A STORMONT executive plan to cut its departments' costs and improve efficiency through upfront investment failed to make significant savings, the government's financial watchdog has found.
The 'Invest to Save' scheme was launched by the Department of Finance and Personnel in 2010 and saw a total of £311m earmarked for money saving projects across 11 executive departments.
But a report from the Audit Office concludes that the initiative failed to deliver the desired savings and that in many instances it was hard to establish where costs had been cut.
In one case, the Department of Health was allocated £70m towards a four-year programme of reform and modernisation. However, only a quarter of the money was used for the specified purpose by funding redundancies in health trusts. The remaining £52m was reallocated to the department's frontline services to plug gaps in its budget and did not result in any savings.
Elsewhere, the Department for Regional Development (DRD) successfully bid for £108m of Invest to Save funding to cover part of its roads structural maintenance over four years. The money was awarded despite the fact that no savings were identified in the bid, though the department claimed timely investment represented better value for money than reactive maintenance.
The Audit Office report concludes that in some cases it was hard to distinguish between Invest to Save funding and conventional funding, and that money directed towards the scheme could have been secured through conventional means.
It found that almost a third of the projects funded did not identify savings and in some cases no savings targets were set.
Comptroller and auditor general Kieran Donnelly said in times of austerity initiatives such as Invest to Save offered opportunities to innovate and use taxpayers' money more effectively.
"The primary focus of Invest to Save funding was on delivering savings, however, almost one third of projects did not anticipate and/or quantify savings and no specific targets were set, monitored or reported on for the scheme as a whole," he said.
"Whilst not disputing the merits of the projects which were funded, it is not clear how many met the criteria of the Invest to Save project."
Mr Donnelly acknowledged that improved efficiency in public services often required upfront investment but said it was vital to have the necessary checks and balances operating.
"It is important that effective assessment, monitoring and reporting arrangements in place," he said.
"Otherwise there is a risk that the funding does not achieve the financial service delivery benefits intended and that the potential to encourage transformation and innovation across the public sector is not maximised."
