Capability reviews, introduced in 2005 by cabinet secretary Sir Gus O'Donnell to improve central government departments' performance, earn only the very faintest of praise in today's report from the Commons' public account committee.
The second round of capability reviews do show improvements in the 11 departments that have been assessed, with 13 areas of work now considered strong, against five in the first round and only three areas now needing urgent development, compared to 27 in the first round.
But there is little proof, says the committee, that this improvement in scoring means central government is getting better at delivering what people need. Indeed, the report says there's no clear link between capability review scores and delivery performance and says assessments are based largely on "subjective evidence".
While O'Donnell himself is rated very highly - his close involvement has provided "a valuable challenge and check of reasonableness" - his improvement regime for central government comes in for some heavy flak from the MPs.
Departments may be scoring more highly partly because they are managing their reviews better, suggests the committee, but still have little understanding of what their customers want. It will be "essential" to implement more objective measurements, says the report; only the introduction of external benchmarking will drive greater improvement in delivery of services.
Local government has long maintained that it is now leading the way in improvement and this report confirms that. Not only is local government measured to external benchmarks, but its leaders are more accountable than those in central government.
Senior leaders, says the report, seem "proof against dismissal" in a way that leaders in local government are not. On the other side of the coin, despite the introduction of bonuses for some civil servants, the MPs think incentives for good performance are also lacking in central government and call for a much stronger culture of individual performance management, clearly linked to departments' overall aims.
"Good performance needs to be recognised and suitably rewarded," says the report.
Unlike local government assessment, which includes political leaderships, capability reviews do not consider how well ministers and senior managers work together to achieve desired outcomes. Nor do they give sufficient attention to middle managers, frontline staff and departments' delivery partners and agencies.
But the committee does say the programme is a "significant step forward" in the assessment of government departments. "To have publicly available commentary, sometimes critical, of important aspects of departments' capability is an initiative of greater value, with real potential as a driver for improvement," says the report, adding that it is "vital" that the reviews become a permanent feature of Whitehall life.
So far, there have been two rounds of capability reviews, with an early focus on securing strong senior management teams. The MPs want the next round of reviews to focus more on middle managers, frontline staff and departments' partners and agencies, as well as looking at the quality of collaboration between officials and ministers which is, they say, "critical to the success of any department".
