|
Best Returns
Best Value Guidance
for
Library Authorities in England
5
Best value reviews
Whereas the BVPP relates
to the whole authority, best value reviews (BVRs) focus on the delivery of
a service or services. The Local Government Act 1999 and statutory guidance
set out what BVRs should cover. This is summarised by four best value principles:
- challenge
why, how and by whom a service is provided;
- compare
performance with others, including the private and voluntary sectors;
- consult
with local taxpayers, service users, partners, the business community and
voluntary sector; and
- use fair and open competition
wherever practicable to secure efficient and effective services.
Authorities must show
that they have applied these ‘4Cs’ to every review. They are discussed in
more detail in the next section of this guidance.
There is no single or
‘right’ way to approach or conduct a BVR of library services. Most authorities
have so far chosen to carry out a single review of the whole of their library
service. This is one option available - there are others, as discussed below.
In a particularly large,
diverse or complex library service it may seem impractical or unrealistic to
review the whole of the service in one year. Some authorities have planned
to review separate component parts of the service (eg, housebound service,
business information service, adult services, request service) in a rolling
programme over two to five years. But this approach can be even more resource
intensive than a single review of the whole service. And although a narrowly
focused BVR may cover different parts of the service in greater depth, there
is a very real danger in getting lost in detail and process, and losing sight
of the ‘bigger picture’; it may be difficult to see the wood for the trees.
Opportunities to tackle strategic service-wide or cross-cutting issues - and
make significant service improvements - may be missed.
Some authorities are reviewing
their library services as part of a BVR of broadly related services such as
leisure services or cultural services. In this case it may be helpful to use
the Department for Culture, Media and
Sport (DCMS) definition
of cultural services4 and align the BVR
to the development of a Local Cultural Strategy to minimise duplication of
effort.
Reviews that cut across
traditional local authority service boundaries should reflect the strategic
objectives and priorities of individual authorities. Cross-cutting reviews
where libraries should be key players include:
- issue-based reviews
(eg, lifelong learning, social inclusion, community safety, regeneration,
information and communications technology, neighbourhood renewal);
- area-based reviews (eg,
services in high deprivation neighbourhoods, access in rural areas);
- thematic reviews (eg,
equalities, partnerships, customer care, volunteering);
- reviews focusing on
specific customer groups (eg, integrated service delivery to young people);
and
- broad user-based reviews
(eg, access and customer contact services).
In some authorities the
role of libraries in delivering corporate social and economic objectives is
not well recognised at political or senior management levels. Library services
may need to make and argue the
case for why they should
be central players in cross-cutting reviews. Best value presents powerful
opportunities to raise the profile and status of library services, demonstrably
increase their relevance to corporate policies and position them in the mainstream
of local authority provision. Library services should respond to opportunities
presented by the increasing number of cross-cutting reviews in many authority’s
review programmes.
Even if the BVR is a single
review of the whole of the library service, it is critical that it demonstrates
its relevance to both corporate and national agendas. This is the context
in which it will be inspected. And it will be the
contribution of library services to wider strategic objectives that is most
likely to put them on the political and resources map.
It is possible for library
services to be included in library-specific reviews, other service-specific
reviews (eg, of education, youth or social services) and cross-cutting
reviews (eg, lifelong learning). Authorities should carefully scope, plan
and co-ordinate their reviews - the different contexts of the BVRs may raise
different issues and demand different responses to the ‘4Cs’.
Whatever the scope of
the review, the same review effort is not necessarily needed for every area
of the library service. Authorities should prioritise areas for review and
focus on specific issues identified for major improvement rather than treating
every aspect of the service the same.
The Audit Commission strongly
advises against a fragmented approach to reviewing services as the costs incurred
may outweigh any potential benefits: “Given the time and effort involved in
reviewing, smaller and isolated reviews are unlikely to be particularly cost
effective or able to deliver significant improvements or savings for reinvestment
elsewhere”5.
It clearly advocates fewer,
larger and more strategic reviews that focus on themes and issues rather than
individual services.
