Good Practices in Labour Administration
_____Evaluation_____ • Performance evaluation in the Labour Administration • Organization of Internal Evaluation: General Inspectorate of Social Affairs EvaluationCase of the United KingdomThe following is an extract from a study of the labour administration of the United Kingdom commissioned by the ILO in 1998. The range of means of evaluation in the United Kingdom, put in place as part of an administrative reform of labour administration services, provides an interesting example of measures to increase the accountibility and efficiency of the bodies in charge of the system. The principles of departmental management introduced by the Conservatives in the 1980s and 1990s placed emphasis on the promotion of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. Efficiency reviews, designed to reduce operating costs and promote more effective management, were introduced in 1979. These were accompanied by fundamental reviews designed to force departments to consider whether activities should be continued or whether they should be delivered through new organisational structures. The Financial Management Initiative (FMI), introduced in 1982, gave departments responsibility for the management of budgets and activities. Increasing emphasis has been placed on the identification of objectives and targets in an effort to import elements of private sector practice into Government. The rhetoric of delegation and greater accountability has accompanied these developments, although doubts have been raised about the extent to which effectiveness in public service provision and policy making has been encouraged. The Conservative government also introduced principles of market testing which called upon Departments and Agencies to select activities which could potentially be contracted out to external providers. The DFEEs (1)estates maintenance function represents one example of a service which has been contracted out. From 1995-1997, Government Departments produced Efficiency Plans and submitted these to the central Efficiency Unit. The Efficiency Plans provided a statement of aims and objectives for the subsequent three year period and indicated how these were to be achieved within the budgets set, including the areas where efficiency savings might be made. With the election of the current Labour government, the requirement to produce Efficiency Plans was dropped. The government has instead focused on efficiency savings in the context of a Comprehensive Spending Review. Recently completed, the review has determined expenditure levels for the period up until the next general election. Principles of resource accounting are currently being implemented which will alter the manner in which Departmental performance is expressed. The introduction of resource accounting will simplify the process of identifying Departmental assets, such as property and land, for potential sell-off . The practice until recent times has been for Departments to submit accounts at the end of the year demonstrating how their budgetary allocation was spent. By the new millennium, however, departments will have to present end of year financial statements on an accruals basis, providing an account of revenue and expenditure which will include the values of its current assets and liabilities. Resource accounting will also require Departments to produce an analysis of their spending according to both financial andnon-financial objectives. It represents the latest in a string of initiatives connected to improving value for money in service provision. Originally introduced by the last Conservative government, the Citizens Charter attempts to establish normative standards for public services. The Charter, which applies to public services at both local and national levels, identifies performance principles in six areas: standards (including the setting and monitoring of standards and the publication of actual performance); information and openness; choice and consultation (particularly with end-users); courtesy and helpfulness; putting things right (including the rapid provision of a full explanation for why things went wrong); and value for money (emphasis on efficiency, economy and effectiveness combined with independent validation of performance) (Central Office of Information 1995). The Citizens Charter programme was established in conjunction with a Charter Mark Award Scheme, which was originally introduced in 1992 as an award for excellence in the area of public service delivery. Executive Agencies were expected to build the Charter into their operations and methods. Recently the Charter Unit has been attempting to establish local networks designed to share information and views about the quality of public services. The Citizens Charter programme itself is being relaunched by the Labour government and this is likely to have an impact on the evaluation process. In April 1997, six central government standards of customer service were introduced for all government Departments. While these are intended to apply to the services which Departments provide directly to the public, they can also apply to specialist services, such as those delivered through the DfEEs Overseas Labour Service. Those services which are delivered indirectly (e.g. through Jobcentres and TECs) are covered by the standards of customer service adopted by those organisations. There is an expectation, however, that Agencies incorporate the standards within their operating plans. The six standards commit each