Appendix Two Benchmarking Street Cleansing Service at Gravesham Borough Council by Hardip Dhaliwal Version 1 18 Aug 2006 1
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Appendix Two Benchmarking Street Cleansing Service at Gravesham Borough Council By Hardip Dhaliwal Version 1 18 Aug 2006 1. Background 1.1 A “Benchmarking Scope” document was presented to the VFM/ efficiencies group on 4 May 2006, and on 3 August 2006. This report follows on from these documents, with some examples of data taken from the Audit Commission’s Value for Money Toolkit. 2. Objectives and approach 2.1 “Identify practical sources of comparative performance information for the authority which can be used to assist in achieving an improvement in services, or achieving the same service standard at a reduced cost.” 2.2 The method used to achieve this objective is: • Identify sources of comparative performance data such as the Audit Commission’s “Value for Money Toolkit”. • Actively seek out areas for improvement through use of value for money indicators or performance indicators. • Ensure areas for improvement link to corporate priorities. • Make findings fit our local context. • Adjust processes, systems and approaches if necessary. 2.3 The Use of Resources assessment was reviewed in relation to Value for Money (VFM). Gravesham received a Level 2 assessment in its last audit. 2.4 The VFM Toolkit maintains comparison data on 289 indicators over a four year period. It is relevant for future Use of Resources Assessment. Specifically KLOE 5.1 How well does the council currently achieve good value for money? KLOE 5.2 The council manages and improves value for money. 2.5 Sources of information (taken from the Audit Commission website) are listed below. The majority of indicators are sourced from RA returns (revenue account budgets, not actual expenditure) and BVPIs: Count of Indicator Source Total Best Value Performance Indicator 62 Best Value Satisfaction Surveys 5 Census 2001 2 CHILDREN’S SOCIAL SERVICES LOCAL AUTHORITY CIRCULAR (2004)21 1 CIPFA environmental health statistics 1 CIPFA Housing statistics 7 Defra municipal waste survey 3 DFES, SEN in England 3 DFT 4 DWP Housing Benefit Data service 6 Finance and General Statistics 5 Housing investment programme 5 ODPM 7 ODPM Development Control Statistics 5 ODPM P1E return 4 ONS mid year estimates 6 Performance Assessment Framework 24 RA return 13 RA return ODPM 82 Section 52 DFES 43 (blank) 1 Grand Total 289 2.6 This report highlights a summary of the data contained in the Value for Money profile report for Gravesham Borough Council’s Street Cleanliness Service. It is intended to give a ‘flavour’ of the type of information available and is recommended to be read as a prompt for further discussion. • The cost information is expressed relative to the council’s population, to calculate a “cost (£) per 1,000 head”. This is not the same as unit cost (which would express costs relative to services provided). The VFM profile report uses this approach to make it easier to compare councils with different scales of operation. • The comparison group selected has been the CIPFA “nearest neighbours” group of 16 authorities. • In some cases a “’national districts” comparison group is used. Each of the 388 English councils are assigned to one of five authority types: county councils, district councils, London boroughs, metropolitan districts and unitary authorities. Gravesham is assigned as a district authority. 2.7 Overall expenditure is based on the authority’s “RA return” which is based on the forecast expenditure of the authority. Latest information on the VFM toolkit is for the 2005/06 RA return. RA return 2005/06 £'000 Housing , 843 Home Office Services, 35 Central Services and Other, 4,690 Environment Planning and Transport, 5,077 Culture, 2,084 Page 2 of 9 3. Environment, Planning and Transport 3.1 Environment, Planning and Transport spend per head is the fifth lowest (5/16) amongst nearest neighbours: Total Environment, Planning and Transport/ £ per head £62 £60 £58 £56 £54 £ per head per £ £52 £50 £48 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 Gravesham Borough Council Average (Nearest Neighbours) 3.2 Further inspection of the services included in this category highlights a range of services. Environment 3,815 Communiuty Safety 405 Consumer Protection 0 Economic and community development 433 Street cleansing 976 Waste collection 983 Waste disposal 0 Environmental and Public Health Services 1,018 Highways, roads and transport services -240 Public -384 Roads and bridges construction strucural & routine maintenance 143 Traffic management and road safety 1 Transport planning , policy and strategy 0 Planning policy, building and developmental control 1,502 Planning policy, building and developmental control 1,502 Environment Planning and Transport/ £'000 5,077 Page 3 of 9 4. Street cleansing performance 4.1 Street cleansing spend per head is the 13th lowest (13/16) amongst nearest neighbours: Street Cleansing/ £ per head £12 £10 £8 £6 £ per head per £ £4 £2 £0 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 Gravesham Borough Council Average (Nearest Neighbours) 4.2 Comparing performance of BVPI 199 vs. spend per head highlights Gravesham’s medium performance. No