The Audit Commission has
been collecting information from local authorities on review programmes for
2001/2 to update its best value review database. This database can be searched
to find when other authorities plan to review their library services (www.bvpps.audit-commission.gov.uk/bvrd/default.asp
or www.idea.gov.uk/bestvalue/index.html).
5.1
More on the ‘4Cs’
As the ‘4Cs’ are all closely
related, a linear approach - where challenge,
compare, consult and compete
are applied separately and sequentially - is unlikely to achieve the best results.
This is illustrated in this section of the guidance,
which considers each of the ‘Cs’ in turn - but shows the linkages between them.
It sets out for each ‘C’ some important issues facing library services and
sources of further information. These are followed by checklists summarising
what library authorities should be able to demonstrate as a result of applying
that particular ‘C’, and indications of what the best authorities are likely
to be doing, extracted from the Audit Commission publication Seeing is Believing.
Library authorities may find this section useful as a self-assessment tool
when undertaking their BVRs.
Challenge
Challenge is intrinsically
linked with competition. Both are proving to be especially problematic for
library services where officers and elected members find it difficult to break
out of existing mind-sets and think laterally in ways that will lead to real
change. But without effective challenge library services will find it difficult
to justify whether and why they should deliver the particular
services that they do, what functions they should deliver, how
they should be delivered, who by and who for.
Library services will
not be able to justify their existence - as some try to - simply by arguing
that they are a statutory requirement. The public library standards define
the minimum standards that every library authority should achieve. But within
that statutory framework there is some scope for discretion at a local level.
And much of what library services do is not statutorily defined by the standards,
leaving individual authorities further discretion over what services to deliver.
Authorities will need
to provide evidence that they have considered the underlying rationale for
their library service. What needs is it meeting? Whose needs? What is it
trying to do? Why? These choices will need to recognise the wider local government
and library context, and be rooted in political and corporate decisions about
the strategic objectives that the library service is expected to deliver.
Having established the
overall rationale for the service, authorities should challenge what sort
of library service is needed - to decide their primary service aims, and the
key activities and functions associated with those aims. Different component
parts of the library service and individual libraries within an authority may
well need different aims, activities and functions.
Further guidance on possible
library service roles, service aims and activities is available from various
sources. These include New Library: The People’s Network (Library and
Information Commission, 1997), Review of the Public Library Service in England
and Wales (Department for National Heritage/Aslib, 1995), and Setting
Objectives for Public Library Services (Library and Information Services
Council, 1991).
Just as what library services
do is not necessarily statutorily defined, nor is the way that
library services are delivered. It is not uncommon to find practices continuing
after their original purpose no longer exists, or where they could have been
replaced by new technologies. Best value demands new approaches and alternative
ways of delivering services. Established practices will need to be fundamentally
rethought - and ‘sacred cows’ done away with.
Most authorities that
have carried out BVRs attach great importance to external involvement in the
challenge process. In some cases this has come from elsewhere in the local
authority - from managers of other services and elected members. In others,
it has come from outside the authority - from professional peers, local businesses,
academics, regional agencies, consultants, service users and non-users.
Authorities that have
genuinely engaged front-line staff in the challenge process have found this
a particularly valuable source of innovation and creativity.
Effective challenge is
not easy. If approached rigorously it will not be a comfortable process for
officers or elected members - particularly if it involves external stakeholders.
And it should make a difference, not simply justify what library services already
do.
Members will be expected
to make tough political decisions - balancing cost and quality while meeting
the best value continuous improvement agenda; meeting national standards, while
responding to local needs and expectations; managing trade-offs within and
between services; and reallocating existing resources to support new priorities.
Checklist
Through their BVRs of
library services, authorities will need to evidence:
- that
they have fundamentally challenged the need for particular services;
- that
they have fundamentally challenged what they do;
- that they have fundamentally
challenged how they do it;
- how service aims support
corporate aims and the community strategy;
- how the challenge process
was managed;
- what
comparator information was used to drive the challenge; and
- what has changed as
a result of challenge.
