Location: Home » The Council » Chief Executive » BVPP-performance indicators

Best Value Performance Plan 2001

Performance Indicators

During the last ten years local councils have developed a range of measures, known as "performance indicators" to show how they are performing in comparison with other councils and with their own performance in previous years.

In the overall assessment of performance at the beginning of this document we used our performance against these indicators as one way of showing how we are performing. In Appendix 3 we provide the detail to back up our assessment. We set out wherever possible:

• Our performance in 1999/2000 together with estimated performance for 2000/01.
• Details of the average and best performance levels of other county councils during 1999/2000 to allow you to make a comparison with the performance of other similar councils. Where we use the term "best performance level" we mean the level of performance that is equalled or bettered by 25% of authorities included in the comparison.
• Targets to improve our performance. Generally we aim to match the performance of the best performing county councils within the next five years. In some cases however this will not be possible and we have therefore provided details of our own local target that we consider to be more realistic in the circumstances.

We have grouped the performance indicators together under our key priority areas. Those marked "local indicators" are ones that we have developed ourselves. However as they are local we cannot provide you with details of the performance of other county councils to allow you to make a comparison.

For performance indicators related to expenditure levels it has been assumed in the "best performance level" column that higher spending reflects better performance. We have also decided that it would not be appropriate to set future expenditure targets in advance of budgeting decisions by the Council.

You will see that some performance indicators are marked "to be deleted". This is because the government now believes that they are no longer useful indicators of performance.

We have included details of four performance indicators described as "Community Partnership Performance Indicators." Whilst we are not directly responsible for these performance indicators we work with, and support, the Partnership in meeting these targets.

Finally, last year we set out in our first plan our targets for performance in all areas of the Council. We also gave you an indication of how we expected to perform. In a small number of cases we did not achieve our targets and we thought you might like to know the reasons why. The most significant areas were:

• BVPI 56 - The percentage of items of (social care) equipment costing less than £1,000 delivered within 3 weeks of assessment. We operate a charging policy that builds significant delays into the delivery arrangements and we are unlikely to improve on the current levels of performance. We will examine the arrangements as part of our Best Value review and if there are any ways to speed up the process we will do so. In the meantime we have set ourselves more realistic targets for the future.
• BVPI 58 - The percentage of people receiving help from the authority who have been given a statement of what their needs are and how they will be met. Performance in this area suffered when we restructured the Home Care service. We are now monitoring progress on a monthly basis with a view to making a significant improvement in performance.
• BVPI 93 - Cost of highway maintenance per 100 miles travelled by a vehicle. The Council decided to increase the amount it spent on highways maintenance and it therefore exceeded its initial target spend.
• BVPI 159 - Percentage of permanently excluded pupils attending more than 20 hours a week of alternative tuition. Ambitious targets and changes in government for permanently excluded pupils have required a revision of staffing and provision costs. Last years target was too ambitious. There is now a statutory duty to provide 25 hours curriculum provision a week by September 2002. Current projections suggest this will be achieved.
• BVPI 43b - Percentage of (special educational needs) statements prepared within 18 weeks including those involving other agencies. These statements are provided to support children's access to education who have complex and profound needs. Often this requires a significant degree of input from professionals in a range of external agencies. Delay in issuing a statement can be entirely appropriate in order for those professionals to form the correct judgements and diagnoses, and to take account of parental views and the child's welfare.