CPA – The Harder Test

Local government

National report

December 2005

Scores and analysis of performance in single tier andcounty councils 2005

CPA – The Harder Test

The Audit Commission is an independent body responsible forensuring that public money is spent economically, efficiently andeffectively, to achieve high quality local services for the public. Ourremit covers around 11,000 bodies in England, which betweenthem spend more than £180 billion of public money each year. Ourwork covers local government, health, housing, community safetyand fire and rescue services.

As an independent watchdog, we provide important information onthe quality of public services. As a driving force for improvement inthose services, we provide practical recommendations and spreadbest practice. As an independent auditor, we ensure that publicservices are good value for money and that public money isproperly spent.

For further information about the Audit Commission, visit ourwebsite at www.audit-commission.gov.uk

For additional copies of Audit Commission reports please contact:Audit Commission Publications, PO Box 99, Wetherby LS23 75A Tel: 0800 502030

1 Key messages 2

2 Background to CPA 3

3 CPA scores for 2005 6Direction of travel assessments 6CPA star categories 11Supporting improvement 15

4 Use of resources 16

5 Service assessments 21

6 Corporate assessments 25

7 Planned changes for 2006 27

8 Table of scores and categories 28

© Audit Commission 2005

First published in December 2005 by the Audit Commission forlocal authorities and the National Health Service in England, 1stFloor, Millbank Tower, Millbank, London SW1P 4HQ

CPA – The Harder Test | Contents 1

1Key messages

1 Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) 2005 is a harder test of councilperformance. Despite this most councils continue to perform well and to improve.

● Councils across the country are continuing to improve the services they are providing tolocal people. Over 70 per cent of councils are improving strongly or improving well.

● Sixty-eight per cent of councils achieve 3 or 4 star performance, demonstrating thatthey perform consistently well in all the elements assessed under CPA.

● There are five councils which are achieving the top category both for improvement andperformance (4 star councils, improving strongly).

● However, ten councils are failing to deliver services of an acceptable standard,achieving only 1 or 0 stars.

● Councils are improving across all regions, and at least half of the councils in everyregion are either improving strongly or improving well. All regions contain both 3 or 4star councils.

● Top-performing councils are improving to a greater degree than those in lowercategories. This means that there is the potential for a wider gap between high and lowperformance to emerge in future years.

● How well councils are using their resources is encouraging but not outstanding. While96 per cent of councils are delivering above or at minimum requirements in their use ofresources, only three councils achieve top performance.

● Almost half of all councils are only achieving at (scoring 2) or below (scoring 1) minimumrequirements for value for money. Councils will need to improve performance in thisarea to achieve the top categories in future.

● Councils have made a good start to addressing the new agenda for children’s services.Over 70 per cent of councils are in the top two categories of performance for bothchildren and young people and social care (adults) services.

● Almost two-thirds of councils with responsibility for housing are performing consistentlyabove or well above minimum requirements. Half of councils are performing at or belowminimum requirements for environment. Over 20 per cent are performing at the highestlevel for culture services.

● Performance in benefits service assessments is strong. Ninety-two per cent of councilsperform in the top two categories for benefits and only one council is performing belowminimum requirements.

CPA – The Harder Test | Key messages2

2Background to CPA

2 Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) is a tool for improvement, whichmeasures how well councils are delivering services for local people and communitieswhile reducing the overall regulatory burden on them.

3 Since its introduction in 2002, council services have improved significantly, and CPA isacknowledged to be one of the catalysts for this. CPA has also been a lever for reducinginspection and regulation in better performing councils and focusing support for others.CPA 2005 brings together information from other inspectorates and auditors to form anoverall view of the performance of councils.

4 The Audit Commission has introduced a new framework for CPA in single tier and countycouncils from 2005 to 2008, CPA – The Harder Test, which will further reduce theregulatory burden on councils in line with our principles of Strategic Regulation. Thisfollowed extensive consultation with local government and other key stakeholders,including several formal consultations undertaken since January 2004.

5 The framework is both a harder and a different test and the CPA categories have beenrenamed to reflect this change. The different elements of the assessment now place agreater emphasis on value for money, user focus and community leadership. The newapproach is harder, but fair. The old and new CPA categories therefore cannot be directlycompared.

6 The overall CPA framework for single tier and county councils (Figure 1, overleaf)comprises:

● Direction of travel assessments, reported by the Audit Commission.

● Annual use of resources assessments by the Audit Commission, based on the work ofits appointed auditors.

● Annual service assessments by the Audit Commission (environment, housing,culture), or provided to the Audit Commission by the Office for Standards in Education(children and young people), the Commission for Social Care Inspection (children andyoung people and adult social care) and the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (benefits).

● Periodic corporate assessments of a council’s capacity to improve by the AuditCommission.

CPA – The Harder Test | Background to CPA 3

Figure 1The new framework for single tier and county councils

Source: Audit Commission

7 The assessment scores for use of resources, service assessments and the corporateassessment element are brought together by the Audit Commission, using a set of rules,to categorise councils according to their performance (see Section 8). The rules ensurethat councils must demonstrate consistently strong performance across each element ofCPA to achieve higher star categorisation. The labels attached to the five overallcategories have been changed, reflecting that this is a new and different test. The five newcategories are 4 stars (reflecting the highest category of performance), 3 stars, 2 stars, 1star and 0 stars. The key differences in the new CPA framework compared with theoriginal CPA framework are outlined in the Audit Commission document CPA – TheHarder Test: Framework for 2005, available on our website:www.audit-commission.gov.uk/cpa/stcc.

CPA – The Harder Test | Background to CPA4

8 For the first time a direction of travel assessment has been made, which makes ajudgement about how well councils are complying with the duty to make arrangements tosecure continuous improvement.

9 The individual CPA scores for all single tier and county councils in 2005 are detailed in thisdocument. It also provides analysis of progress being made towards achievingimprovement and current performance.

CPA – The Harder Test | Background to CPA 5

3CPA scores for 2005

10 The new CPA framework formally categorises both whether or not a council is improvingand how well it is performing overall.

11 Full details of each council’s direction of travel, CPA category and score for each elementof the assessment for 2005 are provided in the table at the back of this document. Somedirection of travel assessments and CPA star categories are currently subject to reviewand this is indicated in the table where appropriate. As a result, the analysis of scores isnot based upon a complete view of performance in all 150 councils. The Commission willpublish CPA scores for councils on the website following conclusion of individual reviewsand will update this analysis at the first quarterly update.

