What is it about?
This chapter sets out the context for the development of a new performance indicator in the UK, which attempted to capture the influence which local authorities have on the development of the third sector in their areas. It then outlines the process by which this indicator was developed, the decisions made by central government in the light of the choices open to them and the potential implications of this indicator for both local authorities and third sector organisations (TSOs). Given the brave assumptions needed in terms of the extent of influence which can be exerted by the various actors in the cause-and-effect chain between central government and TSOs in local areas, choosing to support the third sector by the very indirect means of establishing and monitoring a national indicator for the level of support which local authorities and their partners provide to the third sector is clearly a risky approach. The chapter therefore considers a range of alternative mechanisms which might be used to encourage the public sector to play a more positive role in promoting the health of the third sector and explores the reasons why this performance-management approach has been chosen in preference to other, apparently less risky, options.
Featured Image
Why is it important?
The extent of influence which can be exerted by the various actors in the cause-and-effect chain between central government and a ‘thriving third sector’ at local level is clearly limited. It was therefore a brave and, indeed, risky choice for central government to assess its effectiveness in improving the environment for the third sector by the very indirect means of establishing and monitoring a national indicator for the level of support which local authorities and their partners provide to the third sector. It is ‘unsystemic’, in the categorisation of Bouckaert and Halligan (2008), in that the type of performance management approach being used is not consistent throughout the different levels of each of the different organisations where performance improvement is being sought through performance management. However, this paper highlights the disadvantages of a range of alternative mechanisms which might be used more directly to encourage the public sector to play a more positive role in promoting the health of the third sector. These disadvantages throw light on why this performance-management approach was chosen by central government in preference to other, apparently less risky, options.
Perspectives
Operating at the ‘edge of influence’ is now understood to be a much more common requirement for public sector organisations than was traditionally the case in an old-style, inward looking civil service department or local authority or health agency or police service (Loeffler, van Dooren and Bovaird, 2009). The results of the implementation of National Indicator 7 were intended to give feedback on whether positive outcomes could be achieved across the third sector by setting up ‘arms length’ incentives for more supportive behaviours throughout the local government sector. In the event, the national performance indicator system was scrapped by the coalition government in 2010 before its impact could be assessed.
Professor Tony Bovaird
University of Birmingham
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Performance Assessment at the ‘Edge of Influence’: A Case Study in Central Government Holding Local Authorities to Account for a ‘Thriving Third Sector’ in the UK, Edward Elgar Publishing,
DOI: 10.4337/9780857933232.00024.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