The Audit Commission has
published what it would expect to find in the best authorities where ‘challenge’
has been rigorously applied (Exhibit
1).
Compare
Best value requires authorities
to improve services both in relation to their own previous performance and
the performance of others. Comparison and consultation are important in finding
out about relative performance and customer expectations. They can also identify
new needs, opportunities and ways to deliver services. But if the time spent
on these activities is not used to shape service improvements, then it is of
limited value. It is not uncommon for library authorities to use comparison
defensively to justify what they do and to argue against change, rather than
to find new or better ways of operating and making efficiency savings. Library
services should act on the results of comparison and consultation to drive
improvement for the future - and secure changes on the ground.
Library services have
a long tradition of gathering data that can be used to make comparisons. The
Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) statistics provide
a useful starting point for comparison of high-level information with other
library services. National performance indicators (PIs) have also been established
for some time. The public library standards and national PIs - as well as
CIPFA statistics - will be the principal means of identifying the top 25% of
all library services. Both are discussed in more detail later in this guidance.
But national statistics
and PIs may not reflect what is important about a particular library service
at a local level. Local PIs and targets allow individual authorities to reflect
local priorities, strategies and needs. Many library services have difficulty
setting relevant and well-focused local indicators and targets, particularly
ones that measure the achievement of service aims and the impact of services
(outcome indicators). Yet without them library authorities may struggle to
explain variations in performance compared with others, and to demonstrate
that they are meeting local needs.
More detailed guidance
on setting and monitoring local performance indicators and targets is available
from various sources. These include a model for generating PIs and supporting
guidance materials published by Information Management Associates on their
website - Best Value and Better Performance in Libraries, www.informat.org.uk;
and various Audit Commission publications including On Target: The Practice
of Performance Indicators; Aiming to Improve: the Principles of Performance
Management; and A Measure of Success: Measuring and Monitoring Local
Performance Targets. Further guidance on measuring outcomes and impact
on users is expected during 2002 as part of the new learning and access standard
being developed by Resource.
Comparison is not just
about PIs and statistical analysis. Learning from the experience of others
through benchmarking can be a powerful way of improving services - but it is
not a panacea. Benchmarking is resource intensive and does not in itself deliver
any change.
A common pitfall in benchmarking
is over-concentration on gathering detailed data and searching for the ‘perfect’
comparable authority. Information overload and ‘imperfect’ comparisons are
then used as reasons for not making decisions. Other pitfalls include getting
bogged down in issues of definition in larger benchmarking groups, and the
‘cosiness’ that can develop in smaller groups. Authorities should take a selective
approach to benchmarking and tailor activity according to a clearly identified
need that is directly relevant to the review. Investment of time and effort
in benchmarking should be proportionate to the likely benefits.
Examples of true benchmarking
in library authorities - “systematically comparing … service performance with
others in order to seek ‘best practice’”6
- are limited. Process benchmarking - comparing how something is done
- is particularly underdeveloped. Library services should compare with others
what they do and how they do it - and think about
what that means for their
service, what they could do better and what changes they should make. This
can be especially complex and time-consuming - particularly if it is not tightly
focussed.
Of those authorities that
have benchmarked their library service against different services, some have
benchmarked against ‘broadly comparable’ sectors such as academic libraries,
bookshops, video stores, sports and leisure centres. Others have benchmarked
parts of their service against similar operations in other sectors, for example
comparing library joining procedures with obtaining a store card or buying
insurance by ‘phone. There are also some examples of ‘thematic’ comparison
involving opening hours, records management and use of volunteers.
Best Value and Better
Performance in Libraries has more detailed guidance on benchmarking. Further
sources include CIPFA’s Benchmarking to Improve Performance, DTI’s Managing
in the ‘90’s: Best Practice Benchmarking, and Benchmarking for Local
Government: A Practical Guide, published by the State Government of Victoria.
