This snapshot taken on 30/12/2008, shows web content selected for preservation by The National Archives. External links, forms and search boxes may not work in archived websites.

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

Local and Regional Government Research Unit

Best Value

 

 

 

 

 

Best Value in English Local Government:

Summary Results from the Census of Local Authorities in 2001

 

 

Report prepared for the
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

 

 

 

 

 

Gareth Enticott, Richard M. Walker, George A. Boyne, Steve Martin and Rachel Ashworth

on behalf of the Cardiff Business School
based Research Team

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

September 2002

 

Contents

page

 

Acknowledgements 2

Executive summary 3

1.0 Introduction 5

2.0 Methodology 7

3.0 Best Value processes 10

4.0 Drivers of performance improvement 16

5.0 Process outcomes 18

6.0 Assessments of current performance 22

7.0 Conclusions 28

8.0 References 31

Appendix A: Technical appendix A1

Appendix B: Tables and figures B1

 

 

 

Authors:

The census on which this report is based was undertaken by the research team commissioned by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to evaluate the long-term impact of Best Value. The survey was conducted by Gareth Enticott. It was designed and overseen by Richard M Walker, George A Boyne and Steve Martin. Analysis of Best Value performance indicators was undertaken by Rachel Ashworth.

 

 

 

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge with gratitude the assistance of the large numbers of elected members and officers throughout English local government who completed the census. We also acknowledge comments on an earlier draft of the census template from Ian Sanderson and Andrew O’Reilly from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

 

 

For further information see:

www.cf.ac.uk/carbs/research/lrgru

Executive Summary

  1. This report summarises the results of a major survey of local authorities undertaken as part of the long-term evaluation of the impact of Best Value. The evaluation has been commissioned by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and is being undertaken by a research team led by the Local and Regional Government Research Unit at Cardiff University. The aim of this first census survey is to provide the baseline for the longitudinal evaluation of the impact of Best Value. The census survey focus upon:

  • Best Value processes - the way in which authorities implement Best Value;

  • Process outcomes - the impact Best Value has on the ways in which authorities design, procure and deliver their services, and;

  • Local authority performance.

  1. The report provides a ‘snapshot’ of the perceptions of a large number and wide range of officers and elected members from a majority of English local authorities in April 2001. The findings are based on the responses of nearly 3,000 officers and members (534 corporate officers, 1,821 service officers and 481 elected members) in 314 English local authorities. The data reveal mixed perceptions of the impact of the Best Value regime in its first year. However, several key messages emerge from the respondents:

  • Implementing Best Value is seen as having been a major challenge for most authorities;

  • Best Value is regarded as a major driver for organisational change and performance improvement;

  • There is mixed evidence that local authorities display some of the process outcomes anticipated from the Best Value regime. Further conclusions will only emerge after future annual surveys about the ways they design, procure and deliver their services;

  • The regime has led to improvements to the performance management frameworks in many councils, and;

  • Service reviews are producing ambitious targets for improvement, many of which are expected to be achieved within the next two years.

  1. The census survey highlights some concerns about the way that Best Value is being implemented at the local level. In particular:

  • The application of the 4Cs is seen as varied. Consultation with the public and service users is reported to have featured prominently in most reviews, although contact with local businesses has been less common. Tests of competitiveness are not seen by respondents as having been a major part of most reviews;

  • Many respondents were critical of the role of external inspectors. The costs associated with inspection were widely seen as having been too high. But pressure from inspectors is regarded as one of the main external drivers of performance improvement, and;

  • In many cases the level of political leadership and member involvement in Best Value was relatively low and it was usually corporate officers who took the lead in developing Best Value policy.

  1. The evidence provided by the current ‘snapshot’ of officers’ and members’ perceptions of the first year of the Best Value regime is mixed. However, there is no evidence to suggest that different types of authority adopted radically different approaches to Best Value in the first year of the regime. There is, however, some evidence in relation to small district councils suggesting that:

  • Best Value appears to have been particularly challenging for small districts, and;

  • Small districts may be lagging behind other types of authority in terms of the kinds of organisational attributes that Best Value might be expected to encourage.

  1. The findings also highlight a variety of different voices in relation to Best Value:

  • Elected members were more likely than officers to report that their authorities' had implemented Best Value processes;

  • The service officers in our sample were favourable about the prospects for service improvement and were more likely to believe that their services had the internal culture, process and strategy characteristics that the Best Value regime might be expected to encourage, and;

  • On the whole, corporate officers were less inclined than other respondents to report that their authorities had implemented Best Value processes, and that the kinds of organisational attributes that the Best Value regime might be expected to encourage, were present.

  1. It is too early to assess the impact of the Best Value regime on the performance of local authorities. Future rounds of the survey of authorities will allow us to draw much firmer conclusions and to compare perceptions of change with changes in performance – as measured by the BVPIs and resident satisfaction. Analysis of the results of the current survey and Best Value performance indicators data for 2001-2002 provide little evidence of any link between an authorities’ performance and its approach to Best Value, or its ‘corporateness’.

  2. The findings of this survey broadly mirror the experiences of the Best Value pilots and the findings of external auditors and inspectors as reported in the Audit Commission (2001) report Changing Gear. However, the overall picture emerging from the census survey is more positive. Respondents on the whole, and in particular the 1,800 service officers, were more optimistic about Best Value than inspectors. But they are also more sceptical about the value of Best Value inspection processes than was suggested by research undertaken last year for the Audit Commission.

  3. The differences in the findings clearly reflect the larger sample in this study, than that solicited by the Audit Commission. However, they could also reflect differences in view between our survey respondents and inspectors about what constitutions significant improvement. Alternatively, local authorities could believe that it is possible to deliver improvements through incremental changes to their existing approaches to service delivery, whilst inspectors set much greater store by new approaches to service delivery.

  4. We will, however, track these issues over the coming years, through future surveys of authorities and in-depth case studies. In particular, we will focus on:

  • Performance improvement and the links with Best Value;

  • Inspection and how respondents experience the recent proposals to streamline the regime and introduce more 'proportionate' external regulation;

  • Monitoring the use of, and barriers to, the 4Cs including which ones, or which combination is effective in driving performance improvement;

  • Partnerships with the private sector, and;

  • Variations in the experiences between different types of authorities and the different actors in the process.

1.0 Introduction

The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has commissioned the Local and Regional Government Research Unit at Cardiff University to evaluate the long-term impact of Best Value in English local authorities.

Best Value became a statutory responsibility of English local government in April 2000. Under the regime authorities are required to implement a programme of reviews of all of their functions over a five year period. They must also publish annual plans specifying targets for improvement and outlining how they intend to achieve them. Services are subject to review by external inspectors and the Secretary of State has powers to intervene directly in authorities or services deemed to be at risk of persistent or serious failure.

The research is studying the impact of the Best Value regime from 2001 until 2005. It seeks to evaluate:

  1. Best Value processes – the ways in which authorities implement Best Value.
  2. Process outcomes – the impacts that Best Value has on the ways in which authorities design, procure and deliver their functions.
  3. Performance change - the impacts that the regime has on the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of local authority services.