Direction of travel assessments12 Direction of travel assessments use clear labels that indicate the progress being made, or

otherwise, to achieve improvement. The four labels are:

● improving strongly;

● improving well;

● improving adequately; and

● not improving adequately (or not improving).

13 Improvement is widespread and most councils across the country are continuing toimprove the services they are providing to local people. Over 70 per cent of councils areimproving strongly or improving well. There are 8 councils improving strongly, 98improving well, 33 improving adequately and 2 not improving adequately (9 subject toreview). Councils improving strongly are also performing well overall. Five of the eightauthorities that are improving strongly are 4 star authorities and the other three arecategorised as 3 star.

CPA – The Harder Test | CPA scores for 20056

Figure 2Direction of travelOver 70 per cent of single tier and county councils are improving strongly or

improving well in 2005.


14 An initial analysis of direction of travel assessments for councils that are improvingstrongly identifies some common characteristics. A strong track record of improvementand ensuring that capacity is in place to deliver on plans helps to deliver sustainable andcontinuous improvement. Good progress following investment where weaknesses areidentified and in addressing local priorities also contributes to strong improvement.Effective partnership working to achieve community outcomes and a strong focus ondelivering value for money are also prevalent.

15 Direction of travel assessments for nine councils are currently subject to review whichinclude three 3 star councils, one 2 star council, one 1 star council and four councils withstar ratings subject to review.

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

� ��

��

��

� ��

��

��

��

��

� ��

��

��

��

��

��

��

CPA – The Harder Test | CPA scores for 2005 7

16 Only two councils are not improving adequately (of which none were judged to be notimproving). These are one 1 star authority (Isles of Scilly) and one 0 star authority (NorthEast Lincolnshire).

Table 1Councils improving stronglyCouncils across all categories are demonstrating improvement. However, all

councils that are improving strongly in 2005 are either 3 or 4 star councils.


Direction of travel by council type17 Table 2 shows direction of travel by type of council. London councils are improving best

with over 80 per cent either improving strongly or improving well. Metropolitan and countycouncil authorities also show widespread improvement while only slightly more than halfof unitary authorities are improving well. County councils have the largest number ofcouncils that are improving strongly.

Councils improving strongly Star category

Derbyshire 4 stars

Kensington and Chelsea 4 stars

Kent 4 stars

Shropshire 4 stars

Wandsworth 4 stars

East Riding of Yorkshire 3 stars

Rotherham 3 stars

Wiltshire 3 stars


Table 2Direction of travel by council type


Direction of travel by government region18 Table 3 (overleaf) shows the direction of travel by government office region. Councils

across all regions demonstrate improvement, and at least half of the councils in everyregion are either improving strongly or improving well. London and the North East containthe most councils that are either improving strongly or improving well. However, the NorthEast, East of England and the North West regions contain no councils that are improvingstrongly.


Number ofcouncils

Improvingstrongly

Improvingwell

Improvingadequately

Not improvingadequately

Subjecttoreview

County 34 4 21 6 0 3

London 33 2 26 3 0 2

Metropolitan 36 1 26 7 0 2

Unitary 47 1 25 17 2 2

Total 150 8 98 33 2 9

Table 3Direction of travel by government region


Case study 1Improvement at the highest levels

Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council – Improving stronglyRotherham Metropolitan Borough Council has delivered significant improvements toservices for the public in line with its priorities. The Council is working effectively inpartnership with other agencies to support local communities and businesses andhas achieved Beacon Status for supporting new businesses. Educational attainmenthas improved significantly from its low base and targeted support has led to greaterrates of improvement in previously underperforming primary schools. Social careservices have an improved star rating reflecting the positive impact of newdevelopments such as the new carers’ strategy on the support provided particularly toolder carers. Tenants have experienced substantial improvements in the housing


Numberofcouncils

Improvingstrongly

Improvingwell

Improvingadequately

Not improvingadequately

Subjecttoreview

East Midlands 9 1 5 3 0 0

East of England 10 0 7 3 0 0

London 33 2 26 3 0 2

North East 12 0 11 0 0 1

North West 22 0 15 5 0 2

South East 19 1 12 6 0 0

South West 16 1 8 5 1 1

West Midlands 14 1 8 3 0 2

Yorks and Humber 15 2 6 5 1 1

Total 150 8 98 33 2 9

management service and the Neighbourhood Warden Service has contributed toreducing the number of domestic burglaries, robberies and thefts involving motorvehicles. Rotherham Streetpride received national recognition for its innovativeapproach to tackling environmental issues in response to the local needs andpriorities and the Council’s Benefits Service has again been rated as excellent.

The Council achieves good value for money and has reviewed the way it works toimprove this further. Good progress has been made to improve financial reporting andcorporate governance. The Council has developed major strategic partnerships whichare improving access to services for customers and citizens and achieving financialsavings. The Council is realistic about the challenges that it faces. In particular, it istaking action to improve culture and leisure provision. Robust plans for serviceimprovement are well monitored and services are performing well in relation to theperformance management and planning framework.


CPA star categories19 CPA has changed and is now a more stringent test with more emphasis on outcomes for

local people and value for money. We have strengthened our methodologies forassessing user focus and include, within corporate assessments, an explicit judgementon this. Because the framework is both a harder and a different test the CPA categorieshave been renamed to reflect this change.

20 Councils are performing well. Two-thirds of councils achieve 3 or 4 star performance. Thisdemonstrates strong performance in all elements of CPA. Almost 50 per cent of councilsscore 3 stars. Almost 25 per cent of councils are performing at the highest level (4 star)while less than 10 per cent of councils are categorised as 0 stars or 1 star councils.


Figure 3CPA star categoriesMore councils are in the 3 star category than any other. Only one council is a 0 star

authority. Four councils’ star category is subject to review.


Star rating by council type21 All types of council achieve 4 star performance. Over half of all types of council achieve

either 3 or 4 star categorisation, although county councils are most likely to perform in thetop two categories. Eighty-five per cent of county councils are rated as 3 or 4 starauthorities. London councils also perform well with almost 70 per cent achieving 3 or 4stars. Although all types of council contain 1 star authorities, unitary and London councilshave the highest percentage of councils in either 0 or 1 star categories. North EastLincolnshire, a unitary council, is the only 0 star category council.


Table 4Star category by council type


Star category by government region22 Table 5 (overleaf) shows star categories by government office region. Although there is

wide variation in performance, all regions contain 4 star councils. The North East regionperforms best overall with over 90 per cent of authorities achieving 3 or 4 starperformance. The South East is also a strong overall performer with over 80 per cent ofcouncils categorised as 3 or 4 star authorities. The South West contains only one 4 starcouncil, the lowest number in any region. The East Midlands, North East and South Eastregions perform consistently well with no 0 or 1 star authorities within their regions. WhileYorkshire and the Humber generally performs well overall, the only 0 star authority can befound within the region.

