Has social care performance in England improved? An analysis of performance ratings across social services organisations

Policy Studies

Volumn 30, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 403-422

  Clarkson, Paul ^a   Davies, Sue ^a   Challis, David ^a   Donnelly, Michael ^b   Beech, Roger ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^b QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY BELFAST   (United Kingdom)

^c KEELE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Incentives; Local authorities; Performance measurement; Regulation; Social care

Indexed keywords

EID: 70349588247     PISSN: 01442872     EISSN: 14701006     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01442870902899848     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Alvarez-Rosete, A., et al., 2005. Effect of diverging policy across the NHS. British medical journal, 331, 946-950.
2. Andrews, R., et al., 2005. External constraints on local service standards: the case of comprehensive performance assessment in English local government. Public administration, 83 (3), 639-656.
3. Appleby, J., 2005. Independent review of health and social care services in Northern Ireland. London: Kings Fund.
4. Audit Commission, 2003. Achieving the NHS plan: assessment of current performance, likely future progress and capacity to improve. London: Audit Commission.
5. Banwell, H., 1959. The new relations between central and local government. Public administration, 37, 201-212.
6. Behn, R.D., 2003. Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures. Public administration review, 63 (5), 586-606.
7. Bevan, G. and Hood, C, 2006a. What's measured is what matters: targets and gaming in the English public health care system. Public administration, 84 (3), 517-538.
8. Bevan, G. and Hood, C, 2006b. Have targets improved performance in the English NHS? British medical journal, 331, 419-422.
9. Blackman, T., et al., 2006. Performance assessment and wicked problems: the case of health inequalities. Public policy and administration, 21 (2), 66-80.
10. Bloomfield, J., 2006. Controlling, cajoling or co-operating? Central governments' policy approaches towards local government on the issues of performance and cost-effectiveness. Birmingham: Institute of Local Government Studies, University of Birmingham, Council of European Municipalities and Regions.
11. 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 and management, 24 (1), 11-18.
12. Burnham, D., 2006. Only get better? A guide to social services performance measurement processes for frontline staff. Lyme Regis, Dorset: Russell House.
13. Caldwell, A., 2003. Improving performance measurement in the public sector: a review of the literature and lessons from social services departments in the south west of England. Exeter: University of Exeter, Centre for Evidence-Based Social Services.
14. Challis, D., Clarkson, P., and Warburton, R., 2006a. Performance indicators in social care for older people. Aldershot: Ashgate.
15. Challis, D. and Hughes, J., 2002. Frail older people at the margins of care: some recent research findings. British journal of psychiatry, 180, 126-130.
16. Challis, D., et al., 2006b. Care management for older people: does integration make a difference? Journal of interprofessional care, 20 (4), 335-348.
17. Chong, E., 2004. Yardstick competition vs. individual incentive regulation: what has the theoretical literature to say? Paris: ADIS/ATOM.
18. Clarkson, P. and Challis, D., 2006. Performance measurement in social care: a comparison of efficiency measurement methods. Social policy and society, 5 (4), 461-477.
19. Clarkson, P., et al., 2007. The design and use of local metrics to evaluate performance: a comparative analysis of social care organisations [online]. Manchester: PSSRU. Available from: http://www.pssru.ac.uk/pdf/MCpdfs/DPM160.pdf [Accessed 4 November 2008].
20. Clarkson, P., Hughes, J., and Challis, D., 2005. The potential impact of changes in public funding for residential and nursing home care in the United Kingdom: the residential allowance. Ageing and society, 25 (2), 159-180.
21. Commission for Social Care Inspection, 2006a. Performance ratings for adults' social services in England. London: Commission for Social Care Inspection.
22. Commission for Social Care Inspection, 2006b. Social services performance assessment framework indicators adults 2005-2006. London: Commission for Social Care Inspection.
23. Commission for Social Care Inspection, 2006c. The state of social care in England 2005-06. London: Commission for Social Care Inspection.
24. Commission for Social Care Inspection, 2007a. Social services performance assessment framework indicators adults 2006-2007. London: Commission for Social Care Inspection.
25. Commission for Social Care Inspection, 2007b. Adult performance indicators and key thresholds, 2007-08. London: Commission for Social Care Inspection.
26. Commission for Social Care Inspection, 2008. Performance assessment handbook 2007/08 adult social care services. London: Commission for Social Care Inspection.
27. Community Care, 2003. Top-down targets crush staff spirit. Community care, 20 February, p. 21.
28. Courty, P. and Marschke, G., 2003. Dynamics of performance measurement systems. Oxford review of economic policy, 19 (2), 268-284.
29. Cutler, T., 2002. Star or black hole? Community care, May 30, 40-41.
30. Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), 2007a. The new performance framework for local authorities and local authority partnerships: single set of national indicators. London: DCLG.
31. Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), 2007b. Delivering health and wellbeing in partnership: the crucial role of the new local performance framework. London: DCLG.
32. Department of Health, 1998. Modernising social services. Promoting independence, improving protection, raising standards (Cm 4169). London: The Stationery Office.
33. Department of Health, 2001. Community care statistics 2001: residential personal social services for adults. London: Department of Health.
