DATA LABEL: OFFICIAL

PERFORMANCE COMMITTEE

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BENCHMARKING FRAMEWORK

REPORT BY DEPUTE CHIEF EXECUTIVE

A. PURPOSE OF REPORT

The council participates in the Local Government Benchmarking Framework (LGBF) Network comparing performance on a number of performance indicators. The data has been collated and analysed by the Improvement Service and published in an annual report.

This report provides a summary comparative analysis of the council’s 2015/16 performance against the previous years and other local authorities.

B. RECOMMENDATIONS

The committee is asked to note the contents of the report.

C. SUMMARY OF IMPLICATIONS

I. Council Values Focusing on customers’ needs Being honest, open and accountable

II. Policy and Legal Compliance with the Code of Corporate Governance requirements

III. Implications for Scheme of None Delegations to Officers

IV. Impact on performance and The council is required to publish Specified performance indicators Performance Indicators in accordance with the Local Government () Act 2003

V. Relevance to Single Outcome None Agreement

VI. Resources (Financial, Staffing and From existing budget Property)

VII. Consideration at PDSP/Executive None Committee required

VIII. Details of consultations None

1 D. TERMS OF REPORT

D.1 Local Government Benchmarking Framework Overview

The Local Government Benchmarking Framework (LGBF) is focused on providing a consistent approach to benchmarking local authority performance, with a standard data set reported each year to the public.

The comparative performance of the 32 Scottish local authorities is published in an annual report that identifies national trends across eight thematic categories of council activity. The report also highlights local challenges and priorities, how this varies across councils and the subsequent impact on performance.

The fifth National Benchmarking Overview Report contains 2015/16 data and can be viewed on the Improvement Service website via the following link.

D.2 LGBF Annual Report 2015/16

The overview report 2015/16 was published by the Improvement Service and compares councils’ performance across 81 performance indicators, an increase on the 56 used to compare 2014/15 performance. The performance indicators remain grouped under the following eight categories:

 Adult Social Care  Children’s Services  Corporate Services  Corporate Assets  Culture and Leisure  Environmental Services  Housing Services  Economic Development

The information across the categories generally focuses on how much councils have spent on particular services, the service performance and how satisfied people are with the major services provided by councils.

Table 1: composition of PIs in LGBF dataset 2015/16 Category Cost Effectiveness Satisfaction Total Adult Social Care 2 2 3 7 Children's Services 5 24 1 30 Corporate Asset - 2 - 2 Corporate Services 3 7 - 10 Culture and Leisure 4 - 4 8 Economic Development 1 4 - 5 Environment 6 6 2 14 Housing 0 5 - 5 Total 21 50 10 81

The type of measures is important when considering the relative value of each category and the performance changes within that category.

D.3 LGBF Average Ranking 2015/16

The overall average ranking of West Council in Scotland in 2015/16 was

2 fifth, a change from second in 2014/15. East Council was ranked top overall.

The council’s average ranking and the top ranked local authority in the eight categories of LGBF have been analysed and summarised in table 2.

Table 2: average ranking – calculated as an average of 81 PIs WLC Ranking WLC Ranking Category 2014/15 2015/16 Top Ranked Authority Adult Social Care 20 30 Children’s Services 9 6 Corporate Services 5 6 and North Corporate Assets 3 =1 Ayrshire Environmental Services 7 5 Housing Services 3 2 Economic Development 14 11 Culture and Leisure 2 5 Overall 2 5 East Renfrewshire

The overall ranking in table 2 is calculated as a simple average of the ranking in all 81 performance indicators in the LGBF dataset. No weighting is applied to signify the relative value of the 81 performance indicators to the organisation, or to account for variation in the number or type of performance indicators across the eight LGBF categories.

The increase in the number of schools-focused performance indicators in the Children’s Services category from 7 in 2014/15 to 26 in 2016/17, when using a simple calculation to identify good performance across the framework, has impacted the composition of the top 5 councils. Authorities with strong performance in the schools measures feature prominently in the top ranking councils in the LGBF.

Table 3: top 5 performing councils – average ranking across all 81 PIs Overall Average Ranking Average Ranking in Council 2015/16 Children’s Services 2015/16 East Renfrewshire 1 1 Perth and Kinross 2 4 3 2 4 3 West Lothian 5 6

Table 3 shows that all councils in the top 5 overall are placing in the top quartile for Children’s Services. Council are the only council that placed in the top ranked councils for the Children’s Services category not to appear in the ranking of top 5 councils overall (an overall ranking of 9).

Calculating the overall ranking using the average category rankings gives a top 5 with a different profile, with West Lothian and Perth and Kinross the only two consistent councils in both calculations.

3 Table 4: top 5 councils – average ranking across all categories West Perth and North Category Lothian Kinross Ayrshire Adult Social Care 30 10 3 24 20 Children's Services 6 4 17 19 7 Corporate Asset 1 13 6 1 4 Corporate Services 6 9 10 4 3 Culture and Leisure 5 13 12 6 2 Economic Development 11 1 4 17 18 Environment 4 11 20 14 29 Housing 2 16 - 1 7 Average category ranking 1 2 3 4 5

The relative positions under the simple average of all 81 performance indicators are: West Lothian (5), Perth and Kinross (2), Inverclyde (=6), North Ayrshire (12), Stirling (=6).

