DCLG memorandum to the Communities and
Local Government Committee on the Departmental Annual Report 2007
PUBLIC SERVICE
AGREEMENTS
1. PSA1 NEIGHBOURHOOD
RENEWAL
The Technical Note specifies that "ODPM's
PSA1 target will have been successfully met if the required progress
is achieved against all the indicators... under the six key outcome
areas". On what basis has the Department assessed performance
against this target as "On Course", when two of the
indicators are assessed as "Slippage" and one has not
yet been assessed?
The Department assessed its performance against
PSA1 as "On Course" because progress was being made
in all six outcomes areas, and particularly on health, crime and
liveability indicators.
Worklessness
A robust measurement of progress against the
Spending Review 2004 worklessness target requires comparison between
like for like quarters over two reporting years (that is, 4 data
comparison points). Comparison between sequential quarters does
not provide definitive evidence of rate of progress because of
the short term variations in employment levels that occur in different
seasons (eg in tourism and farming), though it can be an indicator
of direction travelled.
At the time we submitted evidence, worklessness
was marked as "not yet assessed" because we did not
have data over sufficient quarters to state categorically what
the rate of progress was, but the evidence that was available
indicated that the target was on course. Since then further data
has become available to make a robust assessment of progress,
which shows that in the two years from April 2005, there has been
a 2.8 percentage point improvement in the employment rate in target
wards and a 2.3 percentage point reduction in the difference between
the employment rate for England and the target wards. This confirms
that at this time there is no reason to suspect that the indicator
will not be met and it is more likely that the target will in
fact be exceeded.
Housing
The PSA1 floor target elements of the decent
homes target are on course for delivery, and as such overall slippage
on PSA7 will not negatively impact on the delivery or rating of
PSA1.
The proportion of non-decent homes in deprived
areas fell from 52% to 49% between 2003-04 and 2004-05, representing
greater progress than the fall from 23% to 22% in non deprived
areas over the same period. If this progress is maintained then
as the greatest proportion of social housing and non decent social
housing is in deprived areas, most of the improvements will continue
to take place in deprived areas.
Education
The indicator for education remains the most
challenging target. However, at Neighbourhood Renewal Fund level
there has been a marked improvement in progress since 2002.
Based on the latest figures (information on
this year's results will not be available until Spring 2008),
although the rate of progress between 2005 and 2006 is higher
in Neighbourhood Renewal Fund areas than nationally, we estimate
that schools in Neighbourhood Renewal Fund areas are unlikely
to meet the 2008 target until 2010.
So we remain confident that good progress is
being made in narrowing the gap in Neighbourhood Renewal Fund
areas. But currently we expect slippage on the education element
meaning that it will be met in 2010 rather than 2008 as originally
planned.
Liveability
In the 2007 Annual Report progress on the liveability
indicator was assessed as "on course". Our target is:
to reduce the proportion of local authorities judged to have unacceptable
levels of litter and detritus nationally from 23% to 10% and from
33% to 17% in areas in receipt of NRF. On this indicator, targets
for national improvement, and the overall improvement in deprived
areas, were being achieved, although there was a deterioration
in some deprived areas in 2005-06.
The data for BV199a 2005-06 indicate that the
percentage of local authorities with unacceptable levels of litter
and detritus has fallen from 8% in 2004-05 to 6% in 2005-06 nationally,
but has increased from 10% to 12% since 2004-05 for Local Authorities
in receipt of Neighbourhood Renewal Funding. While this means
we continue to achieve our target, it also indicates that over
the past 12 months the gap between national and deprived areas
has widened by 4 percentage points.
It should be noted that on PSA8, which shares
this indicator, the indicator was assessed as "ahead"
(whereas the same indicator was reported as "on course"
on PSA1). Whilst we are on course to meet the target we recognise
the need for consistency in our reporting of progress against
both PSAs and will address this in the Department's Autumn Performance
Report.
2. PSA2 REGIONAL
ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE
PSA2 is assessed as "On course". The
first sub-target of PSA2 is "to make sustainable improvements
in economic performance as measured by the trend rate of growth
for Gross Value Added (GVA) per head for all regions . . ".
