17 November 2006
Best Value audits in Scotland do not rely on narrow performance indicators nor are they obsessed with processes, contrary to claims in a recent PF article. They are well-rounded aids to help councils improve
Arthur Midwinter gives a misleading impression of the audit of Best Value in Scottish councils ('The blame game', October 27–November 2). The Scottish Parliament has placed a statutory duty on local authorities to secure Best Value, defined as continuous improvement in performance, having regard to efficiency, effectiveness, economy and equal opportunities.
The audit examines how well councils are doing this and makes available to the Scottish public an overall judgement on how each authority is managing its business.
Audit Scotland has now published 17 Best Value reports, which provide a rounded assessment of councils' performance. These show that some are performing excellently, some are middling and a smaller number have major weaknesses. Best Value is about continuous improvement — so all councils, not just those with weaknesses, have things to work on. Auditors follow up reports to check progress.
Midwinter suggests that the audits rely too much on statutory performance indicators and examination of systems and processes. This is misleading. Neither of these are key factors in determining the overall audit conclusions, as any reading of the reports shows.
Scottish councils are large, complex organisations. They spend more than £9bn each year and provide services to communities of different sizes and varying characteristics. Our audit approach recognises this. Some of the key principles are:
- A corporate focus — we look at the performance of political leaders and senior managers and how well they deliver results for the council
- Self-assessment — each council does a self-assessment, the audit checks the accuracy of this and then identifies areas for improvements
- Local context — we take into account circumstances such as levels of deprivation and geographical remoteness
- No league tables or simple scores — council performance is too complex to be reflected in a single overall rating. The focus is on improvement rather than comparison with others
- Proportionate approach — we collect evidence from sources inside and outside councils and are flexible in our approach to minimise the burden on authorities. We do not seek compliance to a single assessment framework
- Rigorous moderation. Our judgements are reviewed by a panel, which includes an independent representative. Decisions about the action to follow the audit report are made by the 12 members of the Accounts Commission, an independent body appointed by Scottish ministers.
Our reports reflect a comprehensive and balanced assessment going well beyond a narrow focus on performance management systems or statutory performance indicators. They provide judgements on four key areas.
The first is the council's strategic direction. This covers its ambition for the area it serves; the effectiveness of its leadership; the existence of an improvement culture; and its links with local communities and other agencies.
The second area is how the council is organised — how it manages its people, its assets and its finances; how its leaders perform; how open it is; and the extent to which it promotes equal opportunities and sustainable development.
Council services make up the third area. This includes information about customer satisfaction levels and performance against customer standards as well as from performance indicators and other scrutiny bodies. As the available data is limited, we use what we can and we take care in drawing conclusions.
Finally, we look at areas for improvement, setting an agenda and following up the council's progress.
As the audits have developed, the commission has continued to discuss them with council leaders and chief executives. Following each audit, commission members visit councils and receive feedback on the report and on the methods used. We have adjusted our approach in several ways, for example, by introducing surveys of council staff, elected members and community planning partners. We are also working with the Scottish Executive and Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to develop an improved performance framework.
Having completed audits of half the councils in Scotland, we are now reviewing progress to help us plan for the next full cycle. This will include public consultation, an objective report by an independent body and face-to-face meetings with major stakeholders. We know that there are areas that need to be improved, such as more evaluation of citizens' experience, analysis of service costs and coverage of community planning.
We will learn lessons from the review that will help us to keep improving the process. In the meantime, the audits continue to support and guide councils to provide the best possible services and to strengthen democratic scrutiny by reporting publicly and holding authorities to account.
David Pia and Nikki Bridle are respectively director, public reporting — local government, and assistant director, public reporting — Best Value, at Audit Scotland
PFnov2006
