Comprehensive Performance Assessment and Public Services Improvement in England? A Case Study of the Benefits Administration Service in Local Government

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to independently evaluate the impact of the Comprehensive Performance Assessment regime on one particular public service, namely the provision of council tax and housing benefits distributed by local authorities throughout the course of the regime. This service was assessed in every iteration of the CPA methodologies and it included one of the few key performance indicators (KPIs) where the definition of the performance indicator, the means of collection and the public reporting of its results, remained the same throughout the CPA period between 2002 and 2008.

The findings show that there were considerable and consistent improvements in benefits administration nationally within England and across all of its regions. The paper then investigates a series of propositions. Whether there was any significant variations in the performance of larger as opposed to smaller authorities, or between predominantly rural authority areas and urban authorities or between authorities with different party political control. Finding no significant differences the research suggests implementation of the CPA regime itself appears to have had a catalytic effect upon the performance of the benefit administration services within local authorities throughout this period. The paper therefore concludes with a brief discussion as to whether the findings support the theoretical position of proponents of neo-institutionalism isomorphism or more traditional rational actor theories of public choice.

Key Words:

• Comprehensive performance assessment
• local government
• council tax and housing benefits administration
• public service improvement

Notes

The DWP website refers to changes to definitions and the collection regime making comparisons of results incomparable. This is true of the results as a whole but not to the part of the regime under investigation in this paper. DWP also accepts that the figures are suitable for investigating long–term, high-level trends, which is the objective of this study.

This is principally Jobcentre Plus and HMRC who provide employment and other non housing and council tax benefits to an overlapping set of ‘customers’.

Mann-Whitney U tests are used to test the difference between the medians with an approximately 95 per cent confidence interval.

There were only two authorities from the three regions evaluated that remained in Liberal Democrat control throughout the evaluation period. The Liberal Democrat authorities have therefore been omitted from this analysis.

Authorities defined respectively as ‘rural’ and ‘urban’ authorities in the East Midlands, and Yorkshire and Humberside.

• a) The East Midlands rural group (13) comprises Rutland, Melton and Harborough in Leicestershire; Newark and Sherwood in Nottinghamshire; Derbyshire Dales and High Peak in Derbyshire; East Lindsay, West Lindsay, North Kesteven, South Kesteven and South Holland in Lincolnshire; and Daventry and South Northamptonshire in Northamptonshire. The urban group (8) includes Nottingham, Derby and Leicester unitary authorities but also Chesterfield BC, Mansfield DC, Oadby and Wigston BC, Lincoln CC and Northampton BC.

• b) In Yorkshire and Humberside the rural group (7) includes Craven, East Riding of Yorkshire, Harrogate, Hambleton, Richmonshire, Rydale and Selby while the urban group (5) includes Hull, Leeds, Sheffield, Rotherham, and York.

Authorities defined respectively as ‘large’ and ‘small’ authorities.

• c) Large London Boroughs (21) – Barnet, Croydon, Ealing, Bromley, Wandsworth, Lambeth, Enfield, Hillingdon, Brent Lewisham Redbridge, Southwark, Westminster, Newham, Havering, Waltham Forest Haringey, Bexley, Greenwich, Harrow and Hounslow.

• d) Large East Midland authorities (3) – Nottingham Derby and Leicester.

• e) Small East Midlands authorities (16) – Bolsover, South Derbyshire, Derbyshire Dales; Corby, Daventry, East Northants, Kettering, South Northants, Wellingborough; Boston, Lincoln City, West Lindsay South Holland, Harborough Melton and Oadby and Wigston.

• f) Large Y&H authorities (10) – Leeds, Sheffield, Bradford, Kirklees, Wakefield, East Riding, Doncaster, Hull, Rotherham and Barnsley.

• g) Small Y&H authorities (4) – Rydale, Richmondshire, Craven and Selby.