reshuffle bringing new policy priorities. The Department's Public Service Agreements have also been reviewed, and three of the seven were replaced in 2002. With these constant changes there is a danger of inconsistent policy development, management and reporting.

Public Service Agreement targets

Rolling forward and replacing targets

7. Three ongoing Public Service Agreement (PSA) targets set in 2000 have been 'rolled forward and replaced' by new targets following the Comprehensive Spending Review 2002. These new targets cover:

· decent homes; this now includes a new element for vulnerable households in private sector dwellings

· local government effectiveness and efficiency; this additionally includes Comprehensive Performance Assessment scores and extends the cost effectiveness element to the end of the current spending review period

· regional economic performance; the new target adds more detail to the earlier target.

The Annual Report states that, in each case "In future, ODPM's Annual Reports and Autumn Performance Reports will provide performance information on the SR2002 PSA target."[3]

8. We question whether a 'new' target was needed in each of these cases. The target dates have remained the same for the decent homes and regional economic performance targets, although the targets have been revised. By amending existing targets and treating them as new ones, the ODPM have, in effect, brought their start dates forward. The ODPM have now decided to disregard the original targets. By reporting only on the new targets, the ODPM will make it appear progress has been made more quickly than it actually has.

9. There seems to have been little progress in achieving the original targets. Much of the progress was in producing indicators and baselines. For these original targets, the lack of any real progress in the period up to 31 March 2003 will now be consigned to history. To improve accountability, performance data published in ODPM Annual Reports, Autumn Performance Reports and on the Treasury website should explicitly state where current targets have replaced earlier targets and when the original target was agreed and what progress was made in the period between.

10. ODPM should make every effort to ensure that all aspects of the targets it signs up to are sufficiently well thought out that they are unlikely to need early replacement. The tendency with most Government departments since 1998 has been to have fewer targets, but to increase the number of elements in each target and have longer time-frames. It is not always helpful to reduce artificially the number of targets by having a smaller number with many different parts. Circumstances beyond ODPM's control may mean targets need to be redefined but there should be a presumption against rolling forward and replacing current targets. It is preferable to create an additional PSA target than to roll forward and replace an existing one.

ACHIEVING TARGETS

11. There have been considerable delays in developing indicators for the local government costeffectiveness and regional economic performance targets. There is an on-going difficulty with the proposed indicator for measuring regional economic performance. This target was first agreed in 2000 but there has been little progress in developing measures. The indicators are supposed to be based on the figures for gross value added per head which are being prepared by the Office of National Statistics. The ODPM however has little control over ONS and this work is not being given priority.[4] Officials have suggested using proxy indicators as an interim measure. It is unacceptable that we still have such limited indication of what the target is supposed to measure. ODPM should prioritise the development of proxy indicators for the regional economic performance target and continue to apply pressure to the Office of National Statistics to produce timely, complete and reliable data on regional gross value added per head.

12. The local government cost effectiveness target was originally agreed in 2000. An interim indicator has been developed, but progress will not be measured against this until December 2003.[5] A final, more robust measure is planned by April 2004. We were told that "It is a very complex area."[6] But such delays are not acceptable. There are likely to be fewer delays for the Spending Review 2002 targets, partly because they are based on earlier targets. However, the main element of the housing supply and demand target is still incomplete and very little appears to have been decided on the sustainable towns and cities element of this target.[7] The Committee is concerned that every aspect of a target's definition should be finalised and published before they come into force. The definition and measurement of performance indicators should also be complete at the same time. ODPM should identify at the earliest possible stage when interim measurements are needed and develop these within the same deadline. In such cases final measurements should always be applied retrospectively.

