Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Capital Ambition and LEDNET Street Services Productivity Review: detailed analysis March 2009.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Capital Ambition and LEDNET Street Services Productivity Review: detailed analysis March 2009."— Presentation transcript:

1 Capital Ambition and LEDNET Street Services Productivity Review: detailed analysis March 2009

2 CONFIDENTIAL 2 Contents How to use this pack Context Objectives Methodology Street cleaning diagnostics Street cleaning blueprints Potential savings For participating Boroughs For Capital Ambition A street cleaning blueprint? Emerging findings Introduction Next steps Overview of Street Cleaning in London High-level comparison Value for Money overview Environmental factors influencing street cleaning performance Ease to serve and VfM performance Borough profiles Best practice summaries Supporting data Appendix

3 CONFIDENTIAL 3 Introduction This pack has been designed to help local authorities to improve the value for money of their street cleaning services How to use this pack Contract manager Head of Street Cleaning and/or Waste Management Director of Environment Services Chief Executive If you are a….You can use this pack to…. Review whether you are getting the best value from your contracted service, and whether specifying or monitoring differently might deliver better outcomes Evaluate whether your operations are delivering value for money, and if they can be improved through using best practice approaches Challenge your Head of Service, in a supportive way, to think about how they can improve the quality and cost-effectiveness of the service Ask evidence-based questions of your street cleaning service, to ensure it is operating as efficiently and effectively as possible

4 CONFIDENTIAL 4 Introduction As one of the their most visible services, local authorities are under pressure to improve the quality of street cleaning services within an environment of reduced resources Context The street cleaning service Visibility: Street services is one of the most visible aspects of a Councils business, and has a strong impact on customer satisfaction with the Council Action: Exploring the drivers of value for money services helps understand how resources can be deployed more effectively Pressure: Boroughs are under increasing pressure to improve quality of street cleaning services with reduced resources How can we do more with less?

5 CONFIDENTIAL 5 Introduction The aims of this project were: To develop practical ideas to improve performance and efficiency in London boroughs street cleaning services To show what a good Value for Money street cleaning service might look like Building a blueprint for value for money Street Cleaning services will help Boroughs across London target activity to reduce costs and improve performance Objectives We have developed emerging Street Cleaning Blueprints for different types of authorities which use these findings and recommendations to show what a value for money Street Cleaning service might look like

6 CONFIDENTIAL 6 Introduction The process we went through was designed to ensure that we gathered a solid evidence base of data Methodology Outcomes: Understand the main differences in expenditure and outputs in ten London boroughs. Insight into the key factors driving the value for money position of Street Services in London. Discuss potential implications for other authorities in London and further activity for Capital Ambition.

7 CONFIDENTIAL 7 Introduction Contrasting approaches were designed to test possible approaches to using comparison between boroughs to highlight improvements. Methodology High-level, qualitative analysis In-depth, quantitative analysis Street cleaning review Recycling review Approach Time Advantages Limitations 22 days 8 days High-level overview provides a useful snapshot of approaches and ideas for improvement More in-depth review of operations More specific findings and recommendations for use by authorities High level so may work may be required to explore issues in more detail In-depth nature may be more useful for Heads of Service than Directors and Chief Executives

8 CONFIDENTIAL 8 Introduction We have used this framework to assess the drivers of cost and performance of street cleaning service Framework

9 CONFIDENTIAL 9 Introduction Though the data used in this report has some caveats, it is, in our judgement, still sufficiently robust to provide the basis for the key findings and recommendations Notes on the data Data sourceNotes Public data: Best Value Performance Indicators, Revenue Account Return, National Statistics, Department for Transport Some differences and disputes in methodologies for collecting and assessing returns (e.g. population sizes, road lengths, BV 199a). However, the public data is broadly accurate enough to enable meaningful questions, implications and findings to be drawn. Individual borough questionnaire responses Some minor variances occur in definitions of the questionnaire occur which does not always enable an exact like for like comparison. However, the data is more than comparable enough so as not to make the findings from the questionnaire benchmarking debateable.

10 CONFIDENTIAL 10 Contents How to use this pack Context Objectives Methodology Street cleaning diagnostics Street cleaning blueprints Potential savings For participating Boroughs For Capital Ambition A street cleaning blueprint? Emerging findings Introduction Next steps Overview of Street Cleaning in London High-level comparison Value for Money overview Environmental factors influencing street cleaning performance Ease to serve and VfM performance Borough profiles Best practice summaries Supporting data Appendix

11 CONFIDENTIAL 11 Street cleaning in London High-level comparison Source: London Councils website The authorities involved in the review include 6 Outer London Boroughs and 4 Inner London Boroughs Brent Wandsworth Waltham Forest Croydon Bromley Tower Hamlets Redbridge Harrow Lambeth Southwark

12 CONFIDENTIAL 12 Inner/ Outer London Outer InnerOuterInner OuterInner In-house? No YesNoYes NoYesNo Overall spend 07/08 £8.4m£3.8m£3.9m£8.2m£3.6m£7.2m£6.03m£4.7m£5.02m 07/08 spend per km of road £17.8k£4.6k£9.8k£21.2k£7.4k£19.4k£12.2k£10.4k£12.2k Street cleaning in London A wide range of boroughs were involved in the review. This pack contains analysis of seven boroughs from the current phase, and also includes the three original boroughs High-level comparison Source: RSe analysis of 2007/08 RA return and questionnaire response Brent Croydon Lambeth Redbridge Southwark Tower Hamlets Wandsworth Bromley Harrow Waltham Forest Please note: London Borough of Croydon was unable to provide all necessary data within the project timescales. This authority has been included in the analysis where possible, but there are some areas where data is missing for this council.

13 CONFIDENTIAL 13 Street cleaning in London The remit of Street Cleaning varies between Boroughs. Some are limited to street cleaning and fly tipping removal whereas others cover graffiti removal and enforcement. High-level comparison Source: RSe analysis of questionnaire responses Graffiti removalNoYesNoYes No Fly posting removal NoYesNoYes No Cleaning of binsNoYesNoYes Cleaning of other street furniture No YesNo YesNo Highways Greensward - grass cutting No YesNo YesNo EnforcementNo Yes NoYes No Overall spend£8.4m£3.8m£3.9m£8.2m£3.6m£7.2m£6.0m£4.7m£5.0m Spend per km of road £17.8k£4.6k£9.8k£21.2k£7.4k£19.4k£12.2k£10.4k£12.2k Brent Croydon Lambeth Redbridge Southwark Tower Hamlets Wandsworth Bromley Harrow Waltham Forest The limited scope of the project has prevented us from isolating only the core street cleaning elements of activity and expenditure, however we believe the data enables a sufficiently like for like comparison to be made.