Department to:
The DfEE produces an evaluation of its performance against these standards through a number of mediums, including the World Wide Web. Evaluation of DfEE programmes is overseen by an Evaluation Steering Group. In developing the evaluation programme, the Evaluation Steering Group takes into consideration the need to assess the effectiveness of new and changing policies (DfEE 1998). Research projects, designed to evaluate the effectiveness of the polices implemented by the Government, are commissioned from independent external contractors. The DfEE has a financial scrutiny unit. Recently, the DfEE announced its intention to create seven additional posts, bringing the total number of personnel to 12 investigators and two accountants. The Internal Audit Division aims to provide an assurance to the Accounting Officer that adequate internal controls are in place. The Division also assists managers through auditing specific systems and functions. In 1996-7, the Internal Audit Unit conducted 177 audits in total. The DfEE evaluates the effectiveness of the audit by judging how plans are achieved, evaluating the delivery of individual audits, checking the extent to which recommendations have been accepted, and by reviewing client satisfaction surveys. The DTI (2)operates a series of surveys designed to monitor the resolution of employment rights disputes. One such survey of Industrial Tribunal applications is used to assess the effectiveness of various forms of dispute resolution, including ACAS, and as a means of monitoring the satisfaction of end-users with the Industrial Tribunal service. Departments operate Personal Action Plans for individual members of staff. These are reviewed on an annual basis. They are drawn up at the beginning of the year and can be amended as the objectives of the Directorate develop. These feed into the end of year Annual Reports. The system has become increasingly standardised across Departments over time. Emphasis has increasingly been placed on tying individual pay and promotion prospects more closely to the achievement of performance objectives. Maor and Stevens (1997) describe the relationship between individual performance and rewards in the following way: ... Performance is assessed annually on a scale which usually has 5 or 6 points ranging from outstanding to unsatisfactory. Since 1988 these markings, which are based on the achievement of goals agreed at the beginning of the year, updated if necessary, have been used to make the annual allocation of pay increases performance related. Staff judged to have performed best move further and faster up their pay scales than those whose box markings are no better than average... Another way to reward performance, with much larger consequences for remuneration at all levels, is by promotion. There is necessary link between the achievement of agreed objectives and rapid promotion, but the "can-do" culture which has become prevalent in recent years tends to favour those who can demonstrate an ability to deliver what is most wanted by ministers and senior officials. Both the DTI and the DfEE operate research programmes designed to inform the development of policy and evaluate the effectiveness of existing programmes. In the case of the DTI, external bodies are commissioned to undertake research projects which have been identified as priority areas by the Employment Relations Research Committee. Currently, the main element of the programme is the fourth Workplace Employee Relations Survey (formerly the Workplace Industrial Relations Survey) which has involved interviews in approximately 3,300 workplaces and questionnaire responses from approximately 30,000 employees in the same workplaces. According to the DTI, the survey will set a benchmark on the state of employment relations in the UK prior to the introduction of the Governments new legislative measures (DTI 1998). As in the case of the DTI, research commissioned by the DfEE reflects the Departments priorities. Funds are provided to the ES to commission research. The DfEEs research programme is overseen from within the Financial & Analytical Services Directorate. Over the period 1998-9, the DfEE expects the following research to be commissioned: evaluation of the New Deal; customer satisfaction surveys; studies to support the development and evaluation of JSA; evaluation of pilot programmes to ensure unemployment claimants keep in touch with the labour market, and the effects of giving greater discretion to local offices; and a large programme of work to inform the Job Broking Process Review. (DfEE 1998: 136-7). Each Executive Agency operates according to terms set out in a Framework Document which establishes the responsibilities of Ministers and the Chief Executive, as well as the financial regime and responsibilities in the area of personnel. The Framework Document is reviewed regularly and at each review the Agency is subjected to the same prior options test that it faced at its inception. The prior options test for Agencies considers whether the service is required at all, and if it is required whether it should be delivered by the Government, privatised or subjected to market testing (Central Office of Information 1995). Performance reviews, evaluating the effectiveness of the Agencies established under the Next Steps programme, are published annually as the Next Steps Review. This document includes results for each Agency against its key performance targets over the preceding three year period. It measures Agency