Sub-questions

Is there a suitable governance structure for the programme?

Are there clearly defined roles and responsibilities?

Is there a distinct programme management team with authority and responsibility for delivering the programme?

Does the organisation's board receive timely and accurate reports on programme progress?

Is the programme integrated into the wider planning and development of the organisation?

Are the programme and oversight teams realistic about their ability to deliver and implement the programme successfully?

Do the programme sponsor and other senior stakeholders receive independent assurance on the programme?

Has the programme board responded proactively to external assurance reviews?

Essential evidence

Programme board terms of reference.

If relevant, framework document for/contract with delivery organisation.

Infrastructure and Projects Authority and Major Projects Review Group reviews.

Regular reporting of progress and issues to Senior Responsible Owner (SRO), and from SRO to organisation.

Governance and assurance - examples from our studies

Our report on the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA)'s Magnox contract set out the events leading to the NDA's early termination of its £6.2 billion contract to decommission services at 12 nuclear sites. For the procurement, the NDA board relied on internal audit, external assurance reviews and legal advice, but these did not detect the problems later identified in a High Court judgment. After the contract was awarded, the NDA commissioned three assurance reviews that noted the NDA's process of adjusting the contract after it was awarded presented significant risks. The reviews were shared with the programme's senior responsible owner and the NDA's chief financial officer, but the NDA board was only informed of findings from the third review. HM Treasury and UK Government Investments told us that they were concerned about delays in adjusting the contract but relied on assurances provided by the NDA that a resolution would be achieved. From October 2016, a cross-government group of senior officials, including the chief executive of the civil service, met seven times to discuss the issues the NDA faced.

Improving children and young people's mental health services (2018, see Q1) concluded that the government did not have cross-government accountability arrangements in place to ensure that its vision for children and young people's mental health services, Future in Mind, would be delivered as intended. It had formed an inter-ministerial group, and supporting cross-departmental group, to discuss mental health policy and share information. However, as the government was not managing Future in Mind as a single programme of work, there was no single governance structure for delivery. We also found that NHS England did not have strong levers to ensure that all the additional funding allocated to improving children and young people's mental health services was spent as intended by clinical commissioning groups, although it has taken steps to strengthen controls in 2018-19.

Other relevant reports

Progress delivering the 'One Mission, One Bank' strategy (paragraph 8)

The Sheffield to Rotherham tram-train project: investigation into the modification of the national rail network (paragraph 7)

The new generation electronic monitoring programme (paragraph 13)

Early progress in transforming courts and tribunals (paragraph 13)

Projects leaving the Government Major Projects Portfolio (paragraph 12)

Rolling out smart meters (paragraph 25)