Checklist
Through their BVRs of
library services, authorities will need to evidence:
- that resources have
been provided to support the comparison exercise;
- how their service compares
with the top 25%;
- that they have made
rigorous comparison throughout the review – and compared the right things
with the right bodies;
- that they have drawn
the right conclusions;
- that they have effective
performance management; and
- that they deliver what
they set out to.
The Audit Commission has
published what it would expect to find in the best authorities where ’comparison’
has been rigorously applied (Exhibit
2).
Consult
The public library sector
is relatively well served with consultation materials. Many library services
have been undertaking user satisfaction surveys for a long time, often using
CIPFA’s Public Library User Survey (PLUS). The PLUS questionnaire has been
revised during 2001. It now reflects public library standards, Best Value
Performance Indicators, Annual Library Plan guidance and the range of services
that libraries can now offer. Some authorities also use Children’s PLUS, due
to be re-launched in 2002/3.
Community PLUS and e-PLUS
will also become available. Both are being piloted during autumn 2001 for
intended roll-out by the end of the year. Community PLUS will be a survey
for use by post, telephone or in face-to-face interviews, which should enable
library services to reach users, lapsed users and non-users in their local
community. e-PLUS will provide a snapshot of ICT use, through a paper-based
survey for all library visitors and a browser-based version for users accessing
services remotely.
Customer satisfaction
is important under best value. Library authorities will be expected to have
robust data on the satisfaction of users, residents and other stakeholders,
to show that satisfaction levels compare well with those in other authorities,
and to take action to address any gaps in satisfaction.
National research shows
that libraries are one of the public services that the public is most satisfied
with. A MORI satisfaction survey commissioned by the Local Government Association7,
provides some useful benchmark data for library authorities. The survey found
that 80% of users are satisfied with their library service - including a third
who are very satisfied - and only a minority are dissatisfied (6%).
But high satisfaction
levels will not necessarily be seen as evidence of a high-performing
library service. User expectations of library services tend to be low, especially
in relation to the quality of information services, for example. And user
satisfaction surveys by definition exclude those who do not use the service
- the very people who may be least satisfied.
While satisfaction surveys
are well established in many library authorities and the range of consultation
techniques is growing, real efforts to engage with non-users and ‘hard-to reach’
communities, and to consult at a deeper level are often limited. Satisfaction
surveys will not be enough to meet the requirements of consultation under best
value. Library authorities should consult about their objectives, performance
and targets, rather than simply about the services currently offered. They
should give local communities a real voice in the decisions that affect them
about services and spending. This demands a different form of consultation.
Designing and carrying
out appropriate consultation needs both expertise and resources. Library services
should not approach consultation in isolation. There may be expertise and
resources available corporately. And there should be opportunities to co-ordinate
and carry out consultation with
- or on behalf of - other services, local authorities or organisations, including
voluntary sector and community groups.
As well as planning how
to consult, authorities should consider how to manage and use the results of
different consultations to effect service improvements. Consultation sometimes
highlights competing priorities of different stakeholders, and demands for
better services may be at odds with review findings. Conversely, reviews may
highlight shortcomings in services where user satisfaction is high.
More detailed guidance
on consultation is available from various sources. These include the IDeA/LGMB
Involving the Public, DETR/Democracy Network
Guidance on Enhancing Public Participation, and theAudit Commission
publication Listen Up! - Effective Community Consultation.
Checklist
Through their BVRs of
library services, authorities will need to evidence:
- that
there is political commitment to consultation;
- that there is a framework
for consultation;
- how
good their internal and external communications are;
- whether the consultation
process is robust (eg, technically valid, inclusive, cost-effective, challenging);
- how satisfaction levels
compare with other authorities;
- how consultation was
managed;
- how the trade-off between
differing stakeholder views was managed;
- how consultation has
informed decisions; and
- what has changed as
a result.
The Audit Commission has
published what it would expect to find in the best authorities where ‘consult’
has been rigorously applied (Exhibit
3).
Compete
Best value supercedes
- but is not a replacement for - compulsory competitive tendering (CCT). It
does not require authorities to subject services to competition in the way
that CCT did, and success will not be measured according to how many services
are subjected to competitive tender. It is not simply about least cost. Best
value demands a much more imaginative and flexible approach.