A detailed view of the council’s performance in the LGBF in 2015/16 can be obtained in Appendix 1, which shows the performance and ranking of all 32 authorities in each performance indicator.

Appendix 2 also provides the average ranking in each category of all 32 authorities.

D.5 Summary of Change from 2014/15

The council’s 2015/16 performance in comparison to 2014/15 performance, and changes in ranking by performance indicator, are summarised in tables 5a and 5b.

Table 5a shows a summary of the changes in the ranking in each category against the previous year. Changes in ranking will obviously provide an insight on changes in the council’s performance year to year relative to the other 32 local authorities in Scotland.

Table 5a: Summary Position of Ranking 2014/15 to 2015/16 PIs that PIs that No Number of declined in improved No comparative Category PIs 2015/16 in 2015/16 change data Adult Social Care 7 5 1 1 0 Children’s Services 30 4 12 2 12 Corporate Services 10 4 3 2 1 Corporate Assets 2 0 2 0 0 Environmental Services 14 5 6 3 0 Housing Services 5 3 2 0 0 Economic Development 5 2 3 0 0 Culture and Leisure 8 3 4 1 0 West Lothian Council 81 26 33 9 13

Table 5b shows a summary of changes in the actual performance achieved in each category against the previous year’s value.

4 Table 5b: Summary Position of Performance 2014/15 to 2015/16 PIs that PIs that No Number of declined in improved No comparative Category PIs 2015/16 in 2015/16 Change data Adult Social Care 7 6 1 0 0 Children’s Services 30 6 12 0 12 Corporate Services 10 3 6 0 1 Corporate Assets 2 0 2 0 0 Environmental Services 14 6 7 1 0 Housing Services 5 2 3 0 0 Economic Development 5 2 3 0 0 Culture and Leisure 8 3 4 1 0 West Lothian Council 81 28 38 2 13

D.6 Summary of Change from 2014/15 by Category

More detail on the performance change in each of the eight categories is provided in this section.

Adult Social Care Category The council ranked 30 out of 32 (quartile 4) in the overall category ranking in 2015/16, a dip by 10 places from a ranking of 20 in 2014/15. The top performer in this category was Dumfries and Galloway Council.

The mix of the type of performance indicators in this category is a consideration in this category. In that a view of the overall performance of Adult Social Care is provided that is largely based on the satisfaction levels of clients and the cost of services. The council’s performance declined in all but one satisfaction performance indicator in this category.

Table 6a: Category Performance 2014/15 to 2015/16 No Type of PI Decline Improve No change comparison Total Cost 2 2 Effectiveness 2 2 Satisfaction 2 1 3 Total 6 1 7

Children’s Services Category The council ranked 6 out of 32 (quartile 1) in the overall category ranking in 2015/16, an improvement by three places from a ranking of 9 out of 32 in 2014/15. The top performer in this category was East Renfrewshire Council.

The large increase in the number of effectiveness indicators in this category has led to a significant change in how councils are ranked. New attainment performance indicators and measures of primary school testing offer a more detailed position on the quality of learning and teaching in education services across Scotland. The council’s performance improved in 12 out of the 30 indicators, with 4 out of the 6 that declined due to an increase in the cost of providing Children’s Services.

5

The new performance indicators included in the LGBF dataset for primary schools did not have comparative data.

Table 6b: Category Performance 2014/15 to 2015/16 No Type of PI Decline Improve No change comparison Total Cost 4 1 5 Effectiveness 1 11 12 24 Satisfaction 1 1 Total 6 12 12 30

Corporate Services Category The council ranked 6 out of 32 (quartile 1) in the overall category ranking in 2015/16, a dip by one place from a ranking of 5 out of 32 in 2014/15. The top performer in this category was .

This category has a broad mix of indicators, calculating the cost of support services and policy and process indicators relating to council tax collection, sickness absence and gender balance. The council’s performance improved in 6 out of the 10 indicators, with 3 that declined due to a dip in performance of the two sickness absence performance indicators and a small dip in the payment of invoices within the 30 day timescale.

Table 6c: Category Performance 2014/15 to 2015/16 No Type of PI Decline Improve No change comparison Total Cost 3 3 Effectiveness 3 3 1 7 Satisfaction Total 3 6 1 10

Corporate Assets Category The council ranked 1 out of 32 (quartile 1) jointly with North Ayrshire Council in the overall category ranking in 2015/16. This was an improvement by two places from a ranking of 3 out of 32 in 2014/15.

There are only two performance indicators in this category and focus on the suitability and condition of the council’s operational property assets, in which improved performance was achieved in both in 2015/16.

Table 6d: Category Performance 2014/15 to 2015/16 No Type of PI Decline Improve No change comparison Total Cost Effectiveness 2 2 Satisfaction Total 2 2

Culture and Leisure Category The council ranked 5 out of 32 (quartile 1) in the overall category ranking in 2015/16, a dip by three places from a ranking of 2 out of 32 in 2014/15. The top performer in this category was East Lothian Council.