14 CONFIDENTIAL 14 Street cleaning in London Value for Money There is a great deal of variance within London Street Cleaning outcomes and expenditure. Sample London Borough spend on Street Cleaning & Litter Responsibilities varies from £2.7m to £17.5m. Performance is equally variable, ranging from 2% to 40% of streets with unacceptable levels of litter and detritus. Source: RSe analysis of 2007/08 RA return and 2006/07 BV 199a.

15 CONFIDENTIAL 15 Street cleaning in London However, Value for Money analysis does not tell the whole story about cost and performance of Street Cleaning services Value for Money We have therefore developed a way of considering how easy to serve a Borough is, and how well Councils are performing (both in cost and performance terms) within this context. Value for Money quadrant - BV199a performance -Overall service spend Contributing indicators: Strengths: -Provides a high level comparison of spend and performance - Allows for straightforward comparison across London Limitations: -Does not reflect the different environments in which Councils work -Provides a limited assessment of service performance Ease to Serve Index

16 CONFIDENTIAL 16 Street cleaning in London There are several factors which are thought to shape the environment in which a street cleaning service operates Environmental factors Environmental factorImpact on street cleaningUsed in index? Deprivation of the population Weak correlation between deprivation and street cleaning performance: more deprived areas are only slightly less likely to have clean streets Density of the population Correlation between density and street cleaning performance: Boroughs with a higher population density appear to have cleaner streets, but spend more per km of road to achieve this. Condition of the local roads Almost no correlation between street condition and street cleaning performance: Boroughs with roads in poor condition appear no less likely to have clean streets, but it is likely that their operations are designed to overcome this issue Residents from other countries Strong correlation between proportion of residents born outside the UK and street cleaning performance: Boroughs with a larger proportion of residents from other countries are more likely to have lower street cleaning performance, possibly due to different expectations about the roles of the Council and the citizen in maintaining street cleanliness

17 CONFIDENTIAL 17 Street cleaning in London We have calculated how easy to serve an area is and how well the Street Cleaning service is performing Ease to serve Value for Money quadrant - BV199a performance -Overall service spend Contributing indicators: Strengths: -Provides a high level comparison of spend and performance - Allows for straightforward comparison across London Limitations: -Does not reflect the different environments in which Councils work -Provides a limited assessment of service performance Ease to serve index - BV199a performance -BV89 (Customer satisfaction) -Spend per km of road -Spend per tonne of arising Contributing indicators – VfM performance: Ease to serve: - Level of population density - % of population born outside the UK Strengths: -Provides context for each service -Enables clear comparison between authorities in peer groups -Highlights best practice services within each ease to serve category Limitations: -Cannot provide an exhaustive insight into performance and environment -The environmental factors have been selected because of their relationship to performance

18 CONFIDENTIAL 18 Street cleaning in London Coupling this Ease to Serve index with VfM performance indicates that generally, the easier to serve an area is, the higher the VfM performance of the service will be. Some Boroughs are performing better than might be expected given their areas, whereas others are not performing as well as might be expected. Ease to serve Source: RSe analysis of 2007/08 RA return and questionnaire response Harder to serve High VfM performance Easier to serve Low VfM performance VfM Performance Ease to serve

19 CONFIDENTIAL 19 Street cleaning in London This is a starting point for the Ease to Serve Index - in order to ensure it is as useful as possible, additional contributory indicators should be considered by London authorities Ease to serve Ease to serve index - BV199a performance -BV89 (Customer satisfaction) -Spend per km of road -Spend per tonne of arising Contributing indicators – VfM performance: Ease to serve: - Level of population density - % of population born outside the UK Strengths: -Provides context for each service -Enables clear comparison between authorities in peer groups -Highlights best practice services within each ease to serve category Limitations: -Cannot provide an exhaustive insight into performance and environment -The environmental factors have been selected because of their relationship to performance The Ease to Serve indicators were included due to their correlation with street cleaning performance (found in the previous phase of the project). The following slides detail some of the other factors that could be considered when trying to improve the robustness of the index.

20 CONFIDENTIAL 20 Street cleaning in London Value for Money performance does not currently take into account the level of service each authority provides Ease to serve 1.Assess appetite for the indicators inclusion 2.Identify the best way to reflect the issue 3.Collect more detailed cost breakdowns and frequency of service information 4.Include indicator in Index Isolating cost data as required is likely to prove challenging, particularly for outsourced services. Agreeing consistent definitions for frequency of service is crucial should this be factored into the index. Authorities that have a thriving night-time economy are required to provide a night-time street cleaning service. This impacts on service expenditure but is not assessed as part of BV199a. As such, those authorities will be shown to be expensive but gain no VfM advantage for their extra service provision. Isolating core, day-time spend from a services total budget would reflect relative expenditure more accurately. Factoring required frequency of service into the environmental factors would also go some way to addressing the issue. Why? Difficulties? How? Next Steps: Proposed inclusion: An indicator that reflects the frequency of the service provided

21 CONFIDENTIAL 21 Street cleaning in London Environmental categorisation does not currently take into account the size of an authoritys day-time population Ease to serve 1.Correlate daytime population figures against street cleaning performance 2.If there is a strong relationship then authorities should be ranked against this indicator and include it as part of the Ease to Serve index This indicator should not replace population density. However, there is a danger that the index would be double-counting population levels if both were included as the authorities with high levels of population density are also likely to have a large day-time population. An authoritys street cleaning workload is likely to be affected by the size of its day- time population. Some London authorities see a large day-time exodus out of the area, whilst others cater for large numbers of workers. The latter are likely to feel an impact on the cleanliness of their streets. Daytime population figures can be taken from the Neighbourhood Statistics section of the ONS website. This could then be correlated against street cleaning performance in order to test its impact. Why? Difficulties? How? Next Steps: Proposed inclusion: An indicator that reflects the size of an authoritys day-time population

22 CONFIDENTIAL 22 Street cleaning in London Environmental categorisation does not currently take into account the number of major transport hubs located in each authority Ease to serve 1.Agree definition of major hub 2.Correlate number of major hubs against street cleaning performance 3.Agree inclusion of indicator then authorities should be ranked against it and it be included as part of the Ease to Serve index Entry & exit information is not available for bus stations. Definitional problems are likely to arise as to what constitutes a major hub e.g. are all tube stations included or just the busiest? Major transport hubs have several implications for a street cleaning service, such as more people using the local streets and potentially littering. Accordingly, those authorities with a high number of major hubs face difficulties those without do not. Locations of train/tube/bus stations are readily available from a number of sources. Tube station entry & exit information is available from the TfL website & rail information from the ORR website. Why? Difficulties? How? Next Steps: Proposed inclusion: An indicator that reflects the number of major transport hubs within an authoritys area