Government has stated
that it is less interested in who provides a service or how it is provided
than whether it makes a real and positive difference to the services that local
people receive – “what matters is what works”8.
But its expectations
are clear. Government does not believe that it is in the public
interest for any single supplier to dominate service provision either locally
or nationally. It is looking for variety in the way services are delivered
and a mix of service providers from the public, private and voluntary
sectors. The aim is to improve the performance and competitiveness of services,
not create a particular model of provision.
The challenge process
should establish whether and why particular services are provided,
what functions are provided and who for. The assessment of competitiveness
should identify how the services are provided and who by (eg,
through direct provision, tendering or partnering) in the light of the challenge
process. This requires comparison with other local authorities, including
those seen as the best (the top 25%), and an awareness of and comparison with
alternative private and voluntary sector providers, and even international
experiences of providing services. Whatever service delivery methods library
authorities choose, they should be able to demonstrate clearly that they have
considered all viable options and justify their decisions.
At present there may be
few or no serious alternative suppliers of library functions. Some authorities
appear to see this as a reason for not addressing competition. But library
authorities will need to demonstrate that they have seriously considered new
approaches and alternative ways of delivering services. As one of the case
study authorities remarked; “you can’t just say there isn’t anybody else out
there”. Under best value retaining library services in-house can only be justified
where the authority demonstrates that there really are no other more efficient
and effective ways of delivering the quality of service required. Library
authorities should also explore potential future providers and take
steps to encourage them -to create a climate for competition that will enable
the market to develop.
Library authorities should
take into account the practical and political implications of alternative service
delivery options, which include:
- re-designing the service
in-house;
- market testing all or
part of the service (voluntary competitive tendering);
- outsourcing/externalising
all or parts of the service;
- re-negotiating existing
arrangements with current providers;
- disaggregating/re-packaging
services to reflect patterns of provision by other providers;
- internal cross-service
re-packaging;
- external cross-service
re-packaging;
- partnerships with voluntary
sector agencies;
- partnerships with private
sector agencies; and
- partnerships/joint delivery
with other local authorities.
Some of these options
are already being explored by library authorities, mainly in purchasing and
bibliographical services:
- externalisation (ranging
from library supplier involvement in stock selection to complete contracting
out of bibliographical services);
- tendering arrangements
for stock supply; and
- consortia purchasing
arrangements (for stock and ICT systems).
Although Contracting-out
in Public Libraries (Department for National Heritage/KPMG, 1995) no longer
reflects the current government imperative to develop markets, it remains a
useful background document to approaching externalisation issues. For example,
some library authorities are testing their competitiveness by carrying out
self-assessment of their functions with reference to Contracting-out in
Public Libraries, and then identifying alternative service delivery options
through existing networks such as benchmarking clubs and the Society of Chief
Librarians (SCL).
Library authorities are
also experimenting with other approaches to competitiveness. Some are taking
a pragmatic approach, exploring alternatives in specific sectors that offer
services with similar features (eg, private sector provision of business information
services, voluntary sector provision of housebound services). Others have
identified information services currently provided by the voluntary or private
sectors that the library service may be better placed to provide on an agency
basis.
Competition is not yet
well developed at many authorities. But the climate for competition is changing
and local authorities will need to be able to respond. There are early signs
that the market for delivering public sector services generally - and library
services specifically - may be growing. For example, Tribal Group plc, which
provides managed services to the outsourcing market, plans to extend its public
sector operation further; one of its subsidiaries, Instant Library, also has
outsourcing experience, including “complete outsourcing of the working library
function both on and off-site”9.
Also, Government has published
a consultation paper, Working with Others to Achieve Best Value10,
proposing legislative changes to encourage greater partnership working. Proposals
include giving local authorities new powers to form - and delegate functions
to - companies and other corporate bodies; and clarification of powers limiting
local authority trading.
And best value inspectors
are increasingly expecting authorities to demonstrate that their services are
competitive.