Improvement by CPA star category23 Top-performing councils are improving the most (Figure 4, overleaf). 4 star councils are

all improving strongly or improving well. 3 star councils are most likely to be improvingwell. No 0 star, 1 star or 2 star councils are improving strongly. Better performing councilsare improving to a greater degree than those in lower categories. As a result, there is thepotential for a wider gap between high and low performance to emerge in future years.Lower performing councils will need to accelerate the pace of improvement to avoid thishappening.

24 Three 1 star councils (Bedfordshire, Cumbria, and Havering) are making good progress intackling underperformance and are improving well.

Number ofcouncils

4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 0 star Subjectto review

County 34 13 16 2 2 0 1

London 33 7 16 7 3 0 0

Metropolitan 36 9 13 12 1 0 1

Unitary 47 8 20 13 3 1 2

Total 150 37 65 34 9 1 4


Table 5Star category by government office region


Case study 2Performing and improving at the highest levels

Shropshire County CouncilThe Council has consistently improved its performance across nearly all priority serviceareas in the last year. In addition, most of the Council’s services are now in the upper twoquartiles of performance. The Council achieved the highest rating for children and youngpeople. An independent review also found excellent prospects for further improvement.The Council also maintained a high level of performance for adults’ social care, withfurther improvement expected. Educational attainment is very high and improving, mostof the county’s school results are among the highest in England. The only weaker area ofperformance on a priority area is the maintenance of non-principal roads.

The service and financial planning frameworks align well and are very robust. There areexcellent corporate performance management arrangements, with a dedicated group ofsenior officers from each directorate who corporately monitor with a lead councillor thedelivery of future plans and targets. This should ensure key priorities and targets continueto be achieved and resources are directed to areas that are important to local people.


Numberofcouncils

4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 0 star Subjecttoreview

East Midlands 9 3 2 4 0 0 0

East of England 10 2 4 3 1 0 0

London 33 7 16 7 3 0 0

North East 12 7 4 1 0 0 0

North West 22 8 3 9 1 0 1

South East 19 4 12 3 0 0 0

South West 16 1 9 4 2 0 0

West Midlands 14 3 6 2 1 0 2

Yorks and Humber 15 2 9 1 1 1 1

Total 150 37 65 34 9 1 4


Figure 4Improvement by CPA star categoryTop performing councils are improving better than those in lower categories.

Note: Excludes scores subject to review.


25 Star ratings for four councils are currently subject to review. Direction of travel statementsfor each of these councils are also subject to review.

Supporting improvement26 The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Audit Commission and the Local Government

Association have recently restated their commitment to working together in order tosupport improvement in local authorities. Both local and central government aredetermined that improvement should continue and recognise that the primaryresponsibility for delivering improvement must lie within the local government sector. Thejoint statement can be found atwww.audit-commission.gov.uk/cpa/stcc/downloads/CPA2005SupportingImprovement.pdf


4Use of resources

27 A use of resources assessment is carried out annually, as part of each council’s externalaudit and covers financial reporting, financial management, financial standing, internalcontrol and value for money. The use of resources assessment focuses on financialmanagement but links to the strategic management of the authority. It looks at howfinancial management is integrated with the council’s strategy and corporatemanagement, supports its priorities and delivers value for money.

28 Overall, how councils are using their resources is encouraging but not outstanding. While96 per cent of councils are delivering at or above minimum requirements in their use ofresources, only three councils (City of London, East Riding of Yorkshire and Wandsworth)achieve top performance. Over half of councils are performing well and deliveringconsistently above minimum requirements. County councils and London councilsperform strongly in their use of resources with over 60 per cent performing above or wellabove minimum requirements. Unitary councils perform least well with almost 60 per centof councils in the bottom two categories (scoring 1 or 2).

29 Councils show the best overall performance in their financial standing, assessing how wella council manages its spending within available resources, with almost 60 per centachieving a score of 3 or 4 (Figure 6, overleaf) and the highest number of councils in thetop category. Internal control, how well a council manages its risks and has effectivearrangements to ensure proper use of public funds, is the area where councils mostconsistently underperform. Over 60 per cent of councils’ internal control scores are onlyat or below minimum requirements. Twice as many councils perform below minimumrequirements for financial reporting than for any other theme within use of resources (16per cent scoring 1). London councils are most likely to perform in the bottom twocategories for financial reporting, followed by unitary councils.

CPA – The Harder Test | Use of resources16

Figure 5Use of resourcesThree councils are performing below minimum requirements for use of resources.

Only three are delivering well above minimum requirements.


CPA – The Harder Test | Use of resources 17

Figure 6Use of resources – theme scoresStrongest performance is shown in financial standing while over 60 per cent of

councils are delivering internal control only at or below minimum requirements

(scoring 2 or 1).


30 We have introduced an explicit value for money judgement as part of the use of resourcesassessment for 2005, focusing on whether councils currently achieve value for money,and how they manage and improve value for money. Almost half of all councils areachieving at or below minimum requirements for value for money (scoring 1 or 2)(Figure 7), and only three councils achieve well above minimum requirements (scoring 4).Over 70 per cent of county councils are achieving above or well above minimumrequirements in their delivery of value for money, compared to only 45 per cent of unitarycouncils.


Figure 7Value for money judgement


31 During our consultation for CPA – The Harder Test we proposed a rule that would havehad the effect of giving more significant weighting to the value for money judgementwithin the use of resources assessment. The proposed rule stated that, in order toachieve an overall score of 3 for use of resources, councils needed to achieve at least ascore of 3 for the value for money theme. In light of the responses received to ourconsultation we have not introduced this rule in 2005. Had it been introduced 13 fewercouncils would have achieved a score of 3 for the wider use of resources assessment.Whether or not the value for money judgement should carry more weight in how thescores are brought together will be considered in 2006.

Case study 3Achieving value for money

East Riding of Yorkshire CouncilEast Riding of Yorkshire is a Council that is improving strongly and one of only three 3star councils in the country to demonstrate this level of continued improvement. It isone of only three single tier and county councils achieving a top score for use ofresources. The Council’s integrated service planning process has been key to thissuccess. By linking good performance, financial and risk management systemstogether the Council is ensuring value for money is achieved across services whilemaintaining customer focus. Through a critical friends initiative, members are

CPA – The Harder Test | Use of resources 19

appointed to each service area to ensure the focus remains on performancemonitoring and achievement, regularly meeting with service officers.