In relation to GVA per head growth, paragraph 4.7 of the Communities
and Local Government Annual Report states that "The West
Midlands maintained baseline performance" and "the South
East and East regions did not improve on their individual baseline
trends". On what basis has the Department assessed progress
against this target as being "On Course"?
Paragraph 4.10 of the Annual Report states that
"With only three years data it is too early to say if these
results reflect changes in underlying trends". Why has the
Department chosen to report overall progress as being "On
Course" rather than "Not yet assessed"'?
The aim of the Regional Economic Performance
PSA is to improve the economic performance of all regions and
reduce the persistent gap in growth rates between the three best
performing regions of the Greater South East (London, South East
and East) and the other six collectively by 2012.
Whilst there is as yet insufficient evidence
to establish underlying trends, the 2007 Annual Report's statement
on overall performance as "on course" reflects the Department's
best assessment of overall progress. This is assessed on the basis
of the best available data and early emerging positive signs.
For most of the regions, performance between 2002 and 2005 was
better than in the baseline period, and the gap in growth rates
between the regions was less than during the baseline period.
Improvements in economic performance in the
North, Midlands and South West have contributed as much as the
slight slowdown in the Greater South East to the recent narrowing
of the gap in growth rates. A full analysis of the position was
set out by Government in December 2006.[1]
This included further evidence of progress such as the narrowing
of regional gaps in two key economic indicators: employment rates
and level 2 skills.
Therefore, although it is too early to be confident
of the outcome, the Government believes this target remains achievable,
whilst recognising that it is very challenging.
Paragraph 4.11 refers to the need for "all
the key economic departments to co-ordinate action". How
is the Department seeking to achieve this co-operative working?
How is the Department seeking to work co-operatively?
Prior to recent Machinery of Government changes,
Communities and Local Government shared lead responsibility for
PSA delivery with Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and
HM Treasury. The Department maintained regular senior level discussions
and working-level contacts with these departments and also worked
closely with wider departmental stakeholders through an Inter-Departmental
Steering Group. The Department continues to hold high-level bilaterals
and to contribute to work.
The Review of Sub-National Economic Development
and Regeneration highlighted that "the Government would
place lead responsibility for the Regional Economic Performance
PSA in the Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform"
(Sub National Review, paragraph 6.137). Communities and
Local Government will continue to play a significant role in this
work, particularly in its cross-Government work on the development
of an Integrated Regional Strategy to underpin regional development
and growth and on implementation of other recommendations in the
Review of Sub-National Economic Development and Regeneration.
3. PSA3 FIRE
DEATHS REDUCTION
TARGET
Progress against sub-target 1 of PSA3 has been
assessed as slippage. How is the Department seeking to address
this? What assessment has the Department made of the reasons for
some local fire and rescue authorities having fatality rates that
are significantly higher than the national average?
The floor target is that no fire and rescue
authority should have more than 1.25 times the national average
for accidental fire deaths. For the 12 months from September 2005
to September 2006, four Fire and Rescue Authorities were over
the 1.25 floor target threshold. These were Merseyside, Greater
Manchester, South Yorkshire, and Lancashire.
The Department has commissioned work to explore
in detail the reasons why some Fire and Rescue Authorities have
fatality rates well above the national average. The results of
this work demonstrate a strong correlation between those who live
in deprived areas and the risk from fire.[2]
Consistent with these findings, the Department
provided funding to support those authorities with the highest
levels of deprivation. When the PSA3 target was first established
on 1 April 2005 there were 11 Fire and Rescue Authorities suffering
fire fatality rates at more than (or just below) 1.25 times the
national average. The Community Fire Safety Innovation Fund—established
following the 2002 Spending Review as a non ring-fenced grant
targeting those Fire and Rescue Authorities with fire death rates
worse than the floor target—has helped to reduce the number
of Fire and Rescue Authorities above the floor target from eleven
to four. Subsequent programmes, including the Home Fire Risk Check
and Fire Prevention Grant, have allocated some £36.4 million
funds to Fire and Rescue Authorities nationally, with a particular
focus on targeting areas of deprivation and high risk groups.