More detailed guidance
on competitiveness and procurement is available from various sources. These
include the IDeA publication To Buy or Not to Buy, CIPFA’s Commissioning
Local Authority Services for Best Value: the wider issues of partnership, competition
and contracting out, and DTLR’s Delivering Better Services for Citizens.
Checklist
Through their BVRs of
library services, authorities will need to evidence:
- that an objective options
appraisal has determined how services are delivered and who by;
- that the choice of procurement
is competitive;
- that the service is
cost effective; and
- that steps have been
taken to develop the market.
The Audit Commission has
published what it would expect to find in the best authorities where ‘compete’
has been rigorously applied (Exhibit
4).
5.2
Improvement Plans
A best value review should
focus more on improvement than on current performance. It should lead to an
improvement plan that sets specific and challenging targets for significantly
improving services that will benefit the public and that the public will
notice. A common pitfall is for the improvement plan to recommend another
wider review - or series of smaller, more detailed reviews - or to focus on
internal service processes, rather than direct actions that will secure improvements
for the public.
Improvements should:
- be clearly driven by
the review findings and conclusions;
- demonstrate clear links
with corporate and service objectives; and
- be
resourced and prioritised.
The improvement plan should
include measurable milestones and mechanisms for monitoring and reviewing progress.
Targets for improving services should be SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable,
Relevant and Timely).
The appraisal of 1999
Annual Library Plans (ALPs) found that “the creation and use of performance
targets remains one of the weakest parts of many Plans”11,
and that many contained action plans that “concentrated on undertaking planning
activities rather than service improvement activities”11.
Often action plans did not include firm timescales, identified responsibilities
or resources needed to achieve targets. Whilst the following year’s appraisal
of ALPs saw an improvement in these areas, early findings from best value inspections
indicate a need for further work.
Targets are a significant
part of best value. They are important in helping a service know if it is
achieving what it set out to - and in demonstrating this to others. Without
meaningful targets, library services may struggle to show whether and how they
will improve.
As with local performance
indicators, many library services have difficulty setting relevant and realistic
targets, especially targets relating to the impact of services. Sometimes
libraries lack good quality basic performance information - such as accurate
visitor counts or the total disaggregated cost of different functions. Or
for developing services, they may lack baseline information about where they
are now that will enable them to set realistic targets for the future - for
example, knowing what proportion of their current ICT users are unemployed
or older people when setting targets to extend ICT usage among target groups.
Gathering accurate baseline information to support local performance indicators
and targets should be a priority for many library services.
More detailed guidance
on setting and monitoring targets is available from various sources including
Best Value and Better Performance in Libraries, published by Information
Management Associates on their website (www.informat.org.uk), and the Audit
Commission publication A Measure of Success: Measuring and Monitoring Local
Performance Targets.
Checklist
Through their BVRs of
library services, authorities will need to evidence that:
- targets
have been set that will drive improvement;
- targets are based upon
relevant and comprehensive information;
- targets are linked to
quality improvement - and are ambitious enough to get them into the top 25%;
- the improvement plan
has the commitment it needs from politicians and others;
- resources
are provided to support improvement; and
- there
is effective performance monitoring and management.
The Audit Commission has
published what it would expect to find in the improvement plans of the best
authorities (Exhibit 5).
Implementing and monitoring
the improvement plan
It is not enough simply
to have an improvement plan - “best value is about delivering outcomes
that matter for local people”12. Authorities
should focus less on the process of carrying out the review, and more on how
to use the results to actually implement change and deliver improved local
services. As one of the case study authorities commented; “it’s one thing
having an improvement plan, it’s another thing showing that you can implement
it”. In the first year of best value, “too many authorities have concentrated
on how to carry out a review rather than how to … implement the changes that
have been identified”13.
Some authorities have
approached best value purely as a process to be followed in order to ‘pass’
the inspection ‘test’. In some cases, the real purpose of best value has been
lost and officers have focussed almost entirely on collecting a folder of evidence
for the inspectors to show that the review has taken place and to demonstrate
compliance. Inspectors are - and authorities should be - focused on delivering
outcomes for current and future service users. It is the outcomes for the
public that matter, not internal processes or procedures.