The Council has a clear focus on value for money and is using technology to driveimprovement and increase value for money. While having some of the lowest costservices in the country the Council continues to maintain high levels of performance.Working together, departments continually monitor priorities and procedures toanticipate change and improve services. There is a clear commitment to staff trainingand setting and achieving challenging targets.

Effective financial systems are embedded and used successfully throughout theauthority supporting early closedown of the accounts to a high quality. Strongfinancial management supports the Council to seek new ways to use its resourcesmore effectively. It has recently commenced a public private partnership (PPP) todeliver a range of services including revenues, information technology and customerservice centres. The PPP aims to deliver top 10 per cent service levels in already top-performing services and improve them elsewhere. It is also pursuing inwardinvestment of 600 new jobs over four years, a regional business centre and furtheremployment opportunities through a joint venture company.



5Service assessments

32 This section describes performance in six service areas: children and young people,social care (adults), housing, environment, culture and benefits. The Office for Standardsin Education (OFSTED) and the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) makejudgements in relation to children and young people, based either on an annualperformance assessment or, in relevant years, a Joint Area Review (JAR). Judgements inrelation to social care for adults and benefits are provided by CSCI and the Benefit FraudInspectorate (BFI) respectively. Councils are assessed on the relevant services andcomponents of those services depending on their council type.

33 Children and young people and social care (adults) services, along with use of resources,are level 1 assessments and carry greater weight in determining the overall score withinthe current framework. Figure 8 (overleaf) shows scores for each service assessmenttheme.

34 The combined assessment of the overall performance of services for children and youngpeople has resulted in 74 per cent of councils being rated as 3 or 4. OFSTED and CSCIacknowledge that this assessment has been made during a period of transition for localauthorities and their partnerships. Councils have made a good start to addressing thenew agenda for children’s services. Many however are only just establishing theirchildren’s services directorates and moving towards joint working procedures andpractices. The grade profile therefore reflects the current situation and the expectationsplaced on local areas at this early stage in terms of moving towards joint planning,information sharing and service delivery. Children and young people scores for four arecurrently subject to review.

35 With the further developments in children’s services coming into force next year, includingthe production of a joint Children and Young People’s Plan, councils will need todemonstrate their ability to meet new expectations and secure continuous and sustainedimprovement. Such improvement will need to be achieved within a relatively shorttimescale and before next year’s CPA assessment.

36 Councils in London, the North East, East Midlands and the South East perform strongestin providing children and young people’s services, with less than a quarter of councils inthe bottom categories. Over 90 per cent of London councils are in the top two categoriesfor children and young people while unitary authorities tend to perform worst.

CPA – The Harder Test | Service assessments 21

Figure 8Service assessment scoresStrong performance is achieved in benefits where over 90 per cent of councils are

in the top two categories of performance, and children and young people and social

care (adults) where over 70 per cent of councils score 3 or 4. Environment is the

worst performing service overall with nearly 50 per cent of councils either at only

minimum requirements (scoring 2) or below minimum requirements (scoring 1).


37 This is the first year that there has been a separately reported adult services score withinCPA. Although adult services have always been assessed separately the score haspreviously been a component of the overall social care score. The 2005 assessmentshows that 73 per cent of councils score 3 or 4. No councils have been assessed asscoring 1. This represents a continuing trend of improvement on previous years. Adultsocial care services are judged against a set of standards and criteria which are adjustedto reflect increasing expectations. The basis of the 2005 assessment has remainedbroadly unchanged from previous years. However, the impending Health and Social CareWhite Paper will require a new framework of assessment to be developed and agreedwith stakeholders.

CPA – The Harder Test | Service assessments22

38 Almost two-thirds of councils with responsibility for housing are performing consistentlyabove or well above minimum requirements. Ten per cent of councils are in the topcategory for housing services while only 4 per cent are performing below minimumrequirements (scoring 1). The proportion of councils performing below minimumrequirements in housing is greater than in any other service assessment area. Londoncouncils are most likely to deliver housing services that are only at or below minimumrequirements while metropolitan and unitary councils tend to perform more strongly.

39 Environment is the service area where councils tend to perform less well. Half of councilsare performing at (scoring 2) or below (scoring 1) minimum requirements. This is greaterthan any other service assessment theme. Metropolitan councils perform particularly wellin their delivery of environment services. Two-thirds of metropolitan councils and over 60per cent of county councils are performing in the top two categories compared with only30 per cent of London councils. However, the South West region performs least welloverall. Only two authorities (13 per cent) in the South West are delivering environmentservices that are above or well above minimum requirements.

40 For culture services councils have been assigned the higher of their 2004 score or a scoregenerated by the new 2005 framework. As a result two-thirds of councils register aperformance above minimum requirements. Over 20 per cent are performing at thehighest level. Two-thirds of councils in the North East are achieving the highest set ofscores in culture services. However, 60 per cent of councils in Yorkshire and the Humberand over 40 per cent in the North West and West Midlands have scores at or belowminimum requirements for culture. County councils register higher scores than othertypes of council with almost 90 per cent in the top two categories.

41 Benefits is the strongest performing service assessment theme overall. This reflectsimprovements seen by BFI during its inspections and performance figures reported bycouncils to the Department for Work and Pensions. Only 8 per cent of councils are in thebottom two categories for benefits, but the gap between the worst and best performers issignificant. More than one-third of councils achieved the highest score for their provisionof benefit services, and this figure includes almost two-thirds of councils in the North Westand 57 per cent of councils in Yorkshire and the Humber.

CPA – The Harder Test | Service assessments 23

Case study 4Improving local services

London Borough of Enfield The London Borough of Enfield is performing and improving well. It has deliveredimprovements in key services including street cleaning, community safety andrecycling, in line with Council priorities. It has a well-articulated vision which isunderpinned by priorities and has delivered effectively on some of its shared prioritiessuch as safer and stronger communities. The local ambition has been developed withkey partners and is supported by clear priorities. It is owned and understood byofficers, councillors and partners. There is a strong focus on cross-cutting issues suchas safer communities.

Although performance management needs to be further improved overall, customersatisfaction is increasing and effective partnership working is enabling the Council toaddress issues that matter to local people such as anti-social behaviour and healthpromotion. Successful outcomes in the reduction of anti-social behaviour are alsoevident. Crime overall has fallen and reduced waiting times for drug treatment havebeen achieved. Well-established health partnerships are delivering outcomes such asthe overall improvement in the health of children and services are performing well. TheCouncil is working well with partners to safeguard vulnerable children and youngchildren.

