Conclusions and recommendations
1. There
have been three main changes in the approach of the Home Office
to PSA targets since the 2002 Spending Review. First, in general
there are fewer and simpler formal objectives, given expression
in fewer and simpler PSA targets. Second, there is a trend in
favour of 'directional' PSA targets that do not specify a target
level of improvement. Third, so-called 'standards' have replaced
PSA targets in relation to some areas of performance, denoting
a commitment to maintain, rather than to improve upon, current
levels of achievement. (Paragraph 23)
2. We broadly welcome
the Home Office's decision to reduce the number and simplify the
content of its targets and objectives. We believe it is right
that national target-setting should be concerned with setting
a strategic direction but not to micro-manage matters that are
best left to local discretion. However, this reinforces the need
for a real reduction in centrally determined targets that are
set outside the PSA framework. We also consider that the scope
for further simplification is very limited, if the PSA targets
are to reflect accurately the full range of Home Office priorities.
(Paragraph 37)
3. In addition, we
recommend that key performance indicators (KPIs) and supporting
data are routinely published so that Parliament and the public
can form a rounded appreciation of the performance of the Home
Office in attaining these targets and objectives. (Paragraph
38)
4. 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.
(Paragraph 52)
5. We conclude that
the use of a standard (rather than a PSA target) in relation to
re-offending was inappropriate and re-affirm the points we made
in our recent Rehabilitation of Prisoners report. In our view,
the example highlights the need for standards—no less than
PSA targets—to be fully integrated with an agreed strategic
direction and performance management regime. (Paragraph 62)
6. We believe that
inconsistency between objectives and PSA targets may generate
confusion and a sense that the PSA targets do not give full expression
to the Home Office's strategic direction. We recommend that in
future, there should be a consistent relationship between objectives
and PSA targets, with objectives stating clearly the Home Office's
priorities and the PSA targets giving them concrete expression.
(Paragraph 65)
7. We accept that
the choice of baseline year can often reflect performance management
needs, and that there can often be good internal reasons for choosing
particular baselines. However, we are concerned about the lack
of transparency in doing so, believing that this risks undermining
the accountability benefit of PSA targets as an indicator of Home
Office performance. We recommend that the Home Office publishes
its policy on how baseline years are set, and ensure that—in
cases where it is thought necessary to depart from this—the
reasons for any such departures are explained in the Technical
Notes. (Paragraph 72)
8. We recommend that
the Home Office introduces consistent reporting categories so
that it is instantly clear to the reader whether or not the target
has been met or is likely to be met. Euphemisms such as "the
target is challenging" should not be used if what is meant
is "there has been slippage" or "the target is
now unlikely to be met". As many of the new PSA targets are
directional, we further recommend that the Home Office comes up
with consistent reporting categories to describe the magnitude
of any improvement. (Paragraph 76)
9. We recommend that
in its next annual report the Home Office should aim to supply
more fully and consistently the information necessary to judge
its progress towards targets. (Paragraph 78)
10. It is clear to
us, as it must have been to the Home Office, that the department
was not on course to meet its original 'offences brought to justice'
target by 2006. We deprecate the apparent lack of transparency
in this year's Departmental Annual Report (DAR) about the impeding
failure to meet the original target and the consequent redefinition
of the target. (Paragraph 79)
11. It is not always
clear from the DAR that particular targets have lapsed. In some
cases, performance against old, but still apparently current,
targets is not reported at all. This can cause confusion, and
we recommend therefore that in next year's DAR, the Home Office
reports more clearly on progress against those PSA targets that
may have been superseded by new targets agreed in a more recent
Spending Review, but which are still live, or would be were it
not for these new targets. We recommend that an additional table
at the end of its Performance Summary to describe its performance
against all these superseded PSA targets together with a brief
note explaining whether these targets have been dropped or replaced
would effectively address this concern. (Paragraph 81)
| 
