| Paragraph No. and text
| Departmental response published June 2005 (Cm 6592)
| Progress report 2005
|
| Paragraph 38: 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.
| We already publish a range of information on KPIs. For example, end of year performance on the NOMS KPIs is published in a Written Ministerial Statement
annually; police performance assessments are published annually in the autumn and IND information is published on a quarterly basis. Local targets set by CDRPs are published by CDRPs in their audits and strategies publications.
| Accepted. Publication of KPIs has continued as set out in the response.
|
| Paragraph 52: 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.
| We consider that there can be merit in both quantitative and directional targets. In some cases it is difficult to determine a quantitative level for a target that is realistic and challenging. In these cases, a directional target is more appropriate. Inappropriate target levels risk demotivating frontline staff and reducing the credibility of the target system. Examples of where it is difficult to determine a quantitative target level include:
- Where we do not have a robust historical time series for the data. For example, PSA 6 - the voluntary and community sector contribution to delivering public services, measured by the quantitative state of the sector panel survey, which only started collecting data in 2002/03.
- Where the link between outputs and outcomes is difficult to quantify. For example, PSA 2 - to reassure the public, reduce the fear of crime and antisocial behaviour, and build confidence in the CJS without compromising fairness.
We will consider the appropriate use of quantitative and directional targets in our PSA set during the 2006 Spending Review process.
| Accepted. The spending review is now taking place in 2007.
We will consider the appropriate use of quantitative and directional targets in our PSA set during the 2007 Spending Review process.
|
| Paragraph 72: 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.
| Baselines are set for each target taking into account a range of factors: for example, the time period to be covered by the target and the availability of data before and during that period.
Generally we adopted as the baseline:
- the period for which the latest full year performance data was available when the PSAs were set or;
- where a new measure was being used, the period that the first set of data would cover.
The baselines for each limb of the PSA targets are recorded in the technical note.
| Accepted. The response explained the policy for selection of the current baselines.
The baselines for future PSA targets will be published in the technical notes when these are agreed.
|
| Paragraph 76: 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.
| We are committed to reporting clearly and openly on performance against our objectives in the departmental report and the Autumn Performance Report. Wherever possible we seek to use the standard Treasury approved reporting categories; however there are occasions where a wider range of descriptors are needed so as not to give a misleading impression of the status of delivery.
We agree that the categories used should be clear and consistent. In this year's Annual Report we will report using a small number of descriptors that draw on Treasury guidance and are consistent with the terms used in last year's Annual Report and Autumn Performance Report.
| Accepted. The department report did include a small number of descriptors based on Treasury guidance. This approach will be continued in this year's Autumn Performance Report and the next departmental report.
|
| Paragraph 78: 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.
| We aim to provide clear and comprehensive performance information in the Annual Report. Where possible the report provides baseline information for the target, as well as the target and any latest outturn information. In some cases information was not available on all the targets at the time of the 2003-04 Annual Report. More data is now available and the 2004-05 Annual Report will be able to report more fully progress against all targets. The HAC Report notes two examples of cases where information could have been more comprehensive:
- HAC suggest that the proportion rather than the absolute figures of asylum removals should be given in the next annual report. The proportion figures are published in the Asylum Statistics (Asylum Statistics United Kingdom 2003, published in August 2004). And the figures will also be given in future annual reports.
HAC also use as an example the target to significantly reduce the performance gap between the best and worst performing forces. The 2003/04 Annual Report noted that 13 forces were required to close a performance gap. However, it is not possible in a document of this nature to reproduce all the detailed performance figures. The detailed information was published in the Police Performance Monitors (Police Performance Monitoring Report 2003/04, published in September 2004).
| Accepted. This has been done and the 2004-2005 departmental report contains relevant and consistent information which will enable comparisons between the Home Office targets and its performance, consistent with the undertakings given in the Government response.
|
| Paragraph 81: 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.
| We intend to produce a table for this year's annual report which sets out the position on all targets from the 2000 Spending Review.
| Accepted. A table setting out the position on all live targets was included in this year's annual report.
|
