1 / 9

Prioritising Statistical Outputs: example from UK

Learn about the process of prioritising statistical outputs in the UK, including funding allocation, prioritisation of existing outputs, the identification of new work, and public consultation.

joycegibson
Download Presentation

Prioritising Statistical Outputs: example from UK

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Prioritising Statistical Outputs: example from UK Aileen Simkins Deputy Director (Health, Public Service Productivity)

  2. Background • UK Statistical System is decentralised • ONS produces many but not all Government Statistics • ONS – Statistical work organised: • 1 Sources Directorate • 3 Analysis Directorates (coming down to 2) • 1 Methodology Directorate • Sources and Analysis Planning Group plans and prioritises ONS statistical work

  3. Why prioritise? • ONS funding set 5 years, requirement for efficiency savings • New UK Statistics Authority – overview of work programme • Demand from users for improved statistics in key areas (e.g. migration) • No clear basis for prioritising e.g. social v economic • Ageing or frail systems – make room for spend to save improvements, innovation

  4. Prioritising Outputs – An Overview 4 components: • Establish the funding available • Prioritise existing high level outputs • Prioritise proposals for new work • Consultation

  5. Prioritising Existing Outputs • “Map” of high level outputs with estimated total costs (across boundaries) • Criteria that could be scored for each output • Agreed “weightings” for each criteria • Directors independently scored each output against the criteria

  6. Prioritising Existing Outputs: Criteria 1)Customer Impact a) National Government & Devolved Administrations = 20% b) Other public authorities (incl. regional/local government) = 10% c) EU = 5% d) Media = 5% e) Academia and Researchers =5% f) Businesses & voluntary sector = 5% g) Citizens = 10% 2) Legal Obligation 20% 3) Strategic Fit = 10% 4) Capability = 10%

  7. Prioritising New Work • Identified and costed potential projects – 4x£ • Each Director chose a shortlist of projects in their own area • Each Director then considered all shortlisted projects and chose preferred package to fit £ • Directors jointly compared scores and agreed ranking of projects • Sought extra money from key users for some work

  8. Consultation Two stage public consultation • Phase 1 (Summer 2007) – seeking views on statistical priorities - 89 responses • Phase 2 (Autumn 2007) – seeking views on proposed package of new work - 37 responses

  9. Summary • It wasn’t easy • It was worthwhile • Achieved a good degree of consensus – within ONS and from users - about priorities • But nothing stays still... further reviews of affordable work; emphasis on co-funding • Real need – review spending and delivery of statistics for public use, across all providers

More Related