Although some services are showing less improvement, notably housing,regeneration and older people, Enfield is clear about what it wants to achieve andkeeps its focus well. Based on the Council’s current plans and by addressing capacityand performance management issues, it will be well placed to improve further theservices delivered to local people.


CPA – The Harder Test | Service assessments24

6Corporate assessments

42 From 2005, CPA – The Harder Test has strengthened the methodology for corporateassessments. They now test more fully how well councils understand their localcommunities and provide community leadership, how this understanding of local peopleand places translates into councils’ ambitions and priorities, and what, in practice,councils are achieving. Corporate assessments report, as one of their five achievementthemes, on the contribution of the council to the quality of outcomes for children andyoung people. This assessment is based on a Joint Area Review (JAR) undertaken by theCommission with other inspectorates (led by OFSTED and CSCI). Seven new-stylecorporate assessments have been reported.

43 During the corporate assessment, the Audit Commission talks to a number of partners,officers and members. We have developed a tool to help shape our work by gathering theviews of a wider range of key stakeholders. We are doing this through a confidential onlinesurvey. This aims to inform and complement the interview process, to help focus theinterviews and provide a ‘can-opener’ for issues.

User focus and diversity44 The revised corporate assessment methodology places a key emphasis on how well

councils engage with their service users and wider communities and what difference thisengagement makes in practice.

45 Against a national picture of falling customer satisfaction, the corporate assessmentscarried out this year indicate that council approaches to consultation and engagementare at different stages of maturity. At one end of the spectrum are councils with a goodunderstanding of the needs of their communities. These councils engage well withresidents and ensure that diversity, user focus and human rights considerations routinelyunderpin decisions about service delivery. For others, approaches to engagement are stilldeveloping and there is a lack of clarity about the purpose of this engagement or how itfeeds into planning and decision making.

CPA – The Harder Test | Corporate assessments 25

Case study 5Focusing on users and diversity

Rochdale CouncilRochdale can be characterised as a council which believes in the importance offocusing on its local communities. It is strong on community engagement, includingthe involvement of its diverse black and minority ethnic communities. Considerableefforts are made, especially at township and neighbourhood levels, to involve localcommunities in decision making and planning the direction of service developments.

Rochdale takes issues of inclusion very seriously. It was a Beacon council forcommunity cohesion in 2003/04, and has worked constructively with the Home Officeas a community cohesion pathfinder and civic pioneer. It has made good progress onequalities and has firm plans to make further progress during the next three years.

Operationally, the Council demonstrates focus on users and local communitiesthrough its range of one-stop shops and joint service centres, where capacity isenhanced through combined provision with, for example, Connexions and healthservices. Staff demonstrate commitment and detailed concern on the ground,showing innovation in delivering a wide range of service initiatives in often difficultcontexts.


CPA – The Harder Test | Corporate assessments26

7Planned changes for 2006

46 Following extensive consultation with the local government community and otherstakeholders, this year marks the first year of CPA – The Harder Test. However, the newframework is not static. Some changes for 2006 have already been agreed but furtherrefinements and changes will be consulted upon during 2006. This will ensure that CPAcontinues to meet the expectations of users and promote continuous and sustainedimprovement in local government. The main changes are set out below.

47 At present, categories are updated only once in December each year. This annual processwill be the main categorisation activity that we carry out. To take into account results fromcorporate assessments that are carried out during the year, and any other relevant workundertaken in the year, we will also update categories, where appropriate, quarterly ratherthan at the end of the year.

48 From 2006 we will include a fire service assessment in line with the principles of the localservices inspectorate forum (LSIF) within the overall CPA framework for the relevant 16county councils.

49 CPA is not static and to ensure that it continues to evolve there will be further changes oncewe have evaluated the learning from the first year of the new framework. The value formoney element of use of resources may get tougher with the introduction of an additionalrule not introduced this year. The Commission will also be reviewing various aspects of theservice assessments and direction of travel assessments. We will consult in the spring onchanges we intend to implement in our 2006 reporting. Other inspectorates will also bereviewing their methodologies in light of experience and further developments in their keyservice areas.

50 The Commission also plans to undertake research to examine the impact of local factors oncouncils’ performance. This work will aim to identify the nature and extent of therelationship, exploring how, or if at all, external factors impact on performance.

CPA – The Harder Test | Planned changes for 2006 27

8Table of scores and categories

51 The table overleaf displays the direction of travel, CPA categories and scores for all singletier and county councils in England. The information is a summary of that provided oneach council’s scorecard on the CPA website: www.audit-commission.gov.uk/cpa/authorityList.asp.

52 The table groups councils together by their direction of travel (improving strongly,improving well, improving adequately, not improving adequately) and then listed by theirCPA category (4 star, 3 star, 2 star, 1 star, 0 star). All scores subject to review are situatedat the end of the table. The table also contains the individual scores for corporateassessments, use of resources, and the six service assessments.

53 Each score is on a scale from 1 to 4, where 1 is the lowest score and 4 the highest score.The scoring key for categorisation of single tier and county councils in 2005 is shown inTable 6, below. Scores for corporate assessments and level 1 services (use of resources,children and young people and adults’ social care) are given more weight than otherassessments within the 2005 framework.

Table 6


54 Where we have carried out a new-style corporate assessment our approach will be toreport publicly both the new-style and the previous corporate assessment scores on theauthority’s scorecard. The higher of the two scores will be used to determine the overallCPA category, until all councils have undergone the new-style corporate assessment.This will provide temporary protection for councils during the transitional period to ensurecomparability. Categorisation at the end of 2008 will be based on the score from the new-style corporate assessment.

4 well above minimum requirements – performing strongly

3 consistently above minimum requirements – performing well

2 only at minimum requirements – adequate performance

1 below minimum requirements – inadequate performance

CPA – The Harder Test | Table of scores and categories28

55 The assessment scores for each element are brought together by the Commission inorder to categorise councils according to their performance. There is a series of rules forarriving at the scores for each element and for categorising councils. The rules table forcategorisation of single tier and county councils in 2005 is shown in Table 7 below.