Figures for the third quarter of 2006 (to September)
for the four Fire and Rescue Authorities above the floor target
threshold show fatality levels were below the quarterly average
for each Fire and Rescue Authority in the period since the floor
target was first established in 1999.
4. PSA4 LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
PSA4 uses the Audit Commission's Comprehensive
Performance Assessment scoring of individual local outcomes. Paragraph
5.21 refers to the new assessment framework introduced in 2006,
and notes that the Audit Commission is to publish CPA re-categorisations
of some district councils in summer 2007. The Committee would
like the Department's updated PSA4 assessment once any CPA re-categorisations
are made.
In July 2006, the Audit Commission confirmed
the process by which councils could be re-categorised through
a corporate assessment. The Commission announced it will only
undertake Comprehensive Performance Assessment re-categorisation
activity in the following circumstances:
— where a council requests re-categorisation
and is able to demonstrate significant evidence of improvement;
or
— where the Commission identifies evidence
of significant deterioration.
Under the Audit Commission's new district council
framework the methodology for assessment is a risk based approach
rather than a rolling programme of inspection; therefore, it is
not possible to meaningfully set an overall PSA category target
for district councils. We will continue to monitor performance
of district councils against this measure and against the target.
Since the 2007 Annual Report was published the
Audit Commission has carried out Comprehensive Performance Assessment
re-assessments for 15 district councils. 14 of these district
councils improved their score as a result and the other score
remained the same. Three of the districts who were re-assessed
by the Audit Commission had previously been rated "poor".
Two of these councils have moved up to "good", whilst
Bromsgrove remains "poor". The Department is currently
working with the council in order to ensure rapid and effective
improvement. 50% of districts are currently rated as good or excellent.
5. PSA5 HOUSING
MARKET RENEWAL
On PSA5, what evidence does the Department have
for the statement in paragraph 6.18 that long term vacancy rates
in pathfinders are expected to fall "as they move into the
next phase of their interventions"? What active steps is
the Department taking to ensure that it meets its target to reduce
the long-term vacancy rate in the North West to the target level?
Vacancy rates in the market renewal areas to
an extent reflect the programme of acquisitions of property undertaken
in the first years of the pathfinders initiative. Between 2003
and 2007, Government funding has supported over 7,000 acquisitions
across the market renewal areas, many of which must remain vacant
while the pathfinder develops its next phase of work, such as
redevelopment of a wider area. Plans for development in an area
may also contribute to some temporary movement away from an area
as people choose to live elsewhere while redevelopment is in progress.
As the programme continues to develop, therefore,
the Department expects the market renewal areas to take forward
a range of activity on refurbishment, demolition and new build,
which will all reduce the number of vacant properties in an area
and help to create more sustainable communities.
The Government's approach to this is common
across all regions, including the North West. We have asked the
market renewal areas to prepare business plans for the period
2008-11, which will set out new targets for refurbishment, demolition
and new build. These plans will help us track progress towards
the renewal of the intervention areas. We will be considering
them and taking decisions on funding allocations early in the
New Year.
6. PSA6 PLANNING
On PSA6, paragraph 6.41 of the Annual report refers
to Local Development Frameworks, and states that around 38% of
DPD submissions are likely to be more than six months late, and
some documents already submitted have been found to be unsound.
What are the reasons for these problems? Has the sub-target for
Local Development Frameworks already been missed, or can the Department
improve performance to meet future milestones?
The target in the Spending Review 2004 was that
local authorities would complete their Local Development Frameworks
according to the timetables that they set out in their individual
Local Development Schemes. As the Annual Report acknowledges,
there has been significant slippage against these original timetables
and, as a result, the PSA6 sub-target will not be met.
The chief reason for this slippage is that the
level of culture change needed throughout the planning system
to produce proactive development strategies instead of regulatory
plans has been much greater than was originally thought. In addition
many councils have not treated Local Development Frameworks as
one of the key policy making documents for the authority, and
have not prioritised or resourced it adequately.
The Department has a number of proposals in
hand to improve performance:
— Amendments to the Local Development
Framework regulations and guidance to make the process simpler
and more proportionate to the tasks in hand.
