Communities and Local Government

• Local government
• Round Four: Use of BVPIs in general performance assessment

Local government

Round Four: Use of BVPIs in general performance assessment

In order to achieve beacon status, councils need to show that they are providing good overall performance in addition to excellence in a beacon theme. As part of the assessment of general performance, the Advisory Panel will look at a selection of Best Value Performance Indicators (BVPIs). This note explains how the Panel will conduct this part of the general performance assessment and which indicators will be used.

Reasons for using Best Value Performance Indicators

BVPI data can be helpful in providing a summary report on performance across a range of services and in the corporate centre of councils. BVPI data is collected centrally from all councils; the processes councils use for producing the data are audited; and it is possible to make some comparisons between councils. Using BVPI data as part of the general performance assessment can therefore provide a relatively sound and objective measure of performance to set alongside the other sources of information, without requiring applicant councils themselves to submit additional detailed evidence.

Experience in Round 3

In Round 3 of the scheme the Audit Commission put together a basket of 69 BVPIs. The following analysis was then carried out:

• The Audit Commission provided a summary report for each applicant council based on the basket of 69 BVPIs for 2000/01 (some indicators applied to only certain types of council);
• The report indicated whether a council achieved top or bottom quartile performance in each indicator. In the majority of cases comparisons were made against councils of the same type;
• An overall score showed the 'net percentage' of BVPIs in the top quartile. This was derived from the number of indicators for which a council achieved top quartile performance, minus the number for which it achieved bottom quartile performance, expressed as a percentage of the number of relevant indicators;
• Where possible, the Audit Commission made comparisons with the previous year's BVPI data to show trends in performance.

The BVPI reports were found to be very helpful evidence. In many cases they pointed to service areas of relative weakness, leading the Panel to ask further specific questions of applicants. In some cases, the BVPI reports gave a picture of good performance which helped to offset concerns raised by other pieces of evidence. In a few cases, poor BVPI reports added weight to other sources which led to councils failing the 'good overall performance' test. In no case was a council eliminated from the selection process solely on the basis of BVPI evidence.

Full details of how BVPI data were used in the selection process can be found in the Report of the Advisory Panel Recommendations to Ministers on Beacon Councils for Round 3.

Analysis of Best Value Performance Indicators

The Local Government White Paper^[1] announced the Government's intention to develop and implement Comprehensive Performance Assessments (CPAs) of each local authority as the basis of a new performance management framework for local government. The CPA will bring together audit, inspection, PI and other assessment data to assess each council's performance and capacity to improve, taking into account local circumstances. CPAs are expected to be completed for all upper tier authorities by late 2002, and for all District Councils by late 2003.

Once fully implemented, the CPA will provide an opportunity to streamline and simplify the beacon general performance assessment. CPA activity is now underway, however the methodology is still to be finalised. It is therefore intended that the Round 4 BVPI analysis should follow the successful approach used in Round 3. The definitions of some of the BVPIs have changed, and new indicators have been introduced whilst others are no longer collected. The Audit Commission has consequently selected a new basket of 66 indicators for Round 4.

The list of indicators included in this basket is at Annex A.

The principles which guided the selection of BVPIs in Round 3 have also been applied to the Round 4 basket, namely:

• The measure should be of performance rather than context or activity;
• High (or low) should be unequivocally 'good' or 'bad';
• Figures should be nationally comparable;
• The data should be returned by the majority of audited bodies;
• 'Yes/No' items should not be included individually (as these cannot produce an inter-quartile range).

The Audit Commission have kindly agreed to provide a report on each applicant using the basket of indicators described at Annex A. The data used will be for 2001/02, with data for 2000/01 also shown, where available, to illustrate trends. It should be possible to look at trends for 59 of the 66 indicators. As in Round 3, the Panel will look at the 'net % top quartile' as a summary indicator of performance across the whole council, alongside the indicators in specific service areas. Comparisons will be made by local authority type.

The Audit Commission will produce BVPI reports in time to inform the Panel's decisions in November on which councils to include in the shortlist. For top tier authorities these reports will be based on audited data. For district councils these reports will have to rely on estimated data, although reports with audited data will be produced by January to inform the Panel's final recommendations to Ministers.

