Response on the Department's Annual Report 2000/01

1.0 GeneralThe Committee has considered the Department's draft Annual Report for 2000/01 and has outlined its response below. This has been structured to reflect the format of the draft Annual Report for ease of reference. The Committee acknowledges the considerable progress made by the Department against the targets set for last year. As the Annual Report is to be published, the Committee believes that greater detail should be included on progress made against final targets not achieved at the end of the business year, to enable the Department to be given full credit for their performance.

Nevertheless, members do have concerns with some of the information contained in the draft document, which they wish to be addressed.

The Committee has noted in the Permanent Secretary's covering letter that "not all of the targets and goals are of equal importance," and believes that a further attempt should be made to prioritise targets, both in the context of the Annual Report for 2000/01 and in the Annual Business Plan for 2001/02.

2.0 Theme 1
Promoting a commitment to lifelong learning, to create the skills and expertise that our economy and employers need, to promote social inclusion and to encourage personal and cultural development.

2.1 Key Goals for March 2001
It is difficult to judge whether several of the key goals have been achieved as stated eg
how has the strategy to widen access to education and training been enhanced - has the strategy been finalised or published?

how has the Department explored how research and development can be expanded?

The Committee believes that if the Department's achievements are to withstand full public scrutiny, a short synopsis on how it has measured its achievements in such areas needs to be included. The problems with objective performance measurement stems from the fact that, in retrospect, the goals set were not SMART i.e. specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and timebound. Such goals and targets should not be set in the future and, indeed, the Committee noted the improvements in the Annual Business Plan 2001/02 in this regard.

The Department states that it has "made recommendations on appropriate structures for strategic planning and the provision of funding advice in respect of further and higher education." How do these recommendations link with the current review of the Department's advisory structures?

The Committee would appreciate sight of the recommendations made on "enhancing provision of basic skills education in further education and on significantly reducing the number of adults with low basic skills."

2.2 Key Targets for 2000/01

2.2.1 Further Education
The Committee is concerned at the length of time taken for information to be provided on the uptake in courses (18 months after the start of the academic year to which the targets refer) and on examination results (9 months after the examinations are taken). Although provisional information would indicate that several of the targets will be met, these cannot be seen to be measurable within the timeframe stipulated in last year's Business Plan and the absence of definitive information could adversely affect any prompt remedial action to be taken. Additionally, the Committee believes that impact is lost by the Department being unable to state whether stated targets have in fact been achieved.

2.2.2 Higher Education
Similar concerns to those outlined above apply in this area.

2.2.3 Training
The Committee has examined performance reported against the target " to ensure that those who began Jobskills training in 1998/99 will achieve at least a 68% success rate at NVQ Level 2 or above," and would refer to the previous reference to performance not being measurable within the stipulated timeframe. There are several other issues which the Committee wishes to raise in this area:

• the Department states that "the target is unlikely to be achieved, due to the introduction of key skills criteria." Given that this target was in last year's Business Plan which was published in July 2000, could the Department not have foreseen the introduction of the key skills criteria and its potential effect on performance?

• in relation to the Annual Business Plan for 2001/02, the Department is committed to a success rate of only 55% for those who began Jobskills training in 1999/2000. Why has the target success rate been reduced so dramatically and is the Department already resigned to the fact that the target published in the Public Service Agreement, for a success rate of 68%, will not be achieved?

• Regarding the number of organisations achieving IiP standard, the Committee has noted that the Department has revised the target during the year and that the new target has been achieved. The Committee's view is that changes in standards should have been foreseen before the target was made public in July 2000 and that, in any case, the practice of changing targets in mid-year leaves the Department open to the criticism of narrowing the goalposts to ensure achievement.

3.0 Theme 2
Helping people without a job into work

3.1 Key Goals for March 2001
The Department has stated that it has achieved its target in relation to the JobCentre network. The Committee has questioned how performance in this area has been measured eg the "quality service to the unemployed" and the "speed and effectiveness" with which employers filled vacancies. More information should be included in this area as the Committee considers that the installation of kiosks "in a small number of JobCentres," whilst commendable, does not demonstrate this target being met.

The Committee would also question the achievement of the target to support the establishment of an enhanced Northern Ireland Business Education Partnership (NIBEP), given recent evidence taken from NIBEP, that they had inadequate funding to deliver their extended remit, which was agreed jointly by DHFETE and the Department of Education.

3.2 Key Targets for 2000/01
The Committee noted that the Department has fallen well short of its target to help 15,000 unemployed people from welfare to work (11,596). Further information needs to be included on why this target was not met and any remedial action to be taken. The Committee noted the absence of a specific target in this area in the current Business Plan, even though there is a target in the Public Service Agreement to help a further 15,000 people from welfare to work in 2001/02.

The target to establish JSA joint working arrangements in a further six offices has "not been achieved within the original timescale." The assumption from this statement is that the target has been achieved now and that the target stipulated in this year's Business Plan to "establish the joint arrangements in a further three offices" will ensure that the joint working arrangements have been established in an additional nine offices compared to the figure in March 2000. Is this the case?

Although the target to develop and pilot a ONE office has not been achieved, reference should be made in the Annual Report to the fact that this was/should have been achieved by 14 May 2001, according to the Annual Business Plan for 2001/02.

4.0 Cross Cutting Issues

4.1 Key Goals for March 2001
Given the deficiencies which the Committee considers to be inherent in the Student Finance Equality Consultation document, the Committee believes that the Department has not fully "adhered to the principles and practices" in their Equality Scheme.

With regard to the New TSN Action Plan, the Report would benefit from setting out progress to April 2001 on the implementation of the Plan, to demonstrate how the Department has achieved.

The Department states that it has achieved its target of taking forward the Modernising Government agenda. Again, there is a problem regarding objective measurement, stemming from the fact that the original target set was not sufficiently precise. How has the Department measured "the best use of IT" and the "high quality and responsiveness of its services?" The Committee also believes that the fact that the Department has not completed its e-business strategy, as stated later in the document, must affect target achievement in this area.

The target to support and promote employability, skills, Lifelong Learning and social inclusion is another example of subjective measurement of performance, leaving the Department open to potential criticism i.e. what levels of support and performance did the Department have to maintain to achieve this target? At the very least, the Department should include examples of its work in each of the four key areas if the document is going to stand up to public scrutiny.

The same criticism applies to the target to develop employment law. As this cannot be measured objectively, examples need to be included to counteract the element of subjective assessment.

The Committee also noted that the target of project selection under the various programmes within the Department's remit has not been achieved. This underlines the danger of setting a target which may not be achievable, as the Department has been penalised for an issue mainly outside it's control. However, the Committee notes that the operational programmes were agreed on 22 March 2001. If projects have subsequently been selected within the 3-month target, the Department should include reference to progress in this area.

5.0 Management Goals

5.1 Key Goals for March 2001
The Department has stated that all six management goals set for 2000/01 have been achieved. However the Committee considers that the goals which were set, whilst laudable, are too sweeping and can only be measured subjectively. How, for instance, did the Department accurately measure the "cohesiveness and dynamism" of the Department and "efficiency and value for money throughout its operations?" Was money saved through achievement of the efficiency target, which could be used in the delivery of front line operations? The Department is in danger of contradicting itself in that, in the foreword to the Annual Business Plan 2001/02, the Permanent Secretary states that "we can see considerable progress towards the achievement of the objective of a new, unified, well-focused organisation."

Given that many of the management goals cannot be objectively measured, the Committee considers that it is insufficient for the Department to merely state their achievement. The Annual Report needs to include sound reasoning and facts on how the Department considers that it has achieved targets in this area.

5.2 Key Targets for March 2001
The Committee congratulates the Department on achieving Investors in People status. However, the failure to achieve the target to reduce the average number of days lost to sickness is a major concern. The average number of sick days reported at April 2000 was fifteen and "continued to rise throughout the year." These figures are particularly alarming, when benchmarked against the average sick days for all Northern Ireland workers (8.9 days) and for staff in Further Education Colleges in 1999/2000 (8.6 days). Members have asked for further information in the following areas:

• What is the current average? This figure should also be included in the Annual Report.

• What action was taken during 2000/01 to meet the target and why was this unsuccessful?

• What remedial action is planned for 2001/02, given that the Managing Attendance programme is not to be implemented until April 2002?

• How does this record sit with the achievement of a "dynamic and cohesive Department," given that many experts link absence levels with a workforce's commitment?

Dr Esmond Birnie, MLA
Chairman
5 July 2001

Hyperlink to Minutes of 28 June 2001, para 4
Hyperlink to Minutes of 5 July 2001, para 3, action point 2