The research is informed by a ‘theory of change’ (Boyne et al, 2001) and employs a number of different research techniques and methodologies. These include:

  • a census of all local authorities in 2001 and 2004;
  • an annual survey of 100 selected local authorities;
  • in-depth case studies of 12 local authorities;
  • annual analysis of the Best Value Performance Indicators;
  • a survey of local authority employees; and
  • a survey of residents in 2001 and 2004.

This report gives details of the results of the initial stage of this research programme - the first census of local authorities. This is an important element of the research, providing a comprehensive picture of attitudes towards and experiences of Best Value, and perceptions of the organisational characteristics and cultures of authorities and individual services as of April 2001.

The report summarises the perceptions of almost 3,000 officers and elected members. Its main purpose is to provide a benchmark against which approaches to Best Value and organisational and cultural changes can be compared over the next four years. The data summarised in this report are, therefore, one of the ‘building blocks’ for the comprehensive evaluation of Best Value that will take place over the next 5 years. Because it offers a ‘snapshot’ it does not test the extent of any causal link between organisational change, service effectiveness/service improvement and the Best Value regime.

However, the results of this survey do offer the most comprehensive picture of perceptions so far of local authority officers and members of:

  • their authorities’ performance and organisational characteristics;
  • the extent to which Best Value acted as driver for performance improvement in the first year of the regime;
  • the extent of corporate approaches to Best Value;
  • the extent to which reviews are leading to ambitious targets for improvement;
  • the use of the 4Cs in Best Value reviews;
  • the impacts of inspection and its impact to date on service improvement; and
  • the extent to which organisational changes that the Best Value regime seeks to encourage are evident in local authorities.

This ‘snapshot’ also carries a larger number of voices from English local authorities than other studies. In particular, it differs from the Audit Commission’s (2001) Annual Statement on Best Value, Changing Gear, both in terms of its objectives and its evidence base. The Audit Commission’s reports are informed primarily by the judgements of inspectors and auditors, supplemented by evidence from relatively small surveys of local authority chief executives/Best Value officers. By contrast, this report is the first stage in a longer-term study and draws upon a much broader base from within local government. The nearly 3,000 respondents included are not, therefore, restricted to the views of ‘corporate’ officers and elected members but include large numbers of service managers (who made up two-thirds of our sample). The inclusion of this many senior service officers (whose voices are often under-represented but who are at the ‘sharp end’ of many Best Value processes) reveals some important differences of emphasis between this report and Changing Gear. The results of this survey do though echo the findings of the evaluation of the Best Value pilot programme (Martin et al, 2001).

The remainder of this report is structured as follows:

Section 2: Methodology—an outline of the survey methodology and the ‘theory of change’ upon which the research is based.

Section 3: Best Value Processes—an analysis of the extent to which in its first year, the Best Value regime is perceived by local authorities to have led to the implementation of performance management frameworks, and other processes encouraged or required by the legislation and guidance. Differences in perceptions between officers and elected members, and between different types of authority, are highlighted.

Section 4: Drivers of Performance Improvement—an assessment of respondents’ perceptions of what have been the key (internal and external) drivers of performance improvement in their authority.

Section 5: Process Outcomes—an examination of the extent to which the organisational characteristics encouraged by Best Value are perceived to be in place across different types of authority.

Section 6: Assessments of Local Authority Performance in 2001—a brief description of respondents’ perceptions of their authority’s performance in 2001, including a preliminary analysis of the relationship between performance and (1) organisational context, (2) authorities' approach to Best Value, and (3) corporateness.

2.0 Methodology

2.1 Sampling

The census of local authorities upon which this report is based was undertaken between August and October 2001. All English local authorities were invited to take part. A total of 314 (81%) agreed to do so and were divided into two groups:

  • the ‘Cardiff 100’: a representative sample of authorities that have been selected for, and agreed to participate in, annual surveys to be conducted throughout the lifetime of the research and in which larger numbers of officers and members were surveyed ; and
  • the ‘census group’: remaining authorities that will be included in the first survey of local authorities conducted in 2001 and the final survey conducted in 2004.

Questionnaires were sent to:

  • elected members - including the leader, the member with lead responsibility for Best Value, and members with lead responsibility for the key service areas;
  • corporate officers - the chief executive, the most senior officer with overall responsibility for Best Value and the corporate Best Value officer; and
  • service officers – including the heads of service, assistant directors and senior managers in seven service areas:
  • Revenues and Benefits;
  • Leisure and Culture;
  • Education;
  • Housing Management;
  • Planning;
  • Social Services; and
  • Waste Management .

These three groups received questionnaires containing a set of ‘core’ questions that were common to all respondents plus additional questions of particular relevance to each group . Questions sought respondents' perceptions for their authority or service at April 2001. The majority of the questions required respondents to respond using a 7-point Likert scale (e.g. agree – disagree).

2.2 Questionnaire Design and the ‘Theory of Change’

The structure and wording of the questionnaires was informed by a 'theory of change' which outlines, in very simple terms, the ways in which Ministers and officials expect Best Value to operate (Boyne et al, 2001). The theory focuses on distinct types of organisational change that might be expected to lead to service improvement (see diagram 1).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The theory of change postulates that Best Value may improve performance by leading to changes in structure, culture, strategy formulation and strategy content. The survey therefore focused upon:

  • the implementation of Best Value processes – reviews, inspection and performance plans;
  • the structures, strategy formulation, strategy content and cultures of each authority/service;
  • perceptions of current performance; and
  • perceptions of the drivers for performance improvement.

 

2.3 Response Rates

The questionnaires were sent to between 10–32 officers and up to 9 cabinet or lead members for service groupings within participating authorities. The number sent to each authority was dependent on authority type and therefore the services it provided, the allocation of managerial roles (in some authorities the same officer was responsible for two or more ‘key services’), and whether they were in a census or ‘Cardiff 100’ group. Officers were asked to complete and return an email-based questionnaire. Elected members were provided with a hardcopy and a stamped reply envelope. Respondents had 6 weeks to reply. A total of 4,184 officers and 1,085 elected members were sent questionnaires. Responses were received from 2,355 officers and 481 elected members, representing response rates of 56% and 44% respectively (Table 1). In total 318 authorities agreed to participate in the census survey. Responses were received from 314 authorities - a response rate of 81%. Response rates were remarkably consistent across different kinds of authority, though slightly higher for metropolitan authorities than other types of council (Table 2).

2.4 Analysis

The data were analysed at respondent level using SPSS. Statistical analyses employed two tailed t-tests, chi squared, ANOVA and post-hoc Scheffe tests to identify significant differences at the 0.01% confidence level. The results presented in the report, therefore, focus on statistically significant variations in the data. In this report differences are reported across and within different types of:

  • respondent (members, corporate officers and service officers), to explore whether groups of respondents hold different views;
  • authority types (county councils, unitary authorities, London boroughs, metropolitan councils and district councils [split into ‘small’ and ‘large’ districts]), to identify variation in experience amongst different types authorities; and
  • between ‘small districts’ 4 and ‘other authorities’, to examine whether Best Value experiences vary with the size of an authority.

Data have been analysed at the all respondent level unless otherwise stated. Best Value Officers were asked about their authority’s corporate approach to Best Value. They have been used as the local authority's proxy voice on corporate procedures. Where differences are drawn between groups of respondents a post-hoc Scheffe test has been used to identify which groups are different. This test has been undertaken where the results of the ANOVA test were significant at 99% (0.01).

