Demonstrating the impact of change Wednesday 12 July 2017 Debbie Johns, Head of Performance Networks
UK local government spending as a share of GDP: current spending, already below the 1979-2014 minimum, is projected to go on falling to 2020
www.apse.org.uk
What is the evidence saying? Refuse collection PI 01c Cost of refuse collection service per household (excluding landfill tax & waste disposal) £64 £63.29 £63 £62.14 £62.14 £62 £61 £59.76 £60 £59 £59.30 £58 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 Average What is your expectation of the level of funding in your service budget in the coming five years? Increase by up to 10% 11.30% Increase by up to 5% 19.40% Decrease by up to 5% 32.30% Decrease by up to 10% 21% Decrease by up to 15% 8.10% Decrease by up to 20% 6.50% Decrease by more than 20% 1.60% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Street cleansing PI 03 Cost of cleansing service per household (including CEC) £38 £37 £37.04 £36 £35 £34 £33 £32.98 £31.55 £32 £31.33 £31 £30.53 £30 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 What is your expectation of the level of funding in your service budget in the coming five years? Increase by up to 10% 2.6% Increase by up to 5% 7.7% Decrease by up to 5% 23.1% Decrease by up to 10% 46.2% Decrease by up to 15% 2.6% Decrease by up to 20% 5.1% Decrease by more than 20% 12.8% www.apse.org.uk 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Parks, open spaces and horticultural services PI 02 Cost of service per hectare of maintained land (including CEC) £6,000 £5,957 £5,910 £5,900 £5,800 £5,700 £5,600 £5,458 £5,500 £5,492 £5,455 £5,400 £5,300 £5,200 Yr 14 Yr 15 Yr 16 Yr 17 Yr 18 Average What is your expectation of the level of funding in your service budget in the coming five years? 23.0% 25% 18.9% 17.6% 17.6% 20% 16.2% 15% 10% 5.4% 5% 1.4% 0% Increase by Increase by Decrease by Decrease by Decrease by Decrease by Decrease by up to 5% up to 10% up to 5% up to 10% up to 15% up to 20% more than 20%
Transport operations and vehicle maintenance Transport costs as a percentage of total costs 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Refuse 24.17% 25.01% 25.37% 24.19% 27.11% 27.13% 23.16% Parks 14.15% 14.18% 14.93% 13.81% 15.55% 14.66% 13.21% Street cleansing 20.12% 20.15% 19.88% 19.17% 19.98% 21.73% 20.56% Building maintenance 4.84% 5.05% 5.73% 5.35% 5.85% 5.23% 5.02% Refuse Parks Street cleansing Building maintenance
Productivity and quality indicators Refuse collection PI 03f Kg of domestic waste recycled per head of population 195 190.89 190 185 181.66 180 180.96 178.97 177.29 175 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 Average PI 32a Kg of residual household waste landfilled per annum per head of population (Unitary authorities only) 240 212.11 220 200 180 160 157.25 140 150.55 138.29 120 100 106.60 80 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 www.apse.org.uk Average
Expectations Growth in commercial/trade waste 59.10% Growth in education and enforcement 56.10% Round rationalisation 53.30% Decrease in residual waste and reductions in landfill 36.70% Increased utilisation of vehicles 36.40% Fewer staff 31.70% Health and safety compliance 28.80% Growth in shared services 28.80% Fewer vehicles 28.30% Reductions in collection frequency 25.00% Increases in recycling other materials 22.70% www.apse.org.uk 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00%
Street cleansing PI 39 Community / customer surveys PI 37a NI 195 percentage of sites that fall below undertaken satisfaction levels grade B (England only - full inspections) 8% 76% 73.6% 7% 74% 7.1% 6.1% 72.9% 6% 72% 5.2% 4.8% 4.7% 71.3% 5% 70% 68.2% 70.7% 4% 68% 66% 3% 2% 64% 1% 62% 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 0% 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 PI 40 Percentage of street cleansing budget 0.87% allocated to education/publicity 0.9% 0.8% 0.7% 0.6% 0.51% 0.49% 0.57% 0.5% 0.4% 0.38% 0.3% 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16
www.apse.org.uk
