The trend towards 'directional'
PSA targets
39. Not only are the new PSA targets generally simpler
and shorter, they are also frequently less specific, avoiding
commitments to particular levels of improvement. For instance,
PSA 2 pledges to "reassure the public, reducing the fear
of crime and anti-social behaviour, and building confidence in
the Criminal Justice System without compromising fairness".
There is no target level of improvement. Similarly, PSA 5 promises
to "reduce unfounded asylum claims", PSA 6 to "increase
voluntary and community engagement" and PSA 7 to "reduce
race inequalities and build community cohesion". The relevant
Technical Notes for these PSA targets do not supply target figures,
and in oral evidence it was confirmed to us that even minimal
improvements in these areas would satisfy the criterion for meeting
the targets.[16]
40. There are two clear exceptions to the trend away
from quantified PSA targets. PSA 1 and PSA 3 both contain quantified
commitments: respectively, to reduce crime by 15% and to bring
1.25 million offences to justice.[17]
All the other PSA targets are what Mr William Nye—Director
of the Performance and Finance Directorate of the Home Office—described
to us as "directional".[18]
They set out a desired direction of progress but do not make quantitative
commitments. In a sense, they are not targets at all: they define
what the Home Office seeks to improve, but not by how
much. In oral evidence, the Permanent Secretary, Mr Gieve,
justified this policy of not including target figures:
Well that is something which I have rather encouraged,
taking out arbitrary numbers. You can tell whether something is
going up or down. That is a very precise measurable fact, whether
it is going up or down, and sometimes it is better to say, "We're
going to reduce, we're going to get the thing moving in that direction"
than to try and pick a figure of 5% or 10% or whatever and although
that appears to give precision, it does not really give precision
and it may be quite difficult to say how far you can expect to
go.[19]
41. Responding to the criticism that even minimal
progress in the direction set by the target could be claimed as
having met the target, Mr Gieve told us that where the aim is,
for instance, a reduction in asylum claims, "if they barely
go down, then that is a marginal success. Obviously we are going
for a substantial reduction and that will be more of a success".[20]
42. The trend away from quantified targets is clearly
an attempt to avoid some of the risks attendant upon such targets.
If they are set at the wrong level or defined too narrowly, they
can create perverse incentives and interfere unnecessarily with
the ability of local service providers to determine their own
local priorities.
43. An example of a badly judged PSA target was the
commitment in 2002 to increase the number of failed asylum seekers
removed from the country to 30,000 by March 2003. The Home Secretary
subsequently accepted that this target had been "massively
over-ambitious" as only 12,000 were expected to be removed
by the deadline. The target was effectively abandoned and no equivalent
target has since been set.[21]
In our report on Asylum Removals, published in May 2003,
we commented that:
We deprecate the setting of wholly unrealistic targets
which serve only to arouse false expectations and which can only
prove demoralising for all concerned. We are at a loss to understand
the basis for the belief that a target of 30,000 removals a year
was achievable, and ministerial pronouncements on the subject
are obscure. It is surely not too much to expect that, if it is
thought necessary to set targets for removals, they should be
rational and achievable.[22]
44. In its reply to our report, the Government stated
that it—
recognises that the 30,000 target was too challenging
and beyond the capability of IND [the Immigration and Nationality
Directorate] to deliver. A revised target has now been set "Enforcing
the immigration laws more effectively by removing a greater proportion
of failed asylum seekers". The Government considers this
to be a more realistic target, and one which will enable performance
to be measured more effectively, since it makes no assumption
about numbers of applications.[23]
45. In our view, the lesson to be learnt from this
episode is not that it is always a mistake to set quantitative
targets. This particular quantitative target was a mistake because
it was set at an absurd and unachievable level. The Committee
made similar criticisms of the Government's targets in relation
to illegal drugs, on which we commented "it is unwise, not
to say self-defeating, to set targets which have no earthly chance
of success".[24]
Unrealistic targets may have perverse effects, as indeed may realistic
but poorly-judged targets. But all this confirms is the need to
take great care in setting targets: it does not mean that quantitative
targets should be avoided completely.
46. There are three reasons why, on balance, we believe
that it would be appropriate for the Home Office to retain some
quantitative elements when setting its PSA targets.
