Citation
(2007), "The public is confused", International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 56 No. 3. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijppm.2007.07956cab.006
Publisher
:Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2007, Emerald Group Publishing Limited
The public is confused
Two social researchers had a strong message for policymakers when they presented the findings of their research at a conference in Westminster. Professor Iain McLean and Dr Dirk Haubrich said that local public services in England are being affected by a “vicious triangle” due to the ways in which central government assesses performance and need. The researchers are calling for a re-examination of the “contradictory regimes” which govern public sector productivity.
The pair, from Oxford University delivered their findings at the conference “Do You Get What You Pay For? Getting to Grips with Public Service Productivity” and suggested that there are contradictory elements within the systems that measure performance and need within the regimes governing local authorities.
Central Government assesses the quality of service delivery in English local authorities through the Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) regime. This is true for service delivery in education, social services, housing, benefits, and leisure. However, the CPA does not always work together in harmony with other measurement systems.
Government also uses what is known as an “index of multiple deprivation” to assess the neediness of small areas to direct funds to them. Sometimes, very similar indices appear in both an authority’s CPA score and an area’s index of deprivation.
McLean illustrates the problem by explaining how school exam results influence performance measures (the CPA score) and need assessments:
If you improve your school results, your CPA score goes up, but your funding from central government goes down. Conversely, if school results worsen, funding from central government goes up, but your CPA score goes down. Either way, you gain a (partly) financial bonus and suffer a (partly) financial penalty.
McLean and Haubrich conclude that there is a Catch-22 type situation experienced by public service providers throughout the UK, as they try to demonstrate both productivity and need.