23 CONFIDENTIAL 23 Street cleaning in London Environmental categorisation does not currently take into account the variation in road usage of each authority road network Ease to serve 1.Agree definition of road types 2.Collate data from participating authorities 3.Correlate road type breakdown against street cleaning performance, rank authorities accordingly and include in Ease to Serve index Department for Transport road type definitions does not provide enough detail to assess this indicator. The usage of different roads affects the street cleaning requirement of those roads. Roads that have a primarily commercial use are likely to require greater frequency of cleaning and thus are at an environmental disadvantage. Collecting a breakdown of road type/usage is best done through individual authorities, having agreed consistent definitions. Why? Difficulties? How? Next Steps: Proposed inclusion: An indicator that reflects the variation in road usage within an authoritys area

24 CONFIDENTIAL 24 Street cleaning in London The Ease to Serve index currently ranks authorities against each indicator, aggregates that rank and that score dictates an authoritys environmental ease to serve Ease to serve 1.Agree the indicators to be included in the index 2.Correlate each indicator against street cleaning performance to provide the weighting 3.Rank authorities against each indicator and rank their aggregate, weighted score in order to finalise their position in the index By weighting the indicators against their correlation to street cleaning performance, there is a danger that the index is self-referential. The environmental factors have a varying impact on street cleaning performance: some are particularly important and some less so. The Ease to Serve index should therefore weight authorities rank against these indicators according to the degree of impact the factor has. Each factor could be correlated against street cleaning performance in order to assess the impact of the factor. Authorities could then be ranked against the indicator and have that rank weighted by the correlation strength of the factor. Why? Difficulties? How? Next Steps: Proposed inclusion: To weight indicators due to the strength of correlation with street cleaning performance

25 CONFIDENTIAL 25 Street cleaning in London Data footnote Although the performance data used relates to 2006/07, we are comfortable that it is still useful for this comparative exercise. Source: RSe VfM analysis of 2005/06 and 2006/07 data We have carried out this analysis using BV199a performance data from 2006/07, as 2007/08 data was not available at the time of this review. Many boroughs are likely to have improved their street cleaning performance between 2006/07 and 2008 The diagram on the right shows that the majority of London Boroughs have improved their BV199a performance from 05/06 to 06/07. We would expect this trend to continue for 2007/08 and as such the relative VfM positions of the sample authorities are unlikely to be substantially different in 2008.

26 CONFIDENTIAL 26 Contents How to use this pack Context Objectives Methodology Street cleaning diagnostics Street cleaning blueprints Potential savings For participating Boroughs For Capital Ambition A street cleaning blueprint? Emerging findings Introduction Next steps Overview of Street Cleaning in London High-level comparison Value for Money overview Environmental factors influencing street cleaning performance Ease to serve and VfM performance Borough profiles Best practice summaries Supporting data Appendix

27 CONFIDENTIAL 27 Emerging findings Blueprint process We have developed diagnostics and blueprints to help build up a picture of a good Value for Money street cleaning service Collect data Carry out analysis Develop diagnostics Develop blueprints What does a good Value for Money street cleaning service look like?

28 CONFIDENTIAL 28 Emerging findings Diagnostics We have developed diagnostics to provide an overview of the common characteristics of street cleaning services operating in different environments in London The diagnostics slides show common characteristics for Expenditure, People, Plant and Activities across each ease to serve-performance category. These slides can be found in the detailed report. You can use these diagnostics to see how London Boroughs are operating at present

29 CONFIDENTIAL 29 Emerging findings The objectives of the two pieces of work were focused on producing outputs that would enable authorities to benchmark and improve their own performance Street cleaning blueprints A suggestion for what a Value for Money street cleaning service would look like. A resource against which authorities can benchmark their own operations and performance. A first iteration, based on the diagnostics and available data. What the Blueprints are: A definitive direction as to how you must run and structure your street cleaning service. Static. It is likely that time will alter Value for Money best practice and the blueprints will evolve as more data becomes available. What the Blueprints are not:

30 CONFIDENTIAL 30 Emerging findings Street cleaning blueprints A Value for Money service is likely to have the following expenditure characteristics, depending on the environment in which it operates. Source: RSe analysis of 2007/08 RA return and questionnaire response The service should have a low spend per km of road – targeting c.£5k per km is realistic – whilst only 50% of that budget needs be spent on staff Investing heavily in plant should provide quality vehicles and effective vehicle resilience Easy to serve The street cleansing service should not under-spend but can expect to spend slightly below the average – c.£12k per km of road should suffice The service should spend c.65% of its budget on staff & 25% on plant Authorities will be required to spend a high amount per km of road – c.£20k – in order to properly fund the service A greater proportion of the spend will be required for people than in services in other environments – c.70%, with c.10% required for plant Median to serveHard to serve Expenditure

31 CONFIDENTIAL 31 Emerging findings Street cleaning blueprints A Value for Money service is likely to have the following fleet characteristics, depending on the environment in which it operates. Source: RSe analysis of 2007/08 RA return and questionnaire response Over half of the services fleet should consist of mechanised sweepers, with far less reliance on barrows and tippers than services in other environments Accordingly, the spend per vehicle is likely to be above £25k The number of vehicles per 100km of road required is likely to be below 10 No more than 2 FTEs per vehicle will be required in the service Easy to serve A street cleaning service should use c.15 vehicles per 100km of road, reflecting a relatively high reliance upon mechanical sweepers – at least 30% of the fleet should be made up of mechanical sweepers The use of non-mechanical sweepers need not be high – no more than 25 barrows should be required Authorities should not spend on average more than c.£20k per vehicle The service should not employ more than 3 staff per vehicle The service will require a high number of vehicles per km of road – over 20 per 100km The fleet should contain c.2 mechanical sweepers per 100km of road No more than 50% of the fleet should be made up of barrows, whilst the staff to vehicle ratio should result in c.6 staff per vehicle On average, services should spend no more than £20k per vehicle Median to serveHard to serve Plant

32 CONFIDENTIAL 32 Emerging findings Street cleaning blueprints A Value for Money service is likely to have the following staff characteristics, depending on the environment in which it operates. Source: RSe analysis of 2007/08 RA return and questionnaire response Spans of control will be low (below 12) as will the total number of staff required – 1 FTE per 10 km of road The numbers of managers required will also be low – 0.1 per 10km of road Due to the heavier reliance on mechanisation, it will be fair to expect that the average tonnage of arisings per frontline FTE will be high Easy to serve Spans of control should be set at around FTEs per manager The service should employ c.3 FTEs per 10km of road and c.0.21 managers per 10km of road With a relatively leanly staffed service, the average tonnage of arisings generated per FTE should be high – over 75 tonnes per FTE Spans of control should be relatively high – there should be between 25 & 30 FTEs per manager Numbers of staff per km of road should also be high – c.6 FTEs per 10km – as should numbers of managers managers per 10km Having productive front-line staff is key: services should look for their staff on average to generate over 75 tonnes of arisings per FTE Median to serveHard to serve People

