Programme responsibilities, structures and governance

3.8  Projects raised concerns about the transparency of central management structures. They didn't always understand the functions of the different management bodies involved and their relationships with each other (Figure 9). Local authorities told us that they were sometimes asked for the same information by different bodies, including the Treasury, and while this is not uncommon for PFI in other sectors, it resulted in confusion and duplication of work.

3.9  The way the programme has been managed within the Department has changed over time (Figure 10 on page 32). Most recently the Agency has taken on much of the responsibility for the programme alongside other housing delivery. We conducted our fieldwork shortly after the Agency was set up and at that time local authorities were not clear how the relationship between the Agency and the Department would work in practice. There has now been time for the structure to embed but the Department and the Agency must ensure that responsibilities and joint-working arrangements are clear and transparent.

3.10  The Department and the Agency developed a framework document governing the relationship between the two bodies but the way this works in practice is evolving and the framework is now being reviewed. There is scope for processes involving both bodies to be streamlined. For example, both the Agency and the Department conducted sequential assessments of bids for round six funding during 2009. While the Department told us the second-stage appraisal was required and necessary, the announcement of successful projects was made five months later than planned and more than a year after the round was launched. The Department considers that this timescale is not unduly lengthy in relation to the scale and complexity of the bids received, but conducting assessments in parallel could have speeded up the process.