In the first of four articles on the Comprehensive Performance Assessment, Ben Page asks, do public perceptions of council services match up to the results
In Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CAA), we now have a system of rating local government performance which is more in keeping with the way in which local residents tend to see their authority.
Under CAA, there are fewer top performers than with the latter period of CPA – only 14 authorities now achieve level four status compared with 59 achieving ‘four-star’ under CPA.
The contrasts between the new system and the old can be stark for top-tier authorities – quite a few authorities have dropped from four-star under CPA to level three under CAA, or even level two (Waltham Forest LBC, Kirklees MBC, Knowsley MBC and Warrington Council).
Similarly, with districts, there have been several falling from ‘excellent’ under CPA to three under CAA, and even two (Bolsover DC, Horsham DC, North East Derbyshire DC, Spelthorne BC, Taunton Deane BC and Warwick DC).
The top performers average 56% of residents satisfied, as measured through the 2008 Place Survey, whereas the worst, which are mostly districts, average only 42% satisfied, so the commission’s scoring system does at least broadly relate to user perception.
There are exceptions: Brentwood BC’s CAA score is low, but 57% of its residents are satisfied with its performance, above the English average – whereas the three top-performing counties all have resident satisfaction scores below the average. Of course, by definition, CAA is a judgment on a whole range of services and issues which most of the public know little about, so we would not expect a perfect fit.
At the same time, scores are broadly consistent with CPA. No council has ‘improved’ their score in terms of jumping up a level from CPA to the top level four under CAA.
Across England, the London boroughs and counties seem to be doing better in tackling the challenges they face. The Mets do less well, with only Tameside identified as a top performer. As with resident satisfaction, inner London, in particular, performs well, and is now out-performing outer London by some margin.
By region, life in the North East remains good too. Over the last five or six years, a whole range of range of public services there has performed strongly on both inspectorate and resident judgments about performance. In CAA, the North East also does well – 90% of its authorities are scored as level three. Contrast this with neighbouring Yorkshire and Humberside, where only 41% perform at this level.
Does political control matter? Although the councils which are best rated by residents tend to be Conservative authorities in London, which have delivered good services and low council tax as a percentage of average local incomes – places such as Kensington and Chelsea, Westminster and Wandsworth – political control does not appear to stand out in CAA.
At the aggregate level, political control does not seem to be related to CAA score, except that clear leadership is needed. Conservative, Labour and Lib-Dems all have around six out of 10 of the councils they control scoring level three or four, but for councils with no overall control, the majority are either bottom or languishing at level two.
Ipsos MORI’s latest report on the Frontiers of performance in local government will further examine the use of perceptions data in determining local area or organisational performance at the end of the month.
It makes the argument that ‘absolute’ satisfaction scores such as those measured through the Place Survey can’t always been taken at face value.
Finally, the public are unlikely to notice CAA much more than they did CPA, we know they like to know that public services are being inspected, and that the information is made widely available.
During the weekend CPA was originally launched, 85% of people supported the idea of inspection, although only 5% could spontaneously correctly recall what their authority’s score was – and around 5% of people were either working in local government or married to someone who was.
With both Tories and Labour promising to make information a more powerful tool for citizens to hold services to account, but the Tories still promising to scrap CAA, the question is, what will be kept after the election.
While the cost benefit of the CAA process will be debated for much, much longer, in terms of how well it fits with public perceptions of local services, CAA seems to be more grounded in what the public and users think than the last gasp of CPA, and for that we must be grateful.
Ben Page is chief executive of Ipsos MORI
Under CAA, there are fewer top performers than with the latter period of CPA – only 14 authorities now achieve level four status compared with 59 achieving ‘four-star’ under CPA.
The contrasts between the new system and the old can be stark for top-tier authorities – quite a few authorities have dropped from four-star under CPA to level three under CAA, or even level two (Waltham Forest LBC, Kirklees MBC, Knowsley MBC and Warrington Council).
Similarly, with districts, there have been several falling from ‘excellent’ under CPA to three under CAA, and even two (Bolsover DC, Horsham DC, North East Derbyshire DC, Spelthorne BC, Taunton Deane BC and Warwick DC).
The top performers average 56% of residents satisfied, as measured through the 2008 Place Survey, whereas the worst, which are mostly districts, average only 42% satisfied, so the commission’s scoring system does at least broadly relate to user perception.
There are exceptions: Brentwood BC’s CAA score is low, but 57% of its residents are satisfied with its performance, above the English average – whereas the three top-performing counties all have resident satisfaction scores below the average. Of course, by definition, CAA is a judgment on a whole range of services and issues which most of the public know little about, so we would not expect a perfect fit.
At the same time, scores are broadly consistent with CPA. No council has ‘improved’ their score in terms of jumping up a level from CPA to the top level four under CAA.
Across England, the London boroughs and counties seem to be doing better in tackling the challenges they face. The Mets do less well, with only Tameside identified as a top performer. As with resident satisfaction, inner London, in particular, performs well, and is now out-performing outer London by some margin.
By region, life in the North East remains good too. Over the last five or six years, a whole range of range of public services there has performed strongly on both inspectorate and resident judgments about performance. In CAA, the North East also does well – 90% of its authorities are scored as level three. Contrast this with neighbouring Yorkshire and Humberside, where only 41% perform at this level.
Does political control matter? Although the councils which are best rated by residents tend to be Conservative authorities in London, which have delivered good services and low council tax as a percentage of average local incomes – places such as Kensington and Chelsea, Westminster and Wandsworth – political control does not appear to stand out in CAA.
At the aggregate level, political control does not seem to be related to CAA score, except that clear leadership is needed. Conservative, Labour and Lib-Dems all have around six out of 10 of the councils they control scoring level three or four, but for councils with no overall control, the majority are either bottom or languishing at level two.
Ipsos MORI’s latest report on the Frontiers of performance in local government will further examine the use of perceptions data in determining local area or organisational performance at the end of the month.
It makes the argument that ‘absolute’ satisfaction scores such as those measured through the Place Survey can’t always been taken at face value.
Finally, the public are unlikely to notice CAA much more than they did CPA, we know they like to know that public services are being inspected, and that the information is made widely available.
During the weekend CPA was originally launched, 85% of people supported the idea of inspection, although only 5% could spontaneously correctly recall what their authority’s score was – and around 5% of people were either working in local government or married to someone who was.
With both Tories and Labour promising to make information a more powerful tool for citizens to hold services to account, but the Tories still promising to scrap CAA, the question is, what will be kept after the election.
While the cost benefit of the CAA process will be debated for much, much longer, in terms of how well it fits with public perceptions of local services, CAA seems to be more grounded in what the public and users think than the last gasp of CPA, and for that we must be grateful.
Ben Page is chief executive of Ipsos MORI