COMPLEXITY OF TARGETS

13. The 1998 Public Service Agreement White Paper said that PSA targets should be 'SMART'-Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Timed.[8] We received evidence from officials that a number of targets are technically complicated,[9] highly detailed or difficult to measure.[10] While indicators have now been developed for nearly all the ODPM targets there are still continuing problems relating to over-complexity. For instance, the PSA technical note devotes six pages to the description and measurement of the cost effectiveness element of the local services target, and this is only an interim measure. The Director General of the ODPM's Regional Co-ordination Unit, Rob Smith, commented on the complexity of its regional economic performance PSA target. "I am overawed by the technical issues involved."[11] Of particular concern are the targets on regional economic performance, balancing the supply and demand of housing, local government cost effectiveness and sustainability of towns and cities.

14. It can take a considerable amount of time to define complex targets properly and develop performance indicators. While this is happening there are no reports of any real progress and a tendency to report on progress in drawing up plans to achieve the targets rather than on progress actually in achieving them. For instance in this year's Annual Report, progress on the decent homes target concentrated on the mechanics of how local authorities will report to ODPM and a review of the delivery plan for the target which recommended ways to improve delivery.[12] The PSA targets of the ODPM and its predecessor department have rightly moved away from process towards output and outcome targets. There is a danger that overly complex targets will result in delays before any actual performance data is produced, meaning that reports of progress will initially focus on descriptions of process. Progress reports on PSA targets should primarily focus on what the targets are meant to measure.

15. If targets are too complex or wide-ranging there may be no clear and meaningful way to report progress. Evidence from the ODPM has not reassured us that their floor target[13] and housing supply and demand target[14] can ever be presented in such a way. The floor target is itself based on 14 different targets from other departments; most of these have several different elements. In total there are more than 60 different indicators for this target. Progress will have to be summarised on this target and there is a danger that ODPM's summaries will be seen, rightly or wrongly, as subjective. The situation is less extreme for the housing supply and demand target where there are eight indicators for the main element, but is it not clear how this data will be used to assess whether ODPM is meeting its targets. For the 2004 PSA targets ODPM should consider targets that are simpler and easier to understand, even if it results in an increase in their number. ODPM should give more attention to the definition, measurement and presentation of targets before they are agreed. An outline plan for presentation of progress in the Annual Report and Autumn Performance Report should be included in the first version of the Service Delivery Agreement after the targets are agreed. If PSAs are too complex, there is a danger that the overall objective to provide better public services becomes secondary to devising targets and monitoring which becomes an end in itself.

FIRE SERVICE TARGETS

The Fire Service White Paper contains new targets on arson and fire-related deaths in the home.[15] A significant increase in abandoned cars has led to a large increase in deliberate vehicle fires, which, in turn, has meant the original arson target was not achievable.[16] The new target is a reduction to just over 100,000 deliberate fires by 2010, compared to the original target of 55,000 by 2009. In addition, the Fire Service White Paper extends the deadline on the fire-related deaths in the home target by six years. According to the White Paper both targets are 'demanding'. The Annual Report claimed that progress was on course to meet the original fire-related deaths in the home target.[17] The Annual Report does not explain why this target has been changed as it appears that no new data has been published since then.[18] Again, there is a danger that the original targets will be ignored when ODPM publish their next progress report. We urge the ODPM to outline in the next Autumn Performance Report their reasons for replacing the arson and fire-related deaths in the home targets. Where targets are changed to make them achievable ODPM should, as a matter of course, give a full explanation in the subsequent Annual Report and Autumn Performance Report of why the original targets would not be met.

3 Annex D, ODPM Annual Report 2003 Back

4 Qq66-71 Back

5 Page 106, ODPM Annual Report 2003 Back

6 Q90 Back

7 Qq127-129 Back

8 Chapter 1, Public Services for the Future: Modernisation, Reform, Accountability, HM Treasury, December 1998, Cm4181 Back

9 Qq66-71 and 87-91 and written answers from ODPM 35-37 Back

10 Qq127-129 Back

11 Q74 Back

12 Pages 101-102, ODPM Annual Report 2003 Back

13 Written answers from ODPM 4 and 5 Back

14 Written answers from ODPM 35 and 37 Back