The latest CPA results are good news for local government, but this is not the time for authorities to rest on their laurels, says Nick Raynsford
What a change five years has made. 
When the Government announced in late 2001 the intention to introduce CPA for local authorities, the response was, to say the least, unenthusiastic. 
Those local government commentators who were not downright hostile to the proposal were deeply suspicious. Many voiced concerns that the process would be a ‘hatchet job', with local authority performance being heavily criticised from the centre. Today, the mood is very different.  The headlines highlight continuing improvement across the local government family, with a large majority of upper-tier councils qualifying for three or four-star ratings. 
Far from seeing this as a central government hatchet job, many in local government are rubbing their hands with glee at the positive image conveyed by CPA, in contrast with the capability reviews of central government departments.
As the minister who introduced CPA, I am naturally pleased at the transformation. It reflects both the real efforts of local authorities to raise their game, and a fair appraisal of local government's strengths.
The LGA can point to the results as evidence that local government is leading the way in public sector performance. 
But, while it is entirely reasonable for local government to celebrate the good news from the latest round of CPA, and indulge in a little schadenfreude at the expense of those central government departments which are currently facing difficulties, it would be a mistake to luxuriate in a rosy glow of self-satisfaction and complacency.
On the contrary, it is time for local government to take stock and think hard about the implications for the future. What lessons can we learn? The first is that a robust and demanding performance-management framework, and a focus on continuous improvement are essential for all modern public authorities. This is not just a question of good management. It is recognition that the public are becoming ever-more demanding in their expectations. 
We certainly cannot afford to rest on our laurels and await the plaudits of the electorate. Any authority which adopts such an approach is likely to get a nasty shock. 
However good the overall performance of an authority, its reputation is easily damaged by just one or two weak links.
Never forget the difficulty in shaking off a poor image once it has been acquired. 
Similarly, some local authorities which used to be by-words for inefficiency still have a struggle to lose the basket-case tag, even though their performance has improved out of all recognition. This is all the more likely with services only used by a small proportion of the population, simply because most local residents won't have the personal experience of the recent improvement and may well still be influenced by the last encounter they had with the service, possibly several years before. 
Conversely, real improvements in highly-visible and universal services, such as refuse collection, are much more likely to translate quickly into a better public image.
The public's aspirations are continually rising, and local government needs to keep ahead of the game. My local council has achieved a significant improvement over the past three years in its waste-recycling performance by introducing a combined collection of glass, plastic, paper, card and tin. But it has proved so popular the fortnightly collection cycle is now insufficient.
Without further improvements through a move to weekly recyclables collection, which I am pleased to say is now on the cards, the earlier gain would have been rapidly forgotten in the face of complaints about bins overflowing between collections. 
So, while we can celebrate the success of local authorities in the latest CPA, we must keep looking ahead with a remorseless determination to do even better in future.
Nick Raynsford is former local government minister