National Performance Framework

7/30/2019 National Performance Framework

1/4

Summary

The RSE believestheprovision and reform of publicservices should be drivenby an outcomes-basedapproach, i.e. an approach that focuses on whatservices are to be delivered andwhat those servicesare designed to achieve. We support andendorse theoutcomes-basedmodel of the National Performance

Framework(NPF). It is an ambitious and importantmechanism in driving efforts to providea moreintegrated approach to thedelivery of public services inScotland. Scotland Performs is already being viewedinternationally as an exemplar of an outcomes-basedapproach in the measurement of governmentperformance.

The long-term nature of many of thedesired outcomessetout in theNPF requires annual informationon thecost,activity andquality of services delivered. Whilethe ScottishGovernmentdoes providean annual reporton itsprogress against thenational indicatorscontained in the NPF, this does not makea direct linkbetween spending allocations and performance. Inorderto be able to fully assess theeffectiveness andefficiency of government performance, it is crucial thatthese connectionsare made within thestructureof theNPF.

Following on fromthis, it must be ensured thattheNPFis fully integrated in the ScottishGovernmentsspending plans and thebudgetsetting process. This isessential if the NPF is to meet its stated overarchingobjectiveof underpinningthedelivery of the

Governments agenda. We fully support the FinanceCommittees view that theNPF should be embracedwithin the Scottishs Governments spending plans.

Each of the national indicatorswithin theNPFappearsto be afforded equal status. While the long-termobjective will be to makeprogress on all of them, thiswill be challenginggiven thecontinuing constraintsonpublic spending. It is therefore important that a morestrategic approach is developed that enables theNPFto act as a mechanism through whichchoices betweenpriority areas can readily and objectively be made.

The realisation of the full potential ofthe NPF will bedependent uponthere being systematic integration oflocal priorities with theNPF.

We are concerned at theabsence of external input intothe processes that form the basis ofthe NPF. There is aneed to strengthen theNPF by includingmechanismsfor independent assurance of data quality and thematching of data to the measures used in the NPF. Thisassurance shouldbe provided by an independentbody.The Finance Committee should explore whether AuditScotlands role couldbe extended to fulfil this role.

Such external input should make theNPFmore widelyperceived and valuedas an objective assessment ofGovernment performance.

There is an overriding aim to ensurethat the NPF is acentral part of theParliaments holding to account ofthe Executive and that the NPF data is used moreeffectively in thebudget process. If Audit Scotlandsremit wereto be extended as we suggest to maintaintheperceived objectivity andintegrity of theauditprocess then the duty of interpreting the meaningand significance of theevidence shouldnot rest

with theauditors. It shouldreside elsewhere. Acommission, appointed by, and accountable to, theScottish Parliament could consider the evidenceand makereports in public to the Parliament. Aparliamentary committee (or committees) could becharged withreceiving and considering these reports,with thecommittee holding theExecutive to accountand determining any policy and budgetary implications.Thiswould facilitate more informed, higher qualitydebate on the NPF and associatedspending plans;andadd to the value obtained fromthe NPF process inenhancing the cost-effectiveness of Government

expenditure. It is notable that there hasbeen limited opportunity for

those outwith Governmentandthepublicsector toinfluence thedevelopment of theNPF and ScotlandPerforms. This notonly applies to externaltechnicalinput and analysis, butalso to engagement with thepublic. We understand the Scottish Government hasbeenconsidering launching a communication strategyto explain the NPF to the public1. We believe that thisshould be taken forward as soon as possible. However,it should notbe restricted to providing thepublicwithinformation on theNPF. It is important that a process ofdeliberative dialogueis initiatedto ensure that civicsociety is engaged in the development of the NPF.

A d v i c e Pa p e rA u g u s t 2 0 1 3

1

THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENTS NATIONAL PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK:

a response to the Scottish Parliaments Finance Committee

(1308)

1 SPICEe Financial Scrutiny Unit Briefing (12-12) on The National Performance Framework and Scotland Performs; February 2012http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/46715.aspx


2/4

2

A d v i c e Pa p e r 1 3 0 8

Background

1 The Royal Society of Edinburgh (RSE), ScotlandsNational Academy, welcomes the opportunityto respond to the Scottish Parliament FinanceCommittees consultation on the ScottishGovernments National Performance Framework(NPF). We understand that this is being undertakenas part of the Finance Committees scrutiny of theScottish Governments draft budget 2014 15, whichwill be published in September. The role of theFinance Committee, with its responsibility forscrutinising and challenging the ScottishGovernments spending plans and draft budget,is a crucial one. This response has been preparedby an RSE working group with appropriate expertiseand experience in matters relating to the Scottisheconomy. We comment on both the principles andoperation of the NPF. We would be pleased todiscuss further any of the comments made in our

response with members of the Finance Committee.

