Comprehensive Performance Assessment - Springboard or Dead-Weight?

Public Money and Management

Volumn 24, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 63-68

  Wilson, John ^a  

^a University of Teesside   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 1142290781     PISSN: 09540962     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9302.2004.00394.x     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Audit Commission (2002a), The Final CPA Assessment Framework for Single Tier and County Councils, 2002 (London).
2. Audit Commission (2002b), Comprehensive Performance Assessment: Scores and Analysis of Performance for Single Tier and County Councils in England (London).
3. Audit Commission (2002c), Delivering Comprehensive Performance Assessment: Consultation Draft (London).
4. Audit Commission (2003a), CPA - The Next Steps (London).
5. Audit Commission (2003b), CPA - The Way Forward (London).
6. Boyne, G. (1997), Comparing the performance of local authorities: An evaluation of the Audit Commission indicators. Local Government Studies, 23, 4, pp. 17-43.
7. Boyne, G. and Enticott, G. (2004), Are the 'poor' different? The internal characteristics of local authorities in the five Comprehensive Performance Assessment groups. Public Money & Management, 24, 1, pp. 11-18.
8. Broadbent, J. (2003), Comprehensive Performance Assessment: The crock of gold at the end of the performance rainbow? Public Money & Management, 23, 1, pp. 5-8.
9. Cutler, T. and Waine, B. (2003), Advancing public accountability? The social services 'star' ratings. Public Money & Management, 23, 2, pp. 125-128.
10. DETR (1998a), Modern Local Government: In Touch with the People (The Stationery Office, London).
11. DETR (1998b), Modernizing Local Government: Improving Local Services through Best Value (The Stationery Office, London).
12. DTLR (2001), Strong Local Leadership - Quality Public Services (The Stationery Office, London).
13. HM Treasury (2002), 2002 Spending Review: New Public Spending Plans 2003-2006 (The Stationery Office, London).
14. Hood, C. (1991), A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69, 1, pp. 3-19.
15. Likierman, A. (1993), Performance indicators: 20 early lessons from managerial use. Public Money & Management, 13, 4, pp. 15-22.
16. NAO (2001), Inappropriate Adjustments to NHS Waiting Lists (The Stationery Office, London).
17. ODPM (2002), Freedoms and Flexibilities for Local Government (London).
18. ODPM (2003) Local Government Act 1999: Part 1 Best Value and Performance Improvement, Circular 03/2003 (London).
19. PASC (2003), On Target? Government By Measurement: Fifth Report of Session 2002-03 (The Stationery Office, London).
20. Pollitt, C. (1989), Performance indicators in the longer term. Public Money & Management, 9, 3, pp. 51-55.
21. Pollitt,C. and Bouckaert,G. (2000). Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis (Oxford University Press, Oxford).
22. Rouse,J. (1993), Resource and performance management in public service organizations. In Kester,I.-H., Painter,C. and Barnes,C. (1993), Management in the Public Sector (Chapman & Hall, London) pp. 59-76.
23. Stewart,J. and Walsh,K. (1994), Performance measurement: When performance can never be finally defined. Public Money & Management, 14, 2, pp. 45-49.