Figure 1: Drivers of value for money
Economy: obtaining the appropriate quantity and quality of resources at the lowest cost possible; optimising the resources (inputs) which an organisation has.
Efficiency: maximising the output generated from units of resource used; optimising the process by which inputs are turned into outputs.
Efficiency can often be measured in terms of the cost of providing a service per unit of resource used, per unit of output, or per beneficiary served (in the context of a service).
For example, if the number of teachers employed by two schools is the same, but the first school has twice as many pupils as the second, we could say the first school is more efficient, because the staff costs per pupil will be lower.
Effectiveness: the relationship between the organisation’s intended and actual results (outputs); the extent to which it achieves its objectives.
For example, one of the indicators which is often used to measure schools’ performance is exam results, and this provides a measure of effectiveness. Is the tuition which pupils receive building their knowledge and, in turn, helping them to pass their exams?
Potential conflicts between the three Es
Although the aim of value for money is to achieve an appropriate balance between the three Es, this can often be difficult to achieve. Each of the Es aims to achieve different – potentially conflicting – outcomes in an organisation.
For example, increasing the number of pupils in each class at a school could help to improve efficiency (by reducing staff costs per pupil), but the quality of the pupils’ learning experience might suffer as a result. So, in effect, increasing efficiency could be detrimental to effectiveness.
In recent years, there have been many stories in the news about cost savings or budget cuts in public sector services (health care; education; police forces). These suggest an emphasis on ‘economy’ – and potentially ‘efficiency’ – rather than the ‘effectiveness’ of the services.
However, it is very important to remember that the value for money framework highlights the importance of measuring (and managing) all three Es, rather than focusing just on one aspect of performance.
This also has implications in relation to choosing performance measures. Organisations will need data to assess how well they are achieving value for money, and therefore in order to assess value for money appropriately, the range of performance measures used will need to address all three Es, rather than, for example, focusing primarily on cost (economy) or efficiency.
Equity
Sometimes a fourth ‘E’ is also included when measuring value for money performance: equity.
This reflects the extent to which services are available to, and reach, the people they are intended for, and whether the benefits from the services are distributed fairly.
For example, if an advice service provided to residents by a local authority is provided in a language that some residents do not speak, those residents will not be able to benefit from the service.
Evaluation of VFM from the Section A question published in the September/December 2020 sample questions.
The case study scenario identified that, following a recent change of government, the new minister in charge of policing in the country of Deeland has been instructed to improve the performance of the Deeland Police (DP).
The scenario identified DP’s mission statement – ‘to protect the community and prevent crime while providing a value for money service’ – and four critical success factors (CSFs) which had been proposed to support this:
- Greater protection and more support for those at risk of harm
- Be better at catching criminals
- Reducing the causes of crime by increased involvement with local communities
- Create a task force to develop skills in detection and prosecution of virtual crime.
A table of data was also provided – as replicated below.
Deeland Police data for each year ending 30 June
|
20X5
|
20X4
|
20X3
|
Population of Deeland (‘000s)
|
11,880
|
11,761
|
11,644
|
|
|
|
|
Number of police officers
|
37,930
|
38,005
|
38,400
|
Number of administrative staff
|
12,320
|
12,197
|
12,075
|
Number of crimes reported in the year
|
541,735
|
530,900
|
520,282
|
Number of violent crimes reported in the year
|
108,347
|
106,180
|
104,056
|
Number of crimes solved in the year
|
297,954
|
300,934
|
303,943
|
Number of complaints
|
7,624
|
7,512
|
7,483
|
Response to an incident within the allocated time limit
|
84%
|
86%
|
87%
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of police force for the year ($m)
|
2,248
|
2,226
|
2,203
|
Staff costs (all staff, including police officers) ($m)
|
2,026
|
2,103
|
2,141
|
Requirement
The first part of the question focused on CSFs and key performance indicators (KPIs) and included a requirement to provide up to two justified KPIs for each CSF.
Then, the second part – which is the one we will focus on here – asked candidates for an explanation of the 3Es (economy, efficiency and effectiveness) and how this links to the work on CSFs and KPIs. Candidates were also asked to use the data provided to evaluate whether DP provides a value for money service.
The requirement was worth 13 marks.
Tackling the question
As the question asks for an explanation of the 3Es, a sensible starting point would be to give brief definitions of each of economy, efficiency and effectiveness.
As we mentioned earlier, effectiveness relates to the extent to which an organisation achieves its objectives and intended results. So, this is an important link to CSFs and KPIs. Having identified its key performance indicators (eg the percentage of crimes solved; reducing the total number of crimes), how effectively has DP achieved these? How has its performance in these areas changed over time?
In this scenario, we are only given data for DP, so we can only assess its own performance over the three years. However, if the data were available, it would also be useful to compare actual performance against targets, and to benchmark DP’s performance against that of other police forces. (Although we don’t discuss league tables in this article, these are often used to benchmark performance in public sector organisations; and another requirement in this exam question looked at the potential introduction of league tables).
Is DP providing a value for money service?
The key part of this question, though, is analysing the data provided and evaluating what this shows about the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the service DP provides.
Economy
Cost is the key issue here – is DP obtaining appropriate resources at the lowest costs possible? – so the final two rows of data are important.
The overall costs of the police have increased slightly each year. However, staff costs, which make up most DP’s costs, are falling. A positive factor in terms of economy?
The data also gives information about the numbers of police officers and administrative staff, and this shows that the number of police officers has been falling while the number of administrative staff has increased.