Brown targets: 40 per cent failing
Updated on 26 June 2007
The government is missing 44 out of the 101 targets set by Gordon Brown at the last spending review - according to the government's own assessment of its recent performance.
The results call into question the viability of the 'target culture' which has been a hallmark of Gordon Brown's time in the treasury.
Channel 4 News online understands that the government will now scale back the treasury's attempts to control other departments, reducing the number of targets it will set other Whitehall departments in the next spending review, due next month.
The spending review targets, known as 'public service agreements' (PSAs), cover the performance of all the major departments - exam results to unemployment; cancer rates to crime rates, military recruitment to HIV in Africa - with complex, highly specific criteria for how they are to be assessed.
As a result, there's no wiggle room - and government departments are obliged to report every year how well or badly they have fared against their performance targets.
And an alarmingly high proportion are experiencing what the government calls 'slippage' - falling behind the projected levels of performance agreed in 2004.
Targets missed (by department)
| Department | Missing | Total |
| DfID | 5 | 6 |
| DWP | 7 | 10 |
| Defra | 6 | 9 |
| ODPM | 6 | 10 |
| DfES | 8 | 14 |
| DfT | 4 | 7 |
| Revenue & Customs | 2 | 4 |
| DCA | 2 | 5 |
| DoH | 3 | 8 |
| MoD | 2 | 6 |
| DTI | 3 | 10 |
| FCO | 3 | 10 |
| Home Office | 1 | 5 |
| Treasury | 1 | 10 |
| DCMS | 0 | 4 |
| Northern Ireland | 0 | 4 |
| Cabinet Office | 0 | 4 |
| All Government | 44 | 101 |
Among targets being missed - the number of children in care; teenage pregnancy; 11-year-old's performance at English and Maths; reducing inequality; and promoting development in Africa and Asia.
The worst performing department is the Department for International Development, slipping against five of its six targets. Next is the Department for Work and Pensions, which is missing seven out of ten targets; followed by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which is missing six out of nine.
John Prescott's old super-department, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, since renamed the Department for Communities and Local Government, is slipping on six out of ten. The Department for Education and Skills is missing eight out of fourteen targets, while the Department of Health is missing three out of eight.
Among the targets being missed are the number of children in care; teenage pregnancy; 11-year-old's performance at English and Maths; reducing inequality; and promoting development in Africa and Asia.
The results cast doubt over the effectiveness of Gordon Brown's targets as a means of improving government performance.
Treasury targets have been a hallmark of the Blair-Brown era. It has often been argued that Gordon Brown used them as a means of extending his influence beyond the treasury and fulfilling his prime ministerial ambitions by proxy, demanding specific policy measures from government departments in exchange for treasury cash.
It's not even clear how well targets track government's own performance.
The Treasury could still claim to be meeting the target if inflation was above 15 per cent.
The Home Office, a department so badly dogged by controversy and operational failure that it has been split into two and renamed, says it's on course to meet all but one of its PSA targets - reducing crime by 15 per cent.
Likewise, the Treasury seems to enjoy latitude not granted to other departments. On the surface, it has been more successful than any other large government department in meeting the Spending Review targets it itself sets.
It claims to be on course to meet all of its 2004 goals except the rather ambitious one of increasing 'global prosperity and social justice' - but many of these claims are debatable.
Target three requires the treasury to balance the books over the economic cycle - the famous 'Golden Rule' of treasury spending. But Brown has only been able meet this standard by redefining exactly what an economic cycle is. The wording of the target allows him complete latitude to do this.
Target two, meanwhile, is inflation. It is meant to be 2 per cent, but in March it passed above the 3 per cent - exceeding the benchmark at which the Governor of the Bank of England is obliged to write to the Chancellor, explaining why the slip happened and what he proposes to do to make it good.
Despite this, the Treasury still claims it is hitting this target. Why? Because the small print on the PSA doesn't specify what has to happen for this target not to be met. It could still claim to be meeting the target if inflation was above 15 per cent.
As a government Statistics Commission report into the PSA targets notes, "There is some ambiguity as what will be the criteria for success against this PSA target."