The improvement plan should
be supported by implementation plans that detail how the improvements will
be achieved, when and who by. Performance information and management systems
should enable progress of the plan to be monitored and reviewed, and service
outcomes evaluated.
5.3
Public library standards and national performance indicators
Performance against the
library standards and national performance indicators - as well as CIPFA statistics
- will be the principal means of identifying the top 25% of all library services
under best value.
Public library standards
The DCMS public library
standards came into force on 1 April 2001. They aim to clarify the legislative
framework by defining minimum national standards that every library authority
is required to achieve, in key areas of service such as access, ICT provision
and choice of materials. The standards relate to an authority’s library service
overall, rather than individual libraries.
The objectives of the
standards are to:
- “ensure
that libraries are located so as to provide convenient and suitable access
for users;
- ensure that opening
hours of libraries are adequate for users;
- develop electronic access
for users;
- ensure satisfactory
services for the issuing and reserving of books;
- encourage the use made
of the library service;
- provide choice in books
and materials made available to users;
- provide appropriate
levels of qualified staff”14.
Authorities are expected
to achieve the standards within three years, by April 2004.
The standards correspond
to the top quartile (25%) level of performance across all library services
at 1 April 2001. They will be revised at the beginning of each subsequent
three-year planning cycle, based on data available on 1 April that year. Annual
development of the standards will be included in DCMS guidance for local authorities
on preparing Annual Library Plans.
Performance against the
standards will be monitored and assessed by DCMS mainly through analysis by
CIPFA of data supplied by authorities in their Annual Library Plans.
National performance
indicators
The Best Value Performance
Indicators (BVPIs) are designed to enable performance comparisons between different
authorities and within an authority over time. They are set by Government,
and authorities are statutorily required to collect them.
There are only two BVPIs
directly relevant to libraries in 2001/2 (known as Best Value Service Delivery
indicators). Government has also set two BVPIs relating to the whole of cultural
services, which will include libraries data. Library authorities need to set
targets against these BVPIs.
Government does not intend
to change these four indicators in 2002/3.
In addition to the BVPIs
that relate to libraries and cultural services, a number of the Best Value
Corporate Health indicators for 2001/2 (set by government to indicate how well
an authority is performing overall) may raise particular issues for library
services. Those most likely to be relevant to library services relate to:
- customers
and the community (eg, percentage of public buildings suitable for and accessible
to disabled people; percentage of public interactions delivered electronically);
and
- staff development (eg,
percentage of senior management posts filled by women; the proportion of working
days/shifts lost to sickness absence; percentage of staff declaring that they
meet the Disability Discrimination Act disability definition compared with
the percentage of economically active disabled people in the area; percentage
of staff from minority ethnic communities compared with the percentage of
economically active minority ethnic community population in the area).
Local authorities are
also required to collect specific community safety BVPIs, which will impact
on library services. These include:
- developing a corporate
strategy to reduce crime and disorder in the area that includes departmental
service plans with targets for reducing crime and disorder, and nominated
officers in each service department responsible for achieving the targets;
- number of racial incidents
recorded per 100,000 population; and
- percentage of racial
incidents that resulted in further action.
User satisfaction survey
BVPIs - including the library users satisfaction BVPI 118 - do not need to
be collected in 2001/2.
The Audit Commission has
not set any statutory or service-specific performance indicators for 2001/2.
Instead it is developing voluntary quality of life and cross-cutting indicators.
Its first three sets of indicators cover:
- building
for the future (planning’s role in sustainable development);
- creating
safer communities; and
- providing a quality
local environment.
They are available on
the electronic Library of Local PIs on both the Audit Commission and IDeA web
sites.
The library standards
and national performance indicators are intended to complement each other but
not to provide comprehensive coverage of all library authority functions and
activities. Individual authorities are expected to develop balanced sets of
indicators by supplementing the national standards and indicators with their
own performance measures that reflect local circumstances and priorities.