Table 7The overall rules for CPA categorisation


Corporateassessment

Level 1 assessments (children and youngpeople, adults' social careand use of resources)

Level 2 assessments(housing, environment,culture and benefits)

Category

4 None less than 3 None less than 2 4 stars

4 None less than 2 No more than one lessthan 2

3 stars

4 No more than one lessthan 2

No more than one lessthan 2

2 stars

4 Any other combination 1 star



3 None less than 2 No more than one lessthan 2

2 stars

3 Any other combination 1 star



2 No more than one lessthan 2

No more than one lessthan 2

1 star

2 Any other combination 0 stars


1 None less than 2 None less than 2 1 star

1 Any other combination 0 stars

CPA – The Harder Test | Table of scores and categories 29

Key to table+ Councils that have received a new-style corporate assessment and the score

has been used to inform the overall CPA star category.

# Councils that have received a new-style corporate assessment and the score has been protected. In these cases the previous corporate assessment score has been used to inform the overall category.

n/a Not applicable (because that service is not provided by the council).

* Councils that have received a new-style corporate assessment and the corporate assessment score is currently subject to review. In these cases the previous corporate assessment score has been used to inform the overall category.



Use

Chi

ldre

nS

ocia

lA

utho

rity

Dir

ecti

on

Sta

rC

orp

ora

teof

& y

oung

care

of

trav

elca

teg

ory

asse

ssm

ent

reso

urce

sp

eop

le(a

dul

ts)

Hou

sing

Env

ironm

ent

Cul

ture

Ben

efits

Leve

l 1 s

erv

ices

Leve

l 2 s

erv

ices

Imp

rovi

ng s

tro

ngly

Der

bys

hire

Impro

ving s

trongly

4 s

tars

43

34

n/a

33

n/a

Ken

sing

ton

& C

hels

eaIm

pro

ving s

trongly

4 s

tars

43

43

23

34

Ken

tIm

pro

ving s

trongly

4 s

tars

43

33

n/a

32

n/a

Shr

opsh

ireIm

pro

ving s

trongly

4 s

tars

43

43

n/a

24

n/a

Wan

dsw

orth

Impro

ving s

trongly

4 s

tars

44

43

23

33

Eas

t R

idin

g of

Yor

kshi

reIm

pro

ving s

trongly

3 s

tars

34

33

42

34

Rot

herh

amIm

pro

ving s

trongly

3 s

tars

23

33

33

24

Wilt

shire

Impro

ving s

trongly

3 s

tars

32

33

n/a

43

n/a

Imp

rovi

ng w

ell

Bex

ley

Impro

ving w

ell

4 s

tars

43

44

34

23

Buc

king

ham

shire

Impro

ving w

ell

4 s

tars

33

33

n/a

34

n/a

Bol

ton

Impro

ving w

ell

4 s

tars

43

34

42

23

Cam

den

Impro

ving w

ell

4 s

tars

43

34

33

33

City

of

Lond

onIm

pro

ving w

ell

4 s

tars

34

34

33

34

Dar

lingt

on

Impro

ving w

ell

4 s

tars

43

33

33

34

Der

by

Impro

ving w

ell

4 s

tars

33

33

34

33

Dev

onIm

pro

ving w

ell

4 s

tars

33

33

n/a

34

n/a

Dur

ham

Impro

ving w

ell

4 s

tars

33

33

n/a

33

n/a

Ess

exIm

pro

ving w

ell

4 s

tars

33

33

n/a

34

n/a

Hal

ton

Impro

ving w

ell

4 s

tars

43

33

24

24

Ham

psh

ireIm

pro

ving w

ell

4 s

tars

43

33

n/a

34

n/a

Har

tlep

ool

Impro

ving w

ell

4 s

tars

43

33

43

44

Her

tfor

dsh

ireIm

pro

ving w

ell

4 s

tars

43

33

n/a

23

n/a

Kno

wsl

ey

Impro

ving w

ell

4 s

tars

43

43

33

34

Lanc

ashi

reIm

pro

ving w

ell

4 s

tars

33

33

n/a

34

n/a

Leed

s Im

pro

ving w

ell

4 s

tars

33

33

33

43

Mid

dle

sbro

ugh

Impro

ving w

ell

4 s

tars

43

33

23

43

Not

tingh

amsh

ireIm

pro

ving w

ell

4 s

tars

33

33

n/a

44

n/a


Use

Chi

ldre

nS

ocia

lA

utho

rity

Dir

ecti

on

Sta

rC

orp

ora

teof

& y

oung

care

of

trav

elca

teg

ory

asse

ssm

ent

reso

urce

sp

eop

le(a

dul

ts)

Hou

sing

Env

ironm

ent

Cul

ture

Ben

efits

Leve

l 1 s

erv

ices

Leve

l 2 s

erv

ices

Imp

rovi

ng w

ell

Red

car

& C

leve

land

Impro

ving w

ell

4 s

tars

33

33

43

43

She

ffiel

dIm

pro

ving w

ell

4 s

tars

43

33

32

34

St

Hel

ens

Impro

ving w

ell

4 s

tars

43

33

24

24

Sto

ckp

ort

Impro

ving w

ell

4 s

tars

33

33

33

34

Sto

ckto

n-on

-Tee

sIm

pro

ving w

ell

4 s

tars

43

33

34

33

Sun

der

land

Impro

ving w

ell

4 s

tars

43

33

32

44

Sur

rey

Impro

ving w

ell

4 s

tars

33

33

n/a

33

n/a

Sut

ton

Impro

ving w

ell

4 s

tars

43

33

33

43

Tam

esid

eIm

pro

ving w

ell

4 s

tars

43

33

23

34

Telfo

rd &

Wre

kin

Impro

ving w

ell

4 s

tars

43

33

33

44

Wes

tmin

ster

Impro

ving w

ell

4 s

tars

43

33

33

43

Wig

anIm

pro

ving w

ell

4 s

tars

43

33

33

33

Wor

cest

ersh

ireIm

pro

ving w

ell

4 s

tars

33

43

n/a

33

n/a

Bar

nsle

yIm

pro

ving w

ell

3 s

tars

33

34

43

24

Bra

ckne

ll Fo

rest

Impro

ving w

ell

3 s

tars

43

32

12

34

Bre

ntIm

pro

ving w

ell

3 s

tars

33

33

32

33

Brig

hton

& H

ove

Impro

ving w

ell

3 s

tars

32

33

32

23

Bro

mle

yIm

pro

ving w

ell

3 s

tars

33

33

23

43

Cam

brid

gesh

ireIm

pro

ving w

ell

3 s

tars

43

32

n/a

22

n/a

Cro

ydon

Impro

ving w

ell

3 s

tars

33

33

22

24

Dor

set

Impro

ving w

ell

3 s

tars

33

32

n/a

24

n/a

Dud

ley

Impro

ving w

ell

3 s

tars

23

33

33

24

Eas

t S

usse

xIm

pro

ving w

ell

3 s

tars

33

32

n/a

32

n/a

Enf

ield

+Im

pro

ving w

ell

3 s

tars

33

32

22

34

Gat

eshe

adIm

pro

ving w

ell

3 s

tars

42

43

33

43

Glo

uces

ters

hire

Impro

ving w

ell

3 s

tars

33

32

n/a

22

n/a

Gre

enw

ich

Impro

ving w

ell

3 s

tars

33

32

32

34


Use

Chi

ldre

nS

ocia

lA

utho

rity

Dir

ecti

on

Sta

rC

orp

ora

teof

& y

oung

care

of

trav

elca

teg

ory

asse

ssm

ent

reso

urce

sp

eop

le(a

dul

ts)