33 CONFIDENTIAL 33 Emerging findings Street cleaning blueprints A Value for Money service is likely to engage in the following activities, depending on the environment in which it operates. Source: RSe analysis of 2007/08 RA return and questionnaire response The tonnage of arisings a service collects per km of road will be below the London average The authority will not be required to provide a high number of litter bins per km of road – between 2 and 2.5 is likely to suffice – and should not expect to need to employ a high number of enforcement officers nor issue many FPNs Easy to serve Collecting a high tonnage of arisings per km of road is important – services should look to outstrip the average and collect at least 25 tonnes per km of road Ensuring a high number of litter bins per km of road are in place is key – surpassing the average of 2.9 per km should be a minimum Enforcement does not seem to be as key for these authorities as it is for those in hard to serve areas – if it is adopted as a priority then it is important to employ a high number of officers issuing high numbers of FPNs Collecting a high tonnage of arisings is important for services within this environment – above average (24 tonnes per km of road) should be a minimum Effective enforcement policies are key. Services should employ a significant number of enforcement officers and aim to issue over 1,000 FPNs Alongside enforcement, services should ensure sufficient numbers of litter bins are provided – over 3.5 per km of road Median to serveHard to serve Activities

34 CONFIDENTIAL 34 Emerging findings Best practice During the course of the project we have discussed a number a best practice innovations that authorities currently undertake. This slide provides a snapshot of those whilst all the ideas can be found in the appendix. Source: RSe interviews Southwark currently issue the second highest number of Fixed Penalty Notices of any authority in the country. They tied this focus on enforcement with the installation of additional litter bins and adopted a no grey areas approach to FPNs. The residents now know that if they drop litter it will cost them and professional fly tippers have been removed very quickly. Lambeth monitors its staff productivity by requiring its staff to clean 550m 2 per hour. This is a reduction from the previous target distance (800m 2 ) and has led to a dramatic increase in street cleanliness. Wandsworth has devised flexible contract terms in order to incentivise their contractors to improve performance. For example, the client team monitor complaints data and target the contractor to reduce these. If the contractor successfully reduces the number of complaints the service receives then Wandsworth rewards them financially. Brent has increased its use of vehicles and has seen a measurable improvement in performance, particularly in industrial areas where detritus was previously a significant problem ExpenditurePeople Plant Activities

35 CONFIDENTIAL 35 Emerging findings Many authorities consider outsourcing street cleaning to improve value for money. We have found no evidence to suggest that outsourcing will deliver a better VfM service Street cleaning blueprints Do in-house or outsourced services provide better value for money street cleaning services? RSes VfM by environment ranking shows outsourced services to be both high (Bromley, Wandsworth), median (Croydon, Lambeth, Brent) and low performing (Tower Hamlets) and a similar pattern emerging for in-house services, with Southwark being high performing, Redbridge and Waltham Forest being median performing and Harrow low performing In-house services collect far more tonnes of arisings per km of road (29) than outsourced services (19) whilst at the same time spending less per km of road (£11.7k) than outsourced services (13.7k) Both in-house and outsourced services are likely to have c.0.34 FTEs per km of road, however, outsourced services have smaller spans of control (16 FTEs to managers) than in-house services (23) and lower spend per FTE (£25k per FTE in in-house services vs £24k in outsourced services – a saving of c.£150k per authority) Tonnage of arisings per FTE does not vary much between the two types of service (c.63 tonnes per FTE) but tonnage of arisings per vehicle does (324 tonnes per vehicle in in-house services vs 210 in outsourced services) Spend per vehicle shows no variation at all between the two types of service

36 CONFIDENTIAL 36 Emerging findings The findings from this review can be used to help assess the potential scope for efficiency savings in Street Cleaning services Potential savings Realising efficiency savings is a key priority for the majority of local authorities - Boroughs can help identify areas for cost reduction by comparing their services against the blueprints in this pack We can also identify – at a high level – the Boroughs where there might be scope for reducing costs by comparing expenditure against average expenditure The following slide shows the potential value of savings that could be achieved if Boroughs spending above average for their Ease to Serve category were to reduce their costs to the average level for that category Authorities should note that this expenditure will not guarantee the highest level of performance but represents an acceptable level of funding with which to operate.

37 CONFIDENTIAL 37 Emerging findings Analysis indicates that if Boroughs spending above average for their Ease to Serve category reduced spend to the average level, approximately £2.8m could be saved Potential savings Current cost: How much is currently spent by the 10 London Boroughs reviewed on Street Cleaning in total? Average cost: What is the average expenditure for each Ease to Serve category? Potential saving: How many authorities currently spend more than the average for their Ease to Serve category? Value of saving: How much could be saved across the 10 authorities if expenditure was brought down to the average level? Approximately £51m p.a. Easy to serve: £3.8m Median to serve: £4.3m Hard to serve: £7.5m 4 authorities: Brent Lambeth Waltham Forest Wandsworth Approximately £2.8m could be saved (equating to ~10% of each of these authorities Street Cleaning budget)

38 CONFIDENTIAL 38 Emerging findings The table below shows the potential savings that could be achieved if each authority reduced their expenditure in line with the average expenditure for their environment. Potential savings Ease to serveAuthorityCurrent spend per km Average spend per km of road across the category Potential saving per km of road Easy to serve Bromley£4,578 N/A CroydonUnknown Median to serve Harrow£9,750 £9,843 -£93 Waltham Forest£10,444£602 Redbridge£7,370-£2,472 Wandsworth£12,162£2,319 Hard to serve Southwark£19,423 £17,629 £1,794 Lambeth£21,247£4,361 Brent£17,798£169 Tower Hamlets£12,745-£4,884

39 CONFIDENTIAL 39 Contents How to use this pack Context Objectives Methodology Street cleaning diagnostics Street cleaning blueprints Potential savings For participating Boroughs For Capital Ambition A street cleaning blueprint? Emerging findings Introduction Next steps Overview of Street Cleaning in London High-level comparison Value for Money overview Environmental factors influencing street cleaning performance Ease to serve and VfM performance Borough profiles Best practice summaries Supporting data Appendix

40 CONFIDENTIAL 40 Next steps Identify whether your authority operates in a hard, median or easy to serve environment Compare your expenditure, staff, plant and activities to the Blueprint for that environment Identify the changes you could make to your service to improve your VfM performance using the blueprint Local authorities We recommend that local authorities take the following steps to make use of the findings from our report Practical best-practice innovations are detailed in the report - these might stimulate service improvement ideas

