context of the research
DESCRIPTION
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 - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Comparing for Improvement
Comparing local government performance regimes
Steve Martin, James Downe, Clive Grace, Sandra Nutley
Comparing for Improvement
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
Comparing for Improvement
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
Comparing for Improvement
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
Comparing for Improvement
Inspection for improvement
Continuous improvement (improvement journeys)
Comprehensive - whole organisation
Capacity (not outcomes)
Prospective performance
Generalist inspectors
Trigger support and intervention
Comparing for Improvement
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
Comparing for Improvement
Key institutions Key instruments
Central government
Local government
PSAI bodies
Resource flows
Reporting arrangements
SPIs Targets
Concordats & agreements
Corporate performance assessments
Performance improvement frameworks
Comparing for Improvement
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
Comparing for Improvement
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
Comparing for Improvement
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
Comparing for Improvement
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
Comparing for Improvement
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
Comparing for Improvement
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
Comparing for Improvement
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
Comparing for Improvement
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
Comparing for Improvement
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
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]