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

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

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.