Following’s last month’s Comprehensive Area Assessments, Ben Page considers how well councils are doing, if they remove some of the obstacles to performance
Some councils are harder to run than others. Although all are unique and face different challenges, some will always find it more difficult to achieve high ratings from residents – no matter how good the leadership and management are.
We have known for some time how factors such as poverty and diversity can pose particular challenges for achieving high satisfaction scores, for both the NHS and local government. For example, there are no PCTs in diverse areas which achieve the same levels of satisfaction as those in more homogenous ones.
Ipsos MORI’s latest report, entitled Mind the gap: Frontiers of performance IV, has taken these and a whole range of others into account to dig below the surface of raw scores and see who is doing best.
We have looked at the extent to which resident ratings on quality of life as well as council performance are higher or lower than we would expect, given careful analysis of local circumstances which affect perceptions.
This gives a more level playing field to show which councils do best and worst, given their local circumstances.
We have also taken on board a host of different factors to sum up, in one score, all the factors that make it easy or difficult for local councils to achieve positive perceptions. We have called this the Area Challenge Index.
It does this by looking across seven factors which consistently come out as being related to perceptions of issues, such as value for money, quality of life and satisfaction with councils, and then scored each area on these characteristics.
From this, the toughest areas to make residents happy by local authority type are Newham, Hackney and Tower Hamlets among the London boroughs; Birmingham, Blackburn andManchester among metropolitan boroughs/unitary authorities; and Oxford, Burnley and Hastings among the districts.
The Area Challenge Index scores should not be seen as an excuse for poor performance or negative perceptions – indeed, a number of these local authority areas significantly out-perform what we would expect – but they do provide a way to make sure that perceptions are interpreted in context, and to help local authorities and their partners make more meaningful comparisons.
A range of different types of local authorities serving very different populations emerge as top performers, once we take account of their circumstances.
A consistent theme is the general prominence of a number of inner-London boroughs in our top performers across a number of variables, including three Tory councils – Wandsworth, Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea on council performance, but also Labour-run Hackney, Tower Hamlets and Newham on quality of life and cohesion.
In particular, one group of Conservative councils, and inner London as a whole, perform very well on perception-based corporate health measures. Wandsworth, Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea stand out when we look at perceptions of council performance, not only in absolute terms, but also relative to a range of other factors, such as diversity.
These three strikingly outdo our predictions for overall satisfaction with the council and/or perceived value for money. In addition, satisfaction with both Wandsworth and Westminster councils has actually increased since 2006/07, together with Hammersmith and Fulham, in marked contrast with the average downward trend for council satisfaction.
But it is not only Conservative-led inner-London boroughs which emerge as top performers. Broadly speaking, while these authorities stand out in terms of corporate reputation measures, many Labour-led urban authorities do better than their relative levels of poverty and diversity would predict on feelings of cohesion and influence.
These include London boroughs such as Newham and Hackney, but also other urban areas in the North Manchester, and some districts like Stevenage. This pattern of the best Conservative-led local authorities being seen as particularly efficient and effective in their service delivery, with the same Labour-led authorities excelling on the wider aspects of engagement and cohesion, is very broad-brush, but does seem to be reflected in the data. Does it reflect differing absolute political priorities in these different authorities?
In terms of perceived quality of life, half of those which are doing better than expected are either London boroughs, metropolitan boroughs or unitary authorities, including Hull, Knowsley, Barrow-in-Furness, Tower Hamlets and Hackney.
Many do not do best in absolute terms, but all are well ahead compared with where key local factors would normally imply, although Ribble Valley BC has a much higher absolute score, and is still doing even better than we would expect.
Which areas perform best and worst? Inner London is the only part of England where satisfaction with councils has generally remained steady or rising.
In contrast, outer London’s performance is more negative – a reversal of the position a decade ago. Outer London councils appear disproportionately in our bottom 20 on ratings of value for money, and on quality of life. While there are structural challenges in outer London, inner London’s success is a testament to local political and managerial leadership.
When it comes to satisfaction with the council, the pattern is less clear, with no obvious local authority type, political control or region dominating the bottom 20 performers.
As we enter a period of ever-tougher decisions about public spending priorities, our analyses of the Place Survey data should help local government focus on what matters most to residents, and key quality of life issues.
By highlighting those local authorities which appear to be doing the best for their residents, given their local circumstances on a range of different dimensions, this report should provoke debate about what ‘good’ performance looks like, beyond simple league tables – and as importantly, what is behind it.