47. First, and most important, properly set quantitative
targets can and should motivate towards better performance.
There are recent examples of this in relation to street crime
and asylum applications: with both of these areas, significant
improvement was seen as a priority and targets were set accordingly.[25]
A further example where the Home Office expects realistic quantitative
target-setting to assist in improving performance is the new PSA
1, to reduce crime by 15%. In oral evidence to the Committee,
Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary, Sir Keith Povey,
described the intended effect of this target:
Mr Green: Do you find that target-setting is actually
a driver of improved performance?
Sir Keith Povey: Most certainly, yes. I would actively
encourage target-setting, provided that you have identified the
priorities, you know what the performance measures are, you know
what the targets are to achieve those priorities and there are
not too many of them. … When you look to maintain or improve
performance, you have to give some clear steer as to what that
means for each individual force, where they want that to get to,
otherwise an improvement of 0.1% would mean that they had achieved
that particular target.[26]
48. It is true that directional PSA targets are also
capable of motivating towards better performance—in particular
when supported by robust performance management arrangements.
In addition, a quantitative PSA target that has been poorly-judged
(either where it is set unrealistically high, or where it can
be met without effort) can actually de-motivate. But quantitative
PSA targets carry an advantage in helping to ensure that good
performance is clearly defined, providing—as Sir Keith Povey
put it—a "clear steer". The new PSA 5 relating
to immigration, to take one example of an unquantified target,
does not do this: it will be formally achieved even if there is
only one fewer unfounded asylum claim.
49. Second, the risks of quantified target-setting
are already being minimised by other steps being taken by the
Home Office. We have already welcomed the decision to have
fewer and simpler PSA targets. In practice, more significant than
this is likely to be the move away from SDAs and towards monitoring,
with targeted intervention for poorer performance, as the key
element of the performance management system. Together, these
steps ought to sharply reduce the possibility of incentivising
the wrong sort of activity and of unnecessarily interfering with
local discretion.
50. Third, quantified targets may make it easier
to hold Government accountable. We accept the accountability
benefit of PSA targets on their own is not automatic, and have
already recommended that KPIs and supporting data are published
routinely. For the purpose of genuine accountability, the publication
of a balanced basket of information—as is done, for instance,
in relation to police performance through the Police Performance
Assessment Framework—is far more important than the publication
of a single figure to indicate the attainment or otherwise of
a PSA target. Indeed, the use of quantitative targets may even
be seen negatively in this regard, serving to distract attention
away from the most important lessons contained in data onto the
singular question of whether the targets have been met. It is
an advantage of directional PSA targets that they do not distract
in this way, and as Mr Gieve argues, "you can tell whether
something is going up or down".[27]
51. On the other hand, it is important to recognise
that there is an asymmetry of information that places the Home
Office in a better position than Parliament or the general public
to judge what would actually constitute a substantial success.
In this sense, the use of quantitative PSA targets does carry
an advantage, although this is necessarily dependant on these
targets being set in a way that faithfully reflects strong analysis
of existing data rather than on an arbitrary basis.
52. Overall, we think that the Home Office's response
to highly publicised failures like the unachievable asylum removals
target has been to shift too far in the other direction, of stripping
quantifiable elements from its PSA targets. Some of the latest
PSA targets are in danger of being seen as little more than generalised
aspirations. If it is right for the Home Office to commit to a
15% reduction in crime, then it is difficult to see why similar,
realistic, quantified aspirations should not be set in the other
major fields of Home Office activity, for instance in relation
to immigration, the fear of crime and racial equality. We agree
with the recent comment by the Minister of State for Crime Reduction,
Policing, Community Safety and Counter-terrorism, Hazel Blears
MP, giving evidence to us in our inquiry into police reform, that
"if targets are going to be useful, they should be realistic
but stretching".[28]
We recommend that when the Home Office next reviews its PSA targets,
as part of the 2006 Spending Review, a higher proportion of targets
should contain "realistic but stretching" quantitative
elements.
The new use of standards
53. In addition to its seven new PSA targets, the
Home Office has also committed to two "standards", to
be "achieved and maintained". The two standards are
as follows:
