State of policy information 2006

• Main conclusion
• Other conclusions
• Recommendations
• Response by the ministers
• Court of Audit's afterword

As part of its strategy for the period 2004-2009 the Court of Audit has set itself the task of contributing to good public administration. One of our aims is to show whether parliament can fulfil its duty of control and provide the public and civil society organisations with an insight into the use of public funds, outputs and effects. This ambition agrees with those of the VBTB 'From Policy Budgets to Policy Accountability' operation launched in 1999. At the heart of the VBTB philosophy is a clear relationship between budget and accounts. It must be possible to relate the actual measures taken, the associated expenditure and the achievement of goals in a particular policy field to the costs, goals and outputs originally planned. We wish to achieve our ambition of improving the budget and accounts and the relationship between them by means of our 'State of Policy Information' audits.

In the Budget Memorandum 2004 (Ministry of Finance, 2003), the Minister of Finance again underlined the government's commitment to the VBTB philosophy four years after its introduction. The minister wrote in the Budget Memorandum that the government would account for the main policy goals, known as 'policy priorities', presented in the annual Budget Memorandum and related policy programmes in accordance with the VBTB philosophy.

This report presents the Court of Audit's findings regarding the policy conducted by the second Balkenende government to achieve three of the policy priorities set in the Budget Memorandum 2005:

• reducing the number of early school leavers. The number of early school leavers must be 30% lower in 2006 than in 2002 (and 50% lower in 2010);

• combating crime and anti-social behaviour. A 20% to 25% reduction must be achieved between 2008 and 2010; in the 50 areas with the greatest problems the reduction must be achieved by 2006;

• space. Space must be created for developments: a better response to public and business wishes and more focus on spatial considerations at local level. Regional development must be encouraged with a view to increasing spatial quality and accelerating spatial development.

In concrete terms, for each of these policy priorities we considered:

• whether the social problem the government wants to resolve has been reduced or whether a social need has been met;

• whether the policy's contribution to achieving the goal was clear;

• whether the ministers remained within their financial budgets;

• whether the policy information that the ministers submitted to the House of Representatives was adequate;

• whether the relationship between funds, outputs and effects was sufficiently underpinned.

Main conclusion

The government has not yet fully succeeded in providing the House of Representatives with all the information necessary on the three policy priorities audited. The House does not yet receive enough information of sufficient quality from the ministers for it to effectively fulfil its duty of control in the policy fields concerned. In several cases, the information, where available, is inadequate. No information is available, for example, on whether policy works or not, and it is not known how much money was spent on the priorities. In some instances, the information is uncertain or is provided late. Resolving these problems would give a further impulse to the ambitious VBTB operation launched in 1999 to enhance the relationship between budget and accounts.

Up

Other conclusions

Achievement of goals

The achievement of the goals of the three policy priorities we audited was mixed.

• According to the Minister of Education, Culture and Science (OCW), the goal of reducing the number of early school leavers will not be achieved at the current pace. Both the minister and the Court of Audit think the figures on which she bases this forecast are unreliable.

• Eight indicators suggest that the policy goal formulated by the Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Affairs (BZK) and the Minister of Justice seems to be within reach.

• It is difficult to audit the spatial policy pursued by the Minister of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM) because the policy priorities are too general and are not consistent with the main objective of the Spatial Policy Document.

Effectiveness

With regard to all three policy priorities, it is virtually impossible to say what contribution government policy made to resolving the social problems addressed by that policy.

Expenditure: budgeted and actual

It cannot be calculated from the budget memoranda for 2004, 2005 and 2006 how much money is available for the three policy priorities we audited. Nor can it be determined from the central government annual financial report or other sources, such as ministerial annual reports, how much money has been spent on these policy priorities.

Policy underpinning

There was no thorough underpinning of the relationship between funds, measures and desired effects for any of the policy priorities we audited. Furthermore, there was no acceptable evaluation programme for the three policy priorities to provide an ex post insight into the presumed relationship.

Up

Recommendations

We recommend that the government and the House of Representatives reach agreement on which of the 50-plus policy priorities will be reviewed first with regard to the formulation of goals, the relationship between funds, outputs and intended effects, the achievement of goals and the quality of the steering and accounting information.

On Accountability Day (the third Wednesday in May), the government must account for the results of its policy priorities, preferably in the central government annual financial report. The budget memoranda for 2004, 2005 and 2006 contain more than 50 of these priorities, on average nearly four for each ministry. Many of these policy priorities are formulated so broadly that they embrace a large number of the policy articles in the ministerial budgets. With a view to accessibility and efficiency, integrated and therefore detailed accounts of all the priority measures and implementation goals are undesirable. For the government to account for itself efficiently on Accountability Day, we recommend that it reach agreement with the House of Representatives on which policy priorities and main indicators it will consider on that day.

Up

Response by the ministers

The Minister of Finance responded to the audit on the government's behalf. The government recognises that accounting information in general and information on the policy priorities we audited in particular are open to improvement. Policy priorities are the government's main policy objectives for the 2004-2007 term of office. The government accounted for all its policy priorities both this year and in the previous year and sees no reason for it not to do so next year. It will be up to a subsequent government to decide whether the policy priorities should be more or less concrete.

The government agrees with the Court of Audit that a review of all policy priorities is not feasible and that it would be desirable to determine which policy priorities should be reviewed first. During the 2007 budget preparations, the government will determine which of the policy priorities qualify for policy review. This will be discussed with the House of Representatives during the budget debate. The House will have an opportunity to discuss the results during the accountability debate for 2007.

The Ministers of OCW, BZK, Justice and VROM responded to our recommendations on the policy priorities for which they have primary responsibility. They indicated they would adopt most of our recommendations.

Up

Court of Audit's afterword

We are satisfied with the government's response to our audit. It shows that the government, like us, recognises the permanent importance of the availability and usefulness of relevant information and the proper underpinning of policy and accounts. We share the government's opinion that VBTB is a long-term process. We are pleased the government accepts our recommendations to improve Accountability Day. We are aware that it is extremely difficult to audit the effectiveness of a policy priority that involves a large number of measures and relates to several budgets and policy articles. But we think it is justified to expect a minister to provide a coherent insight into the extent to which he achieves his goals, what he did to achieve those goals and how much it cost. We are therefore pleased with the government's undertaking to review policy priorities. We shall follow with interest the agreements the government and the House reach on the selection criteria for the review of policy priorities, the selection of certain policy priorities and the timing of the reviews.

Up