41 CONFIDENTIAL 41 Next steps Disseminate this pack to Heads of Street Cleaning Services across London Encourage its use as a benchmarking tool Consider collecting cost and activity data from all Boroughs to carry out a pan-London benchmarking exercise Follow up with authorities in 6 months to find out how they have used the findings Capital Ambition and LEDNET We recommend that Capital Ambition and LEDNET take the following steps to make use of the findings from this report

42 CONFIDENTIAL 42 Contact details Ben Rowland Olivia Crill Andrew Middleton

43 CONFIDENTIAL 43 Contents How to use this pack Context Objectives Methodology Street cleaning diagnostics Street cleaning blueprints Potential savings For participating Boroughs For Capital Ambition A street cleaning blueprint? Emerging findings Introduction Next steps Overview of Street Cleaning in London High-level comparison Value for Money overview Environmental factors influencing street cleaning performance Ease to serve and VfM performance Borough profiles Best practice summaries Supporting data Appendix

44 CONFIDENTIAL 44 Appendix Borough profiles

45 CONFIDENTIAL 45 Appendix Brent Population271,400 Area43km 2 Population density6,278 persons /km 2 Km of road472km Annual tonnage of arisings10,884 BV 199a score32.0 BV 199b score20 BV 199c score3 BV 199d score3 BV89 score65 The boroughs involved each operate within a distinctive local environment Borough profile: Brent Source: Questionnaire response, ONS Census data, 2007/08 BV scores

46 CONFIDENTIAL 46 Appendix The boroughs involved each operate within a distinctive local environment Bromley Population 299,100 Area 150km 2 Population density 1,994 persons /km 2 Km of road 830km Annual tonnage of arisings 10,500 BV 199a score12.5 BV 199b score4 BV 199c score1 BV 199d score3 BV89 score67 Source: Questionnaire response, ONS Census data, 2007/08 BV scores Borough profile: Bromley

47 CONFIDENTIAL 47 Appendix Croydon Population 337,000 Area 87km 2 Population density 3,895 persons /km 2 Km of road km Annual tonnage of arisings BV 199a score14.4 BV 199b score2 BV 199c score0 BV 199d score2 BV89 score61 The boroughs involved each operate within a distinctive local environment Source: Questionnaire response, ONS Census data, 2007/08 BV scores Borough profile: Croydon

48 CONFIDENTIAL 48 Appendix The boroughs involved each operate within a distinctive local environment Harrow Population 214,600 Area 50km 2 Population density 4292 persons /km 2 Km of road 400km Annual tonnage of arisings 4,000 BV 199a score34 BV 199b score8 BV 199c score1 BV 199d score3 BV89 score56 Source: Questionnaire response, ONS Census data, 2007/08 BV scores Borough profile: Harrow

49 CONFIDENTIAL 49 Appendix Lambeth Population 272,000 Area 27km 2 Population density 10,142 persons /km 2 Km of road 385km Annual tonnage of arisings Unknown BV 199a score25.0 BV 199b score6 BV 199c score1 BV 199d score3 BV89 score67 The boroughs involved each operate within a distinctive local environment Source: Questionnaire response, ONS Census data, 2007/08 BV scores Borough profile: Lambeth

50 CONFIDENTIAL 50 Appendix The boroughs involved each operate within a distinctive local environment Redbridge Population 251,900 Area 56km 2 Population density 4,466 persons /km 2 Km of road 482km Annual tonnage of arisings 6,262 BV 199a score14.8 BV 199b score19 BV 199c score2 BV 199d score4 BV89 score59 Source: Questionnaire response, ONS Census data, 2007/08 BV scores Borough profile: Redbridge

51 CONFIDENTIAL 51 Appendix Southwark Population 269,200 Area 29km 2 Population density 9,331 persons /km 2 Km of road 370km Annual tonnage of arisings 27,611 BV 199a score19.2 BV 199b score3 BV 199c score2 BV 199d score1 BV89 score70 The boroughs involved each operate within a distinctive local environment Source: Questionnaire response, ONS Census data, 2007/08 BV scores Borough profile: Southwark

52 CONFIDENTIAL 52 Appendix The boroughs involved each operate within a distinctive local environment Tower Hamlets Population 212,800 Area 20km 2 Population density 10,764 persons /km 2 Km of road 496km Annual tonnage of arisings 3,817 BV 199a score22.4 BV 199b score13 BV 199c score6 BV 199d score4 BV89 score60 Source: Questionnaire response, ONS Census data, 2007/08 BV scores Borough profile: Tower Hamlets

53 CONFIDENTIAL 53 Appendix Waltham Forest Population 221,700 Area 39km 2 Population density 5,685 persons /km 2 Km of road 450km Annual tonnage of arisings 6,000 BV 199a score33 BV 199b score16 BV 199c score3 BV 199d score3 BV89 score61 The boroughs involved each operate within a distinctive local environment Source: Questionnaire response, ONS Census data, 2007/08 BV scores Borough profile: Waltham Forest

54 CONFIDENTIAL 54 Appendix The boroughs involved each operate within a distinctive local environment Wandsworth Population 279,000 Area 34km 2 Population density 8,144 persons /km 2 Km of road 413km Annual tonnage of arisings 8,195 BV 199a score22.0 BV 199b score1 BV 199c score6 BV 199d score1 BV89 score74 Source: Questionnaire response, ONS Census data, 2007/08 BV scores Borough profile: Wandsworth

55 CONFIDENTIAL 55 Appendix Diagnostics

56 CONFIDENTIAL 56 Emerging findings Diagnostics A hard to serve and low performing Borough (e.g. Tower Hamlets) is likely to have the following characteristics. Tower Hamlets appears to be spending a lot on managers and vehicles but is not getting as much value (productivity) from them as higher performing authorities. Source: RSe analysis of 2007/08 RA return and questionnaire response Tonnage of arisings per km of road is lower in Tower Hamlets than any other authority – 9 tonnes vs an average of 24 Number of litter bins per km of road is low (average is 2.9 vs 1.5 in Tower Hamlets) Number of recycling boxes/bags per km of road is lower than average (average is 195 per km vs 143 in Tower Hamlets) Spans of control are likely to be low (Tower Hamlets has 14 staff per manager vs an average of 20) Numbers of staff per km of road are in the middle range (0.4 staff per km of road – equals average) Have most managers per km of road (Tower Hamlets has vs an average of 0.018) Frontline productivity is comparatively low – Tower Hamlets collects 26 tonnes per FTE No expenditure breakdown data was available for this authority Tower Hamlets has an outsourced service Spend per km of road is average Tower Hamlets generates the fewest tonnes of arisings per vehicle of any of the authorities (117 tonnes) Tower Hamlets has a higher than average proportion of barrows (barrows account for 65% of Tower Hamlets fleet – the average is 60%) They have approximately average numbers of staff per mechanised vehicle (average is 4.3 staff per vehicle) The number of vehicles per km of road is high (0.23 for Tower Hamlets vs an average of 0.14) No cost per vehicle data was available for this authority Expenditure People Plant Activities

