New Perceptions and Performance DataWhat the BVPIs tell us

May 2007

Andrew CollingeResearch Director, Local Government Research Unit

2

LG Performance: CPA and Resident Satisfaction

Base: BVPI 2006 (149 Single/Upper Tier authorities and 75 District Ipsos MORI client authorities)

3

22 26

39

4*/excellent

56

70 3*/good

54

6061

53 51 BV3

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006Year surveyed

LG Performance: CPA and Resident Satisfaction

% Satisfied (BV3)/No of CPA scores

Base: BVPI 2006 (149 Single/Upper Tier authorities and 75 District Ipsos MORI client authorities)

4

General rises in satisfaction

Satisfaction with cleanliness - average up from 54.4% to 63.5%

Satisfaction with recycling facilities - average up 4.8%

Satisfaction with local tips - slight average increase

Satisfaction with public transport - average up from 54% to 60%

Satisfaction with public transport information - slight increase

Satisfaction with sports and leisure facilities - increase of 2.4%

Satisfaction with libraries - increase of 4.5%

Satisfaction with parks and open spaces - increase of 2%

5

5153

61

50

54

62

54

52

5555

56

50

55

60

65

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006Year surveyed

Q How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the way your local council runs things?

Tracking BVPI Satisfaction Data over Time

Satisfied (BV3)

Base: BVPI 2006 (149 Single/Upper Tier authorities and 74 District Ipsos MORI client authorities)

Average

London Boroughs

County

Districts

6

49%

41%

73% 73%

32%

24%

worst best

Change in London: Poor Performers Bridging the Gap on

cleanliness?H

ackn

ey

W’m

inst

er

Gap between best and worst

Har

ing

ey

W’m

inst

er

2003 2006

2003 2006

7

49%

41%

73% 73%

32%

24%

worst best

Change in London: Poor Performers Bridging the Gap on

cleanliness?H

ackn

ey

W’m

inst

er

Gap between best and worst

Har

ing

ey

W’m

inst

er

2003 2006

2003 2006

8

49%

41%

73% 73%

32%

24%

worst best

Change in London: Poor Performers Bridging the Gap on

cleanliness?H

ackn

ey

W’m

inst

er

Gap between best and worst

Har

ing

ey

W’m

inst

er

2003 2006

2003 2006

9

6%

9% 9%10%10%10%

11%

14%14%14%14%14%14%14%15%15%

16%16%16%16%16%17%

18%19%

20%20%20%20%21%

6%

4%

2%

-4%

Ne

wh

am

We

stm

ins

ter

Ke

ns

ing

ton

To

we

r

Bro

mle

y

Ha

rin

ge

y

Bre

nt

En

fie

ld

Hill

ing

do

n

Me

rto

n

Ca

md

en

Kin

gs

ton

Le

wis

ha

m

Ho

un

slo

w

Ha

ve

rin

g

So

uth

wa

rk

Ha

ck

ne

y

Raising the Game on Cleanliness: the London Example

Text here Text here Text here Text here Text here Text here

Percentage point change in satisfaction that land is kept clear of litter/refuse 2003/4-2006/7

More on Council Performance

11

34%

54%

53%

42%

41%

35%

31%

69%

50%

45%

64%

63%

52%

51%

44%

40%

77%

35%

Most improved Councils

Tower Hamlets

Walsall

Bradford

Coventry

Newcastle

Change (pp)

+15

+11

+9

+8

2006-7 Satisfaction2003-4 Satisfaction

Poole

Hackney

Oldham

Kensington and Chelsea

+10

+10

+10

+10

+9

Base: BVPI 2006 (149 Single and Upper Tier authorities)

12

= Service Delivery Average

71%

74%

70%

70%

67%

67%

67%

67%

65%

67%

40%

46%

50%

46%

46%

43%

43%

43%

45%

43%

46%

67%

Councils hiding their light under a bushel?!!

Gap (pp)(BV3-Av.)

-27

= BV3

Northamptonshire

Lincolnshire

Bedfordshire

Nottinghamshire

Blackpool

Blackburn with Darwen

Calderdale

Oldham

-25

-24

-24

-24

-24

-22Doncaster

Rochdale

Rotherham

-24

-24

-22

-21

Base: BVPI 2006 (74 Ipsos MORI Single and Upper Tier authorities)

13

Seasonal media reporting of levels of rises has an effect (council tax to soar 300% in ‘nice areas’)

Council tax is not broken but it has been neglected and used

A Taxing Issue…

14

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85

Satisfaction with council (%) R2 = 0.6511

Base: BVPI 2006 (130 Single, Upper Tier and District Ipsos MORI client authorities)

Value for Money (%)

Perceived VFM really matters……..

