Appendix 3
Explanations of performance indicator tables

The tables shown at the end of sections 4 - 10 of the Plan exhibit the performance indicators (PIs) we are using to help us to monitor whether our objectives are being achieved. The key or high priority indicators are the ones referred to explicitly within the body of those sections. Many indicators, just like activities, relate to more than one objective. But each indicator has been assigned to just one corporate objective. It is hoped that this approach simplifies the presentation and makes it easier to follow. The performance indicator information provides only part of the picture of our performance. The body of sections 4 - 10 and the rest of this Performance Plan attempt to place the performance indicator information in context.

The tables of indicators show:

Comparisons with other authorities

The comparisons of performance against other authorities shown in the tables are based on Leicestershire’s statistical ‘nearest neighbours’, i.e. those authorities that are similar with regard to a range of socio-economic factors. Some socio-economic factors are more relevant to some services than to others, so the same basic approach can lead to slightly different groups of authorities for different services.

For Social Services, the Social Services Inspectorate (SSI) has selected a group of 15 comparator authorities. For Education, the Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED) has selected a group of 10 authorities. For all other services we have selected the 12 most similar authorities identified by the ‘nearest neighbours’ analysis provided by the Institute of Public Finance.

The information on the performance of the relevant comparator group shows the average (median) performance of the group and the performance of the best-scoring 25% of authorities in the group. For some indicators, it is better to achieve a high score, e.g., the proportion of pupils achieving Level 4 or above in the Key Stage 2 mathematics test (BV40). In these cases, the score shown under ‘best 25%’ is higher than the average and is that of the authority ranked the 75th percentile (i.e. the authority that is three-quarters of the way up the table if authorities’ scores are ranked with the highest at the top). For some indicators, it is better to achieve a low score, e.g., the percentage of children looked after with 3 or more placements during the year (BV49). In these cases, the score shown under ‘best 25%’ is lower than the average and is that of the authority ranked the 25th percentile (i.e. the authority that is one-quarter of the way up the table if authorities’ scores are ranked with the highest at the top). For some indicators, it cannot be said that either a high or a low score is desirable in itself, e.g., youth service expenditure per head of population (BV33). How much an authority spends on this will depend, to some extent, on how efficiently the authority makes use of resources. But, primarily, it will depend on the importance of spending in this area for the authority’s overall objectives, given its local circumstances. In such cases, the best-scoring 25% of authorities cannot be identified from their position in the ‘league table’ for the indicator and ‘N/A’ (for ‘not applicable’) is shown under the ‘best 25%’ heading.

We compare ourselves against the best 25% on an annual basis and set targets to reach the best 25% within 5 years (if we are not already there), wherever this is appropriate. It should be noted that best-25% performance is a moving target, as local authority performance generally improves year on year.

The following cautions should be borne in mind. It is generally desirable to score high on quality and low on cost, thereby providing value for money. But it is possible to achieve low cost by providing poor quality, and improvements to quality often require spending more. Wherever possible, scores on cost indicators need to be considered in conjunction with scores on indicators of service quality.

There are many cases in which the definition of an indicator has changed from one year to the next. In most cases where this has happened, the change is identified by an asterisk and a note explaining that the inter-year comparison is not strictly like-for-like. This plainly diminishes the value of much of the performance information presented. But the Government and the Audit Commission make the changes to definitions of national indicators, so this is beyond our control.

In some cases, where the change between years is substantial, the indicator is treated as being a different indicator in the two years, despite having the same PI code (i.e. it is listed twice). It is unfortunate that the Government does not change the PI code when it changes an indicator definition. It means that often a year (e.g. 2001/02) must be specified as well as a PI code to ensure that a specific indicator is identified. Examples are BV1 (under ‘Working with Partners to Deliver Quality and Responsive Services’) and BV39 (under ‘Achieving Excellence in Education and Learning’).

In 2000/01 the Best Value Accounting Code of Practice (BVACOP) was introduced. This changed the basis for calculation for all the financial indicators. Targets on these indicators for 2001/02 had to be set before the full implications of the new Code were known. This is the main reason for variances of performance from target on the financial indicators for that year.

The indicators shown at the end of sections 4 - 10 are either national indicators (set by the Government) or local indicators developed or adopted voluntarily. The national indicators that we are required to include in this Plan are the Best Value Performance Indicators, set by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The indicators in this set that are most important for our local objectives are highlighted within the body of sections 4 - 10.

We have chosen to include, under objective C ‘Improving Social Care and Support for Vulnerable People’ (section 6) a selection of the national Performance Assessment Framework Indicators, set by the Department of Health.

Some of the national indicators are included in sections 4 - 10 only for completeness, in that they are entirely new, so there is no performance information yet available and no targets have yet been set on them. An example is BV56 (Percentage of items of equipment costing less than £1,000 delivered within 7 working days).

The Government sets national standards or national targets for local authorities on a number of the national PIs. These apply to more than thirty of the Best Value Performance Indicators (BVPIs). A national standard is a minimum acceptable level of performance. A national target sets a level of performance that the Government expects authorities to achieve. In setting our targets for future performance, we have taken account of national standards and targets. Our targets for future performance are always at least as high as national standards. They are also always higher than national targets, with just the following exceptions.