57 CONFIDENTIAL 57 Emerging findings Diagnostics A hard to serve and median performing Borough (e.g. Brent, Lambeth and Southwark) is likely to have the following characteristics. Southwark and Lambeth spend more on frontline staff and vehicles than on management, and is reflected in their productivity. Source: RSe analysis of 2007/08 RA return and questionnaire response Tonnage of arisings are likely to be higher in this group – Southwark generate the most and Brent the third most The number of litter bins per km of road varies – Southwark has above average numbers whilst Brent and Lambeth have below average numbers of bins The number of FPNs issued varies greatly – Southwark issue 1,796; Lambeth issue 226 and Brent issue none despite Southwark and Brent employing similar numbers of enforcement staff Southwark & Lambeth have two of the highest spans of control, whilst Brents is below average Staff numbers per km of road are likely to be on (Brent 0.4) or above (Lambeth 0.6; Southwark 0.7) average Have above average numbers of managers per km of road – Brent has 0.03; Lambeth and Southwark vs an average of Have vastly varied frontline FTE productivity – Brent staff generate 60 tonnes of arisings per FTE compared to 119 in Southwark Brent and Lambeth are outsourced services whilst Southwark is in-house – all spend c.£8m p.a. Authorities in this peer group spend more per km of road than any other group (c.£19k per km) ~70% of budget spent on staff and ~10% on plant Authorities are likely to have 35 – 50 mechanical vehicles at a cost of c.£21k per vehicle The split between mechanical vehicles and barrows varies – 53% of Southwarks fleet are barrows compared to 71% of Brents and 74% of Lambeths fleet These Boroughs have higher numbers of staff per vehicle (Lambeth has 7 staff per vehicle, Southwark 6 & Brent 4 vs an average of 4) Above average number of vehicles per km of road – Brent, Lambeth (both 0.36) & Southwark (0.23) all have above average (0.15) number of vehicles ExpenditurePeople Plant Activities

58 CONFIDENTIAL 58 Emerging findings Diagnostics A median to serve and low performing Borough (e.g. Harrow) is likely to have the following characteristics. Harrow appears to be investing less in its service than other authorities – its staff numbers also appear lower than expected yet are not counterbalanced with mechanised vehicles. Source: RSe analysis of 2007/08 RA return and questionnaire response Harrows tonnage of arisings per km of road (10) is low compared to the wider average (24) Harrow has a fairly average number of litter bins per km of road – 2.5 compared to 2.9 across the authorities Harrow has considerably more missed recycling & refuse collections per month than any other authority Harrows spans of control is only slightly below the average across the authorities – 18 staff per manager in Harrow vs an average of 20 Staff numbers per km of road in Harrow (0.2) are below the average (0.4) and comparable to those in Redbridge and Bromley The numbers of managers per km of road in Harrow (0.013) are below average (0.018) Harrows frontline FTEs collect the second lowest tonnes of arisings per FTE (45) of any of the authorities studied Harrow is an in-house service spending a very low amount in overall terms (£3.9m) and per km of road (£10k) 65% of Harrows budget is spent on staff and 25% on plant Harrow has the lowest number of vehicles (22), but each vehicle proves very expensive c.£40k Harrow has the same number of staff per vehicle as the average across the authorities studied – 4 staff per vehicle Harrow has very low numbers of vehicles per km of road – 0.06 vs an average of % of Harrows vehicle fleet is made up of Tipper/Collection vehicles, more than any other authority ExpenditurePeople Plant Activities

59 CONFIDENTIAL 59 Emerging findings Diagnostics A median to serve and median performing Borough (e.g. Redbridge and Waltham Forest) is likely to have the following characteristics. They use a relatively low proportion of mechanised vehicles and staff numbers per km of road are also comparatively low. Source: RSe analysis of 2007/08 RA return and questionnaire response The authorities are likely to generate below average tonnage of arisings per km of road (Redbridge generate 10 tonnes and Waltham Forest 20 vs an average of 24) Both authorities have fewer litter bins per km of road (Redbridge has 2.6; Waltham Forest 1.6) than the average across the wider study (2.9) The authorities issued varying numbers of FPNs – Waltham Forest issued 12 whilst Redbridge issued 381 Spans of control vary across this group, with Redbridge having 14 staff per manager and Waltham Forest having 32 – higher than any other authority Waltham Forest have an average number of staff per km of road (0.4) whereas Redbridge have below average (0.2) – both authorities have fewer managers per km of road than the average The frontline staff in these types of authorities are likely to generate c.55 tonnes of arisings per FTE Both authorities run street cleaning in-house and have below average overall spend and spend per km of road Likely to spend c.80% of their budget on staff costs and 15% on plant There is a wide variation in numbers of vehicles used (30 in Waltham Forest & 81 in Redbridge) and the number of vehicles per km of road (0.07 in Waltham Forest & 0.17 in Redbridge) Waltham Forest has more staff per vehicle (6) than average (4) whilst Redbridge has less (3) Redbridge has a low spend per vehicle (c.£14k) whereas Waltham Forests (c.£23k) is slightly below the average (c.£24k) Around 20% of these authorities fleets are likely to be made up of mechanical sweepers Expenditure People Plant Activities

60 CONFIDENTIAL 60 Emerging findings Diagnostics A median to serve and high performing Borough (e.g. Wandsworth) is likely to have the following characteristics. Wandsworth makes more use of mechanical sweepers than other median to serve Boroughs. They also invest heavily in strong management. Source: RSe analysis of 2007/08 RA return and questionnaire response Wandsworth collects the second highest tonnage of arisings per km of road – 32 tonnnes per km compared to 75 in Southwark and an average of 24 Similarly, they have the second highest number of litter bins per km of road – 3.4 bins per km compared to 7.6 in Southwark and an average of2.9 Wandsworth employs relatively few enforcement officers (8) who issue a low number of FPNs (123) Wandsworth has the lowest spans of control – the service has just over seven staff per manager The number of staff Wandsworth employ per km of road (0.3) is slightly below the average (0.4), whereas the number of managers per km of road (0.036) is the highest of any of the Boroughs Wandsworths tonnage of arisings per frontline FTE are very high (132), second only to Bromleys (148) and closely comparable to Southwarks (119) Wandsworth contracts its street cleansing service to Connaught, spending (c.£5m) slightly less than the average across the authorities (c.£5.7m) 65% of Wandsworths budget is spent on staff and 25% on plant Wandsworth is broadly in line with the total number of vehicles used on average (c.70) and the number of vehicles per km of road (c.0.15) Despite this, other than Bromley, Wandsworth has the fewest number of staff per vehicle of any of the authorities (2 staff per vehicle) On average, Wandsworths vehicles cost them less (c.£18k) than the wider average (c.£24k) Mechanical sweepers make up more of Wandsworths fleet than is common across the other authorities & they use fewer non- mechanical sweepers than any other authority ExpenditurePeople Plant Activities

