1. New Perceptions and Performance Data What the BVPIs tell us May 2007 Andrew Collinge Research Director, Local Government Research Unit

2. 2 LG Performance: CPA and Resident Satisfaction Base: BVPI 2006 (149 Single/Upper Tier authorities and 75 District Ipsos MORI client authorities)

3. 3 Year 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. 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. 5 Year surveyed QHow 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. 6 worst best Change in London: Poor Performers Bridging the Gap on cleanliness? Hackney W’minster Gap between best and worst Haringey W’minster 2003 2006 2003 2006

7. 7 worst best Change in London: Poor Performers Bridging the Gap on cleanliness? Hackney W’minster Gap between best and worst Haringey W’minster 2003 2006 2003 2006

8. 8 worst best Change in London: Poor Performers Bridging the Gap on cleanliness? Hackney W’minster Gap between best and worst Haringey W’minster 2003 2006 2003 2006

9. 9 Raising the Game on Cleanliness: the London Example Text here Percentage point change in satisfaction that land is kept clear of litter/refuse 2003/4- 2006/7

10. More on Council Performance

11. 11 Most improved Councils Tower Hamlets Walsall Bradford Coventry Newcastle Change (pp) +15 +11 +9 +8 2006-7 Satisfaction 2003-4 Satisfaction Poole Hackney Oldham Kensington and Chelsea +10 +9 Base: BVPI 2006 (149 Single and Upper Tier authorities)

12. 12 = Service Delivery Average 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 -22 Doncaster Rochdale Rotherham -24 -22 -21 Base: BVPI 2006 (74 Ipsos MORI Single and Upper Tier authorities)

13. 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. 14 Satisfaction with council (%) R 2 = 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 London Kensington & Chelsea Richmond Upon Thames Northampton

15. 15 Satisfaction with council (%) R 2 = 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 Croydon Stoke-on-Trent Manchester Wandsworth Rushcliffe and Christchurch

16. What about the “new” Engagement and Empowerment Agenda?

17. 17 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. 18 Satisfaction with council (%) R 2 = 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. 19 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

20. Looking at Local Circumstance

21. 21 Satisfaction with council (%) Deprivation Score (IMD 2004) Base: BVPI 2006 (220 Single, Upper Tier and District local authorities) Deprivation matters – but many outliers Liverpool Manchester Knowsley LB Hackney Northants CC Metropolitan/Unitary County District London Borough Correlation -0.30

22. 22 Satisfaction with council (%) Deprivation Score (IMD 2004) Base: BVPI 2006 (75 District local authorities) Strongest Relationship in Districts… District Correlation -0.51

23. 23 Satisfaction with council (%) Deprivation Score (IMD 2004) Base: BVPI 2006 (220 Single, Upper Tier and District local authorities) Different Story in Mets and Unitaries Liverpool Manchester Knowsley Metropolitan/Unitary Oldham Poole Newcastle upon Tyne Transformed IMD Correlation +0.41

24. 24 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. 25 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

26. Perceptions of Place ….

27. 27 Developing Priorities for Quality of Life All Single and Upper Tier authorities % 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. 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….

29. 29 More generally We now expect more of government than we do of God. Anne Widdecombe, November 2006

30. 30 There is a growing gap between expectations and experience 1998 % Exceed% About what you expect% Fall short% Don’t know 2004 Q Thinking generally about what you expect of public services like local councils, schools, would you say they greatly exceed or slightly exceed your expectations, are about what you expect, fall slightly short or fall a long way short of your expectations? Base: 2004 - all respondents (1,502). 1998 (5,064)

31. 31 Value for Money (%) Service Delivery Average and Value for Money among Ipsos MORI Local Authorities Service Delivery Average (%) Haringey Wandsworth Westminster City of London Base: BVPI 2006 (149 Single and Upper Tier and District authorities studied by Ipsos MORI)

32. 32 = Percentage Point Change in Gap 2003/4 – 2006/7 Positive Changes in the Gap between Expected and Actual Satisfaction over Time Rutland Poole Kensington and Chelsea Dorset Walsall Buckinghamshire Norfolk Derbyshire Bedfordshire Northamptonshire Slough Wandsworth Coventry Leicester Base: BVPI 2006 (149 Single and Upper Tier authorities)

33. 33 = Percentage Point Change in Gap 2003/4 – 2006/7 Biggest falls…….. Kingston upon Hull Sandwell Manchester Knowsley Liverpool Gateshead Base: BVPI 2006 (149 Single and Upper Tier authorities)