Recommendation 8

The quality of published summary AO assessments varied.20 For example, departments generally provided basic information such as background on the programme. But they did not provide more detailed information to help a layperson understand, for example, a programme’s aims. And some provided generic descriptions of how the AO had considered 9 Q 9; C&AG’s Report, para 1.6 10 Qq 14, 43; C&AG’s Report, para 1.15, Figure 5 11 Dear Accounting Officer letter 04/22 – Accounting officer assessments and framework documents. Available at: DAO_0422_Accounting_officer_assesments_and_framework_documents.pdf. 12 Qq 64, 65 13 Q 9 14 Q 17 15 Q 15; C&AG’s Report, para 1.9 16 Q 17; 17 Q 77; C&AG’s Report, para 1.2 18 Qq 1, 43; C&AG’s Report, para 1.8; Figure 1 19 Q 21; C&AG’s Report, para 1.15; Figure 5 20 Qq 2124; C&AG’s Report, paras 3.10 to 3.13; Figure 5 10 Improving the Accounting Officer Assessment process the standards.21 HM Treasury told us that the quality of assessments varied because of the breadth of programmes being considered.22 The Cabinet Office acknowledged that the quality of AO assessments needed to be addressed.23 The National Audit Office found that, while departments did not find assessing a programme against the four standards as too challenging overall, some standards—feasibility and value for money—were more challenging than others.24 Improving timely publication