Authority Property: A Management Overview

Type	Report
Author(s)	Audit Commission
Publication year	1988
Notes	ID: 4; Concluded that property in local government was an under-managed resource with the corporate or strategic aspects of its management underdeveloped. Recently (Audit Commission, 2000) they stated that$ "to a lesser extent this remains true today"$. They continue (p. 12) $"In spite of the best efforts of many local authority property professionals existing land and buildings are still primarily perceived as fixed assets rather than resource-hungry facilities that help (or hinder) delivery of services to the public" $and advise (p. 48) that $"although there is no blueprint for how internal property services should be structured, management clarity is enhanced if all (non-strategic) property service heads report to a single chief officer"$. Our own research supports the conclusion. Price and Clark (1999) found a correlation between high public perceptions of value for money from authority offices, with low cost in those authorities who had adopted a unified property and facilities function under the directorship of a Chief Officer. Only some 30% of authorities have such a structure. In others up to nine directorates share the responsibility. Few Chief Executives seem to appreciate the point.$ $; RP: NOT IN FILE

Comments

No comments yet for this article.