2
Recommendation
Fourth Report - Use of evaluation and m…
Not Addressed
HM Treasury is not making full use of the spending levers it has at its disposal to deliver a step change in the use of evaluation across government. We welcome the creation of the Evaluation Task Force and the increased emphasis on evaluation in the 2020 and 2021 Spending Reviews, …
Read more
HM Treasury is not making full use of the spending levers it has at its disposal to deliver a step change in the use of evaluation across government. We welcome the creation of the Evaluation Task Force and the increased emphasis on evaluation in the 2020 and 2021 Spending Reviews, whereby HM Treasury made greater use of its authority to set requirements for evaluation when it approved funding. However, we are disappointed that HM Treasury did not make use of these powers earlier, despite the NAO recommending this in 2013. HM Treasury’s final recourse is to withdraw funding or to reduce a department’s delegated authority limit if there is non-compliance with evaluation requirements. HM Treasury has not set up formal and standardised ways of tracking all spending review conditions across departments, including those related to evaluation. With few sanctions available to HM Treasury outside of the spending reviews, HM Treasury needs to make as much use of spending review conditions as it can. HM Treasury acknowledges that there is room for improvement in the quality and provision of evaluations across government despite its recent efforts. Recommendation: By November 2022, HM Treasury should set up a formal process for routinely tracking and following up on spending review settlement conditions relating to evaluation. HM Treasury should set out the range of interventions it will use if departments fail to meet the conditions.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The response does not address the recommendation of setting up a formal process for tracking spending review settlement conditions relating to evaluation, and instead discusses internal performance measures and consultations with the sector.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
9
Conclusion
Fourth Report - Use of evaluation and m…
Not Addressed
Within departments, ultimate responsibility for upholding standards and securing improvements lies with that department’s accounting officer.24 Managing Public Money states that financial modelling and evaluation are an important part of the accounting officer’s role, and that they should comply with the Functional Standards.25 However, there continues to be important weaknesses …
Read more
Within departments, ultimate responsibility for upholding standards and securing improvements lies with that department’s accounting officer.24 Managing Public Money states that financial modelling and evaluation are an important part of the accounting officer’s role, and that they should comply with the Functional Standards.25 However, there continues to be important weaknesses in the coverage, quality and use of evaluations, and in the quality and application of models across government.26 The departmental director of analysis supports the accounting officer, and owns the application of the Analysis Functional standard in their department.27 Neither HM Treasury nor the Analysis Function currently monitor if accounting officers are discharging their responsibilities nor how well standards have been upheld.28
Show less
HM Treasury
16
Recommendation
Fourth Report - Use of evaluation and m…
Not Addressed
Transparency of the models that departments use is poor: only 9 out of 17 departments have published their list of business-critical models since 2013, and only four of those have updated this since 2017.54 HM Treasury has not published its own list of business-critical 44 Qq 43,55 45 Q 43 …
Read more
Transparency of the models that departments use is poor: only 9 out of 17 departments have published their list of business-critical models since 2013, and only four of those have updated this since 2017.54 HM Treasury has not published its own list of business-critical 44 Qq 43,55 45 Q 43 46 Q 49 47 C&AG’s Report, Evaluating government spending, para 20 48 Q 43 49 Q 44 50 C&AG’s Report, Evaluating government spending, para 3.14 51 Qq 33, 44 52 Q 33 53 Q 7 54 C&AG’s Report, Financial modelling in government, para 12 Use of evaluation and modelling in government 13 models since 2013. It told us it intends to update its list within the next few months given the importance of leading by example.55 There can be a public interest in publishing a model in its entirety; for example, the Office of Budgetary Responsibility publishes the code and variables for its model of the economy so that others can use it.56 In other cases, publishing details of the model such as the outputs or assumptions gives parliament and the public assurance about how decisions are made. However, 45 models out of the NAO’s sample of 75 had no information published about them.57 HM Treasury told us it is discussing how to improve guidance to clarify what information departments should publish about models.58 Uncertainty
Show less
Government response AI summary
The response discusses publishing an evaluation registry and reviewing quality assurance procedures, which doesn't directly address the need to publish lists of business-critical models or improve guidance on model transparency.
Read full response →
HM Treasury