With inspections under the new CAA well under way, The MJ/Audit Commission roundtable on CAA last week brought together the inspectors – in the form of commission chief executive, Steve Bundred – and some of those awaiting the verdict to discuss experiences. Chris Smith reports.
Bringing together the Audit Commission and a host of agencies that have just undergone the new harder-test Comprehensive Area Assessment (CAA) should have been a rough, acrimonious affair.
Fists should have been banging the table, voices raised and accusations thrown – if you believe the disgruntled voices in some quarters of local government.
The results of the new ratings for local public services will be released in December and they won’t be greeted with howls of anger if the joint MJ/Audit Commission roundtable is anything to go by.
The initial verdict from councils, PCTs, fire authorities and housing associations is that it has been tough but fair.
Anyone who doubts the ability of the local government ‘family’ to step up to the plate should note this insight: ‘It’s been a challenging experience for us but we’ve entered into it enthusiastically.’
The verdict from the other partners involved is equally pragmatic: ‘There were no surprises. Organisations should be self-aware anyway and know the areas where they need to improve.’
Another believes it has improved crucial joint working: ‘It has focused the minds of different partners on how they can work together better. There’s been a shift to a partnership team. Our borough commander is offering to lead on a piece of work which has never happened before.’
One insightful comment shows the process has heightened some rivalry: ‘There’s always an element of competition; you look to better your neighbour.’
The big worry is how the public would react to the results in December – if at all – given the limited coverage the local media gives to government, especially good news stories.
But there are some practical criticisms to address around coordination and overlap.
‘On second read-through you ask “what do we need to do to improve?” There are not enough clues to do that,’ is one pointer.
‘The inspectorates are not particularly joined-up; between CQC, Ofsted and others there’s lots of overlap in the area assessment.’
Better baselines for comparison is one favoured solution.
There came a plea for a more sophisticated view of ‘place’ from one: ‘London is different: people live in one place, work in another and socialise somewhere else.
‘London boroughs aren’t places and we have 700,000 visitors from outside.’
Another says: ‘We need a variety of perspectives, not a variety of auditors.’ What cannot be forgotten is the political dimension which hangs over the proceedings.
Council members are currently questioning why they need to commit to something which may not be there in 12 months’ time.
As one participant explains, those with a reductionist view of the state and an eye for overheads believe the argument for partnerships driving social change has not been made.
But overall, the assessment was encouraging: ‘It will take time. It’s only the first year so let’s build on this.’
The official verdict from Audit Commission chief executive Steve Bundred echoes this view.
He says: ‘The conversations are a lot more positive now. It’s a bit like the French Revolution; it’s far too early to judge the success or otherwise of CPA. We won’t even be able to judge that in December.
‘It will only be clear when we see change that wouldn’t have happened without it. That said we couldn’t have done our recession report without CAA.
‘And it’s been very influential in Government as ministers didn’t have the information on what’s going on.’
Both the commission and the services inspected by them have gained from the new approach to assessing performance.
Though there are teething problems, the exercise – like the roundtable – has not dissolved into mutual recriminations. At least, that is, on the officer side. Some elected members have yet to be convinced. It proves the adage that problem shared is a problem halved. But it is early days.
The consensus is this: ‘The process is about right for all partners.
It’s now about pushing on to the next level.’
Fists should have been banging the table, voices raised and accusations thrown – if you believe the disgruntled voices in some quarters of local government.
The results of the new ratings for local public services will be released in December and they won’t be greeted with howls of anger if the joint MJ/Audit Commission roundtable is anything to go by.
The initial verdict from councils, PCTs, fire authorities and housing associations is that it has been tough but fair.
Anyone who doubts the ability of the local government ‘family’ to step up to the plate should note this insight: ‘It’s been a challenging experience for us but we’ve entered into it enthusiastically.’
The verdict from the other partners involved is equally pragmatic: ‘There were no surprises. Organisations should be self-aware anyway and know the areas where they need to improve.’
Another believes it has improved crucial joint working: ‘It has focused the minds of different partners on how they can work together better. There’s been a shift to a partnership team. Our borough commander is offering to lead on a piece of work which has never happened before.’
One insightful comment shows the process has heightened some rivalry: ‘There’s always an element of competition; you look to better your neighbour.’
The big worry is how the public would react to the results in December – if at all – given the limited coverage the local media gives to government, especially good news stories.
But there are some practical criticisms to address around coordination and overlap.
‘On second read-through you ask “what do we need to do to improve?” There are not enough clues to do that,’ is one pointer.
‘The inspectorates are not particularly joined-up; between CQC, Ofsted and others there’s lots of overlap in the area assessment.’
Better baselines for comparison is one favoured solution.
There came a plea for a more sophisticated view of ‘place’ from one: ‘London is different: people live in one place, work in another and socialise somewhere else.
‘London boroughs aren’t places and we have 700,000 visitors from outside.’
Another says: ‘We need a variety of perspectives, not a variety of auditors.’ What cannot be forgotten is the political dimension which hangs over the proceedings.
Council members are currently questioning why they need to commit to something which may not be there in 12 months’ time.
As one participant explains, those with a reductionist view of the state and an eye for overheads believe the argument for partnerships driving social change has not been made.
But overall, the assessment was encouraging: ‘It will take time. It’s only the first year so let’s build on this.’
The official verdict from Audit Commission chief executive Steve Bundred echoes this view.
He says: ‘The conversations are a lot more positive now. It’s a bit like the French Revolution; it’s far too early to judge the success or otherwise of CPA. We won’t even be able to judge that in December.
‘It will only be clear when we see change that wouldn’t have happened without it. That said we couldn’t have done our recession report without CAA.
‘And it’s been very influential in Government as ministers didn’t have the information on what’s going on.’
Both the commission and the services inspected by them have gained from the new approach to assessing performance.
Though there are teething problems, the exercise – like the roundtable – has not dissolved into mutual recriminations. At least, that is, on the officer side. Some elected members have yet to be convinced. It proves the adage that problem shared is a problem halved. But it is early days.
The consensus is this: ‘The process is about right for all partners.
It’s now about pushing on to the next level.’
The contributors:
l Paul Martin, chief executive, Sutton LBC
l Barry Quirk, chief executive, Lewisham LBC
l Peter Sloman, chief executive, Oxford City Council
l Simon Tendeter, assistant director, corporate improvement, Enfield LBC
l Philip Hulme, head of policy and governance, Kirklees MBC
l Sophia Christie, chief executive, Birmingham East & North PCT
l David Howells, director of corporate services, Hampshire Fire & Rescue Service
l Neil Cleeveley, director of policy & communications, NAVCA
l Ann Sutcliffe, Bromford Housing Group
l Steve Bundred (chair), the Audit Commission
l Michael Burton, editor, The MJ (chair)
l Paul Martin, chief executive, Sutton LBC
l Barry Quirk, chief executive, Lewisham LBC
l Peter Sloman, chief executive, Oxford City Council
l Simon Tendeter, assistant director, corporate improvement, Enfield LBC
l Philip Hulme, head of policy and governance, Kirklees MBC
l Sophia Christie, chief executive, Birmingham East & North PCT
l David Howells, director of corporate services, Hampshire Fire & Rescue Service
l Neil Cleeveley, director of policy & communications, NAVCA
l Ann Sutcliffe, Bromford Housing Group
l Steve Bundred (chair), the Audit Commission
l Michael Burton, editor, The MJ (chair)