Targets for improvement - and action plans on how to achieve them - should
be set and monitored for all national and local indicators.
Exhibit
6 combines summaries of the public library standards and national performance
indicators in a single framework. Library authorities may find this framework
useful as a basis for integrating all the standards and PIs they use - government-endorsed,
professional and local - into a single suite of statistical information that
meets internal, external and statutory needs.
5.4
Getting the most out of best value and best value reviews
The approaches of local
authorities to the principles of best value generally - and to best value reviews
specifically - are many and varied. There is no ‘model’ approach. But well
performing authorities tend to feature broadly similar characteristics. This
section sets out the most important of these characteristics. It draws on
the final evaluation of the best value pilot programme, on what local authorities
and inspectors have learned from the first year of best value, and on early
analysis by the Audit Commission of the first 26 inspections of cultural services
- including library services.
Authorities that are making
major improvements through best value tend to have some or all of the following
characteristics:
- a positive attitude
and capacity to change;
Reviews reflect recognition by the service of the need for change, a willingness
to look for ways to achieve change and a desire for continuous improvement.
The authority may also have a track record of implementing change and improving
the range and quality of services (Exhibit
7).
In some of the most
effective reviews, this attitude to change is coupled with a clear view at
the outset of the major issues that the review is seeking to resolve (Exhibit
8). This may be expressed as a simple vision and a limited number of
priorities to achieve, perhaps as straightforward aspirations about outcomes.
Review activity is then focused on tackling and solving important issues.
At present, at the end of reviews many authorities are “still unclear as to
what problems they are seeking to address, even though they have spent significant
time considering solutions”15.
- a customer focussed
approach to service delivery;
Effective reviews are outward-looking,
focused on customers, customer experiences and the outcomes of the service
provided, rather than on internal issues or processes. They demonstrate understanding
of - and responses to - the main concerns of local people, including those
who are not yet customers.
- a performance management
culture;
The most effective
authorities have strong performance information and management systems. They
have clear links between corporate and service aims and practice, clear and
achievable targets for improvement, and reliable performance information.
Their performance management systems are comprehensive and inclusive, with
widespread involvement, commitment and ownership from staff and elected members
in particular. Monitoring focuses on service outcomes as well as inputs,
placing customer focus and service improvements at the top of the agenda.
- stakeholder commitment;
Elected members, staff and other stakeholders are committed to changes that
meet local needs, and to continuous improvement (Exhibit
9). By effectively involving and engaging members and staff in best value
principles and reviews, well-performing authorities secure sufficient political
support and staff ownership to ensure that review conclusions and action plans
are approved, resourced and implemented.
- strong partnership
working;
A positive approach to partnership features strongly in well-performing authorities.
The most effective authorities actively seek out potential service delivery
partners in the voluntary, community, public and private sectors. They recognise
that partnership may offer the best alternative for supplying or delivering
services, rather than simply a convenient or opportunistic mechanism for levering
in resources, or an option of last resort or compulsion.
4
DCMS,
Local Cultural Strategies: Final Guidance, 2000
5
Audit Commission,
A Step in the Right Direction, 2000
6
Information Management Associates, Best Value and Better Performance
in Libraries, 2000
7
LGA/MORI, User Satisfaction Performance Indicators: a pilot survey of the
public, 2001
8
DETR, Circular 10/99 – Local Government Act 1999: Part 1 – Best Value
9
Tribal Group plc, web
site, 2001
10
DETR,
Working with Others to Achieve Best Value, 2001
11
DCMS, Appraisal of Annual Library Plans 1999: Progress and Issues Report,
2000
12
Audit Commission,
Another Step Forward,
2001
13
Audit Commission,
A Step in the Right Direction, 2000
14
DCMS, Comprehensive,
Efficient and Modern Public Libraries - Standards and Assessment, 2001
15
Audit Commission,
Another Step Forward,
2001
6.
The role of the Audit Commission 
|
