Title

As the final CPA results are released, Nick Raynsford bids a fond farewell to the seven-year regime which he helped create. As the final Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) results are published, this is a good time to take stock on what has been achieved over its lifetime. CPA may feel very much part of the local government landscape, but it is worth reminding ourselves how relatively short a life it has had. It was first unveiled just over seven years ago, in the Local Government White Paper Strong local leadership – quality public services. At the time, as a newly-appointed local government minister, I was acutely conscious of the poor public image of local government. This was aggravated by, but by no means limited to, the highly-publicised failings of a small number of authorities regarded as ‘basket cases'. Even worse was the mood of resignation, shared by too many in the local government family that these problems were endemic. In effect, they had been consigned to the ‘too difficult' box. There was no appetite for positive intervention. Not only was this a terrible betrayal of the people left in the lurch in areas with failing councils, it also gave local government as a whole a bad name. All the good things being done by local authorities in various places tended to be eclipsed by a few headline-snatching stories of waste or mismanagement. There was also a wider problem. As a convinced localist, I wanted to persuade colleagues across government to devolve more powers and responsibilities to the locality. Yet how could I hope to succeed without evidence that local government could and should be trusted to deliver? So the Comprehensive Performance Assessment was vital for a number of reasons. Local government needed a robust performance-management regime to raise standards and embed a culture of continuous improvement. There had to be a new ‘can do' attitude to turn around failing parts of the local government family. There also had to be incontrovertible evidence demonstrating an improving performance trajectory across local government as a whole. Because the local government community was initially far from enthusiastic about CPA, it was also important to convince the sceptics that it would genuinely help identify weaknesses and provide a valuable tool for leaders and senior officers to drive improvements in their own authorities. So both the Government and the Audit Commission made it clear from the outset that while the principle of introducing CPA was not negotiable, the details were very much open to debate. The full consultation and piloting which took place in early 2002 certainly helped get across this message. But probably the most important factor in changing attitudes towards CPA in local government was the publication of the first assessments. With few exceptions, the judgments were seen to be broadly right and crucially, they provided a real incentive to local government to raise its game. Indeed, the degree to which CPA has acted as a powerful influence for improving performance across the whole of local government has been remarkable, and a source of great satisfaction. There have been huge advances in the efficiency and effectiveness of local authorities, the quality of management, the standard of services delivered to the public, and the ability of local authorities to rise to the challenge of their ‘place shaping' role. Local government is also, I believe, much more self-confident and forward looking than it was a decade ago. Indeed, the focus in terms of raising standards in the public service has subtly shifted from local to central government, with growing interest in the use of capability reviews to improve central government departments. Of course, some aspects of the CPA can be criticised. In its early incarnation, it probably put too much emphasis on standards of service and not enough on cost-effectiveness. It also didn't take sufficient account of the perspective of the public and service-users. But subsequent methodology changes allowed these weaknesses to be addressed. However, like all performance-management systems, CPA has a limited life. Once the system gets truly bedded in, there is an inevitable tendency for staff to start focusing on how best to ‘play the system' to get a better rating. Box ticking becomes more widespread, and the process begins to assume more importance than outcomes. That is the time to call it a day and replace it with something new. So farewell CPA. It has, I believe, played a very significant role in raising performance standards in local government. But it is now time to move on. Nick Raynsford is former local government minister

Title

WHITEHALL

A good report for the inspector

SUBSCRIBE TO CONTINUE READING