Public Sector Accounting

Word:3500 words

Major:Public sector accounting

Reference:  harvard  at least 20 reference

Requirement:
Annex 1 is the requirement for this assignment.

Attachment 2 is the courseware. You need to write an essay according to the class content

1、Attachment 1 is the requirement of the whole article.

It’s about leicester police, please make no mistake

2、Please make sure that you are familiar with this knowledge. You should write correctly on all four aspects mentioned in the article、

3、This assignment is very important for students, so you need to write it carefully according to the requirements, and the grade should reach 80%

4、at least 20 referenceReferences must include those specified in the job requirements

Need Turntin report,Repeat rate not more than 8%

 

ULSB Assessment Brief
MN2142 Public Sector Accounting

Public value can be created in many ways given the diversity of activities which are
undertaken in the public sector. For example, the Leicestershire Police creates public
value by providing a policing service to the people of Leicester, Leicestershire and
Rutland 24-hours a day, 365-days of the year. Its area of responsibility covers over
2,500 square kilometers (over 965 square miles) and has a population of nearly one
million. There is a rich diversity of communities all with their own policing needs.
While, it is relatively easy to visualize the concept of public value in operation, it is
much less easy to define and measure. Explaining what public value is, how it is
measured and contextualizing these is the task for this assessment.
In your written assessment, you should:
i. Explain and critique the concept of public value
ii. Identify the principle inputs, activities, outputs and outcomes of the
Leicestershire Police
iii. Identify suitable performance measures for the Leicestershire Police and
explain how each of these could help in evidencing the creation of public value.
iv. Demonstrate how the use of the Public Value Stream model could enhance the
delivery of public value by the Leicestershire Police.
Advice and Guidance:
(a) The four points above should not be treated as separate mini-essay questions, but rather
express the ambit of issues which your essay should address. It is up to you how much
of the word count you dedicate to each of these, and it is perfectly fine to provide a holistic
answer addressing all of them together.
(b) Be careful not to spend too much of your assignment simply describing the Leicestershire
Police.
(c) Information on the Leicestershire Police can be found on its website (Link) and particularly
on sections of its website which show their financial and other publications (Link) and their
management statements (Link).
Getting Started!
We expect you to refer to a range of literatures in your presentation. We have provided you
with the following list to get you started. This is by no means an exhaustive list of resources
and those looking to achieve high grades should include literature and resources beyond
those listed here. These literatures are designed to stimulate your thinking and to give you
an overview of the breadth of the debate you are engaging with

Moore M. H. (2014). Public Value Accounting: Establishing the Philosophical Basis. Public
Administration Review, 74(4), 465–477. weblink
Benington, J. and Moore, M.H. (2010). Public value: Theory and practice. Hampshire:
Macmillan International Higher Education.
Ensure you use the Harvard Referencing style.
Further guidance can be found here (Link)
The word limit for the assignment is 3,500 words (+/- 10%).
The deadline for submission of this assignment is 17 December 2019.
The assignment must be submitted through Turnitin on Blackboard.

Marking criteria
The assignment will be assessed according to the generic assessment criteria and also
according to the following specific criteria:
– Evidence of critical judgement in selecting, ordering and analysing content in order to
present a sound argument.
– The demonstration of insight and originality in responding to the assignment questions.
– The extent and level of research undertaken and the degree to which this research is
appropriately referenced.
You should also refer to the Undergraduate Grade descriptor guidelines for the marking and
moderation of assessments.
Mark Undergraduate Grade Descriptor
85-100% Scholarship: Excellent application of a rigorous and extensive knowledge of subject matter; perceptive;
demonstrates a critical appreciation of subject and extensive and detailed critical analysis of the key issues;
displays independence of thought and/ or a novel and relevant approach to the subject; reveals both breadth
and depth of understanding, showing insight and appreciation of argument.
Independent learning: Work draws on a wide range of relevant literature and is not confined to reading lists,
textbooks or lecture notes; arguments are well supported by a variety of means.
Writing skills: Writing skills are excellent; writing is clear and precise; arguments are logical, well-structured
and sustained, and demonstrate thorough understanding; conclusions are reasoned and justified by
evidence.
Analysis: Work demonstrates a robust approach to analysis that is evident of a deep understanding of
relevant concepts, theories, principles and techniques. For quantitative modules analysis is complete and
entirely relevant to the problem.

Mark Undergraduate Grade Descriptor
70-84% Scholarship: Very good application of a rigorous and extensive knowledge of subject matter; demonstrates
a critical appreciation of subject; displays detailed thought and consideration of the subject; reveals very
good breadth and depth of understanding.
Independent learning: Work draws on a range of relevant literature and is not confined to reading lists,
textbooks or lecture notes.

Writing skills: Writing skills are well-developed; writing is clear and precise; arguments are logical, well-
structured and demonstrate thorough understanding; conclusions are justified by evidence.

Analysis: Analytical steps carried out carefully and correctly demonstrating that it is based on a sound
understanding. Analysis is relevant to the problem and is complete and is placed in a clear context.
60-69% Scholarship: Good, broad-based understanding of subject manner; makes effective use of understanding to
provide an informative, balanced argument that is focussed on the topic; reveals some attempt at creative,
independent thinking; main points well covered, displaying breadth or depth but not necessarily both;
broadly complete and relevant argument;
Independent learning: Sources range beyond textbooks and lecture material and are used effectively to
illustrate points and justify arguments.
Writing skills: Arguments are presented logically and coherently within a clear structure and are justified
with appropriate supporting evidence; capably written with good use of English throughout; free from major
errors; complex ideas are expressed clearly and fluently using specialist technical terminology where
appropriate.
Analysis: Some minor slips in the steps of the analysis and some minor gaps in understanding of underlying
principles. Analysis is relevant to the problem and mostly complete. A good interpretation which conveys
most of its meaning.

