Has Comprehensive Performance Assessment been a significant catalyst for improvement in Public Services in England? A case study of the benefits administration service in local government Murphy, P. Greenhalgh, K. and Jones, M. Nottingham Business School Nottingham Trent University

Background Benefits Administration – 2 principal distributors Local Government – Council Tax and Housing Benefit Central Government – Unemployment, State Pension Child Benefit etc Council Tax Benefit and Housing Benefit Universal system administered on behalf of central government Unitary and District Councils administer system in England HB – 4.5m £80 per week approximately 180m p.a. CTB 5.5m £15pw approx £40m so £220m p.a. Management or Administrative Framework New verification framework introduced in 2002 Performance Management and Assurance through the Comprehensive Performance Assessments (CPA) introduced April 2002

Existing Literature and Research Research is primarily operational, short term and partial research – mostly sponsored by the government or by the Audit Commission – commentators have pointed out that both have vested interests Little academic literature devoted to assessing how either the system as a whole has performed or to which parts of the system have been the most effective in driving up improvements to public services One difficulty has often been the changing data bases, changing assessment criteria and changing definitions – and of course we are dealing with a politically contested public service Academics as well as local and central politicians increasingly questioning the effectiveness of CPA as they develop and promote CAA

Why Benefits Administration and why this Performance Indicator? Benefit Administration - Huge amount of public resources to both run the system and to distribute through the system – will increase with the recession PI - The definition, the means of collection, and its public reporting remained the same throughout the study period – It is secondary data but it is verified, publically available “good” secondary data The use and importance of this particular PI was (almost uniquely) never challenged by local authorities, the auditors, the inspectors or the government in fact it was often used as the key proxy indicator for the performance of the service as a whole The indicator existed and was collected nationally both prior to the CPA regime and is still being universally collected after CPA as part of the new DWP “ Right Time Indicator”.

What did we look at? The national performance in England between , the period of CPA, and briefly looked at previous performance Due to the number of local authorities administering the system changing from 388 and 323 (due to local government reorganisation) we looked in more detail at the performance of authorities in the three regions not affected by these changes - East Midlands, London and Yorkshire and Humberside Potential changes to the inputs of the system - money people and technology Political influence or control of authorities Whether “size matters” in this case Whether “geography matters” - any difference in urban or rural performance

02/0303/0404/0505/0606/0707/08 East Riding of Yorkshire Kingston upon Hull, City of North East Lincolnshire North Lincolnshire York North Yorkshire Craven Hambleton Harrogate Richmondshire Ryedale Scarborough Selby South Yorkshire Barnsley Doncaster Rotherham Sheffield West Yorkshire Bradford Calderdale Kirklees Leeds Wakefield Grade 4Less than 30 days Grade days Grade days Grade 1over 48 days Yorkshire and Humberside

02/0303/0404/0505/0606/0707/08 Camden London (City of ) Hammersmith and Fulham Kensington and Chelsea Wandsworth Westminster Hackney Haringey Islington Lambeth Lewisham Newham Southwark Tower Hamlets Barking and Dagenham Bexley Enfield Greenwich Havering Redbridge Waltham Forest Bromley Croydon Kingston upon Thames Merton Sutton Barnet Brent Ealing Harrow Hillingdon Hounslow Richmond upon Thames Grade 4Less than 30 days Grade days Grade days Grade 1over 48 days London

02/0303/0404/0505/0606/0707/08 Derby Leicester Nottingham Rutland Derbyshire Amber Valley Bolsover Chesterfield Derbyshire Dales Erewash High Peak North East Derbyshire South Derbyshire Leicestershire Blaby Charnwood Harborough Hinckley and Bosworth Melton North West Leicestershire Oadby and Wigston Lincolnshire Boston East Lindsey Lincoln North Kesteven South Holland South Kesteven West Lindsey Northamptonshire Corby Daventry East Northamptonshire Kettering Northampton South Northamptonshire Wellingborough Nottinghamshire Ashfield Bassetlaw Broxtowe Gedling Mansfield Newark and Sherwood Rushcliffe Grade 4Less than 30 days Grade days Grade days Grade 1over 48 days East Midlands

Political Control

The inputs and outputs of the CTB/HB system Inputs Client Applications Information from 3 rd Parties (Job Centre Plus, Citizens Advice) Staff and Managerial resources Processes Information technology, systems and processes Prioritisation and Decision making HB and CTB processes Performance Measurement BVPIs CPA Score Outcomes Impact on beneficiaries Income Re - distribution Outputs Payment of CTB and HB Performance Information

Conclusions and Recommendations Huge sustained improvement throughout the country across years, types of authority, political control and in different communities Politicians became increasingly pre-occupied with outcomes and targets but improvements in inputs and outputs are as important to managers and benefit claimants Improvements of this scale cannot be explained by increases in finance, technology or human resources Research demonstrates the importance of system and process improvement and of an holistic systemic approach to public services CPA acted as the catalyst for the overwhelming part of this improvement

Coercive Isomorphism and Rational Choice Theory Coercive Institutionalism Isomorphism “pressures to make organizational procedures and/or structure conform to best practices, arising from the demands of actors on whom the organization is dependent for resources (the ‘resources dependence model’ associated with Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978) or even from outright regulation and mandates” Rational Choice Theory Analysis based on assumptions that decision makers are rational, self-interested optimisers. Local authorities complied with CPA and the social bargain (or reward) was increased financial rewards together with freedoms and flexibilities from Central Government control. (the Central Government assumption).

Areas or questions for further research What has happened since 2008? Does the performance of services shown by other Performance Indicators in the LA benefit administration framework support these findings Do other performance assessments most notably external benefit service inspections in the LA benefit administration performance framework support our findings Scotland Wales and N. Ireland have same benefits but different performance management arrangements – so we can compare performance to see if it was optimised Compare performance with performance in Central Government administered benefits services Can we compare performance with that in other countries

Contact Details Pete Murphy: Kirsten Greenhalgh Martin Jones