Exploring perceptions of accountability and value for money in school PPP/PFI contracts

The main objectives of this study are, (a) to examine the school PFI decision making processes in Northern Ireland; (b) to clarify the meanings of the complex concepts of accountability and value for money (VFM); and, (c) to examine the perceptions of the usefulness of the accountability processes (or mechanisms) institutionalised in school PFI contracts in terms of their influence on VFM.

In-depth interviews and survey methods were used to achieve the preceding objectives. Forty three interviews were conduced with forty two key participants involved in school PFI contracts in Northern Ireland. In addition, a national survey of the principals of 332 operational PFI schools in the UK was conducted.

The main findings of this study, based on the in-depth interviews and survey questionnaires, are as follows. First, in line previous literature, multiple, interdependent and overlapping dimensions of accountability (such as, responsibility, liability, responsiveness, controllability, answerability, transparency, dialogue and legitimacy) were found to operate in the school PFI processes.

Second, the informal dimensions of accountability were perceived to be more important than the formal accountability mechanisms (such as, the consultation process, the monitoring process and the PFI contract) to achieve VFM—for example, trust and good working relationships between the schools and service providers were often highlighted to be more important than the PFI contract.

Third, contrary to the accountability, VFM, and equity claims in government publications, PFI was perceived to be an expensive, inequitable and opaque mechanism used to modernise the education estate. In particular, PFI did not enable the school Principals to focus on educational matters and spend less time on facilities management issues but introduced new administrative processes instead. As a caveat, the findings of this study should be interpreted in the light of its limitations and should not be extrapolated beyond the UK context.