new perceptions and performance data what the bvpis tell us may 2007 andrew collinge research...
TRANSCRIPT
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….