performance, efficiency, benchmarking, service quality and Investors in People issues. Chief Executives are responsible to their parent Department for the performance of the Agency, and often an element of their salary is linked to the achievement of specified targets. Full costs and income expenditure accounts are required to be submitted for scrutiny. The Chief Executive is the accounting officer for the Agency and thus bears responsibility for demonstrating that public funds have been spent in a way which secures value for money in service delivery. In the case of the Employment Service, a set of targets is produced each year by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and published in the form of an Annual Performance Agreement. Coinciding with the publication of this Agreement, the ES produces an Operation Plan which specifies the ways in which it will attempt to achieve the targets set as well as setting out its priorities for the coming year. The ESs performance against the set targets is reviewed by Ministers on a quarterly basis. (...) At the close of each year, the ES publishes its Annual Report and Accounts in which actual performance over the preceding year is compared with the targets set. The Operational Plan and Annual Report are made available free through local Jobcentres or direct from the ES. The standards of service the unemployed can expect from Jobcentres are laid out in the Agencys Jobseekers Charter launched in October 1996. The standards contained in the Charter are agreed between the ES and the Benefits Agency and apply in equal measure to Benefits Agency employees working in Job Centres. Standards of service are monitored through a practice dubbed mystery shopping carried out for the ES by an independent research company. Service standards are evaluated regularly and the results are posted in each Jobcentre. ES Districts covering approximately 150 Jobcentres have also been awarded with Charter Marks, which are a nationally recognised award for service quality. The ES has an Internal Audit Service which operates under a five year Service level Agreement. The coverage of the audit and the specific performance measures are decided upon by the Internal Audit Committee. This is chaired by the Chief Executive of the ES. The Internal audit procedures are as follows. The Chief Executive has responsibility for:
Like the ES, the Employment Tribunals Service also has a Charter statement of standards that end-users can expect. This was published in April 1997, coinciding with the launch of the Agency. The ETS has made a commitment to achieving IiP status by the end of 1998. According to the DTI (1998) work towards this is well advanced and the Agency has brought forward the date of formal assessment to summer 1998. Some have argued that the pressures emanating from public expenditure constraints and organisational value-for-money pledges for economy and efficiency within government have resulted in a relative sacrifice of effectiveness in service delivery. There is a clear tension between the objective of achieving quality in service delivery and the governments desire to restrict public funding. One result of this tension has been for Executive Agencies to tend to set low performance targets in the hope of ensuring a high success rate . Furthermore, McHugh (1998) has argued that insufficient attention has been devoted to developing the organisational culture, systems and reward structures required for Agencies to achieve effectiveness in the delivery of programmes over the long term and that it is essential that a much more integrated approach be adopted towards strategic planning and management.(...) A Benchmarking exercise was conducted from June to December 1996 involving the Next Steps Team and the British Quality Foundation and 30 Agencies. The Business Excellence Model, which was developed by the European Foundation for Quality Management, was employed for the purpose. The BEM has nine criteria covering: leadership; policy and strategy; people management; resources; processes; customer satisfaction; people satisfaction; impact on society; and business results (Next Steps Briefing Note 1997). All of the agencies involved in the experiment developed plans with the aim of improving the key areas identified through the process. A new phase of the benchmarking project commenced in late 1997, involving two further groups of Agencies using an independent body, TQM International, to conduct an external validation. By October 1997, 45 Agencies and non departmental bodies had volunteered for a total of 87 assessments (Next Steps Briefing Note, October 1997). A database of results, managed by the Civil Service College, has been compiled from the bench-marking project. It is anticipated that the database will form the most comprehensive record of public sector assessment in Europe. Officials from the Next Steps Team gave a presentation about the project to the OECD in late 1996. Interest was also generated at the 1997 Copenhagen Conference. The EU Commission and the OECD are now working in this area and looking to the UK to provide advice and support (Next Steps Briefing Note, October 1997) The ES has been using the Business Excellence Model and other quality models in parts of the organisation and is now commending the Business Excellence Model to the entire organisation. Since April 1998, all new TEC licensing arrangements have had to include TECs using the Business Excellence Model so as to allow TECs to benchmark themselves against one