50-59% Scholarship: Some but limited engagement with, and understanding of, relevant material but may lack focus,
organisation, breadth, and/or depth; relatively straightforward ideas are expressed clearly and fluently
though there may be little or no attempt to synthesise or evaluate more complex ideas; exhibits limited
independent creative thought; adequate analysis but some key points only mentioned in passing; arguments
satisfactory but some errors and perhaps lacking completeness and relevance in parts.
Independent learning: Sources may range beyond lecture material and textbooks though effective
engagement with and use of the wider literature is limited.
Writing skills: The question is addressed in a reasonably clear, coherent and structured manner but some

sections may be poorly written making the essay difficult to follow, obscuring key points or leading to over-
generalisation; competently written with a good use of English throughout (few, if any, errors of spelling,

grammar and punctuation). Answers that have upper second-class qualities may fall into this category if they
are too short, unfinished or badly organised.
Analysis: Minor slips and occasional basic errors in analysis. Underlying principles are mostly understood,
but clear gaps are apparent. Analysis falls short of completeness and is a little irrelevant in place but a
reasonable interpretation which goes some way to convey its meaning

45-49% Scholarship: Minimum acceptable level of understanding; extremely basic and partial understanding of key
issues and concepts; some material may be used inappropriately; uninspired and unoriginal; relies on limited
knowledge; analysis poor or obscure, superficial or inconsistent in places; arguments incomplete, partly
irrelevant or naive.
Independent learning: Sources restricted to core lecture material with no evidence of wider reading.
Writing skills: Though errors may be few and generally insignificant, answer may be poorly focussed on the
question, lack rigour and/or consist of a series of repetitive, poorly organised points or unsubstantiated
assertions that do not relate well to one another or to the question, although some structure discernible;
borderline or poor competence in English (some problems of spelling, punctuation and grammar that
occasionally obscures comprehension).
Analysis: Some knowledge of the analysis to be followed, but frequent errors. Some attention paid to
underlying principles, but lacking in understanding and frequently irrelevant. Some interpretation is given,
but it does not place the analysis in any real context

Mark Undergraduate Grade Descriptor
40-44% Scholarship: Minimum acceptable level of understanding; extremely basic and partial understanding of key

issues and concepts; some material may be used inappropriately.
Independent learning: Sources restricted to core lecture material with no evidence of wider reading.
Writing skills: Though errors may be few and generally insignificant, answer may be poorly focused on the
question, lack rigor and/or consist of a series of repetitious, poorly organised points or unsubstantiated
assertions that do not relate well to one another or to the question; borderline competence in English (some
problems of spelling, punctuation and grammar that occasionally obscures comprehension).

 

30-39% Minimum requirements have not been met.

Scholarship: Inadequate knowledge of relevant material; omission of key ideas/material; significant parts
may be irrelevant, superficial or factually incorrect; inappropriate use of some material; mere paraphrasing
of course texts or lecture notes; key points barely mentioned; very weak grasp or complete
misunderstanding of the issues; inclusion of irrelevant material; does not address the topic or question.
Independent learning: Restricted to a basic awareness or no awareness of course material and textbooks;
very meagre use of supporting material or unsupported assertions; use of irrelevant or unconvincing
material.
Writing skills: Unacceptable use of English (i.e. comprehension obscured by significant and intrusive errors
of spelling, punctuation and grammar); poor and unclear, or totally incoherent, structure. Answers that ‘run
out of time’ or miss the point of the question may fall into this (or a lower) class.
Analysis: Erroneous analysis with mistakes. Very little attention paid to the underlying principles of the
analysis. Far from complete with little relevance to the problem. Limited interpretation that reveals little, if
anything, about the meaning

20-29% Scholarship: Displays a superficial appreciation of the demands and broad context of the question but is
largely irrelevant, fundamentally flawed, or factually incorrect; inappropriate use of material; mere
paraphrasing of course texts or lecture notes; key points barely mentioned; complete misunderstanding of
the issues; inclusion of irrelevant material.
Independent learning: Restricted to a limited awareness of basic course material; unsupported assertions;
use of irrelevant or unconvincing material.
Writing skills: Minimal structure, though may only list key themes or ideas with limited comment or
explanation.
Analysis: Analysis has very significant omissions demonstrating little understanding of problem or underlying
principles. Analysis may be ill suited to problem. Very little interpretation of meaning of the analysis.
0-19% Scholarship: No recognition of the demands or scope of the question and no serious attempt to answer it.
Complete misunderstanding of the issues; inclusion of irrelevant material. May have simply failed to address
the question/topic set.
Independent learning: No evidence that the most basic course material has been understood; unsupported
assertions; use of irrelevant or unconvincing material.
Writing skills: Without structure; comprehension may be completely obscured by poor grammar, spelling,
punctuation.
Analysis: Virtually complete failure to carry out analysis. No evidence of understanding of underlying
principles and bears no relevance to the problem. No attempt to interpret or explain the meaning of the
analysis.