Where percentage data derived from Likert scales were analysed, we have used the aggregate score of either the top or bottom 3 points on the scale. In instances where views at either end of this continuum (either point 1 or 7 on the scale) attracted a large response, this is also specified.

 

3.0 Best Value Processes

The Best Value regime requires authorities to develop a corporate strategy that defines their overall aims and priorities, and a programme of performance reviews designed to improve individual services and their overall capacity to achieve corporate objectives.

A priori the corporate centre might therefore be expected to play an important role in the management and implementation of the Best Value regime. Research on the Best Value pilot programme has suggested that this is indeed a critical success factor (Martin et al, 2001). Moreover, auditors, inspectors and the IDeA have all emphasised the importance of effective performance management systems in reviews and performance plans (c.f. Audit Commission, 2001). Judgements about corporate capacity will feature prominently in the Comprehensive Performance Assessment framework. This has been introduced as a requirement for local authorities to be assessed and categorised on the basis of a comprehensive appraisal of the authority's performance. The Audit Commission is tasked with taking the lead in co-ordinating and delivering the new assessment process (Audit Commission, 2002).

This section therefore analyses respondents’ perceptions of the impact of the Best Value regime on the role of their corporate systems.

3.1 Before Best Value

The survey suggests that some authorities already had what respondents regard as effective corporate systems prior to the introduction of the Best Value regime in April 2000. Others believe that they have made significant strides towards this in the first year of the regime.

The respondents suggested that a majority of authorities were in the process of establishing corporate goals. Some authorities were making these known to staff and external stakeholders before the formal introduction of Best Value. According to Best Value officers, just over three quarters (78%) of authorities had a documented statement of corporate aims and objectives by April 2000. Not all of these had been communicated to internal and external stakeholders and at that stage only just over a third (37%) of authorities had a corporate performance plan that was disseminated internally. Similarly, Best Value officers indicated that only 26% of authorities had a performance plan that was available to the public/external stakeholders prior to the requirement to publish their first Best Value performance plan at the end of March 2000.

The census revealed variations in the extent to which the 4Cs (challenge, compare, consult, compete) were used in any reviews undertaken prior to the introduction of Best Value (Figure 1). Performance reviews were not apparently common prior to the introduction of Best Value and, where they were undertaken, often involved consultation but not the other Cs. The survey results indicate that:

  • just 17% of authorities regularly undertook service reviews of most/all services (4% all services) prior to April 2000; and
  • only 11% of authorities regularly challenged the need for most/all of the services they provided (3% apparently challenged the need for all services while 26% never challenged the need for any of the services they provided).

In many authorities, most/all services regularly consulted with service users (35%), the public (28%) and other local agencies (28%) but consultation with the private sector (8%) was far less common (Figure 2).

Tests of competitiveness were apparently rarely used to review services prior to the introduction of the statutory Best Value regime. The survey results indicate that in 86% of authorities analyses of the market for services were rare or non-existent prior to 1st April 2000 (24% did not apparently conduct market analyses for any of their services). Similarly, 80% did not regularly test the competitiveness of most services against other providers with 16% apparently never comparing their services with those of other providers (Figure 3).

3.2 Developing and Implementing Best Value Policy

Best Value officers indicate that most authorities (95%) have found implementing Best Value to be a major challenge. However, it was seen as having enhanced inter-departmental working (47%) while 43% of respondents believed that it had become a core part of everyday management procedures by April 2001 (Figure 4). In most authorities it is officers that were seen as having led the implementation of Best Value - 81% (Figure 4). Best Value officers reported that corporate policy officers, best value officers and chief executives usually played a leading role (Figure 5).

Research on the Best Value pilot programme suggested that the development of a corporate approach to implementing Best Value was important. The current survey indicates that most authorities had done this. Less than a third of Best Value officers reported that the process was driven primarily by individual departments or services. Most authorities had developed a corporate strategy for implementing Best Value by April 2000. Almost two-thirds (62%) had a written strategy, 79% had designated Best Value officers and 65% had a corporate tool kit for conducting Best Value reviews prior to April 2000 (Figure 6).

In a significant minority of authorities our Best Value officer respondents reported that there was no corporate response to implementing Best Value. Almost a fifth (19%) of authorities did not apparently have a corporate strategy for implementing Best Value in place by July 2001, 16% did not have a corporate ‘Best Value’ budget and 35% of authorities had yet to develop a procurement strategy (Figure 6).

3.3 Performance Plans

The census revealed a range of views about the usefulness of Best Value performance plans (BVPPs). Only 29% of all officers agreed that the summary BVPP had enabled the public to hold the authority to account, though 61% reported that their plans contained new local performance indicators to measure service delivery (Figure 7).

BVPPs were not widely seen as useful management tools – just 45% of all officers agreed that they were useful in measuring progress on an annual basis and 41% that they used them to inform their actions on a regular basis.

Fewer than half (43%) agreed that their authority’s plan was clearly based on political priorities. Nearly two thirds of all officers saw the targets they contained as ambitious (65%) and believed that they would be achieved (64%).

3.4 Reviews

In conducting Best Value Reviews (BVRs), authorities and services are required to address the ‘4Cs’:

  • challenge whether a particular service is needed, and if it is how best to provide/procure it;
  • compare the performance of alternative providers;
  • consult with local taxpayers, service users and the wider business community in setting new performance targets; and,
  • compete in the sense of demonstrating that the chosen means of delivering a service is, or will be, the most competitive.

Corporate officers indicate that some of these mechanisms have been used more widely than others. In particular, consultation has proved most popular and the requirement to ‘compete’ least well developed (Figure 8). This echoes the findings of the evaluation of the Best Value pilot programme (see Martin et al, 2001).

Challenge

The survey results indicate that most reviews which have included what service officers considered to be a robust ‘challenge’ have questioned whether existing approaches to service delivery were the best (88%) (Figure 9). Other forms of challenge, including for example, examining the need for existing services (69%) and/or the introduction of new services (68%) were less common, though apparently more widespread in the first year of the Best Value regime than they had been prior to its introduction (see page 11).

Compare

The most commonly used comparisons in the first year of the regime were with services operated by other local authorities. Comparisons with other service providers were also extensively in evidence:

  • 59% of respondents reported that reviews with which they had been involved had drawn comparisons with the voluntary and private sector; and
  • 49% that reviews had used comparisons with other public sector providers (Figure 10).

The bases of these comparisons were often limited to cost inputs and other basic performance indicators. Process based comparisons were less common (Figure 11) even though the evidence of the pilot programme was that these were often the more useful in identifying ways of improving services (Martin et al, 2001).

Consult

Consultation has apparently been the most widely used of the 4Cs though the results of the survey suggest that in 2000/2001 most authorities focused in particular on consultation with service users and front-line staff, reflecting practices prior to Best Value (see Figure 2). Almost a quarter (23%) of respondents indicated that none of the reviews in their authority had consulted with local businesses. Almost a fifth indicated that none of their authority’s reviews had involved trades union representatives (Figure 12).