another and against other organisations. The accounts of Government Departments, Executive Agencies and Non-Departmental Public Bodies are audited and certified by the National Audit Office (NAO). The National Audit Office, which employs around 750 people, is independent of Government. It was established in 1983 after twenty years of calls for effective and accountable state audit (Robert and Pollitt 1994). It is headed by the Comptroller and Auditor General who has responsibility for authorising the provision of public funds to Government Departments and other public bodies. The National Audit Office also has statutory authority to report to Parliament the results of value for money examinations which evaluate the economy, efficiency and effectiveness, with which the various Departments and other organisations use their resources. The organisations subject to audit have opportunities to discuss with the relevant area director of the National Audit Office how value-for-money is to be defined. At the close of each financial year, each Department compiles an Appropriation Account for each Supply Estimate (or Vote). The accounts demonstrate against a range of subheadings the finances provided and the actual amount spent. Any significant variations must be explained. The Appropriation Account is signed by the Accounting Officer for the Vote who accepts responsibility for the expenditure itself and for the accounts provided. The account is scrutinised by the Comptroller and Auditor General of the National Audit Office who then lays the account before Parliament. The account if subjected to an examination by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of the House. The Public Accounts Committee is empowered to summon Accounting Officers to appear before it. Robert and Pollitt (1994) describe the role of the PAC as follows: There is no automatic route for the implementation of the PACs conclusions and recommendations. Ministers decide whether to act upon them or not. Departments take the PAC seriously. It is in many ways the senior Select Committee; it is bipartisan and carries considerable weight. The governments response to the findings of the PAC takes the form of a published Treasury minute which explains how it intends to follow up the committees suggestions. If it is not satisfied with the governments response, the PAC may take further evidence and produce a further report, although in practice this is infrequent (Likierman 1988). At the request of the Treasury, and through agreements between the relevant Minister and organisations, the Comptroller and Auditor General conducts audits of a number of non-departmental bodies including Training and Enterprise Councils. There are also annual accounts, termed White Paper Accounts, which are separate from Departmental accounts but which are presented to Parliament in a similar fashion. The authority for the preparation of accounts is generally to be found in the legislation governing the service to which they relate. This legislation either allows for the Comptroller and Auditor General to scrutinise and certify the accounts or, alternatively, provides for the appointment of commercial auditors. Several bodies within the NSLA are affected thus: ACAS, CPUIA, CRE, CRTUM, HSC/E and the EOC. Concerns have been raised about the effectiveness of the PAC and the ability of committee members to evaluate the management of public sector services (Ryle and Richards 1988). Moreover, the enabling legislation for the National Audit Office and its relationship with the PAC: ... means that the scope of its work remains predominantly financial, so that management issues tend to be pursued only to the extent that their relationship to expenditure issues remains obvious. Inevitably, this imparts a certain "slant" to NAO discussions of broader management issues, perhaps especially those which are nowadays termed "human resource management", where questions of motivation and job satisfaction may be paramount (Roberts and Pollitt 1994: Original emphasis). Roberts and Pollitt also note that the dependence of the NAO on Parliament and the PAC constrains the activities of the NAO by encouraging it to provide non-technical and relatively limited assessments which cater for the PACs constituency of MPs. To put it bluntly, a series of high profile evaluations of currently sensitive government policies could encourage the PAC regularly to divide along party lines. That, in turn, would undermine the authority of the committee and, by extension, the legitimacy of the NAO (Roberts and Pollitt 1994: 547). Fragmentation of government, brought about via contracting-out, privatisation, the creation of Agencies and quangos, has resulted in declining strategic co-ordination and control over implementation from the centre and, despite the rhetoric, may have served to reduce rather that enhance public accountability (Rhodes 1996). Nor is it clear that auditing procedures are resulting in improvements in the effectiveness of policy and service provision within the NSLA. The reports of the National Audit Office rarely include a detailed indication of the measures which Departments and other audited bodies should take to rectify perceived deficiencies in their performance. As Roberts and Pollitt (1994: 546) note: Instead, the typical report format simply indicates that a particular aspect requires "continued efforts" or "further consideration" or "review". Thus the audited body is usually left with extensive room for manoeuvre. NAO reports are still