24th January 2011, 06:50 PM
All the more galling when you consider that in late May the government published an evaluation on ALSF by the In House Policy Resource (IHPR). The scheme was judged to be providing good value for money (with many areas judged to 'offer evidence of excellent potential vfm') (Daykin 2010: 8). The evaluation also found that "ALSF is now a mature programme with considerable momentum behind it, a good reputation and a wide community of interest" (Daykin 2010: 17) and that there was "a strong case for future Government support" (Daykin 2010: 15).
Apparently the government chose to ignore it's own advice.
It is an extraordinary decision, especially considering that the cost of running ALSF came to an average of approx ?118,000 per year over the last 4 years....peanuts in government spending terms.
@Dinosaur that 'no' was me
Daykin, S. 2010. ALSF 2008-11 Evaluation: Executive Summary. London: In House Policy Resource (IHPR).
Apparently the government chose to ignore it's own advice.
It is an extraordinary decision, especially considering that the cost of running ALSF came to an average of approx ?118,000 per year over the last 4 years....peanuts in government spending terms.
@Dinosaur that 'no' was me
Daykin, S. 2010. ALSF 2008-11 Evaluation: Executive Summary. London: In House Policy Resource (IHPR).