16 We make the following recommendations:
a The data-set for the programme is patchy. The Department should develop a framework for collecting and using data which will aid evaluation of the programme and help local authorities benchmark their projects. It should use the full range of data already available in the Departmental group and consider the value of collecting additional data. As a priority the Department should consider what additional data it needs to assess whether operational projects are realising intended wider benefits, for example, in terms of regeneration, beyond the delivery of contract specifications.
b The Department has done limited evaluation of PFI housing at a programme level. The Department should evaluate the programme to date, including a quantitative as well as a qualitative assessment of performance. As part of planned assessment of PFI housing through the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review and in view of a period of restraint and efficiencies in public sector spending, the Department should consider PFI in the context of its other housing investment programmes, assess the different types of project used and ensure that value for money is a primary focus in terms of the selection of PFI as an investment option.
c Evidence to show that cost estimating and procurement times are improving is not yet conclusive. Building on the measures they have put in place to improve cost estimation and procurement times, the Department and the Agency should review, for projects after round three, whether these are proving effective and should consider whether there are further steps they can take to improve performance.
d The Department to date has largely focused its monitoring of value for money prior to contract signature. The Department should build upon existing project monitoring to ensure that formal arrangements are in place with the Agency and all other parties involved, with responsibilities clearly defined, for review of value for money including achievement of wider outcomes over the life of the contract.
e Central management structures are not always transparent to projects. The Department and Agency should establish a communication strategy for their interaction with projects to address any issues which local authorities find confusing. The centre, working together with projects, should develop a timetable for when key actions and decisions are needed on both sides and should keep this under review during procurement. The Department should also review management and reporting structures and its relationship with the Agency to ensure there are clear lines of authority and that the pace of the programme moves more quickly.
f There are benefits to the Department's lean resourcing model, but it has posed risks to effective delivery. Within the context of the efficiencies that need to be achieved in the public sector in the coming years, the Department and the Agency should continue to review the level and quality of resources needed to manage the programme effectively and establish adequate cover arrangements and succession planning. The Department should consider how it can manage its resources and workflow to maintain operational efficiency.