34. Department of Health, 2003. Community care, services for carers and children's services (direct payments) guidance England 2003. London: Department of Health.
35. Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (DHSSPS), 2008. Proposals for health and social care reform [online]. Belfast: DHSSPS. Available from: http://www.dhsspsni.gov.uk/consultation_package.pdf [Accessed 12 May 2008].
36. de Waal, A.A., 2003. Behavioural factors important for the successful implementation and use of performance management systems. Management decision, 41, 688-697.
37. Dixit, A., 2002. Incentives and organisations in the public sector: an interpretive review. Journal of human resources, 37 (4), 696-727.
38. Garvin, D.A., 1993. Building a learning organisation. Harvard business review, 71 (4), 78-91.
39. Goddard, M., Mannion, R., and Smith, P., 2000. Enhancing performance in health care: a theoretical perspective on agency and the role of information. Health economics, 9, 95-107.
40. Grace, C. and Martin, S., 2008. Getting better all the time? An independent assessment of local government improvement and its future prospects. London: Improvement and Development Agency for Local Government.
41. Greve, H.R., 1999. The effect of core change on performance: inertia and regression toward the mean. Administrative science quarterly, 44 (3), 590-614.
42. Guardian, 2001. Naming and shaming is no way to run a health service, Guardian, 15 November. Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2001/nov/15/comment
43. Haubrich, D. and Mclean, I., 2006. Evaluating the performance of local government: a comparison of the assessment regimes in England, Scotland and Wales. Policy studies, 27 (4), 271-293.
44. Hood, C, 2007. The numbers game. Ethos, Spring, 32-35.
45. Huber, N, 1999. At risk' local authorities could lose their social services, warns Hutton. Community care, 25 Nov-1 Dec, 2-3.
46. Jas, P. and Skelcher, C, 2005. Performance decline and turnaround in public organisations: a theoretical and empirical analysis. British journal of management, 16, 195-210.
47. Kravchuck, R.S. and Schack, R.W, 1996. Designing effective performance measurement systems under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. Public administration review, 56 (4), 348-358.
48. Ladd, H.F., 1992. Mimicking of local tax burdens among neighbouring counties. Public finance quarterly, 20 (4), 450-467.
49. Laffont, J.J. and Tirole, J, (1993) A theory of incentives in procurement and regulation. London: The MIT Press.
50. Mannion, R., Davies, H.T.O., and Marshall, M.N, 2005. Cultures for performance in health care. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
51. Melkers, J. and Willoughby, K., 2005. Models of performance measurement use in local governments: understanding budgeting, communication, and lasting effects. Public administration review, 65 (2), 180-190.
52. Milburn, A., 2001. Speech to the annual social services conference, Harrogate, 19 October [online]. Available from: http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/News/Speeches/Speecheslist/DH_4000442 [Accessed 27 May 2008].
53. Miller, N., 1986. Management information and performance measurement in personal social services. Social services research, 4/5, 7-55.
54. Miller, N., 2002. The weakest links - priorities for improvement in personal social services performance indicators [online]. Leicester: SSRG. Available from: http://www.ssrg.org.uk/events/historicfiles/nickm2.doc [Accessed 27 May 2008].
55. Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency, 2006. Community statistics 1 April 2005-31 March 2006. Belfast: Department of Health Social Services and Public Safety.
56. Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency, 2007. Key indicators of personal social services for Northern Ireland 2006. Belfast: Department of Health Social Services and Public Safety.
57. Propper, C. and Wilson, D., 2003. The use and usefulness of performance measures in the public sector. Oxford review of economic policy, 19 (2), 250-267.
58. Revans, L., 2002. Star mapping. Community care, 27 June-3 July, pp. 32-34.
59. Revelli, F., 2006. Performance rating and yardstick competition in social service provision. Journal of public economics, 90 (3), 459-475.
60. Ridgway, V.F., 1956. Dysfunctional consequences of performance measurements. Administrative science quarterly, 1, 240-247.
61. Sanderson, I., 2001. Performance management, evaluation and learning in 'modern' local government. Public administration, 79 (2), 297-313.
62. Scott, T., et al., 2003. Does organisational culture influence health care performance? A review of the evidence. Journal of health services research and policy, 8 (2), 105-117.
63. Shleifer, A., 1985. A theory of yardstick competition. Rand journal of economics, 16 (3), 319-327.
64. Smith, P., 1995. On the unintended consequences of publishing performance data in the public sector. International journal of public administration, 18 (2/3), 277-310.
65. Social Services Inspectorate, 2002. A guide to social services performance 'star' ratings. London: Social Services Inspectorate.
66. South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust, 2008. Minutes of the eighth meeting of the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust Board, 16 January [online]. Bangor: Northern Ireland. Available from: http://www.setrust.hscni.net/corporate/TB%20Minutes%2016-01-08.pdf [Accessed 16 May 2008].
67. Warburton, R., 1999. Meeting the challenge - improving management information for the effective commissioning of social care services for older people. London: Department of Health.
68. Warburton, R.W, 1988. Key indicators of local authority social services: a demonstration package. London: Social Services Inspectorate.
69. Wilson, D., Croxson, B., and Atkinson, A., 2006. What gets measured gets done. Head-teachers' responses to the English secondary school performance management system. Policy studies, 27 (2), 153-171.
70. Yang, K. and Hsieh, J.Y., 2007. Managerial effectiveness of government performance measurement: testing a middle-range model. Public administration review, 67 (5), 861-879.