2 It is the RSEs view2 that provision and reformof public services should be driven by anoutcomes-based approach, i.e. an approachthat focuses on what services are to be deliveredand what those services are designed to achieve.We support and endorse the outcomes-based modelof the NPF and the publicly accessible reporting on,and tracking of, performance, as presented on theScotland Performs3website. The NPF is an ambitiousand important mechanism in driving efforts toprovide a more integrated approach to the delivery of

public services in Scotland. Since its introduction in2007, government bodies are expected to frame theirstrategic objectives in the context of the NPF. Thisprovides for greater strategic consistency andintegration across what is a fragmented deliverylandscape. We recognise that the NPF is evolving andthis is evidenced by the refresh which wasundertaken in 2011. ScotlandPerforms is alreadybeing viewed internationally as an exemplar of anoutcomes-based approach in the measurement ofgovernment performance. We therefore focus ourresponse on ways in which we believe the NPF and

Scotland Performs can be enhanced.

Theneedtolinkexpenditure toperformanceandembed theNPFwithinspendingplans

3 The long-term nature of many of the desiredoutcomes set out in the NPF requires annualinformation on the cost, activity and qualityof services delivered. While the Scottish Governmentdoes provide an annual report on its progressagainst the national indicators contained in the NPF,

this does not make a direct link between spendingallocations and performance. Audit Scotland4 hasstated the need to relate outturn spending toresource allocation and performance targets.Such linkages are crucial for both the Governmentitself and for the bodies which hold it to account to beable to evaluate the impact of spending decisions.

In order to be able to fully assess the effectivenessand efficiency of government performance, it iscrucial that these connections are made within thestructure of the NPF.

4 In making the connection between spending andperformance, it must be ensured that the NPF is fullyintegrated in the Scottish Governments spendingplans and the budget setting process. This is essentialif the NPF is to meet its stated overarching objectiveof underpinning the delivery of the Governmentsagenda. An approachthat sets out spending allocationswithout taking full account of the economic and social

framework within which the allocations are being setis flawed. We recognise that the Finance Committeehas questioned the Government on the extent towhich this integration exists. We fully support theFinance Committees view that the NPFshould beembraced within the Scottishs Governmentsspending plans.

5 A more strategic approach is required that enablesthe NPF to act as a mechanism through whichchoices between priority areas can readily andobjectively be made. The RSE has consistentlyargued that all central policies need to re-evaluated

with a view to determining what is essential to theScottish public and economy. This requires a fullcost-benefit analysis of policy options to beundertaken. Each of the national indicators withinthe current suite appears to be afforded equalstatus. While the long-term objective will be to makeprogress on all of them, this will be challenginggiven the continuing constraints on public spending.There may also be instances where improvedperformance in an area may have negativeconsequences for other indicators. It is thereforeimportant the NPF is developed so that it provides a

strategic context in which priorities can be identifiedand set. This will be essential if the NPF is to be atool which can influence the formation of policy.

6 We note that as part of its evolution, VirginiaPerforms, the model upon which ScotlandPerformsis based, has implemented an online performancebudgeting system which strengthens the linksbetween performance and budgeting. We recommendthat the Finance Committeeexplores this developmentwith a view to determining how it might be replicatedto strengthen ScotlandPerforms.