Hou

sing

Env

ironm

ent

Cul

ture

Ben

efits

Leve

l 1 s

erv

ices

Leve

l 2 s

erv

ices

Imp

rovi

ng w

ell

Ham

mer

smith

& F

ulha

mIm

pro

ving w

ell

3 s

tars

42

33

32

22

Har

inge

yIm

pro

ving w

ell

3 s

tars

23

33

22

33

Hou

nslo

wIm

pro

ving w

ell

3 s

tars

33

33

32

33

Islin

gton

Impro

ving w

ell

3 s

tars

32

33

32

33

Kin

gsto

n-up

on-T

ham

esIm

pro

ving w

ell

3 s

tars

33

43

32

33

Kirk

lees

Impro

ving w

ell

3 s

tars

33

34

33

24

Leic

este

rIm

pro

ving w

ell

3 s

tars

33

33

32

33

Leic

este

rshi

reIm

pro

ving w

ell

3 s

tars

33

33

n/a

23

n/a

Lew

isha

mIm

pro

ving w

ell

3 s

tars

33

33

22

34

Med

way

Impro

ving w

ell

3 s

tars

33

23

32

34

New

cast

le u

pon

Tyn

eIm

pro

ving w

ell

3 s

tars

32

24

22

43

New

ham

Impro

ving w

ell

3 s

tars

33

32

22

33

Nor

th Y

orks

hire

Impro

ving w

ell

3 s

tars

23

33

n/a

33

n/a

Poo

leIm

pro

ving w

ell

3 s

tars

32

33

32

43

Ric

hmon

d-u

pon

-Tha

mes

Impro

ving w

ell

3 s

tars

33

33

23

34

Slo

ugh

+Im

pro

ving w

ell

3 s

tars

32

33

22

33

Sol

ihul

lIm

pro

ving w

ell

3 s

tars

23

33

23

23

Som

erse

tIm

pro

ving w

ell

3 s

tars

23

34

n/a

24

n/a

Sou

th G

louc

este

rshi

reIm

pro

ving w

ell

3 s

tars

33

32

32

33

Sou

th T

ynes

ide

Impro

ving w

ell

3 s

tars

32

33

23

43

Sou

tham

pto

nIm

pro

ving w

ell

3 s

tars

32

33

33

43

Sou

thw

ark

Impro

ving w

ell

3 s

tars

33

33

32

33

Suf

folk

Impro

ving w

ell

3 s

tars

42

33

n/a

34

n/a

Wal

sall

Impro

ving w

ell

3 s

tars

33

32

33

22

War

ringt

onIm

pro

ving w

ell

3 s

tars

32

33

43

24

Win

dso

r &

Mai

den

head

Impro

ving w

ell

3 s

tars

33

33

32

33

Wok

ingh

amIm

pro

ving w

ell

3 s

tars

33

32

22

23


Use

Chi

ldre

nS

ocia

lA

utho

rity

Dir

ecti

on

Sta

rC

orp

ora

teof

& y

oung

care

of

trav

elca

teg

ory

asse

ssm

ent

reso

urce

sp

eop

le(a

dul

ts)

Hou

sing

Env

ironm

ent

Cul

ture

Ben

efits

Leve

l 1 s

erv

ices

Leve

l 2 s

erv

ices

Imp

rovi

ng w

ell

Wol

verh

amp

ton

Impro

ving w

ell

3 s

tars

23

33

22

34

Bar

net

Impro

ving w

ell

2 s

tars

22

32

33

33

Birm

ingh

amIm

pro

ving w

ell

2 s

tars

22

22

23

34

Bla

ckp

ool

Impro

ving w

ell

2 s

tars

23

22

23

34

Cov

entr

yIm

pro

ving w

ell

2 s

tars

22

33

32

22

Har

row

Impro

ving w

ell

2 s

tars

22

22

22

24

Hill

ingd

onIm

pro

ving w

ell

2 s

tars

23

23

32

24

Lam

bet

hIm

pro

ving w

ell

2 s

tars

22

32

22

22

Mer

ton

Impro

ving w

ell

2 s

tars

22

33

32

23

Nor

th S

omer

set

Impro

ving w

ell

2 s

tars

22

33

32

24

Nor

th T

ynes

ide

Impro

ving w

ell

2 s

tars

22

33

23

34

Nor

tham

pto

nshi

reIm

pro

ving w

ell

2 s

tars

22

33

n/a

24

n/a

Old

ham

Impro

ving w

ell

2 s

tars

22

22

32

23

Pet

erb

orou

ghIm

pro

ving w

ell

2 s

tars

22

23

32

33

Red

brid

geIm

pro

ving w

ell

2 s

tars

22

34

22

24

Sal

ford

Impro

ving w

ell

2 s

tars

23

24

23

34

Sef

ton

Impro

ving w

ell

2 s

tars

22

33

23

22

Sw

ind

onIm

pro

ving w

ell

2 s

tars

22

22

22

33

Thur

rock

Impro

ving w

ell

2 s

tars

22

23

42

23

Traf

ford

Impro

ving w

ell

2 s

tars

22

23

32

24

Wak

efie

ldIm

pro

ving w

ell

2 s

tars

22

33

42

23

Wes

t B

erks

hire

Impro

ving w

ell

2 s

tars

22

33

32

23

Bed

ford

shire

Impro

ving w

ell

1 s

tar

21

22

n/a

23

n/a

Cum

bria

Impro

ving w

ell

1 s

tar

22

22

n/a

14

n/a

Hav

erin

gIm

pro

ving w

ell

1 s

tar

22

42

12

23


Use

Chi

ldre

nS

ocia

lA

utho

rity

Dir

ecti

on

Sta

rC

orp

ora

teof

& y

oung

care

of

trav

elca

teg

ory

asse

ssm

ent

reso

urce

sp

eop

le(a

dul

ts)

