ABSTRACT
This paper examines the design and implementation of the two recent models or strategies adopted for the intervention and turnaround of poorly performing local authorities in England in the two distinct periods of 2002–2008 and 2011–2015. The first was integral to the Comprehensive Performance Management regimes, while the second was developed under the Sector Led Improvement regime. The intention is not to determine which regime has, or had, the most merit or inadequacies, but rather to synthesise knowledge and identify areas that could be improved as policy and practice moves forward, particularly in the light of the recent general election in the UK. The paper finds that both models have merits as well as weaknesses, dependent upon context and policy priorities. It provides a review of when and where alternative models should be used, and a contribution to the development of the next regime. This, the authors contend, should have a greater emphasis on achieving more appropriate levels of public assurance than the current model is providing.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Peter Murphy
Peter Murphy is a principal lecturer in public services management, and Director of the Public Policy and Management Research Group at Nottingham Business School, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK. He joined the business school following 9 years as a senior civil servant, prior to which he was the Chief Executive of Melton Borough Council in Leicestershire.
Martin Jones
Martin Jones is a principal lecturer in accounting, finance and management, specialising in the public services and course leader for the MBA programme. He has worked at Nottingham Business School, Nottingham, UK, for 16 years, prior to which he was in senior financial positions within Local Government in Nottinghamshire and Leicestershire.