Compete

The requirement to test the competitiveness of services has been the least widely implemented. However, 63% had analysed supply markets, 43% had explored the scope for partnerships and more than a third (39%) of service officers indicated that none of their authority’s reviews had used market testing to test the competitiveness of their services (Figure 13). This suggests an increase in the use of tests of competition since the introduction of the Best Value regime (see Figure 3).

Review Recommendations

Most corporate and service officers were optimistic about the likely outcomes of the reviews. A large majority (84%) of corporate officers believed that the reviews conducted by their authority in 2000/2001 had led to recommendations that would improve performance, and in many cases lead to ‘step changes’ and/or entirely new approaches to service delivery (Figure 14).

Service officers also agreed that reviews were likely to improve performance - 86% believed that they would lead to significant service improvements with 76% believing recommendations emerging from reviews to be ambitious. More than three quarters of service officers also revealed that they (83%) expected reviews to lead to the adoption of new approaches to service delivery, particularly an increase in partnership working, though few envisaged reviews then leading to the externalisation of services (Figure 15). Not surprisingly, most service officers reported that review recommendations had only been partially implemented so far (73%). However, most (76%) believed that all recommendations would be implemented in full within two years (Figure 16).

3.5 Inspection

Inspection has proved to be perhaps the most controversial element of the Best Value regime. The survey findings indicate that authorities see it as an important driver for performance improvement (see section 4) but have reservations about the credibility of inspectors and the costs they believe are imposed by inspection.

Just over a third (36%) of all officers believed that inspection associated with the Best Value regime would lead directly to significant service improvements and only 39% felt that it even ensured that minimum standards of service delivery were achieved. Just over a quarter (26%) felt that inspectors were sufficiently qualified and two thirds (66%) believed that inspection focused unduly on processes at the expense of service delivery. More than two thirds (70%) believed that the costs of inspection were too high while over half (56%) thought that the costs outweighed the benefits of inspection (Figure 17).

These findings appear to be at odds with a survey of (a much smaller sample of) corporate officers undertaken for the Audit Commission (Audit Commission, 2001). However, they echo concerns expressed by other recent studies (including LGA, 2001; Davis et al 2001) as well as the Treasury’s Public Services Productivity Panel’s review of the role of external review in driving improvement (Byatt and Lyons, 2001). The 2001 Local Government White Paper proposed a number of measures designed to overcome these problems, including in particular the introduction of ‘Comprehensive Performance Assessment’ and a more ‘risk-based’ approach to inspection. We will be able to track the impact of these changes over the next three years through future surveys of authorities and the in-depth case studies that we will be undertaking as part of the research.

3.6 Best Value Processes in Different Types of Authority

The Audit Commission (2001) has suggested that some smaller district councils have experienced particular difficulties in implementing Best Value processes. Our longitudinal analysis, based on future surveys and in-depth case studies, will test for differences in rates of implementation of the regime and any links to the relative level of performance improvement in different types of authority and between larger and smaller authorities.

The evidence provided by the current ‘snapshot’ of officers’ and members’ perceptions of the first year of the Best Value regime is mixed, but overall there is no evidence to suggest that different types of authority adopted radically different approaches to Best Value in the first year of the regime. However, the responses from Best Value officers suggest that prior to the introduction of the statutory Best Value regime a smaller proportion of smaller district councils, than their counterparts in other authorities, had:

  • undertaken regular reviews prior to Best Value;
  • compared performance with other potential service providers;
  • consulted service users;
  • consulted members of the public; and
  • consulted other local agencies (Table 3).

There were few differences between different types of authority in approaches to performance planning before the Best Value regime (Table 4) but a smaller proportion of respondents from small districts reported that their authorities had developed a corporate plan for implementing Best Value by April 2000 (Table 5).

Best Value officers from all types of authority regarded implementing Best Value as having been a major challenge. However, there were no significant differences between those from small districts and other authorities in terms of the degree of corporate control over Best Value (Tables 6 and 7). In addition there was no clear pattern of who had driven the implementation of Best Value policy (Tables 8 and 9).

The survey did reveal some differences between the views of officers in different authorities about the likely outcomes of reviews:

  • a smaller proportion of service officers from small districts believed that their authority’s reviews would lead to new approaches to service delivery or more partnership working (Tables 10 and 11);
  • all officers from district councils were more inclined to believe that the benefits of inspection were outweighed by the costs and that these costs were too high (Tables 12 and 13);
  • a larger proportion of all officer respondents from small and large districts also believed inspection to be unduly focused on process at the expense of service delivery than did their counterparts in metropolitan and unitary authorities (Table 12); and
  • respondents from small district councils expressed particular concern over the time and cost implications of the Best Value regime in response to ‘open’ questions included in the survey. Overall, officers from metropolitan authorities were the most inclined to believe that inspection contributed to significant service improvements (Table 12).

 

    1. Experiences of Best Value Processes: Service Officers, Corporate Officers and Elected Members

It might be expected that perceptions of the Best Value regime will also vary between corporate officers, service officers and elected members. The views of service officers are not so well documented as those of corporate officers, yet they are often tasked with the implementation of Best Value reviews and experience inspection most closely. The large proportion of service officers in this census therefore allows an analysis of their views as well as a comparison with corporate officers and elected members and helps to explain some of the differences between our research findings and those in ‘Changing Gear’. For example, 'Changing Gear' reports satisfaction with inspection, whereas our findings suggest a more critical view. The Audit Commission (2001) also highlight the ways in which councils are not successfully coping with Best Value, whilst our respondents were more optimistic. Our analysis of elected members, corporate officers and service officers perceptions revealed some statistically significant differences in relation to the Best Value processes of BVRs, performance plans and inspection:

4.0 Drivers of Performance Improvement

Best Value is only one of a number of central government initiatives that may be having an impact on local authorities’ cultures, structures, processes and strategy content. Moreover, the impact of this and other external programmes is mediated by local conditions such as political control, deprivation, population, size, the style of management and the resources available to a council. So, in order to begin to identify the long-term impacts of the Best Value regime it is therefore important to take account of other possible ‘drivers’ of internal changes and performance improvement. Respondents were therefore asked to rank the importance of a range of potential internal and external drivers in promoting improvement in their authority in the first year of the Best Value regime.

The most frequently cited driver of improvement was internal - managerial leadership within authorities. This was seen as important or very important by 88% of all officer respondents (Figure 18). Officer respondents also identified resources (63%), cross-cutting working (60%) and political leadership (58%) as important internal drivers. The external drivers cited as important by the largest numbers of officers were (Figure 19):

  • central government policies—78%;
  • the demands of users and citizens—75%;
  • new technologies—66%; and
  • pressure from external inspectors and auditors—64%.

The fact that inspection is seen as an important driver for change by almost two thirds of all officers echoes the findings of previous surveys (LGA, 2001). However, as noted above, many officers believed that the costs associated with current inspection procedures outweighed the benefits. The Best Value regime (76%) was rated by all officer respondents as the most important of the central government policies that were driving local service improvement in 2000/2001 (Figure 20). This may be partly a reflection of the fact that it was one of the first policies to take effect, preceding many other elements of the local government modernising agenda.

