Article updated 24 December 2003
CPACPA is about helping councils to improve local services for their communities. As well as looking at how well a council delivers their services, CPA also considers how the council is run, as this will impact on how well they deliver services in the future.
The council undertook its first CPA in December 2002. The council was judged to be "Weak" in the way it provides services for local people.
STOP PRESS 18 DECEMBER 2003 - NEW CPA SCORE: ITS WHAT WE DO AND HOW WE DO IT
The Council has been re-assessed as
"Fair" under the CPA process. The Audit Commission has commented:
"Milton Keynes Council has made significant improvements to social care, revenues and benefits, special educational needs and waste recycling services over the last year.
Through the local Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership, the council has made good progress on improving community safety, and a safer communities unit was launched in July 2003.
Adult and children's social care services have been judged as serving most people well, with promising prospects of improvement. Services for children with special educational needs, a key local improvement priority, have also improved significantly.
The Housing service continues to present significant challenges, although resources have been set aside to improve overall performance.
The council has invested substantially in improving its corporate arrangements to enable it to deliver lasting service improvements. Based on the council's current plans, it has the potential to significantly improve the way it works and the services it provides to local people. In December 2002 Milton Keynes Council received a measurement of 2 out of 4 for the way it is run. This score has now risen to 3 out of 4.
To read more, there are three further articles:
IDeA Peer Review
In July 2002 the council was subjected to an IDeA peer review as part of its preparations for the CPA.
Other Inspections
In addition to the CPA, the council is now subject to a wide range of inspections from government bodies such as the Audit Commission, OFSTED and the Social Services Inspectorate.
| Service | Inspection service | Inspection outcome | Year |
| Children's Services | SSI | Good - two star | November 2002 |
| Joint Review of Social Services | SSI | Good - two star | November 2003 |
| Education | OFSTED | LEA found highly satisfactory across nearly all of its functions with many of them having good or very good features | September 2002 |
| Highways & Transport | Audit Commission | Fair - one star | July 2002 |
| Housing Benefits | Benefits Fraud Inspectorate | Poor- with proven capacity to improve also being rated as poor | September 2002 |
| Housing Repairs | Audit Commission | Fair - one star | November 2001 |
| Leisure Facilities and Sports Development | Audit Commission | Good - two star | October 2002 |
| Strategic Partnerships | Best Value Inspection: | Fair - one star | March 2001 |
| Youth Service | OFSTED | 96% for Educational Standards93% for quality of youth work provided | June 2001 |
Listed below are links to relevant inspections sites:
Best Value Home Page