Wandsworth

City of LondonKensington & Chelsea

Richmond Upon Thames

Northampton

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

£600 £800 £1,000 £1,200 £1,400 £1,600 £1,800

Satisfaction with council (%)R2 = 0.052

Base: BVPI 2006 (190 Single, Upper Tier and District authorities)

Average Council Tax per Dwelling (%)

But not Actual Council Tax!

Westminster

City of London Kensington & Chelsea

Richmond-upon-Thames

Harrow

Bristol

CroydonStoke-on-Trent

Manchester

WandsworthRushcliffe and Christchurch

What about the “new” Engagement and Empowerment Agenda?

17

30

40

50

60

70

80

15 25 35 45

Satisfaction with council (%)

Base: BVPI 2006 (129 Single, Upper Tier and District Ipsos MORI client authorities)

Satisfied with opportunities for participation (%)

“Opportunities for Participation” do seem to matter…..

Correlation -0.47

Wandsworth Kensington & Chelsea

Hackney

Oldham

Bromley

Southwark

Westminster

18

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55

Satisfaction with council (%)

R2 = 0.1636

Base: BVPI 2006 (130 Single, Upper Tier and District Ipsos MORI client authorities)

Influence decisions affecting local area (%)

But it seems a lack of influence matters less

Wandsworth

City of London

Kensington & Chelsea

Tower Hamlets

19

30

40

50

60

70

80

20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Satisfaction with council (%) Correlation -0.75

Base: BVPI 2006 (130 Single, Upper Tier and District Ipsos MORI client authorities)

Feel informed by Council about Services and Benefits it provides (%)

Keeping people informed still seems to really matter….

Kensington & Chelsea

Haringey

Oldham

Bedfordshire

Bury

Westminster

City of London

Bromley

Looking at Local Circumstance

21

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Satisfaction with council (%)

Deprivation Score (IMD 2004)

Base: BVPI 2006 (220 Single, Upper Tier and District local authorities)

Deprivation matters – but many outliers

LiverpoolManchester

Knowsley

LB Hackney

Northants CC

Metropolitan/Unitary

County District

London Borough

Correlation -0.30

22

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Satisfaction with council (%)

Deprivation Score (IMD 2004)

Base: BVPI 2006 (75 District local authorities)

Strongest Relationship in Districts…

District

Correlation -0.51

23

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Satisfaction with council (%)

Deprivation Score (IMD 2004)

Base: BVPI 2006 (220 Single, Upper Tier and District local authorities)

Different Story in Mets and Unitaries

LiverpoolManchester

Knowsley

Metropolitan/Unitary

Oldham

Poole Newcastle upon Tyne

Transformed IMD Correlation +0.41

24

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85

Satisfaction with council (%)

Base: BVPI 2006 (220 Single, Upper Tier and District local authorities)

How much does ethnic diversity matter?

Ethnic Fractionalisation Score

LB Richmond

LB Camden

Metropolitan/Unitary

County District London Borough

LB Newham

LB Brent

Correlation -0.15

Bristol

25

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85

Satisfaction with council (%)

Base: BVPI 2006 (29 London Boroughs)

But in London it stands out as most acute

Ethnic Fractionalisation Score

LB Newham

LB Brent

Correlation -0.47

LB Havering

LB Richmond

LB Croydon

Perceptions of Place ….

27

Developing Priorities for Quality of LifeAll Single and Upper Tier authorities

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

% Most need improving locally

% Important generally

Education

Public transport

Health

Traffic congestion

Road/pavement maintenance

Affordable decent housing

Clean streets

Activities for Teenagers

Level of crime

Parks & open spaces

Base: All Single and Upper tier authorities (149)

28

Conclusions

Place matters – need to understand key local factors Will continue to do so under new regulatory regime

Local government clearly doesn’t get the credit for many improving services

Elephant in the room is VFM but not actual council tax

Communications matter task to demonstrate what you get for the money

Letting people feel they will be listened to matters but low expectations of influence?

Highlights the sector’s ongoing challenges being seen to matter….