correlation between expenditure and performance was evident, although three authorities circled on the graph below were further analysed to show BVPI 199 performance over time 1. Gravesham’s own performance for BVPI 199 shows an improvement of 34%, when comparing 2004/05 with 2005/06. This is due to the level of investment in the 2005/06 budget for street cleansing (£45K), plus a more proactive approach with service delivery. Street Cleansing/ 2004/05 £14 £12 £10 £8 head £6 £4 Street Cleansing £ perStreet£ Cleansing £2 £0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 BVPI 199: Percentage of land of unacceptable cleanliness GBC BQ 2004/05 TQ 2004/05 GBC 2005/06 1 Note: 2005/06 performance information is available from each authorities’ 2006/07 performance plan. Audited figures, or quartile information for 2006/07 will not be available until December 2006 Page 4 of 9 4.3 The three authorities selected for further analysis by time series show i) a top quartile performance for BVPI 199, and ii) lower cost per head than Gravesham Borough Council. These were Rushmoor Borough Council , Kettering Borough Council and Colchester Borough Council. In all three cases Gravesham’s performance on BVPI 199 showed a bigger rate of improvement when comparing 2004/05 and 2005/06. (See Appendix One). 4.4 In conclusions, whilst Gravesham Borough Council’s street spending per head is higher than its nearest neighbours, performance as measured by BVPI 199 has shown significant improvement, even when compared with authorities with top quartile performance for BVPI 199 and a lower spend per head. (See Appendix One). 4.5 Recommendation for further action: performance information for 2005/06 should be used to further evidence Gravesham’s improvement in street cleanliness. Care must be taken when using such data, as audited performance figures will not be available until December 2006 at the earliest. Unaudited performance figures are available from individual authorities’ 2006/07 performance plans. 5. Comparing Indices of Deprivation 5.1 Comparison of performance with Indices of Deprivation (ID) shows some correlation, which further places Gravesham’s performance in context. 2 BVPI 199 vs Indices of deprevation: 2004/05 25 R2 = 0.4459 20 ID 15 Rugby 10 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 BVPI 199: Percentage of land of unacceptable cleanliness GBC GBC 2005/06 TQ 2004/05 BQ 2004/05 outlier (Rugby) 5.2 One outlier was removed from the correlation (calculation of the R 2 value). Rugby Borough Council has the third lowest spend per head on street cleaning in 2003/04. £3.87 vs. average amongst nearest neighbours of £7.68. 2 R 2 value is included in all correlation graphs. An R 2 of 1.0 indicates 100% correlation. An R 2 value of 0.0 indicates no correlation. In social analysis such as the examples shown here there is more than one variable at work so correlations above 0.3 have been considered significant. Page 5 of 9 5.3 Further improvements in Gravesham’s performance of BVPI 199 for 2005/06 highlight the more proactive and focussed approach can have an impact in spite of this local context. 5.4 Recommendation for further action: mapping indices of deprivation and BVPI 199 performance across the borough may highlight areas of focus for service delivery to show a relatively greater impact in BVPI performance. 6. General User Satisfaction survey (GUSS) 6.1 The last GUSS took place in 2003/4. Comparison with BVPI 199 appears to show there is no link between cleanliness and actual satisfaction, either in our nearest neighbours or within national districts. 2003/04 - Street cleanliness in relation to satisfaction - Nearest Neighbours 80 Havant 60 Ashford Rugby cleanliess withstandards of BVPI 89- %89- satisfaction BVPI 40 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 BVPI 199 - % of land of unacceptable cleanliness TQ 2003/04 BQ 2003/04 GBC Note: Ashford Rugby and Havant achieved higher satisfaction rates compared to Gravesham despite showing bottom quartile performance for BVPI 199. 2003/04 - Street cleanliness in relation to satisfaction - National Districts 100 90 80 70 60 50 BVPI 89- %89- BVPI cleanliess standardsof 40 satisfactionwith 30 20 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 BVPI 199 - % of land of unacceptable cleanliess TQ 2003/04 BQ 2003/04 GBC Note: A list of authorities which achieved top quartile performance for BVPI 89 with bottom quartile performance for BVPI 199 is listed below: Page 6 of 9 BVPI 199 Local street and BVPI 89 Satisfaction with environmental cleanliness % standards of cleanliness % Authority name 2003/04 2003/04 Runnymede Borough Council 55 69 Havant Borough Council 41 66 Scarborough Borough Council 38 66 East Cambridgeshire District Council 37.4 67 Wycombe District Council 37 66 Mid Bedfordshire District Council 35.6 66 Sedgemoor District Council 33.5 71 South Somerset District Council 33 72 Borough of Broxbourne 32 69 East Devon District Council 32 69 Test Valley Borough Council 31 68 Wealden District Council 29 66 6.2 Recommendation for further action: The lack of a correlation between standards of cleanliness and satisfaction with cleanliness confirms the opportunity that other factors such as communications can have in relation to levels of satisfaction.