4.1 Drivers of Performance Improvement in Different Types of Authority

There were some statistically significant differences between the views of all officer respondents from different types of authority in respect of the importance attached to political leadership, pressure from inspectors, competition, central government policies, Best Value, the beacon scheme and e-government as drivers of improvement (Table 17). In the majority of cases district authorities placed less emphasis on these drivers of performance improvement.

There were also differences between small districts and other authorities. All officers from other authorities attached more importance to political leadership, competition, central government policies, the beacon scheme, e-government and the demands of service users (Table 18).

    1. Drivers of Performance Improvement: Service Officers, Corporate Officers and Members Views

There are also significant differences between members’ and officers’ (both corporate and service) views about the relative importance of different drivers for improvement (Table 19). Members attached greater importance than all officers to:

  • political leadership;
  • resources within the authority;
  • competition;
  • community planning; and
  • the beacon council scheme.

Officers saw the activities of other authorities as being more important than did members. Corporate officers believed e-government to be more important as a driver of improvement than did service officers or elected members (Table 19).

Over time we will track the relative importance attached to the drivers of performance improvement and the relative importance different groups of actors attach to those drivers.

 

5.0 Process Outcomes

As explained in section 2, the study aims to evaluate the impact of implementing Best Value on structure, organisational cultures, strategy formulation and strategy content within local government, and the impact that these changes have upon the performance of councils. Over time the results of successive annual surveys of authorities will enable us to evaluate the ways in which the internal characteristics have changed since the introduction of the statutory Best Value regime and the ways in which Best Value develops corporate strategy. The main value of this first survey is, therefore, that it establishes a baseline for this time series analysis. No causal relationship can be established between internal structure, culture, strategy formulation and content and the Best Value regime at this stage but many respondents believed that their authorities already possessed many of the attributes that the Best Value regime seeks to promote in relation to:

  • integration;
  • the cultural attributes of continuous improvement and customer-orientation; and
  • partnership and joint working with other public sector agencies.

Differences, however, existed between different groups of respondents. In particular, service officers were more likely than corporate officers to report that their authority displayed the anticipated Best Value characteristics in relation to structure, culture and strategy content. In contrast, elected member’s views varied.

5.1 Organisational Structure

One of the aims of the Best Value regime is to encourage changes to the rules and roles that shape the relationships between parts of an authority. The 'Theory of Change' (Boyne et al, 2001) envisages that changes to the structure of authorities were most likely to be seen in relation to bureaucracy, centralisation/decentralisation and integration. The results of the baseline survey indicate that respondents saw integration as the prevalent structural characteristic in April 2001.

Bureaucracy

On the whole all respondents believed that written procedures were important in guiding the actions of staff (72%). However, there was also extensive use of what would normally be seen as flexible structures such as project groups (66%). In the main, officers reported little evidence of formal changes in structures, though 35% of corporate officers saw delayering as a major part of their approach during 2000/2001 (Table 20). Members and service officers were more likely to report that written policies and procedures were important in guiding the actions of employees (Table 20).

There were some statistically significant differences between types of authority. For example, officers from unitary authorities (42%) indicated that delayering was a major part of their approach in comparison to London borough's (25%) (Table 21). A smaller proportion of officers from small district councils (56%) reported that their authority was flexible when compared with all other types of authorities (69%) (Table 22).

Centralisation/decentralisation

One of the ways in which the Best Value regime might be expected to lead to performance improvement may be through encouraging the dispersal of power to service managers to enable them to respond more effectively to users’ needs. Equally though, the Best Value regime emphasises the importance of corporate approaches in driving improvement. The survey results indicate a mixed picture with regard to current patterns of centralisation and decentralisation. 44% of all respondents felt that when results deviate from plans, decisions to take corrective action come from top management or politicians whilst 71% said that control was devolved to service managers. In addition 20% of officers indicated that they were centralising and 25% decentralising the formal structure of their authority (Table 23).

There are statistically significant differences between members, corporate officers and service officers in relation to the centralisation of power. In particular, members (77%) were much more likely to see corrective action coming from the top of the organisation than service officers (34%). Service officers (75%) were also more likely to report that their authority had devolved a large measure of control to services than were corporate officers (64%) and elected members (65%) (Table 23). This suggests that the perceptions of service officers are that they are effectively in control. There were indications that districts were less likely to have adopted decentralised structures and processes than other types of authorities (Tables 24 and 25).

Integration

The Best Value regime is also designed to lead to greater ‘integration’, i.e. closer links between corporate priorities, service/business plans and individual’s objectives and targets. The survey results indicate that on the whole respondents believe these links are already fairly strong. For example, 77% of all respondents identified joint working, 74% clear linkages between the objectives of services and the whole authority, and 73% a well developed framework of clear performance measurement and targets that drive the organisation (Table 26). There were again, differences between different types of respondent. In particular, service officers (76%) and members (71%) saw their actions as driven by agreed performance measurement frameworks and targets which have been developed at the corporate centre, in comparison to corporate officers (66%) (Table 26). Corporate officers (68%) were also less likely than service officers (76%) to see clear links between the objectives and priorities of their service and those of the authority as a whole.

There were also differences between different types of authorities. All officer respondents from London boroughs were more likely to report having developed frameworks of performance measurement than any other type of authority (Table 27). The evidence also suggests that though just over two-thirds (69%) of small districts indicated that they were equipped to achieve co-ordination and joint working with other departments they were less likely to than other authorities (80%) (Table 28). Similarly officers from small districts (69%) also were more likely to report less well developed performance management frameworks than other authorities (75%) and lower levels of linkages between corporate and service objectives and priorities (67%) than other authorities (76%).

 

5.2 Organisational Culture

Along with other elements of the local government modernisation agenda, the Best Value regime seeks to promote cultural change in authorities. Central government has emphasised the importance of authorities becoming more customer-focused and more prepared to innovate and take risks. Previous research also suggests that levels of trust within organizations can be important determinants of success in achieving performance improvement.

The survey results suggest that many respondents believed that some of the key cultural attributes that Best Value seeks to encourage were already in place in their authority by April 2001. Overall, all respondents reported a strong focus on continuous improvement (82%) and believed that their services were customer-oriented (80%), whilst two-thirds felt that their authority was at the forefront of innovative approaches. However, fewer respondents believed their authority or service was prepared to take risks where appropriate (56%), or reported high levels of trust between officers and politicians (61%) and top-management and staff (58%). Only four out of ten reported that there were strong incentives for mangers to achieve step-changes in performance (Table 29).

Corporate officers were less likely to report that their organisation’s culture displayed the kinds of features that the Best Value regime seeks to encourage, than were elected members or service officers (Table 29). In particular, corporate officers were less likely to report positive approaches to risk taking, increasing productivity or creating trust between top-management and staff. Members, by contrast, reported positive approaches to the level of trust between officers and politicians and that the authority cared about the welfare of its staff. Service officers felt that they were willing to take risks and were more customer-focused than were corporate officers and members (Table 29).

There were also statistically significant differences between the views of officer respondents from different types of authority. Respondents from district councils saw their authority as less innovative, less likely to take risks and offering fewer incentives for managers to achieve step changes in performance than did respondents from other types of council (Table 30). These differences were reinforced when small districts were compared to other authorities. Small districts reported that they were likely to take risks (47%, other authorities 61%), have innovative approaches (56%, other authorities 69%) and identify productivity as a cultural characteristic (29%, other authorities 39%) (Table 31).