6 The mix of the type of performance indicators in this category provides a view of the overall performance of Culture and Leisure that is wholly based on the satisfaction levels of residents and the cost of services. There are no measures of the overall effectiveness of the services offered in relation to culture and leisure.

The council’s performance declined in two satisfaction and one cost performance indicators. Dips related to both cost of, and satisfaction with, libraries in West Lothian and satisfaction with leisure facilities – while the cost per leisure visit reduced.

Table 6e: Category Performance 2014/15 to 2015/16 No Type of PI Decline Improve No change comparison Total Cost 1 2 1 4 Effectiveness Satisfaction 2 2 4 Total 3 4 1 8

Economic Development Category The council ranked 11 out of 32 (quartile 2) in the overall category ranking in 2015/16, an improvement by three places from a ranking of 14 out of 32 in 2014/15. The top performer in this category was Perth and Kinross Council.

A new category in 2014/15, this was expanded to include four new performance indicators in 2015/16. This included indicators that compared the performance of planning services in local authorities and procurement spend on small/medium enterprises. Of the five performance indicators in this category, three improved with a decline in the average time for planning applications and the number of Business Gateway start-ups.

Table 6f: Category Performance 2014/15 to 2015/16 No Type of PI Decline Improve No change comparison Total Cost 1 1 Effectiveness 2 2 4 Satisfaction Total 2 3 5

Environmental Services Category The council ranked 5 out of 32 (quartile 1) in the overall category ranking in 2015/16, an improvement by two places from a ranking of 7 out of 32 in 2014/15. The top performer in this category was Moray Council.

There is equal weighting given to cost and effectiveness of environment services, including Waste, NETs and EHTS performance. The dips in performance relate to the cost of waste collection and disposal and the cleanliness score and condition of A, C and U class roads.

Table 6g: Category Performance 2014/15 to 2015/16 No Type of PI Decline Improve No change comparison Total Cost 2 4 6 Effectiveness 4 2 6 Satisfaction 1 1 2 Total 6 7 1 14

7 Housing Category The council ranked 2 out of 26 (quartile 1) in the overall category ranking in 2015/16, an improvement by one place from a ranking of 3 out of 32 in 2014/15. The top performer in this category was North Ayrshire Council.

There are only effectiveness performance indicators in this category and this covers performance in key housing activities of repairs, income (rent) management and the quality and energy efficiency of the housing stock. The dips in performance relate to the timeliness of repairs and a small change in council dwellings that are energy efficient.

Table 6h: Category Performance 2014/15 to 2015/16 No Type of PI Decline Improve No change comparison Total Cost Effectiveness 2 3 5 Satisfaction Total 2 3 5

D.7 LGBF Family Groups

LGBF performance is analysed to ensure that the variation and causal impact in relation to local priorities and policy choices are understood. This is to be facilitated by authorities working as part of ‘family groups’ to interrogate the data. These family groups also serve as a forum for learning and knowledge share across authorities.

The Improvement Service has allocated the council to a family group featuring authorities with similar characteristics. The council are a member of family group 3, with the general characteristics set out in table 7:

Table 7: Family Group Allocation

Categories Characteristic Family People Service categories: Allocation based on   Adult Social Work deprivation /  Dumfries and Galloway  Children affluence   Housing   Renfrewshire  South Ayrshire   West Lothian Council Categories Characteristic Family Other Services categories: Allocation based on  Angus  Corporate population  Clackmannanshire  Corporate Assets  Inverclyde  Culture and Leisure  East Renfrewshire  Environmental   Economic Development  Renfrewshire  South Lanarkshire  West Lothian Council

For more information the online tool (Spotfire) has been developed to offer family group comparators in a graphical format.

8 D.8 Actions for Council Services

The council must comply with requirements to publish the LGBF data set and comparative analysis. In support of this, services will:

1. Consider how the comparative data can be used to improve performance. Such as undertaking learning and networking opportunities with leading performers in their area or ‘family groups’ to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the service; 2. Use the comparative data to enhance the quality of performance information that is reported to the public; 3. Build on the LGBF benchmarking activity by identifying other meaningful benchmarks of service performance.

E. CONCLUSION

The LGBF national benchmarking report provides the public with comparative analysis of Scottish local authorities’ performance in 2014/15. Comparison across the 56 performance indicators shows that the council has areas of strong, sector leading performance and highlights areas where improvement to performance is required.

The council the is in the top quartile for six out of the eight categories and has an average ranking of fifth overall, with East Renfrewshire Council ranked first for performance.

The LGBF is intended to support councils to improve performance in key activities and the development also forms a critical part of the sector’s response to requirements for public performance reporting and benchmarking. Committee is asked to note the findings in the report and the council’s performance and rankings in each category.

F. BACKGROUND REFERENCES

LGBF National Benchmarking Overview Report 2015/16

Appendices/Attachments: 2 Appendix 1 – LGBF Performance Indicators Appendix 2 – LGBF Average Category Ranking

Contact Person: Rebecca Kelly Telephone: 01506 281891 email: [email protected]

Graeme Struthers Depute Chief Executive 21 August 2017

9