couched in the coded politeness of Whitehall speak rather than employing the more specific and prescriptive terms of a management consultants report. Emphasis on performance measurement and value-for-money in service provision within the NSLA remains central to the government concerns. It is unclear, however, that the government is set to tackle the major weaknesses which have been identified with the new public management. Parliamentary Select Committees are bodies with a relatively permanent membership drawn from across the political parties. They are intended to investigate areas of policy and to produce reports as a result of their investigations. Committees are provided with powers to choose their area of inquiry and also have the right to summon individuals to appear before them to submit themselves to questioning. Select Committees exist for Education and Employment, Trade and Industry and Social Security. The extent to which the powers of the select committee encourage true accountability is, however, questionable. In the case of Agency Chief Executives, for example, Richards (1996) has argued that: ... far from taking the opportunity to modernise the doctrine of ministerial responsibility and develop new forms of public accountability, the [Conservative] Government has chosen to adopt the line that agency chief executives, as civil servants, cannot be personally accountable for the exercise of their stewardship, requiring them to speak to Parliament (through select committees) only on behalf of their ministers, even when they give evidence on their own domain. The amount of funding the TECs receive from the government is performance related. Resources are allocated according to the number of trainees rather than to the relevance, quality or results of training. Concerns have been raised about the standards of training delivered through the TEC system. In response to these concerns, the government established a Training Standards Council in April 1998 to carry out inspections of the companies and educational institutions responsible for providing training funded by the government. The TSC reports directly to the Secretary of State at the DfEE. The DfEE has recently put in place new procedures for the evaluation of government funded VET provision. The new practices are based on proposals provided by the TEC National Council and include:
The inspection arrangements cover England alone. The Training Inspectorate is to report on the quality of government-funded VET provided through contracts with TECs, including Work-based Training for Young People and Training for Work. In addition, training inspection will apply to VET provided under the New Deal. The Training Standards Council is expected to provide an annual report to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and to the TEC National Council. ACASs performance is measured according to the following performance indicators:
Unit costs are calculated by dividing the cost of all cases by those with a successful outcome. ACAS submits its end of year Annual Report to the DTI. In February 1994, ACAS became the first multi-site Civil Service body to gain recognition as an Investor in People. ACAS was re-accredited in March 1997. The Office of the Certification Officer is subject to audits of its procedures by the DTI Internal Audit. The Statement of Accounts is examined and certified by the Comptroller and Auditor General who lays a copy of the statement before Parliament. The aims of the CRTUM & CPUIA are set out in the Commissioners Charter Standard leaflet which is made available to anyone who contacts the office. Reflecting the commitment to CharterMark, confidential Customer Questionnaires are issued to everyone who contacts the office. The latest available report suggests that 80 per cent of respondents are satisfied with the service. The accounts of the EOC are subject to the auditing procedures of the Comptroller and Auditor General. In line with other bodies, a prompt payment policy is operated by the EOC. Sample tests during 1996 suggested that 96 per cent of invoices for purchase orders were paid within the target time. In its Corporate Plan for 1997-2001, the EOC states one of its principal aims as being to provide effective and efficient service. To this end, it is working towards gaining IiP status by 1999/2000 and is introducing Customer Service Standards across all EOC units/departments/offices. The organisation is also working to improve accessibility of services and develop new systems to ensure the cost effectiveness of our service delivery (EOC 1997: 69). The accounts of the CRE are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General. It is currently working towards IiP status. The performance of the HSE as measured against a number of target objectives, ranging over personnel, energy conservation, inspections and contacts with firms is reviewed in the organisations Annual Report. The HSE is working towards IiP accreditation across all sections of its organisation. The Department of the Environment has carried out prior options reviews into various functions of the HSE. The HSE itself has carried out a benchmarking study to evaluate its performance compared to the provision of similar services in other European Union member states. During 1996-97, a new set of 30 performance measures was introduced in to the HSC/HSE in preparation for the implementation of Resource Accounting and Budgeting. 1. Department for Education and Employment. 2. Department for Trade and Industry. |