2 RSE Advice Paper 13-02 http://www.royalsoced.org.uk/cms/files/advice-papers/2013/AP13_02.pdf

3 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/About/Performance/scotPerforms

4 Scotlands Public Finances: Preparing for the future; Audit Scotland; November 2009http://www.audit-scotland.gov.uk/docs/central/2009/nr_091105_scottish_public_finances.pdf


3/4

3

A d v i c e Pa p e r 1 3 0 8

Theneedfornationalandlocalpolicy integration

7 As we have indicated in the introduction of thisresponse, the NPF is a mechanism by whichgreater strategic consistency could potentially beachieved across the public sector in Scotland,including a more joined-up approach betweennational and local government. However, the recentwork of the Carnegie UK Trust5 has indicated thatwhile there is a clear link between the NPF and theSingle Outcome Agreements, the extent to which thelogic of the NPF approach is actually being appliedat local level is less clear. We suggest the FinanceCommittee explore this issue. The realisation ofthe full potential of the NPF will be dependentupon there being systematic integration of localpriorities with the NPF.

Theneedforexternal input andindependent assuranceofdata qualityandvalidationof theprocessesused

8 The SPICe briefing on the NPF and ScotlandPerforms6 indicates that the national indicatorsused in the NPF were developed and carefullychosen by the Scottish Government with input fromthe wider public sector. It also appears to be thecase that it is the Scottish Government which setsthe thresholds for each indicator. The data used isprimarily from Scottish Government. The SPICebriefing points out that in relation to the choice ofmeasures used to assess performance, ScotlandPerforms does not explain why certain measureshave been chosen over other potential measures.We are concerned at the absence of external inputinto the processes that form the basis of the NPF.It is our view that this has contributed to the NPFnot being seen as an instrument of popularassessment of Government performance. Thereis a perception in some quarters of it being a tool tointernally manage Government performance7.

9 We understand that performance against targets isassessed by measuring change between the latesttwo dates for which data is available8. While it isimportant to be able to compare performance overtime, it is not clear what baselines are used orwhether account is taken of how Scottishperformance compares in relative terms to that ofother countries. For example, in relation to

international surveys of school performance, whileScotlands performance puts it among the worldshigher achieving systems, it is clear that many othersystems are improving faster9. We believe that thecurrent approach to assessing performance wouldbe strengthened by maintaining and developing

international comparators of best in class as partof the NPF. In doing so, account will need to be takenof the different ways in which data will be collectedin different countries and the challenges associatedwith translating standards from one culture andsystem to another.

10 We believe the points made in paragraphs 8 and 9demonstrate the need to strengthen the NPF byincluding mechanisms for independent assuranceof data quality and the matching of data to themeasures used in the NPF. This assurance shouldbe provided by an independent body. The Finance

Committee should explore whether Audit Scotlandsrole could be extended to fulfil this role. AuditScotland has had long experience of attempting tovalidate performance data (for example, theexpectation that Audit Scotland might provideassurance on reported efficiency savings) and thevalidation generally has taken the form of caveatedassurance of the systems used to collect andpresent the data. It will be important to recognisethe limits to the assurance which can be provided byauditing processes. We return to this in paragraph12. Consideration would also need to be given to the

additional resources that Audit Scotland wouldrequire to undertake the extended role we havesuggested.

StrengtheningParliamentaryscrutiny

11 The overriding aim is to ensure that the NPF is acentral part of the Parliaments holding to accountof the Executive and that the NPF data is used moreeffectively in the budget process. We note that theScottish Government is not required to report tothe Parliament on the information in ScotlandPerforms. The Carnegie UK Trust report10

recommends that Parliamentary accountabilitycould be strengthened by embedding the NPF inlegislation. While this option should be considered,it can be argued that the Scottish Parliament andGovernment occasionally resort to legislation whereintentions could be achieved by other means.

5 Shifting the Dial in Scotland; How Scotland Performs on wellbeing and what it should do next; Jennifer Wallace, Policy Manager; Carnegie UK Trust;June 2013 http://www.carnegieuktrust.org.uk/publications/2013/shifting-the-dial-in-scotland

6 Ibid. 1

7 Ibid. 5

8 Ibid. 1

9 By Diverse Means: Improving Scottish Education; Final Report from the Commission on School Reform; Reform Scotland and the Centrefor Scottish Public Policy; March 2013 http://reformscotland.com/public/publications/bydiversemeans1.pdf

10 Ibid. 5


4/4

Additional InformationandReferencesAdvice papers are produced on behalf of RSE Council by an appropriately diverse working group in whose expertiseand judgementthe Council has confidence. This AdvicePaperhas been signed off by the Chair of the groupand by the General Secretary.

