Apply the relevant element $($s$)$ of value for money as an assessment tool to the following case,

providing explanations for your answer:

A local authority sets up a new programme to reduce litter dropping. One of its early steps is

to agree with stakeholders a set of outcomes for the programme. The effectiveness of the

programme is to be judged on the extent to which it reaches ifs outcomes in a year. With respect

to the cost of resources required, three proposals were received. Proposal I would cost GHC

$20$million, Proposal $2$ would cost GHC $25$ million and Proposal $3$ would cost GHC $23$ million.

However, Proposal $3$ was used to budget for the programme. The programme managers

allowed costs to over$-$run in their drive to meet the outcome. Also the programme achieves

$97\%$ of its outcomes and local government officials declare they have 'come within a whisker

of winning the battle against litter'. The cost over$-$run prompts a review of the service. Similar

programmes in neighbouring areas produce the same outcome; however, the cost of these

programmes are relatively lesser. This concludes that, outcome for outcome, it was more

expensive than similar programmes in neighbouring areas. If programme objectives had been

exceeded sufficiently, the programme may have been cost$-$effective despite the overspending.

However, programme managers could still be criticised for exceeding the budget. The most

disadvantaged parts of the area were also those with the biggest litter problems and these

neighbourhoods impisived more, from a lower base, than wealthier places. $.$