BestValuein LocalGovernment Progresosnconservation benchmarking Bob Kindred explains that all this is more than just the latest government buzzwords. Introduction Best Value in Local Government will be coming to a local authority near you soon! The first round of the initiative is nowwell advanced. Thirty-seven local authorities are participating as pilot authorities, although not all are involved with conservation. In some cases, specific under-performing services or an inter-related group of services (such as housing and health) have been selected for review; in others, all the authority's functions are being reviewed systematically. The pilots have formed bench-marking groups of interested progressive 'shadow' authorities (usually between six and 12 in number) with whom benchmarking comparisons are then undertaken. These shadow authorities are not necessarily similar to the pilot in terms of resources, size or demographics but all are anxious to exchange experiences on the processes they adopt and the prospect of improved outcomes in the level and quality of the services they provide. This should subsequently assist in arguing that services can be improved without resorting to Compulsory Competitive Tendering (CCT). At some point the Government will expect all local planning authorities to go through a similar process for conservation services. Some authorities have already been defining their role, unit costs and customer expectations, and some have been undertaking localised (usually county-wide) benchmarking on issues such as buildings-at-risk, but this has not been clone nationally and has usually involved authorities of similar size and composition. The basis of the current national exercise (now nearing completion) may be helpful to many medium-sized Borough & District Councils, but it is clearly recognised that the process is not definitive and must be driven in part by the specific objectives which each local authority has set itself. They are not overall national objectives except in so far as they are enshrined in Context 60 December 1998 the current legislation, precedents and scattered disparate good practice guidance (of which more anon). Authorities setting out on Best Value next year may decide, in the light of the pilot round, to undertake benchmarking on an entirely different basis. The County and Metropolitan Conservation Teams will almost certainly approach the exercise differently. Ipswich is the pilot for development control, land charges and building conservation outside London (Camden is the pilot for development control and building conservation in London). The shadows for conservation are: Carlisle; Lancaster; Chester; Bedford; Bath & North East Somerset and Swale. All the authorities are absorbing this considerable workload entirely in-house without extra resources and in addition to normal workload. It would seem that, initially, most of these specific authorities came forward as a consequence of also undertaking Development Control Benchmarking where a strong statistical basis had been established, not because any of the services were felt to be underperforming. Comparative work Following advice from the Audit Commission, Ipswich has approached the Best Value initiative by preparing a detailed service statement to describe the operation of all its conservation activities, against which have been set specific service targets to be met to a variety of timescales. This is intended primarily to define for the purpose of the local authority's own staff and members what service the conservation team is providing. To establish a statistical basis for some form of comparative benchmarking, the pilot and the sl1adows have compiled a set of baseline statistics in a detailed questionnaire to establish data about their organisational structure; priorities; staffing; heritage resources; costs and internal and external administrative and other procedures. As heritage resources and the local authority's response to them will often vary (sometimes considerably), the importance of establishing qualitative indicators emerged at an early stage. The pilot had then to identify issues from the statistical analysis to form the basis of discussion and a conference of all the parties to discuss approaches to the provision of conservation services and ways in which better procedures and practices might be introduced and how improved performance might be measured. A final overall report of the discussions has been produced, but deliberately no general conclusions were reached about comparative performance. It was for the individual authorities in the benchmarking group to decide how to respond to the outcome and how to implement and resource any changes which might improve performance. In addition to the comparative work, some authorities have been undertaking customer surveys within their own administrative areas and/or with external agencies with which they work. Some of these matters are set out in more detail below. Timetable The timetable set for the pilot exercise was ridiculously tight. It is set it out below because it is a moot point whether it would be wise to try to work to such a tight timescale in future. Authorities must certainly gear up for it in advance, devote time to it, and ensure that they have a nominated officer who will respond to the request for information quickly; however, it is also very important that the process is done properly - something the Audit Commission recognises. 1. Send out draft questionnaire, Service Statement and Confidentiality agreement for comment. Seven working days to return. 2. Four working days to incorporate comments. 21
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=