Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Cipfa's detractors must offer solutions


Legitimate concerns have been expressed about the Chartered Institute of Public Finance & Accountancy’s proposed financial resilience index for local government.

Cipfa’s plan to show financial vulnerability by giving each council a score for six key indicators has brought back memories of the New Labour era’s top-down performance assessment in which, dare we say it, there was an incentive for councils to play for a particular rating, rather than do the best for their area. It has also resulted in warnings of death by traffic light as officers are deemed to have failed as a result of a series of over-simplistic red ratings, without fair consideration of the individual pressures their council faces. And, inevitably, it is also feared that the system would lead to the stigmatisation of troubled councils, for whom no one wants to sully their CV.

The consultation on the index has now ended. Cipfa must show it is responsive and prepared to work with officers and members in order to improve its proposal, ensuring it is far more than a naming and shaming device. How the institute responds to the criticism will be intriguing. Cipfa exists to represent the interests of those working in public finance – including those who will be in the line of fire should the index reveal their organisation’s financial shortcomings. There is a limit to how many Cipfa can antagonise.

Compromise could result. The combination of indicators and the degree of weighting given to each could be amended. Meanwhile, Cipfa is understood to be keen to do what it can to avoid the data being interpreted in the form of over-simplistic league tables.

LGC understands the institute has never been wedded to a traffic light system and dislikes such a characterisation of its index. Nevertheless, it is hard to see how the index can stay true to its principles of transparency and early warning without antagonising many.

While there is an onus on Cipfa to be flexible, there is an equal onus on Cipfa’s detractors to either work with the institute to improve its plans or to come up with their own alternative. The fact that Northamptonshire CC’s impending financial oblivion was pretty much an open secret in some local government circles – but no one had fully raised the alarm – is a black mark against a sector which has for the most part withstood austerity well.

Most crucially, critical voices should show they are prepared to call out those sleep-walking over the financial precipice. Somerset and Worcestershire CCs, to name just two, have shown a lack of candour about their financial problems in the past – and they are far from alone. Local government has too regularly hidden its financial difficulties, doing residents and the sector more broadly a disservice as the full local impact of austerity is hidden. This has the effect of diminishing the debate on spending cust and cannot go on.

Cipfa deserves credit for being brave enough to seek to offer a solution and start a debate – even if this has resulted in the discomfort of so many.


Readers' comments (2)

  • Whilst I fully agree with the thrust of the piece Nick, I have to object to the view that under CPA "there was an incentive for councils to play for a particular rating, rather than do the best for their area". These aims are not necessarily contradictions, and the first two iterations of CPA were very much designed so that councils could only achieve a high rating by doing their best for their local area - with plenty of room for local choice over what they wanted to do their best at, that is to say, a council did not have to be 'perfect' at everything in order to be graded as 'excellent'. Never have local government services improved at such a pace as they did in those CPA years. I cannot speak for CAA, partly because I was not involved in its design as I was for CPA, but also because it was not in place long enough to reflect upon its effectiveness.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Nick Golding

    Hi Abdool. I think this is a fair point and maybe my memories have been somewhat clouded by the passage of a decade. Nick

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.