Further supplementary memorandum submitted
by the Audit Commission
LIBRARY ASSESSMENTS AND CPA
BACKGROUND
In supplementary submissions to the Select Committee,
Tim Coates has offered additional observations which refer to
the CPA assessments of library services and their alignment with
particular performance datasets. We are prompted to respond because
although Mr Coates is rightly addressing some key efficiency issues,
some of his assertions are based on unreliable statistical inferences,
misrepresents how CPA currently operates and does not reflect
proposals for the future.
RESPONSE
Mr Coates raises some important points which
are consistent with our earlier evidence. There is a need to recognise
and deal with efficiency issues in particular. However his analysis
is not informed by how the current CPA model works or current
developments. His assertions about the role and independence of
the Audit Commission are incorrect. He has invited the Committee
to draw an inference of performance using a dataset of three variables—changes
(not absolute levels) in book issues, visits and cost per visit—and
applied this to a limited number of councils without regard to
context. The data set is of interest and a basis for discussion
and individual challenge; but is in itself limited and partial.
In addition Tim has not recognised that the current CPA assessment
for the "libraries and leisure" involves an inspection
score driving the CPA score which in nearly half the cases quoted
has not followed an inspection of a library service but rather
leisure provision or other culture inspection focus.
In our written and oral evidence to the Committee
we summarised our assessment of the performance of the sector
which has been derived through inspection and was most recently
reported in Building Better Libraries. We explained that
subsequent inspection evidence confirmed the overall conclusions
of general underperformance.
We agreed that performance information has not
been used effectively within the sector to assess performance.
There is too much reliance on inspection outcomes to drive improvement.
There has been insufficient external challenge to poor performance
beyond the inspection process. The new public library standards
are likely to establish clearer expectations of performance but
there is not yet the clarity within the national framework for
library services that one finds elsewhere in the public sector
and therefore we have a weaker basis for national comparison.
Against this background we explained we intended
that the CPA culture block, the composition of which is currently
the subject of consultation, would from 2005 provide a more robust
vehicle for assessment and reporting than the current model. This
has given the sector a profile in local government but relied
heavily on inspection scores. We readily acknowledge the CPA block
needs reinvention, refreshment and reinforcement; this is reflected
in our CPA proposals. We explained that our future inspection
activity would need to be proportional and targeted where there
was greatest need. This would not provide coverage across the
whole sector and would not provide a secure or necessary basis
for contribution to the CPA score; rather inspection in future
will be focused on those areas of greatest need and worst performance.
Our intention for CPA is to develop a data driven model of assessment
for the whole of the culture sector with some key critical performance
standards. This will be used to derive the CPA score and the targets
for inspection activity. It may also assist others (DCMS and MLA
for instance) to target their activities.
13 January 2005
| 
