Value for Money (VfM)at

Lincolnshire County Council

George Spiteri18th April 2013

The Lincolnshire County Council approach to Value for Money Assessment

The Methodology and Methods demonstrated in this presentation have been devised and

developed by Lincolnshire County Council and are copyrighted to them

© 2013 Lincolnshire County Council

Value for Money Defined

?

The Audit Commission defines Value for Money as the 'Relationship between

economy, efficiency and effectiveness'

• Economy is reducing costs wherever we can

• Efficiency is getting the most out of our money

• Effectiveness is achieving better outcomes and impact for the public

Value for money

VfM in Lincolnshire County Council History

• Audit Commission VfM in CPA/CAA• Challenge to do better• LCC VfM Methodology developed• LCC VfM Profiles used in budget setting meetings• LCC VfM Profiles used in future Audit Commission

VfM assessments• VfM Profiles updated and used by service areas

Value for Money Exercise

Mobile

Phones

Value for Money Exercise• How many have a Personal Mobile Phone?• Level of Spend per month

a) £0 - £9, b) £10 - £19, c) £20 - £29, d) £30 - £39, e) >£40

• How many have unused minutes, texts or data at the end of every month?

• How many have a “smartphone”?• How many of those with a smartphone use all the

functionality?

VfM AssessmentVfM Profiles - Comparison of 2008/09 to 2012/13

Direction of Travel and Pace of Change compared to Statistical Nearest Neighbours

Directorate: Adults Service: Adult Social Care - Older People Service

Authority2008/09 Outturn

C322009/10 Outturn

NI1302010/11 Outturn

NI130

2011/12 Provisional

Outturn NI1302012/13 Target Authority

2008/09 RO Spending

2009/10 RO Spending

2010/11 RO Spending

2011/12 RO Spending

2012/13 RA

Cambridgeshire 69.70 6.80 27.50 32.69 Cambridgeshire 766.42 786.96 780.13 755.93 717.63

Cumbria 79.43 16.40 46.80 59.46 Cumbria 848.84 844.64 850.65 799.36 781.66

Derbyshire 108.83 5.10 20.50 37.31 Derbyshire 809.97 801.69 788.81 764.01 851.02

Devon 68.14 5.40 34.50 61.74 Devon 691.80 670.48 642.72 723.22 705.87

Gloucestershire 65.44 4.20 7.60 39.40 Gloucestershire 745.01 761.57 626.62 555.34 737.93

Leicestershire 71.45 6.60 9.50 41.89 Leicestershire 696.04 676.09 554.51 481.55 658.35

Lincolnshire 54.50 4.00 21.30 38.85 Lincolnshire 701.13 724.71 732.23 615.26 587.76

Norfolk 88.97 4.30 13.30 45.93 Norfolk 597.50 594.32 620.65 571.82 521.01

North Yorkshire 97.30 14.70 30.50 58.58 North Yorkshire 691.72 668.43 635.33 663.47 649.96

Northamptonshire na 10.40 35.50 51.48 Northamptonshire 714.41 740.19 802.47 725.79 676.06

Nottinghamshire 74.02 9.70 38.80 67.16 Nottinghamshire 769.53 817.09 769.34 712.92 711.64

Somerset 86.70 2.30 2.60 2.40 Somerset 672.27 682.14 619.53 623.39 591.83

Staffordshire 91.05 6.90 13.10 22.69 Staffordshire 774.17 734.40 726.11 619.20 721.78

Suffolk 82.15 9.30 32.60 51.80 Suffolk 752.74 960.07 960.25 777.49 662.13

Warwickshire 101.30 10.50 28.40 45.03 Warwickshire 796.45 784.16 731.02 584.28 669.66

Worcestershire 91.30 3.90 31.20 57.72 Worcestershire 720.61 725.88 702.50 642.89 668.73RANK BASED ON - HIGHER PERFORMANCE IS BETTER RANKING BASED ON - LOWER COST IS BETTER

LINCOLNSHIRE 15 14 10 12 LINCOLNSHIRE 6 6 10 5 2

C32 No of Older People (OP) helped to live at home per 1,000 population aged 65 & above (2008/09) or NI130 No of OP aged 65 & above receiving self directed

support as a % of the total no of OP aged 65 & above

Older People (aged 65 and over)£s /head

VfM Assessment

Year 1

Year 2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

500525550575600625650675700725750775800

Pe

rfo

rman

ce

(wh

ere

hg

her

is b

ett

er)

Appropriate Cost (where lower is better)

Example of Value for Money Judgement

Year 1

Year 2

VfM Judgement

Comparison Info 2011/12 Performance Cost Ratings Performance Cost

NN Spends Most 59.46 799.36 Direction of Travel 11/12 Positive Positive

NN Spends Least 41.89 481.55 Pace of Change 11/12 Positive Positive

NN Best Performer 67.16 712.92 VALUE FOR MONEY

Cumbria

Leicestershire

Nottinghamshire AVERAGE

VfM Judgement Based on the information available the Value for Money (VfM) assessment would be “Poor” for 2010/11 improving to “Average” for 2011/12 compared to nearest neighbours. Despite a slight drop in performance (moving ranking from 10th to 12th) there was a significant improvement in costs improving the ranking from 10th to 5th. This has led to the improvement in VfM between the two years.

Interpretation• It is possible for a service to be delivering

services and operating in a best practice band but still demonstrating poor value for money in the profile report

• The comparisons made in the Value for Money Profile is relative to the appropriate nearest neighbours

• It is not a judgment or assessment of the absolute performance level achieved

Value for Money Judgement – Interpretation of ChartsP

erf

orm

an

ce

Cost (£)

Directorate - Service Area

HIGH

GOOD

POOR

LOW

VERYPOOR

POOR

GOOD

AVERAGE

VERYGOOD

VfM Judgement

OP 08/09

OP 09/10

OP 10/11

OP 11/12

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Cost (£)

Adult Social Care - No of OP receiving self directed support as a % of the total no of OP (aged 65 & above)

HIGH

GOOD

POOR

LOW

VfM Judgement

Where to now?

• National Indicators have been “discontinued”• Much of the Statutory Data is still being

reported – with defined criteria for measurement

• Some benchmarking clubs still exist• CIPFA VfM Benchmarking – demo?• Services may have to measure against

themselves.• LG INFORM - ?

Questions and Comments