Hou

sing

Env

ironm

ent

Cul

ture

Ben

efits

Leve

l 1 s

erv

ices

Leve

l 2 s

erv

ices

Imp

rovi

ng a

deq

uate

lyB

ath

& N

E S

omer

set

Impro

ving a

dequate

ly3 s

tars

32

32

32

33

Bou

rnem

outh

+Im

pro

ving a

dequate

ly3 s

tars

23

33

32

43

Bra

dfo

rdIm

pro

ving a

dequate

ly3 s

tars

32

23

32

24

Che

shire

Impro

ving a

dequate

ly3 s

tars

32

33

n/a

34

n/a

Don

cast

erIm

pro

ving a

dequate

ly3 s

tars

32

22

22

24

Eal

ing

Impro

ving a

dequate

ly3 s

tars

32

32

22

33

Her

efor

dsh

ire #

Impro

ving a

dequate

ly3 s

tars

33

22

42

23

Luto

nIm

pro

ving a

dequate

ly3 s

tars

32

22

33

32

Man

ches

ter

Impro

ving a

dequate

ly3 s

tars

32

23

43

33

Nor

folk

Impro

ving a

dequate

ly3 s

tars

32

22

n/a

34

n/a

Nor

th L

inco

lnsh

ireIm

pro

ving a

dequate

ly3 s

tars

33

33

32

24

Oxf

ord

shire

Im

pro

ving a

dequate

ly3 s

tars

32

33

n/a

23

n/a

Por

tsm

outh

Impro

ving a

dequate

ly3 s

tars

32

33

33

32

Rea

din

gIm

pro

ving a

dequate

ly3 s

tars

32

22

23

23

War

wic

kshi

reIm

pro

ving a

dequate

ly3 s

tars

33

32

n/a

33

n/a

Wes

t S

usse

x +

Impro

ving a

dequate

ly3 s

tars

33

32

n/a

34

n/a

York

Impro

ving a

dequate

ly3 s

tars

33

43

32

23

Bar

king

& D

agen

ham

Impro

ving a

dequate

ly2 s

tars

22

23

22

33

Isle

of

Wig

htIm

pro

ving a

dequate

ly2 s

tars

22

23

33

33

Linc

olns

hire

Impro

ving a

dequate

ly2 s

tars

22

22

n/a

23

n/a

Live

rpoo

lIm

pro

ving a

dequate

ly2 s

tars

32

32

13

34

Milt

on K

eyne

sIm

pro

ving a

dequate

ly2 s

tars

22

23

23

33

Not

tingh

am

Impro

ving a

dequate

ly2 s

tars

22

22

33

34

Ply

mou

thIm

pro

ving a

dequate

ly2 s

tars

22

22

32

24

Roc

hdal

e +

Impro

ving a

dequate

ly2 s

tars

23

23

22

23

Rut

land

Impro

ving a

dequate

ly2 s

tars

22

33

33

24

Sou

then

d-o

n-se

aIm

pro

ving a

dequate

ly2 s

tars

32

22

13

44


Use

Chi

ldre

nS

ocia

lA

utho

rity

Dir

ecti

on

Sta

rC

orp

ora

teof

& y

oung

care

of

trav

elca

teg

ory

asse

ssm

ent

reso

urce

sp

eop

le(a

dul

ts)

Hou

sing

Env

ironm

ent

Cul

ture

Ben

efits

Leve

l 1 s

erv

ices

Leve

l 2 s

erv

ices

Imp

rovi

ng a

deq

uate

lyTo

rbay

Impro

ving a

dequate

ly2 s

tars

22

22

32

43

Wirr

al +

Impro

ving a

dequate

ly2 s

tars

22

33

43

24

Bris

tol

Impro

ving a

dequate

ly1 s

tar

22

22

22

13

Hac

kney

Impro

ving a

dequate

ly1 s

tar

22

33

22

12

Kin

gsto

n-up

on-H

ull

Impro

ving a

dequate

ly1 s

tar

12

23

23

33

San

dw

ell

Impro

ving a

dequate

ly1 s

tar

22

13

33

23

No

t im

pro

ving

ad

equa

tely

Isle

s of

Sci

llyN

ot

impro

ving a

dequate

ly1 s

tar

31

22

21

33

Nor

th E

ast

Linc

olns

hire

Not

impro

ving a

dequate

ly0 s

tars

21

12

12

23

Sub

ject

to

rev

iew

Cor

nwal

lS

ubje

ct

to r

evi

ew

3 s

tars

33

33

n/a

23

n/a

Nor

thum

ber

land

Subje

ct

to r

evi

ew

3 s

tars

32

33

n/a

34

n/a

Tow

er H

amle

tsS

ubje

ct

to r

evi

ew

3 s

tars

33

44

32

23

Bur

yS

ubje

ct

to r

evi

ew

2 s

tars

22

33

33

43

Wal

tham

For

est

Subje

ct

to r

evi

ew

1 s

tar

23

32

32

13

Bla

ckb

urn

with

Dar

wen

Subje

ct

to r

evi

ew

Subje

ct

to r

evi

ew

43

Sub

ject

to

revi

ew3

43

44

Cal

der

dal

e *

Subje

ct

to r

evi

ew

Subje

ct

to r

evi

ew

23

Sub

ject

to

revi

ew3

33

33

Sta

fford

shire

*S

ubje

ct

to r

evi

ew

Subje

ct

to r

evi

ew

22

Sub

ject

to

revi

ew3

n/a

34

n/a

Sto

ke-o

n-Tr

ent

*S

ubje

ct

to r

evi

ew

Subje

ct

to r

evi

ew

32

Sub

ject

to

revi

ew2

32

31

This report is available on our website at

www.audit-commission.gov.uk. Our website contains a

searchable version of this report, as well as a text-only version

that can easily be copied into other software for wider

accessibility.

If you require a copy of this report in large print, in braille, on

tape, or in a language other than English, please call

0845 0522613.

To order additional copies of this report or other Audit

Commission publications please contact

Audit Commission Publications, PO Box 99, Wetherby,

LS23 7SA Tel 0800 502030.

Audit Commission1st Floor, Millbank Tower,Millbank, London SW1P 4HQTel: 020 7828 1212 Fax: 020 7976 6187Textphone (minicom): 020 7630 0421www.audit-commission.gov.uk

Stock code: LNR3303

CPA – The Harder Test

Documents