The social services as auditees
Politicians’ and officials’ use of Open Comparisons
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3384/SVT.2021.28.1.4082Abstract
Open Comparisons (OC) is the name of a system for performance measurements that has been implemented in the Swedish municipal welfare sector in recent decades. OC is an example of Audit Society where local governments’ performance is measured with an extensive number of measurements that are exposed to public scrutiny. The experiences of the Swedish OC system have attracted international interest concerning the coverage, scope, and transparency, but also concerning voluntarism and policy sensitivity. The aim of this article is to investigate how politicians and civil servants within the Swedish social services use the OC system, and also to explain their use. The empirical investigation is based on a survey of 544 politicians and officials in randomly selected municipalities. The analysis shows that the OC system is mainly used for identifying needs for improvements, evaluating developments over time, and reporting to superior levels. The use is largely determined by whether the user perceives that the OC has strong local support, and whether it is perceived as a reliable and mature system. The overall interpretation is therefore that there has been a slow and steady habituation whereby the OC system has gained a natural place as a management tool for both politicians and officials, mainly with consequences of changed attitudes and governance practices and, although to a lesser extent, some changed operational processes.
References
Agevall Gross, L., Denvall, V., Kjellgren, C. & Skillmark, M. (2015) Brottsoffer i indikatorland. O?ppna ja?mfo?relser inom socialtja?nstens brottsoffersto?djande arbete. Socialvetenskaplig tidskrift, (3–4).
Askim, J. (2007) How do politicians use performance information? An analysis of the Norwegian local government experience. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 73(3): 453–472.
Behn, R. D. (2003) Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures. Public Administration Review, 63(5): 586–606.
Bevan, G. & Hood, C. (2006) What’s measured is what matters. Targets and gaming in the English public health care systems. Public Administration, 84(3): 517–538.
Blomgren, M. & Waks, C. (2010) Ett nytt ta?nk. Öppna ja?mfo?relser i ha?lso- och sjukva?rdens lednings-, styrnings- och kvalitetsarbete. Stockholm: Sveriges Kommuner och Landsting.
Blomgren, M. & Waks, C. (2015) Coping with contradictions. Hybrid professionals managing institutional complexity. Journal of Professions and Organization, (2): 78–102.
Brusca, I. & Montesinos, V. (2016) Implementing performance reporting in local government. A cross-countries comparison. Public Performance & Management Review, 39(3): 506–534.
Carlstedt, E. & Jacobsson, K. (2017) Indications of quality or quality as a matter of fact? ”Open Comparisons” within the social work sector. Statsvetenskaplig tidskrift, (1): 47–69.
Coulson, A. (2009) Targets and terror. Government by performance indicators. Local Government Studies, 35(2): 271–281.
Power, M. (2007) Organized uncertainty. Oxford University Press.
Van Dooren, W., Bouckert, G. & Halligan, J. (2015) Performance management in the public sector. 2 uppl. London: Routledge.
Feldman, M. & March, J. (1981) Information in organizations as signal and symbol. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26: 171–186.
Hja?rpe, T. (2017) Measuring social work quantity as quality in the social services. Statsvetenskaplig tidskrift, 1): 23–46.
Jacobsson, B. & Sahlin-Andersson, K. (2006) Dynamics of soft regulations. I: M-L. Djelic & K. Sahlin-Andersson (red.) Transnational governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johansson, T. & Siverbo, S. (2009) Explaining the utilization of relative performance evaluation in local government. Financial Accountability & Management, 25(2): 197–224.
Kroll, A. (2015) Drivers of performance information use: Systematic literature review and directions for future research. Public Performance & Management Review, 38(3), 459–486.
Kuhlmann, S. (2010) Performance measurement in European local governments. A comparative analysis of reform experiences in Great Britain, France, Sweden and Germany. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 76(2): 331–345.
Kuhlmann, S. & Jäkel, T. (2013) Competing, collaborating or controlling? Comparing benchmarking in European local government. Public Money & Management, 33(4): 269–276.
Liljegren, A. (2012) Pragmatic professionalism. Micro level discourse in social work. European Journal of Social Work, 15(3): 295–312.
Lindgren, L. (2012) Öppna jämförelser. Ett styrmedel i tiden eller Hur kunde det bli så här? Rapport 2:2012. FoU i Väst.
Lindgren, L. (2018) Öppna jämförelser. I: A. Hanberger & L. Lindgren (red.) Perspektiv på granskning inom offentlig sector, 71–86. Malmö: Gleerups.
Macintosh, N. B. & Quattrone, M. P. (2010) Management accounting and control systems. An organizational and sociological approach. 2 uppl. London: John Wiley and Sons.
Moynihan, D. & Landuyt, N. (2009) How do public organizations learn? Bridging structural and cultural divides. Public Administration Review, 69(6): 1097–1105.
Mörth, U. (red.) (2004) Soft law in governance and regulation. An interdisciplinary analysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Power, M. (1997) The audit society. Rituals of verification. Oxford University Press.