Although a Conservative Government may be less interested in some of the apparatus around cohesion and ‘influence’ that has built up over the last decade, whoever is in power will still need to make valid comparisons about what good looks like.
l For a copy of Mind the gap: Frontiers of performance IV, please contact debbielee.chan@ipsos.com
We have known for some time how factors such as poverty and diversity can pose particular challenges for achieving high satisfaction scores, for both the NHS and local government. For example, there are no PCTs in diverse areas which achieve the same levels of satisfaction as those in more homogenous ones.
Ipsos MORI’s latest report, entitled Mind the gap: Frontiers of performance IV, has taken these and a whole range of others into account to dig below the surface of raw scores and see who is doing best.
We have looked at the extent to which resident ratings on quality of life as well as council performance are higher or lower than we would expect, given careful analysis of local circumstances which affect perceptions.
This gives a more level playing field to show which councils do best and worst, given their local circumstances.
We have also taken on board a host of different factors to sum up, in one score, all the factors that make it easy or difficult for local councils to achieve positive perceptions. We have called this the Area Challenge Index.
It does this by looking across seven factors which consistently come out as being related to perceptions of issues, such as value for money, quality of life and satisfaction with councils, and then scored each area on these characteristics.
From this, the toughest areas to make residents happy by local authority type are Newham, Hackney and Tower Hamlets among the London boroughs; Birmingham, Blackburn andManchester among metropolitan boroughs/unitary authorities; and Oxford, Burnley and Hastings among the districts.
The Area Challenge Index scores should not be seen as an excuse for poor performance or negative perceptions – indeed, a number of these local authority areas significantly out-perform what we would expect – but they do provide a way to make sure that perceptions are interpreted in context, and to help local authorities and their partners make more meaningful comparisons.
A range of different types of local authorities serving very different populations emerge as top performers, once we take account of their circumstances.
A consistent theme is the general prominence of a number of inner-London boroughs in our top performers across a number of variables, including three Tory councils – Wandsworth, Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea on council performance, but also Labour-run Hackney, Tower Hamlets and Newham on quality of life and cohesion.
In particular, one group of Conservative councils, and inner London as a whole, perform very well on perception-based corporate health measures. Wandsworth, Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea stand out when we look at perceptions of council performance, not only in absolute terms, but also relative to a range of other factors, such as diversity.
These three strikingly outdo our predictions for overall satisfaction with the council and/or perceived value for money. In addition, satisfaction with both Wandsworth and Westminster councils has actually increased since 2006/07, together with Hammersmith and Fulham, in marked contrast with the average downward trend for council satisfaction.
But it is not only Conservative-led inner-London boroughs which emerge as top performers. Broadly speaking, while these authorities stand out in terms of corporate reputation measures, many Labour-led urban authorities do better than their relative levels of poverty and diversity would predict on feelings of cohesion and influence.
These include London boroughs such as Newham and Hackney, but also other urban areas in the North Manchester, and some districts like Stevenage. This pattern of the best Conservative-led local authorities being seen as particularly efficient and effective in their service delivery, with the same Labour-led authorities excelling on the wider aspects of engagement and cohesion, is very broad-brush, but does seem to be reflected in the data. Does it reflect differing absolute political priorities in these different authorities?
In terms of perceived quality of life, half of those which are doing better than expected are either London boroughs, metropolitan boroughs or unitary authorities, including Hull, Knowsley, Barrow-in-Furness, Tower Hamlets and Hackney.
Many do not do best in absolute terms, but all are well ahead compared with where key local factors would normally imply, although Ribble Valley BC has a much higher absolute score, and is still doing even better than we would expect.
Which areas perform best and worst? Inner London is the only part of England where satisfaction with councils has generally remained steady or rising.
In contrast, outer London’s performance is more negative – a reversal of the position a decade ago. Outer London councils appear disproportionately in our bottom 20 on ratings of value for money, and on quality of life. While there are structural challenges in outer London, inner London’s success is a testament to local political and managerial leadership.
When it comes to satisfaction with the council, the pattern is less clear, with no obvious local authority type, political control or region dominating the bottom 20 performers.
As we enter a period of ever-tougher decisions about public spending priorities, our analyses of the Place Survey data should help local government focus on what matters most to residents, and key quality of life issues.
By highlighting those local authorities which appear to be doing the best for their residents, given their local circumstances on a range of different dimensions, this report should provoke debate about what ‘good’ performance looks like, beyond simple league tables – and as importantly, what is behind it.
Although a Conservative Government may be less interested in some of the apparatus around cohesion and ‘influence’ that has built up over the last decade, whoever is in power will still need to make valid comparisons about what good looks like.
l For a copy of Mind the gap: Frontiers of performance IV, please contact debbielee.chan@ipsos.com