5.3 Strategy Formulation

Many of the principles that underpin the Best Value regime emphasise the benefits of ‘rational planning’ as an approach to strategy formulation. The elements of the Best Value framework that emphasise the need for a more rational approach include: the Best Value Performance Indicators (BVPIs), the duty to publish targets and plans, the requirement to consult with external stakeholders, the need to scan the market for external service providers and the process of external audit and inspection that checks whether the required planning procedures have been followed and targets achieved. This approach replaces the incremental approach to strategy making that is normally associated with local government (Boyne et al, 2001).

The survey results suggests that in the first year of the statutory Best Value regime, most authorities are seen by members and officers as characterised by the co-existence of what have normally been seen as rather different approaches to strategy formulation (Table 32). There were elements of the detailed forward planning (67%) and option appraisals (73%) normally associated with ‘rational planning’. All respondents also reported that the level of political support for policies was an important determinant of strategy formulation (68%)—something which is usually associated with incremental approaches. The highest proportion of respondents saw strategies as having broad goals and objectives and being subject to a process of on-going adjustment (80%), perspectives from the logical incremental school of strategy making.

Different types of respondents reported different perceptions of the strategy process. Corporate officers were least likely to identify a rational approach. Members’ views, in contrast to corporate and service officers, particularly highlighted various forms of incrementalism (Table 32). The variety of views about approaches to strategy formulation was reflected amongst different types of authorities (Tables 33 and 34).

5.4 Strategy Content

Best Value is intended to lead to changes in authorities’ strategy content (i.e. the ways in which they design and deliver services). Central government has emphasised in particular the importance of increased partnership working, especially with the private sector, and the need to develop new innovative approaches.

The survey results from officers reveal that during the first year of the Best Value regime statutory partnerships (72%) and local strategic partnerships (70%) were seen by most as being important to their councils’ approach to service delivery. However, externalisation (41%) and contracting out (41%) were seen as relatively less important. Service officers attached less importance to all types of partnerships than did corporate officers (Table 35).

Officer respondents from small districts consistently rated all forms of partnership working as being of less importance to their council’s approach than officers from other types of authority (Table 36). They are much less likely to consider externalising (28% other authorities 45%) or outsourcing services (30% other authorities 44%) (Table 37).

Officers perceived themselves to be developing a range of innovations. 37% of all officers identified the

provision of new services to new users as part of their approach and just over half indicated that they were providing new services to existing users and existing services to new users (Table 38). These are high levels of innovation in comparison to other sectors. Very few believed that their authority was likely to consider doing away with services altogether (12%) (Table 38). For the most part respondents saw their authority’s approach to improvement as relying on minor modifications to existing services (67%). Service officers were more likely to believe that they had innovative approaches than were corporate officers (Table 38). Statistically significant differences between different types of authorities related to small districts and other authorities, with small districts reporting that they were less likely to provide new services to existing users (47%, other authorities 54%) and existing services to new users (47% other authorities 52%) (Tables 39 and 40).

 

6.0 Assessments of Performance

A key issue is the extent to which, over time, organisational changes associated with Best Value produce performance improvement in terms of performance indicators, residents’ satisfaction and authorities’ own perceptions of their performance. This requires longitudinal analysis that will be undertaken in future years of the evaluation.

At this stage it is possible to undertake a preliminary exploration of the relationship between performance measures and other variables. In particular, three performance measures can be drawn upon for this exercise:

  • census respondents’ perceptions of the performance of their authorities;
  • the preliminary results of a survey of residents’ satisfaction with council services in the ‘Cardiff 100’ authorities; and
  • a selection of the Best Value Performance Indicators for 2000/2001.

Using these data we have tested for correlations between performance and:

  • contextual variables (population size and deprivation);
  • authorities’ approaches to Best Value; and
  • corporateness.

However, it should be emphasised that the ‘Theory of Change’ on which this study is based suggests that the Best Value regime may have impacts on performance over time but there is no reason to expect a significant relationship between these variables and performance in year one of the new regime.

6.1 Concepts and Measures of Performance

The concept of performance in the public sector is complex and multi-dimensional. Important aspects of service performance include efficiency, quality, equity, effectiveness and value for money. In addition, local authorities need to be judged more widely against their performance as units of democratic government (as reflected, for example, by levels of probity, participation and accountability – see Boyne, 2002). Thus a comprehensive assessment for local government would include indicators and data for all of these elements of organisational processes, outputs and outcomes. In practice our analysis has to be limited to the performance indicators that are available and directly comparable. This means that common definitions of key variables are used, data collection procedures are uniform, that data are obtained for the same time period, and that the accuracy of the data has been independently checked. The only data that meet these criteria are the BVPIs prescribed by central government.

The BVPIs do not cover all dimensions of local authority performance, but have improved substantially over time (Boyne, 1997, 2002). The most recent audited data set available for analysis at the time of this report has been the BVPIs for 2000/2001. They provide data on all seven local authority service areas evaluated in this study, along with corporate services. They also cover a variety of dimensions of service performance including:

In total, 79 BVPIs provide valid and comparable operationalisations of the concept of local authority performance. The BVPIs for 2000/01 provide a baseline of objective measures of performance. A list of these BVPIs can be found in Table 41.

6.2 Perceptions of Current Performance

As previously stated, the BVPIs do not cover all dimensions of performance. Therefore, the census of local authorities included a number of questions in order to capture dimensions of performance not covered within the BVPIs. Consequently, questions were asked about equity, staff satisfaction and promoting the well-being of local people in addition to consumer satisfaction, effectiveness, efficiency, quality and value for money.

All respondents believed that their council were in the top quartile of performers in terms of providing value for money (30%) and customer satisfaction (27%). But very few believed that their councils were in the top quartile in terms of the quality of services (18%) and levels of staff satisfaction (8%) (Table 42).

Table 42 also reveals that, on the whole, service officers took a more positive view of their authority’s performance than did corporate staff or elected members. Service officers were more likely than corporate officers to see themselves in the top-quartile for staff satisfaction, quality and efficiency, and ranked them above corporate officers and members for effectiveness. Corporate officers were least likely to report that services were provided in an equitable way. Finally, members were unlikely to rate themselves as top quartile performers for customer satisfaction.

There were few differences between different types of authority in their self-perception of performance assessment (Tables 43 and 44).

6.3 Correlates of performance: statistical analysis

In order to provide an initial snapshot analysis of the relationship between Best Value and performance, BVPIs for 2000/2001 and self-perceptions of performance have been measured against contextual, approaches to Best Value and corporateness variables. This analysis is cross-sectional as the data employed cover just one financial year 2000/2001. At this preliminary stage the analysis is designed to reveal whether the evidence supports a link between the variables and performance. We cannot accurately infer the direction of the relationship, without further analysis.

Bivariate correlations between the BVPIs and perceptions of current performance and the context, corporateness and approaches to Best Value variables were conducted. The results report the percentage of the coefficients that are statistically significant, grouped according to whether they have positive or negative signs. Statistical significance is measured at the 0.05 level or better with a two-tailed test.

