The London Borough of Hackney was a fast-improving council over the period of CPA, from poor in 2002 to 3-star and improving strongly in 2007.
As the CPA regime began, the council was recovering from a financial crisis that had threatened its ability to function. As a result of a series of local education authority inspections, education services had been transferred to a not-for-profit organisation and the council was subject to a number of government directions.
In 2002 a new, directly elected mayor, who had previously been leader of the council and was dealing with the financial crisis, signalled to both residents and staff that there was a new approach with more visible, accountable leadership. The financial crisis required significant cuts to services. The council ensured it considered what mattered most to residents when taking difficult decisions and rebuilding services. The council changed its focus and culture, which led to a number of new staff joining the organisation.
After Hackney received its poor CPA score in 2002, the council was subject to consistent engagement and two corporate assessments in the first three years of the CPA regime. The council felt that many of the team members who visited as part of the assessment did not take the time to understand the nature of Hackney as a place. In general, the council felt excluded from the engagement process, which acted separately and in parallel with the council's own improvement process. The council did, however, value the Audit Commission relationship manager during this period and found the value for money profiles tool useful in its improvement. The council strove to be self-aware during this examination, to the point where it was accused of being too self-critical. The council made decisions according to the needs and aspirations of residents rather than to achieve particular CPA scores.
The Audit Commission introduced the revised CPA framework in 2005 and Hackney had a corporate assessment in 2006. The council felt that the revised framework provided a fairer judgement which had stronger links to its approach to improvement. It found the peer involvement valuable, and the discussion and challenge involved in the process tough but helpful in focusing its attention on priority areas for improvement.
Since the initial CPA assessment the council made a number of difficult decisions that enabled it to improve its performance dramatically. This led to improved outcomes that matter to residents underpinned by an effective performance regime; robust partnership arrangements with trust and a willingness to challenge each other's approach and delivery; consistent and rapid improvements in resident satisfaction and staff commitment to their aims; collaborative development of the sustainable community strategy; and a systematic approach to narrowing the gap in outcomes between its communities agreed within its local area agreement.