61 CONFIDENTIAL 61 Emerging findings Diagnostics An easy to serve and high performing Borough (e.g. Bromley) is likely to have the following characteristics. Bromleys high use of mechanical sweepers is suited to its local area. It also invests heavily in strong management. Source: RSe analysis of 2007/08 RA return and questionnaire response The tonnage of arisings Bromley collects per km of road is low – 13 tonnes per km vs an average of 24 The number of litter bins per km of road in Bromley (2.3) is slightly below the average (2.9) Bromley employ fewer enforcement officers (3) than any other authority and issue a low number of FPNs (45) Bromleys spans of control (9 staff per manager) are lower than any other authoritys and more than half the amount of the average (20) The number of staff Bromley employ per km of road (0.1) & the number of managers they employ per km of road (0.01) are fewer than any other authority The average tonnage of arising per frontline FTE is accordingly higher (148) than any of the other authorities and considerably above the average (78) Bromley runs an in-house street cleansing service which costs less than any of the services studied, particularly by spend per km of road (c.£5k) 50% of Bromleys spend is on staff, whilst 30% is on plant Bromley has a below average number of vehicles (43 vs 72) & the lowest number of vehicles per km of road – 0.05 Bromley has the fewest number of staff per vehicle – 1.9 vs an average of 4.3 Bromley seem to use the most expensive vehicles – its average spend per vehicle is c.£28k vs an average of £24k Bromleys fleet is made up of a higher proportion of mechanical sweepers than any of the other Boroughs Expenditure People Plant Activities

62 CONFIDENTIAL 62 Appendix Blueprints

63 CONFIDENTIAL 63 Emerging findings Street cleaning blueprints A Value for Money service in an easy to serve area is likely to have the following characteristics. It is likely to spend a smaller proportion of its budget on staff, and will use more mechanised vehicles. Source: RSe analysis of 2007/08 RA return and questionnaire response The tonnage of arisings a service collects per km of road will naturally be below the London average The authority will not be required to provide a high number of litter bins per km of road – between 2 and 2.5 is likely to suffice – and should not expect to need to employ a high number of enforcement officers nor issue many FPNs Spans of control will be low (below 12) as will the total number of staff required – 0.1 FTE per km of road The numbers of managers required will also be low – 0.01 per km of road Due to the heavier reliance on mechanisation, it will be fair to expect that the average tonnage of arisings per frontline FTE will be high The service should have a low spend per km of road – targeting c.£5k per km is realistic – whilst only 50% of that budget needs be spent on staff Investing heavily in plant should provide quality vehicles and effective vehicle resilience Over half of the services fleet should consist of mechanised sweepers, with far less reliance on barrows and tippers than services in other environments Accordingly, the spend per vehicle is likely to be above £25k The number of vehicles per km of road required is likely to be below 0.1 No more than 2 FTEs per vehicle will be required in the service Expenditure People Plant Activities

64 CONFIDENTIAL 64 Emerging findings Street cleaning blueprints A Value for Money service in a median to serve area is likely to have the following characteristics. It is likely to invest more in staff but approximately a third of its fleet should still be comprised of mechanised vehicles. Source: RSe analysis of 2007/08 RA return and questionnaire response Collecting a high tonnage of arisings per km of road is important – services should look to outstrip the average and collect at least 25 tonnes per km of road Ensuring a high number of litter bins per km of road are in place is key – surpassing the average of 2.9 per km should be a minimum Enforcement does not seem to be as key for these authorities as it is for those in hard to serve areas – if it is adopted as a priority then it is important to employ a high number of officers issuing high numbers of FPNs Spans of control should be set at around FTEs per manager The service should employ c.0.3 FTEs per km of road and c managers per km of road With a relatively leanly staffed service, the average tonnage of arisings generated per FTE should be high – over 75 tonnes per FTE The street cleansing service should not under- spend but can expect to spend slightly below the average – c.£12k per km of road should suffice The service should spend c.65% of its budget on staff & 25% on plant A street cleaning service should use c.0.15 vehicles per km of road, reflecting a relatively high reliance upon mechanical sweepers – at least 30% of the fleet should be made up of mechanical sweepers The use of non-mechanical sweepers need not be high – no more than 25 barrows should be required Authorities should not spend on average more than c.£20k per vehicle The service should not employ more than 3 staff per vehicle ExpenditurePeople Plant Activities

65 CONFIDENTIAL 65 Emerging findings Street cleaning blueprints A Value for Money service in a hard to serve area is likely to have the following characteristics. It is likely to have much higher staff numbers and an effective use of enforcement resources. Source: RSe analysis of 2007/08 RA return and questionnaire response Collecting a high tonnage of arisings is important for services within this environment – above average (24 tonnes per km of road) should be a minimum Effective enforcement policies are key. Services should employ a significant number of enforcement officers and aim to issue over 1,000 FPNs Alongside enforcement, services should ensure sufficient numbers of litter bins are provided – over 3.5 per km of road Spans of control should be relatively high – there should be between 25 & 30 FTEs per manager Numbers of staff per km of road should also be high – c.0.6 FTEs per km – as should numbers of managers managers per km Having productive front-line staff is key: services should look for their staff on average to generate over 75 tonnes of arisings per FTE Authorities will be required to spend a high amount per km of road – c.£20k – in order to properly fund the service A greater proportion of the spend will be required for people than in services in other environments – c.70%, with c.10% required for plant The service will require a high number of vehicles per km of road – over 0.2 per km The fleet should contain c.0.02 mechanical sweepers per km of road No more than 50% of the fleet should be made up of barrows, whilst the staff to vehicle ratio should result in c.6 staff per vehicle On average, services should spend no more than £20k per vehicle Expenditure People Plant Activities