Contextual Variables

There are a range of context measures that are likely to affect the performance of an authority. These including the difficulty of management, political control, deprivation, population, size and the resources available to a council. In this preliminary analysis we examine size, measured through the proxy of population and deprivation. This analysis will be extended in future reports.

There are a priori grounds for believing that, on the whole, larger authorities may find it easier to improve performance than smaller ones - they have more financial resources, more staff expertise, higher levels of slack, and can potentially achieve economies of scale. Rather than measuring each of these elements of scale separately, and thereby introducing undue complexity into the estimation procedure, we have decided to use the population of an authority as a proxy for its size. Population is positively and closely correlated with variables such as total expenditure and quantity of service output.

Authorities in deprived areas may find it more difficult to act to secure good performance in key services because of low community engagement and involvement in processes of consultation and service delivery. Furthermore, service improvement may be more difficult in poor areas because needs outstrip the combined resources of local authorities and their residents. One measure of this concept is Standard Spending Assessment which reflects the level of need for services provided by the local authority itself. However, this fails to tap the concept of community resources, and does not adequately reflect local government’s role in providing community leadership across a range of local problems. A wider measure of socio-economic conditions is therefore required. The best available measure appears to be the Average of Ward Scores (AWS). The advantage of this measure is that it describes the wards by retaining the fact that the more deprived wards may have more 'extreme' scores, which is not revealed to the same extent if the ranks are used. Table 45 provides descriptive statistics for population (POP) and deprivation (DEPRIV).

The results for the contextual variables suggest a relationship for some services which is fairly strong (Table 46). For example, for transport 62.5% of the BVPIs are significant and positively correlated with population whilst for the corporate BVPIs 54% are significant and negatively correlated. However, generally, the evidence suggests a lack of relationship. For example, there is an absence of positive correlations between BVPIs and population in five services and an absence of negative results in four services. Similarly with deprivation, a relationship is evident for some services, such as education (42% of the BVPIs are significantly correlated and positive) and waste management (57% of the BVPIs are significantly correlated and negative) but here again there is a distinct lack of relationship across the majority of services. There are no positive correlations between deprivation and BVPIs in four services and no negative correlations in a further 6 services.

The self-perceptions of performance reveal a similar pattern, though a slightly higher proportion of significant results (Table 46). 75% of the self-perceptions of performance are negatively correlated with population and 25% positively and 12.5% negatively with deprivation.

Approaches to Best Value

Four questions from the survey form the Approaches to Best Value (ABV) measures. These are 'Precise model for review' (ABV1), 'Best Value has been a major challenge; (ABV2), 'Best Value is member-led' (ABV3) and 'Best Value is part of everyday management' (ABV4). Descriptive data can be found in Table 47.

The lack of relationship between approaches to Best Value and performance is particularly striking (Table 48). The results for the BVPIs demonstrate an almost complete absence of significant correlations for ABV1 — the 8% negative correlations with corporate BVPIs is the only evidence of any relationship here. ABV2 has similar negative correlations but for social services (10% of the BVPIs) and planning (25% of the BVPIs). The data report a small percentage of significant correlations between BVPIs and ABV3, positively for corporate BVPIs (8%), social services (10% of the BVPIs) and revenues and benefits (17% of the BVPIs) and negatively in relation to corporate BVPIs (8%), transport and waste management (12.5% of the BVPIs in both cases) and housing (33% of the BVPIs). ABV4 reports three positive correlations — corporate BVPIs (15% of the BVPIs), social services (10% of the BVPIs) and planning (25% of the BVPIs) — and one negative, education (5% of the BVPIs).

There is a stronger relationship between two of the self-reported performance perception scores (Table 48). In the case of ABV2 the correlation is negative (62.5%) whilst with three-quarters of the correlations are positively significant.

Corporateness

Two main functions of the corporate centre in private businesses have been identified by Goold and Campbell (1987). The first of these is strategic control, which consists of the "centre’s efforts to shape strategies as they emerge and before decisions are taken" (ibid, 36). The second is performance control, which concerns "the targets that the centre agrees with its business units, the way the centre reacts to poor performance, and the frequency with which the centre monitors results" (ibid, 40). Four combinations of these two dimensions of corporateness are illustrated in diagram 2. The Goold and Campbell framework is based on the relative power of the centre and its business units and, therefore, includes prior process outcomes measures of structure and culture. A strong centre shapes strategy and tightly controls performance; a weak centre leaves business units to determine their own strategies, monitor performance and take whatever corrective action they deem necessary.

Six questions from the survey form the six measures of corporateness. With the Goold and Campbell dimensions of corporateness in mind, three questions can be considered within the ‘strategic control’ dimension of corporateness with a further three categorised within the ‘control of performance’ dimension (see Table 49, which also reports descriptive data).

Diagram 2: Dimensions of corporateness
   

Strategic Control
   

HIGH

LOW

 

Control

of Performance

HIGH

Strong Corporate

Centre

 

Mixed Corporate

Role

LOW

Mixed Corporate

Role

 

Weak Corporate

Centre

Note: Derived from Goold and Campbell (1987).

There is little evidence of a relationship between corporateness and performance (Table 50). The vast majority of correlations are weak and insignificant. In those cases where evidence of a relationship exists, the average percentage of significant correlations is just 15.8%. The strongest relationships can be found between Corp 2 and Corporate BVPIs (31% negative correlations, 23% positive) and waste management (29% negative correlations). There are, however, strong and largely positive relationships between perception scores from the survey and the corporateness measures. For example, for measures Corp 1, Corp 3 and Corp 5, all correlations are positive and significant (Table 50).

Summary

The results of this analysis demonstrate that there is little evidence of a link between ‘corporateness’, approaches to Best Value and BVPIs. However, the data reveal a connection between corporateness, approaches to Best Value and contextual variables and the level of performance as perceived by respondents.

It is important to emphasise the preliminary and exploratory nature of our research. We have analysed 314 local authorities in England for just one financial year. It may be that data over a longer period will eventually show different results. Also, service performance is a clearly complex phenomenon that requires a sophisticated explanatory model. It may be that if measures of corporateness and approaches to Best Value are included in such a model then their significance may emerge. For the present, however, we must conclude that in these authorities during the year 2001/2002, the evidence provides little support for a link between approaches to Best Value, corporateness and contextual variables and the BVPIs. However, the data do demonstrate that measures of corporateness, context and approaches to Best Value are linked to perceptions of performance. This may simply indicate that managers in local government have accepted the arguments of central government and its agents that corporateness is a precondition of good performance. By contrast, our preliminary evidence suggests that the impact of corporateness and approaches to Best Value on performance is mostly small and insignificant.

6.4 Local Authority Performance – Residents’ Survey

A survey of just over 2,500 residents living in areas served by authorities in the ‘Cardiff 100’ group were surveyed in the summer of 2001 to obtain their views about the overall performance of their local council and levels of satisfaction with a wide range of services. A very brief overview is also provided below.

The 2001 residents’ survey reveals generally high levels of satisfaction with local authorities’ overall performance. Overall, 60% of respondents were either ‘very’ or ‘fairly satisfied’ with their local authority (Table 51). Satisfaction with particular elements of local authority performance varied. Satisfaction is highest for the quality (62%) and efficiency (51%) of council services but lowest for meeting standards its sets itself (20%) and setting challenging targets (22%) (Table 52).

