Skip to content

ACCA Strategic Professional · Strategic Business Leader · Public sector governance

A government education department wants to assess a new school-meals scheme. Inputs cost $9m, 3m meals were served (output), and the stated aim is better pupil attendance and attainment (outcome). A consultant proposes judging success on cost per meal alone. What is the key weakness of this proposal in value for money terms?

Cost per meal measures only efficiency, at $3 per meal, relating inputs to outputs. It does not show whether attendance and attainment improved, so effectiveness remains untested. A low-cost scheme that fails to achieve its intended outcomes would still appear successful under this measure.

  1. AIt captures efficiency only and ignores whether outcomes were achieved, so effectiveness is untestedCorrect
  2. BIt captures effectiveness only and ignores input cost
  3. CIt double counts economy and efficiency
  4. DIt cannot be calculated because outputs are non-financial

Explanation

Cost per meal is $3 and relates inputs to outputs, which is efficiency. It says nothing about whether attendance and attainment improved, which is effectiveness. A cheap meal that does not change outcomes would score well but offer poor value for money.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Public sector governance shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Public sector governanceFree diagnostic mock

More Public sector governance questions