In preparing this Advice Paper we would like to draw attention to the following RSE responses which are relevant to this subject:

The Royal Society of Edinburghs response to the ScottishParliaments Local Government andRegeneration Committee onPublic Services Reform (January 2013)

The Royal Society of Edinburghs response to the ScottishParliaments Finance Committee on the ScottishGovernments DraftBudget 201314 (August 2012)

The Royal Society of Edinburghs response to the ScottishParliaments Finance Committee on Fiscal Sustainability:Demographic Change and Ageing Population (August 2012)

TheRoyal Society of Edinburghs response to the ScottishParliaments Finance Committee on the ScottishGovernmentsSpending Review 2011 and Draft Budget 20122013 (October 2011)

Any enquiries about this Advice Paper should be addressed to Mr William Hardie (Email: [email protected]).Responses are published on the RSE website (www.royalsoced.org.uk).Advice Paper (RoyalSociety ofEdinburgh) ISSN2040-2694

TheRoyalSocietyof Edinburgh(RSE) isScotlands NationalAcademy. It is an independentbodywitha multidisciplinary fellowshipof menand womenof international

standingwhichmakes ituniquely placedto offer informed, independentcomment onmattersof nationalinterest.

TheRoyal Societyof Edinburgh,ScotlandsNational Academy,is ScottishCharityNo. SC000470

4

A d v i c e Pa p e r 1 3 0 8

12 If Audit Scotlands remit were to be extended as wesuggest to maintain the perceived objectivity andintegrity of the audit process then the duty ofinterpreting the meaning and significance of theevidence should not rest with the auditors. It shouldreside elsewhere. This holding to account mightproperly be undertaken by parliamentary committees.

Committees, however, generally have heavyworkloads. They may not always have the skills andexpertise to consider properly and comprehensivelythe evidence and make informed judgements, andthey may be unable to find the time to sustain aprocess which involves revisiting performanceissues year-on-year. In relation to the currentarrangements for holding local authorities toaccount, Audit Scotland (through the controller ofaudit function) provides the objective evidence whilethe Accounts Commission considers the evidenceand makes the judgments in the form of publicreports. This successful model might be adopted inmodified form to apply to the NPF evaluation acrossthe whole of the public sector. A commission,appointed by, and accountable to, the ScottishParliament could consider the evidence and makereports in public to the Parliament. A parliamentarycommittee (or committees) could be charged withreceiving and considering these reports, with thecommittee holding the executive to account anddetermining any policy and budgetary implications.This would facilitate more informed, higher qualitydebate on the NPF and associated spending plans;and add to the value obtained from the NPF process

in enhancing the cost-effectiveness of Governmentexpenditure.

Engagementof thepublic inthedevelopmentof theNPFandScotlandPerforms

13 Paragraph 8 makes it clear that there has been verylimited opportunity for those outwith Government toinfluence the development of the NPF and Scotland

Performs. This not only applies to external technicalinput and analysis, but also to engagement with thepublic. While ScotlandPerforms is an excellentonline resource which brings together the mostup-to-date information available on how Scotland isperforming, unless people are awareof itsexistence,it will not fulfil its potential. We note that when the

NPF was refreshed in 2011, a number of theindicators were simplified to make them moreunderstandable and accessible. This would havebeen a timely opportunity to engage with the public.However, it is notable that the public have not beenengaged in the development of the NPF. Weunderstand the Scottish Government has beenconsidering launching a communication strategy toexplain the NPF to the public11. We believe that thisshould be taken forward as soon as possible.However, it should not be restricted to providing thepublic with information on the NPF. It is important

that a process of deliberative dialogue is initiated toensure that civic society is engaged in thedevelopment of the NPF. This would not only raisethe profile of the NPF, it would assist in developingthe NPF as a tool which can be used to identifypriorities in the formulation of policy.

Externalities14 We recognise that there are limitations on the extent

to which Scottish Government interventions caninfluenceperformance measures. Thisis particularlythe case in relation to global economic factors and

drivers which will inevitably be outwith the directinfluence of the Scottish Government. We note thatin VirginiaPerforms, state influence is assessedagainst each of the performance measures. Wesuggest that this would be a useful addition toScotlandPerforms. If Audit Scotland is given anextended role as outlined in paragraph 10, this couldinclude providing an independent judgment on theextent of Scottish Government influence on theperformance measures in Scotland Performs.

11 Ibid. 1

Documents

National Performance Framework