Response to `Delivering Comprehensive Performance Assessment'

Audit Commission Consultation Draft March 2002

The council has broadly welcomed the principles behind the changes proposed in the Local Government White Paper `Strong Local Leadership - Quality Public Services'. It is clear that the Comprehensive Performance Assessment is a fundamental building block in delivering a differentiated approach to inspection and to delivering freedoms and flexibilities commensurate with performance. As such, the council would have preferred to see sufficient time allowed in the development of this methodology, so that full account could be taken of the pathfinder experiences before other authorities, were asked to adopt it. In the circumstances the council hopes that the lessons it learns as a first tranche `participant' are passed onto other local authorities that follow the process later.

There are some key points, the council wishes to highlight, which are likely to impact on the success of Comprehensive Performance Assessment in relation to the part it plays in supporting the overall effectiveness of performance management in improving local services.

1. The white paper clearly sets out the government's intention to reduce the number of required plans. While it is understandable that the self-assessment exercise should lead to a clear indication of the next steps the council will take to improve, it is disappointing to note that the end result is yet another plan. A better way forward would be for the council to demonstrate how it will integrate the outcomes of the exercise into its existing plans and strategies.

2. The Comprehensive Performance Assessment duplicates much of the work required to develop the Best Value Performance Plan. In particular:

· the content required for the full plan and the CPA, both resulting in an overall assessment of performance

· distribution and reporting to all households, via summary performance information (replacing the summary performance plan) and the final CPA judgement.

Experience with Best Value has led to streamlining processes and integrating them with day-to-day business, so that a performance management culture is adopted throughout the organisation. There is a danger of losing this momentum if the timing of CPA and BVPP are not similarly integrated and if the two regimes remain separate. This also applies to the development of challenging targets through the local PSA mechanism. Urgent consideration should be given to amalgamating CPA, Local PSA and the BVPP into a single framework.

3. In addition, thought should be given to the timescale of the full CPA: a full annual exercise will take up significant resources which would be better engaged in working on the improvements or recommendations. It is therefore proposed that in line with the overall aspiration to develop medium to long term planning, the judgement from each CPA remains in force for a three year period. The annual management audit provides a mechanism for monitoring progress with recommendations and flagging up the need for early intervention if an authority is failing to respond.

4. One of the lessons learnt from Best Value has been that service improvements are likely to be incremental as long as the scope of areas under review is constrained by existing service boundaries. The development of improvement programmes which cross organisational boundaries and focus on key themes or issues is anticipated to enable and foster innovative options that result in step change. It is disappointing, therefore, to note that key elements of the methodology remain focussed on existing service boundaries, to the extent that gaps in information will be filled by inspection of individual services, rather than an assessment of the key issues facing local communities and whether there are robust plans to address them.


5. Care will be needed in the final guidance to ensure that it reflects the diversity of local authority arrangements and the intention behind other policies or strategies, which are cross-referenced. Development of the CPA methodology provides an opportunity to link together the different statutory plans and processes, developed for different government agencies, via a single, cohesive monitoring mechanism.

Examples of potential problem areas are:

· Supporting People - this initiative has a strong impact on those delivering social services. This is in danger of being overlooked when it is included in the Housing Section - which has a heading suggesting it does not apply to county councils.

· Sustainable development - in developing a robust corporate strategy for sustainable development, the council has learnt that the principles apply across all areas of council activity. There is a danger inherent in linking sustainable development issues solely with Environment Services.

· Pan-organisational partnerships, such as Local Strategic Partnerships and partnerships with health form a vital part of local authorities' operations and judgements about capacity and competence perhaps should take account of these significant areas of activity.

· The self-assessment guidance sensibly proposes a focus on outcomes, reflecting the lessons learnt through the development of performance management. However, the detailed matrix asks a lot of `How' questions, which naturally lead the respondent to process answers.