66 CONFIDENTIAL 66 Appendix Best practice summaries

67 CONFIDENTIAL 67 Appendix Best practice summaries Wandsworth have devised flexible contract terms in order to incentivise their contractors to improve performance. For example, the client team monitor complaints data and target the contractor to reduce these. If the contractor successfully reduces the number of complaints the service receives then Wandsworth rewards them financially. In 2003 Southwarks street cleaning service was brought in-house. The department were told how much was available to spend and the service was designed from scratch at that point. There is a great deal of flexibility in the way the budget is split, allowing for and rewarding innovation on a yearly basis. Several authorities are very specific about how the contract should be delivered. Brent requested a move away from litter picking to street sweeping; Lambeth re-balanced their contract to provide a more continuous cleaning presence; Wandsworth specifies how often each street in the Borough should be cleaned and on which days Expenditure Source: RSe interviews

68 CONFIDENTIAL 68 Appendix Best practice summaries Southwark had poor detritus performance relative to its litter score. As a result they split the litter picking and detritus sweeping duties so that each FTE had a dedicated duty and that each road was both litter picked and detritus swept. Not only did this greatly improve the Boroughs detritus score, it also freed up resource that could be re-invested in increasing the number of supervisors the service employed. Lambeth monitors its staff productivity by requiring its staff to clean 550m 2 per hour. This is a reduction from the previous target distance (800m 2 ) and has led to a dramatic increase in street cleanliness Redbridge focuses heavily on staff development. For example, it has a Golden Broom award to reward street cleaning staff for good performance People Source: RSe interviews

69 CONFIDENTIAL 69 Appendix Best practice summaries One of the key stipulations in Wandsworths contract specification is that a new fleet is formed at the start of the contract period, made up entirely of brand new vehicles. Brent has increased its use of vehicles and has seen a measurable improvement in performance, particularly in industrial areas where detritus was previously a significant problem Plant Source: RSe interviews

70 CONFIDENTIAL 70 Appendix Best practice summaries Wandsworth employs a large client team that exhaustively monitors contractor performance Southwark currently issue the second highest number of Fixed Penalty Notices of any authority in the country. They tied this focus on enforcement with the installation of additional litter bins and adopted a no grey areas approach to FPNs. The residents now know that if they drop litter it will cost them and professional fly tippers have been removed very quickly. Redbridge structures its service around its 7 area committee areas. A good relationship is built up with each area committee, so that street cleaning activity is tailored to specific needs in each area Activities Source: RSe interviews

71 CONFIDENTIAL 71 Appendix Supporting data

72 CONFIDENTIAL 72 Appendix The following section contains supporting data to support the diagnostics and blueprints in each of the following areas Supporting data

73 CONFIDENTIAL 73 A street cleaning blueprint? There is a weak correlation between a boroughs deprivation index score and the cleanliness of its streets. However the most deprived borough in London has an equivalent level of cleanliness to the least deprived. Environment Source: 2007 Index of Deprivation average score (CLG); 2006/07 BVPI return; RSe analysis

74 CONFIDENTIAL 74 A street cleaning blueprint? There is a weak correlation between population density and street cleanliness. Boroughs with a higher population density appear to have cleaner streets, but spend more per km of road to achieve this. Environment Source: 2006/07 BVPI return; ONS; RSe analysis

75 CONFIDENTIAL 75 A street cleaning blueprint? Unclassified road condition also has only a weak correlation to street cleanliness, with significant variance between boroughs above and below the trend line. If two outlying boroughs are removed, there is no correlation at all. Environment Source: 2006/07 BVPI return; RSe analysis

76 CONFIDENTIAL 76 A street cleaning blueprint? There is a strong correlation between proportion of residents not born in the UK and BV199a performance, though Waltham Forest and Redbridge have similar proportions of non UK-born residents but very different BV199a scores, indicating it is not a limiting factor Environment Source: ONS Census data, 2007/08 BV199a

77 CONFIDENTIAL 77 Appendix Supporting data

78 CONFIDENTIAL 78 A street cleaning blueprint? Spend Boroughs need to spend differing amounts per km of road depending upon how difficult to serve their environment is. Within each peer group it is not the authorities spending least per km of road that are delivering best value for money

79 CONFIDENTIAL 79 A street cleaning blueprint? Spend Although staff is always the biggest area of spend, the proportion of budget spent on staff and plant varies across the group Ease to serve High Low

80 CONFIDENTIAL 80 Appendix Supporting data

81 CONFIDENTIAL 81 A street cleaning blueprint? People As Boroughs become more difficult to serve, they are likely to need more staff and as such, wider spans of control. Currently some large variations exist amongst peer groups

82 CONFIDENTIAL 82 A street cleaning blueprint? People Boroughs that are harder to serve require greater numbers of staff per km of road than those Boroughs that are easier to serve…

83 CONFIDENTIAL 83 A street cleaning blueprint? People …and they also require also require more managers per km of road

84 CONFIDENTIAL 84 A street cleaning blueprint? People The top performing Boroughs, irrespective of the environment in which they serve, collect more tonnes of arisings per frontline FTE, indicating greater productivity.

85 CONFIDENTIAL 85 Appendix Supporting data

86 CONFIDENTIAL 86 A street cleaning blueprint? Plant As was the case with staff, Boroughs that are harder to serve require more vehicles per km of road. It seems that some of the Boroughs we reviewed have too many vehicles per km of road, whilst some have too few given their local environment

87 CONFIDENTIAL 87 A street cleaning blueprint? Plant This graph again indicates the importance of local environment when considering the make-up of your street cleaning service: the harder your area to serve, the greater reliance you will need on staff

88 CONFIDENTIAL 88 A street cleaning blueprint? Plant Whilst some variation in vehicle spend can be explained by understanding the different types of vehicles authorities use, it is clear that some authorities are spending far more on their vehicles than they need be

89 CONFIDENTIAL 89 A street cleaning blueprint? Plant The top performing Boroughs of those studied all have smaller proportions of non- mechanical sweepers than those authorities performing less well

90 CONFIDENTIAL 90 A street cleaning blueprint? Plant There appears to be almost no correlation between the proportion of mechanised vehicles used and BV199a performance. This suggests that the optimum level of mechanisation is dependent on the local environment of the Borough.

91 CONFIDENTIAL 91 Appendix Supporting data

92 CONFIDENTIAL 92 A street cleaning blueprint? Activities In each ease to serve category, the top-performing Borough is that which is collecting the greatest tonnage of arisings per km of road…

93 CONFIDENTIAL 93 A street cleaning blueprint? Activities …and similarly is the authority that provide its residents with the highest number of litter bins per km of road

94 CONFIDENTIAL 94 A street cleaning blueprint? Activities Effective enforcement is not necessarily the correct approach to waste minimisation in every Borough, however, there are wide variations in the activity of enforcement teams across the services considered


Download ppt "Capital Ambition and LEDNET Street Services Productivity Review: detailed analysis March 2009."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google