Evaluation Framework Phase 1 - EFRG update to Council 5 December 2007

1. Annex A – Evaluation Framework Phase 1 Evaluation Framework Phase 1 - EFRG update to Council 5 December 2007

2. Background • Council agreed the need to develop an evaluation framework that assesses the GMC’s overall performance. • There were a number of drivers for this, including: • The White Paper: measuring policy changes against our aims & objectives. • CHRE: Investigating, comparing, reporting on the performance of regulators. • Governance reform: preparing for a ‘more board-like’ Council. • Cross-functional approach: ensuring our functions are interlocked. • Business planning: the critical links between planning, evaluation and reporting. • EFRG was established to take forward the work.

3. Emerging thinking • The framework should assess whether we are making the desired impact. • The framework should: • demonstrate a new approach to performance assessment; shifting the focus, rather than simply bringing together existing indicators and measures; • focus on impact, not activity; outcomes, not outputs; • assess whether we are doing the right thing, not whether we are doing it in the right way; • have the GMC’s core interlocking functions (as set out in legislation) embedded within it; • complement but not duplicate the GMC’s audit function; • have the concept of ‘public value’ at its heart.

4. Suggested shift in emphasis Council oversight / Governance Commanding Confidence Core Purpose and Interlocking Functions Regulatory Principles Internal efficiency and effectiveness The diagram shows the hierarchical focus of the Evaluation Framework within the wider context of the GMC’s activities.

5. Key considerations: A new Council • EFRG has factored in the implications of having a new Council in place. • Areas of focus include: • Accountability (holding the executive to account); • Appropriate checks and balances; • Appropriate reporting structures; • Reporting and communicating impact and outcomes; • Engaging with our four key interest groups; • Achieving value for money.

6. Key considerations: other current activities • For example, FtP has consulted EFRG on its current service targets work: • We do currently have targets and measures around internal efficiency & effectiveness at an operational level. • We do not have well developed systems for monitoring and measuring policy development and in particular whether we are pre-empting and responding to developments related to medical regulation (this is not to say we do not do this effectively – we simply do not currently measure this). • We have limited information relating to what our interest groups think of us at an operational level, although the tracker survey does provide useful information.

7. Next Steps • Phase 1 • Report to Council on high level approach • Analysis of existing best practice (eg Cabinet Office, HMT, NAO, Audit Commission); • Begin engagement with Work Foundation on public value and performance measurement. • Phase 2 • Work up the evaluation framework model; • Identify other regulators for further dialogue and benchmarking; • Communicate within the GMC to ensure across the board alignment with emerging framework. • Phase 3 • Fully develop, populate and test the overarching evaluation framework; • Review and agree reporting structures and formats; • Bring evaluation model back to Council, probably on 2 April 2008.