Parks, open spaces and horticultural services PI 12 Number of hectares maintained per FTE front line employee 10.9 10.77 10.4 9.9 9.69 9.24 9.4 9.37 8.9 9.10 8.4 Yr 14 Yr 15 Yr 16 Yr 17 Yr 18 Average PI 23 Output specification PI 38 Community/customer surveys undertaken 82.0% 50.0% 49.35% 49.5% 81.28% 81.5% 49.0% 49.17% 81.04% 81.0% 80.69% 48.5% 47.89% 48.0% 80.5% 47.5% 80.27% 80.0% 47.0% 46.77% 79.72% 46.5% 46.82% 79.5% 46.0% 79.0% Yr 14 Yr 15 Yr 16 Yr 17 Yr 18 Yr 14 Yr 15 Yr 16 Yr 17 Yr 18 Average Average
Where do you see future decreases in work for the service? Where do you see future decreases in work for the service? Reduced maintenance or frequency of maintenance of grounds 81.5% Bedding, floral displays, regional shows, ornamental grass cutting, 81.5% bowling greens, high amenity areas Reduction in service or standards 78.5% Transfer of assets 40.0% Fewer parks and facilities 35.4% Achievement in awards 35.4% Landscaping and country parks 30.8% Sports provision 30.8% New development projects/capital investment schemes e.g. play area 30.8% refurbishment Ranger service 29.2% Parks development activity 27.7% Litter picking 26.2% Cemeteries and closed churchyards 20.0%
Where do you see growth for the service over the next 12 months? Where do you see growth for the service over the next 12 months? Community involvement/engagement 67.2% Partnership working with other public bodies 62.7% Sharing services with other local authorities 50.7% Conservation and management of climate change 22.4% Events in parks 43.3% Offering a maintenance service to external organisations/private work 37.3% Offering a maintenance service to other local authorities 28.4% Additional open space from housing developments 46.3% Children's play 22.4% Capital projects (e.g. section 106) 34.3% Allotments/community gardens 23.9% Nursery production 6.0% Training 17.9%
Land Audit Management System (LAMS)
Land Audit Management System (LAMS) • A consistent quality audit of grounds maintenance standards • Trigger for immediate intervention at local level • Data source for comparative Performance Indicators at national level (real time & annual) • Balance against cost & productivity PIs • Simple to undertake & administer • Will contribute to annual performance awards
Benefits of the LAMS initiative • A simple and effective performance measuring system • LAMS can be a useful tool for senior managers who have to justify green space and street scene budgets • Marketing tool when applying for new contract work (tenders often scored against cost and quality) • A great way to publicise the work the council does in maintaining the local environment to residents and businesses • Be able to sue LAMS to measure the quality of your own localities and at the same time benchmark with other local authorities
Land Audit Management System (LAMS) LAMS requirements and local options: Local National Frequency of inspections set Bi-monthly data input timetable locally must be met Number of inspections (transects) Agreed minimum requirement of per period/annum 10 inspections per area per period Intervention levels / times Grading standards using Guidance Manual
National picture 2016-17 55 incidents 2 incidents 8 incidents 9 incidents Range from 65% to 100%
Do the public trust us to deliver? www.apse.org.uk
Trust in decision making? www.apse.org.uk
Trust in service delivery? www.apse.org.uk
Is enough of your tax spent? www.apse.org.uk
Have services declined? www.apse.org.uk
Who is to blame for a decline in services? www.apse.org.uk
Our survey said • Waste and recycling and parks had the highest satisfaction scores • The public have seen a decline in local services but.. • Don't fully relate that easily to central government cuts ‘ Its the council ’ • Victims of our own success? • Public satisfaction is high but... • Public are starting to see the impact of austerity • APSE will continue to provide intelligence on front line services www.apse.org.uk
Contact details Debbie Johns, Head of Performance Networks Email: djohns@apse.org.uk Mobile: 07834 334193 Association for Public Service Excellence 2nd floor Washbrook House, Lancastrian Office Centre, Talbot Road, Old Trafford, Manchester M32 0FP. telephone: 0161 772 1810 www.apse.org.uk fax: 0161 772 1811 web: www.apse.org.uk
Recommend
More recommend