Best Value Authorities

The extent of BVPI data on Best Value authorities depends on the type of authority and the services undertaken. In the case of applications from best value authorities the Panel will consider all available BVPI data, particularly where it relates to overall corporate performance.

If you have any questions regarding the use of BVPIs in the assessment process, please call Hannah Cromarty at ODPM on 020 7944 4093, e-mail hannah.cromarty@communities.gsi.gov.uk.

Annex A: List of Indicators

Corporate health (7)

BV 2 Level reached against the CRE Racial Equality Standard
BV 8 % of undisputed invoices which were paid in 30 days
BV9 % council tax collected
BV10 % business rates collected
BV 11 % of senior management posts filled by women
BV 12 proportion of working days/shifts lost to sickness absence
BV156 % buildings accessible and suitable for disabled people

Education (16)

BV 30 % 3 year-olds in an Early Years Development Plan
BV 34a % primary schools with 25% or more unfilled places
BV 34b % secondary schools with 25% or more unfilled places
BV37 Average GCSE/GNVQ points score of pupils
BV38 Proportion of pupils achieving 5 or more GCSEs at grades A-C
BV 39 Proportion of pupils achieving 1 or more GCSEs at grade G or better
BV 40 Proportion of pupils achieving KS2 Maths level 4 or better
BV 41 Proportion of pupils achieving KS2 English level 4 or better
BV 43a Special educational needs statements prepared in 18 weeks (exc exceptions)
BV43b Special educational needs statements in 18 weeks (inc exceptions)
BV 45 % half days missed due to unauthorised absence in secondary schools
BV 46 % half days missed due to unauthorised absence in primary schools
BV 48 % schools subject to special measures
BV158 % adult education hours for which students attended
BV159a Attendance at alternative education for excluded pupils
BV160 Children in classes 30+ pupils Years 3-6

Social services (8)

BV 50 Educational qualifications of children looked after
BV 53 Intensive home care
BV54 Older people (65+) helped to live at home
BV 55 Clients receiving a review
BV56 % small items of equipment delivered within 3 weeks
BV58 % people receiving a statement of their needs
BV162 % child protection cases reviewed
BV163 Adoptions of looked after children

Housing (9)

BV 62 Unfit private sector dwellings made fit/demolished
BV 63 Average SAP rating (energy efficiency) of local authority dwellings
BV 64 Empty private sector dwellings returned to occupation
BV 66a Proportion of local authority rent collected
BV 67 Decisions on homelessness applications made in 33 days
BV 68 Average re-let time for local authority dwellings
BV69 % rent loss from vacant local authority dwellings
BV72 % specified urgent repairs completed in Government time limits
BV 73 Average time taken to complete non-urgent repairs

Housing benefit / Council tax benefit (5)

BV 78a Average time for processing new claims
BV 78b Average time for processing changes of circumstances
BV 78c % renewal claims processed on time
BV 79a % cases processed correctly
BV 79b % overpayments recovered

Environment (6)

BV 82a+b % household waste recycled, composted
BV82c % Recovery of energy from waste
BV 84 Amount of household waste collected per head
BV88 Number of bin collections missed
BV91 % population within 1km of recycling centre
BV179 % land searches completed in 10 days

Transport (6)

BV 96 Condition of principal roads
BV 97a Condition of classified non-principal roads
BV 97b Condition of unclassified non-principal roads
BV 105 Repairs of dangerous damage to roads and pavements
BV165 % pedestrian crossings with facilities for disabled
BV178 % accessible footpaths

Planning (3)

BV 106 % new homes on brown field sites
BV 108 Number of departures from statutory plan as a % of total permissions granted
BV 109 % planning applications determined in 8 weeks

Environmental Health and Trading Standards (1)

BV166a,b Score against a checklist of best practice

Culture (3)

BV117 Visits to libraries per head of population
BV169b % of museums registered under MGC scheme
BV170b Number of visits to museums that were in person

Community safety (2)

BV 126 Burglaries per 1000 population
BV 128 Vehicle crimes per 1000 population

1. Strong Local Leadership - Quality Public Services, DTLR, December 2001