context of the research

Comparing for Improvement

Comparing local government performance regimes

Steve Martin, James Downe, Clive Grace, Sandra Nutley


Context of the research

Emphasis on public service improvement

Investment in new performance frameworks designed to support/drive improvement

Central role for whole organisation assessments

Emergence of significant differences in local government frameworks in E, S and W


Why performance assessments?

Market failure

Democratic failure

Administrative solutions:

Take it in house

Self actualisation/localism – improvement from within

Contracts – SOAs, LAAs, IAs

External checking and challenge


Inspection for assurance

Public assurance

Selected services

Minimum standards defined by professional bodies and networks

Retrospective

Inspectors with expertise in inspected services

Inform policy and practice


Inspection for improvement

Continuous improvement (improvement journeys)

Comprehensive - whole organisation

Capacity (not outcomes)

Prospective performance

Generalist inspectors

Trigger support and intervention


Risk regulatory regimes

Systems of interconnecting institutions and instruments that steer performance through information gathering, standard setting and behaviour modification

Whole organisation assessments within wider local government performance improvement framework which in turn is linked to wider strategy for public services reform


Key institutions Key instruments

Central government

Local government

PSAI bodies

Resource flows

Reporting arrangements

SPIs Targets

Concordats & agreements

Corporate performance assessments

Performance improvement frameworks


BVA - winning without scoring?

Introduced in 2003 – all councils audited once by 2009Conducted by a specialist team within Audit ScotlandSelective and tailored audit in response to self-evaluation and other informationFocused on corporate arrangementsPublished report but no scores or league tablesSanctions for poor performance and limited support for improvement from Improvement ServiceBV II – area focused, linked to outcome agreements


CPA - the harder edged test?

Introduced in 2002 - annual assessments for unitary and higher tier councilsAuditor-led process, though element of self assessmentUniform, rules-based scoring system for measuring corporate and service performancePublished report and league table of scoresStrong sanctions for poor performance coupled with support from IDeA and othersCAA – 7 inspectorates; linked to LAAs


WPI - improving from within?

Introduced in 2002 and annual since thenJoint tailored process between WAO and councils, with high degree of self assessmentFocused on corporate arrangementsConfidentiality agreements between LAs and WAONo sanctions and limited support for poor performance; behaviour modification depends on internal accountability arrangementsWLGA key role in brokering interventionsLG measure public reporting and stronger powers of direction/intervention


Effectiveness

Increasing confidence in WOAs in E and SAll three regimes credited with significant improvements in corporate capacity esp. poorer authorities - ‘lifted the floor but not raised the roof’CPA – greatest impact in early rounds, increasingly vulnerable to gamingWPI - dissatisfaction with lack of ‘hard’ evidence of improvement Concerns about clarity of method, consistency of judgements and lack of improvement guidanceCalls for greater emphasis on service outcomes


Similarities

Origins - duty of continuous improvementTheory of improvement – ‘serious and sustained service failure is also a failure of corporate leadership’Focus on poor performanceOrganisational attributes (and service outcomes)Delivered by audit bodiesEvolved in response to changing environment and learning – more proportionate, joined up, citizen-focused, area based approaches – CAA, Crerar, Wales review


Differences

Standing of local government – rules based vs. self assessments

Theories of change motivation - ‘naming and shame’ vs. learning from within

Methods, frequency and perceived intensity

Reporting

Nature of local government performance framework and PSR strategies and links between these and WOAs

Relationships to service inspections


Why the differences?

Scale and policy communities

Ideology – standing of local government

Confidence of governments

Policy awareness and avoidance - post-devolution opportunity to be different

Cohesion of local government family

Wider context of public service reform

Individual actors

Relational distance


Some policy implications

External challenge

Public reporting

Incentives

Rules based regimes allow comparisons between organisations and over time

But customised approaches less susceptible to gaming


Some policy implications

Scope for more policy learning

Nature of the ‘risk’ unclear – vulnerable groups, poor performance, undetected poor performance, failure to improve?

Theory of improvement - good capacity but poor outcomes and vice versa (Baby P, West Dunbartonshire)

Assessment methodologies now being stretched by move to outcome focused, area based approaches


Comparing for Improvement: the development and impact of public services audit and inspection in UK local government

For further information see:www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/esrcinfocentre/viewawardpage.aspx?awardnumber=RES-166-25-0034

Or email: [email protected]

context of the research

Documents