Satisfaction was highest for county councils and lowest for small districts. There were also statistically significant differences between county councils and metropolitan councils in relation to overall satisfaction and perceptions of service quality, and between county councils and London boroughs in relation to perceptions of service efficiency (Tables 53 to 56). Initial analysis also indicates that users, who have direct experience of using services, express higher levels of satisfaction than resident's in general.

The 2001 residents survey data are of limited value on their own. The value is as a ‘baseline’ against which changes in residents’ satisfaction with local government and local public services can be assessed by 2005. Further analysis of residents and users views will be presented in the forthcoming ‘Baseline Report’. In later stages of the study it will be possible to track changes in residents’ and users satisfaction between 2001 and 2005, to compare these with other indicators of performance change and to link them to data about authorities’ approaches to implementing Best Value and the process outcomes that have been associated with the regime.

7.0 Conclusions

7.1 Key findings

This report has presented the first findings from the census of local authorities undertaken in 2001 as part of the long-term evaluation of Best Value commissioned by the ODPM. The aim of this census is to provide the baseline for longitudinal evaluation of the impacts of Best Value on organisational change and local authority performance. As such it provides a ‘snapshot’ of the perceptions of a large number and wide range of officers and elected members from a majority of English local authorities.

The data reveal mixed perceptions of the impact of the Best Value regime in its first year. However, several key messages emerge from the respondents:

The census highlights some concerns about the implementation of the Best Value regime at the local level. In particular:

  • whilst respondents report that most reviews include consultation and comparisons, as required by the legislation, many do not involve rigorous ‘challenges’ to existing approaches or adequate tests of competitiveness;
  • whilst most reviews include consultation with service users and staff, other stakeholders are often absent;
  • in many cases the level of political leadership and member involvement in Best Value is low and it is usually corporate officers who have taken the lead in developing Best Value policy;
  • respondents see inspection as a driver for performance improvement but expressed a range of concerns about current inspection procedures. There is particular concern about what are seen as the additional bureaucratic burdens and costs of inspection during the first year of the regime;
  • Best Value appears to have been particularly challenging for smaller district councils, many of which lack some of the organisational attributes that the regime is intended to encourage; and
  • the results of the year one census provide little evidence of a link between corporate approaches to Best Value and actual service delivery. As the results of the research accumulate the time series data may provide different results.

In important respects the perceptions of officers and elected members therefore mirror the experiences of both the Best Value pilot authorities and the findings of external auditors and inspectors—as summarised in the Audit Commission’s (2001) report Changing Gear. The overall picture presented by respondents is though a more positive one than that reported elsewhere. Respondents as a whole, and in particular the 1,800 service officers in our sample, were more optimistic about the prospects for service improvement than are inspectors, and more sceptical about the value of Best Value inspection processes than was suggested by research undertaken last year for the Audit Commission. On the whole, corporate officers were less inclined than other respondents to report that their authorities had implemented Best Value processes and that these were leading to the kinds of positive changes envisaged in our ‘theory of change’ model. Elected members were, on the whole, more likely than other respondents to see their authorities as having implemented Best Value processes. Service officers were more likely than others to believe that their authority already possessed many of the organisational attributes that the Best Value regime seeks to promote in relation to internal culture, processes and strategies.

There are a number of possible reasons for these differences of perception. It is possible that the respondents to our survey and the inspectors have rather different views about what constitutes ‘significant’ improvement – with the former having lower expectations of what it is reasonable to expect in terms of the pace and scale of change. It may also be that these two groups have different implicit ‘theories of change’. In particular many local authorities appear to believe that it will be possible to deliver improvements through incremental changes to their existing approaches to service delivery whilst inspectors appear to set much greater store by new approaches to service delivery – in particular the development of strategic partnerships and the use of external providers.

It is too early to draw firm conclusions about the nature of the impact (if any) of the Best Value regime on local authority performance. Future rounds of the survey of authorities will allow us to draw much firmer conclusions and to compare perceptions of change with changes in performance – as measured by the BVPIs and resident satisfaction. Analysis of the results of the current survey and BVPI data for 2001-2002 though provide little evidence of any link between an authorities’ performance and its approach to Best Value or its ‘corporateness’.

7.2 Further research

The findings of this first survey highlight a number of areas that clearly merit further investigation as the study develops - both through future surveys of authorities and in-depth case studies. These include:

  • Performance improvement: There are a number of encouraging signs from the census that respondents expect the Best Value regime to result in significant performance improvement in the medium term. At this stage however, no link between performance and Best Value processes/outcomes can be discerned. The research will need to assess whether these tangible improvements are in fact achieved and in what circumstances.
  • Inspection: External inspectors are seen as a major external driver for improvement but the current regime is widely regarded as being overly bureaucratic. It will be important to track the effects of the proposals in the recent local government white paper to ‘streamline’ the regime and introduce more ‘proportionate’ external regulation.

  • Elected members, corporate and service officers: The census reveals differences in the perceptions of officers and members about a number of aspects of the Best Value regime. There is a need to examine these differences more closely. In particular, the census indicates that service officers place less value on the corporate elements of Best Value than corporate officers. There is also a need to analyse the impacts of Best Value within the seven key service areas identified by the research.

 

 

8.0 References

Audit Commission (2001) Changing Gear. Audit Commission: London.

Audit Commission (2002) Delivering comprehensive performance assessment: consultation draft, London: Audit Commission.

Byatt, I. and Lyons, M. (2001) The Role of External Review in Promoting Improvement, London: Public Services Productivity Panel.

Boyne, G.A. (1997) Comparing the Performance of Local Authorities: An Evaluation of the Audit Commission Indicators, Local Government Studies, 23, 4,17-43.

Boyne, G.A. (2002) ‘Concepts and Indicators of Local Authority Performance: An

Evaluation of the Statutory Frameworks in England and Wales, Public Money and Management, 22, 2, 17-24.

Boyne, G., Martin, S. and Walker, R. (2001) Explicit reforms, implicit theories and public service improvement: the case of Best Value. LRGRU Discussion Paper no. 4, www.cardiff.ac.uk/carbs/research/lrgru/

Davis, H., Downe, J. and Martin, S.J. (2001) The Impact of Inspection on Local Government: Driving Improvement or Drowning in Detail? York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Goold, M. and A. Campbell (1987) Strategies and Styles: The Role of the Centre in Managing Diversified Corporations Oxford: Blackwell.

Local Government Association (2001) An Inspector Calls – A Survey of Local Authorities on the Impact of Inspection, London: LGA Publications.

Martin, S.J., Davis, H., Bovaird, A.G., Downe, J., Geddes, M.N., Hartley, J.F., Lewis, M., Sanderson, I. and Sapwell, P. (2001) Improving local public services: final evaluation of the Best Value pilot programme, London: DETR.

 

[ Forward ]

Return to Local and Regional Government Research Home Page
Return to Best Value Index
Return to Local Government and the Regions Index
Return to Local Government Finance Index
Return to DTLR What's New Page
Return to DTLR Home Page
DTLR Web site terms