— Using Housing and Planning Delivery
Grant to incentivise performance.
— Capacity building in local authorities
through the Planning Advisory Service.
— Working with the Local Government
Association and others to emphasise the importance of Local Development
Frameworks as a corporate priority for authorities.
The Local Development Frameworks timetables
are reviewed by local authorities from time to time, to reflect
changed circumstances. Because of concern about slippage in December
2006 the Government announced that after March 2007 no further
changes would be agreed without good reason. Current timetables
agreed by local authorities show that by March 2008 one third
of core strategies (the principal Local Development Framework
Documents) should be submitted to government and over two thirds
by March 2009.
7. PSA7 DECENT
HOMES
On PSA7, the Department has not reported progress
on some indicators which are listed in the Technical Note. Specifically,
the Department does not appear to have reported on the proportion
of the reduction in the number of non-decent dwellings that has
taken place in deprived areas from 2003-04 to 2004-05, and success
in sustaining this progress to 2006 (two indicators). A further
two indicators relating to the private sector have also not been
specifically reported on (the target to achieve a year on year
increase in the proportion of vulnerable private sector households
in decent homes, and the target to achieve 75% of these homes
being in decent condition by 2012). Why has the Department not
reported progress against all indicators, as requested in Treasury
guidance?
Can the Department provide an assessment of progress
against the above indicators?
We have never reported on the proportionate
reduction of non decent homes in deprived areas year on year as
the technical note for PSA7 does not require it. We are required
to deliver:
— by 2004 more then 50% of progress
occurring in the 112 areas since 2001 (reported in the 2005 Autumn
Performance report); and
— by 2006 more than 50% of progress
occurring in the 112 areas since 2001 (will be reported in the
2007 APR).
Our latest figures show that 68% of the reduction
took place in the 112 most deprived local authorities between
2001 and 2005.
The Department has not reported progress against
the two indicators relating to vulnerable people in the private
sector in previous annual reports. This is due to an oversight
which will be corrected in future annual reports.
The proportion of vulnerable households in the
private sector in decent homes increased from 65.5% in 2004 to
66.1% in 2005.[3]
This exceeds the interim target of 65% by 2005 and puts performance
ahead of trajectory to achieve 70% by 2010 and 75% by 2012.
The target for non-decent social sector dwellings
is a reduction of 100% by 2010. How is the Department seeking
to address the slippage in this performance indicator?
Given that this target has experienced slippage,
why did the Department spend less on this target in 2006-07 (£1,577
million) than in 2005-06 (£1,690 million)?
On 7 June 2006, the then Secretary of State
announced that the 2010 target would be relaxed in a limited number
of cases for those local authorities engaged in or wishing to
pursue major transformations of their estates, where extending
the programme beyond 2010 could deliver value for money or better
outcomes for local communities. By 2010 it is expected that over
95% of social sector homes will meet the decent homes standard,
compared with less than 50% attaining this standard in 2001.
The reduced level of spend in 2006-07 is due
to the ALMO programme spending less money than planned. This was
caused by two factors, firstly a number of large ALMOs completed
their investment programme, having delivered decent homes, and
secondly fewer ALMOs began spending in this year than we had programmed
for. We are dependent on ALMOs meeting at least 2* performance
standards before they can access funding and in 2006-07 nine local
authorities chose to delay their inspections which assess performance,
and four local authorities did not pass their inspections. Much
of the slippage will be recouped as these ALMOs come on stream
but delayed starts will mean some spend continuing beyond 2010
which is taken into account in the estimate of achieving 95% decency
by 2010.
8. PSA8 LIVEABILITY
The Technical Note for PSA8 specifies that in
order for this target to be met, at least one of the last two
indicators must be met. One of these indicators (household satisfaction
with quality of local area) has been assessed as "Slippage".
The other (public satisfaction with parks and open spaces) has
not yet been fully assessed. Data to make a full assessment is
due to become available in "summer 2007" [Annual Report,
paragraph 7.21].
The Department has assessed overall progress of
PSA8 to be "On course". Has the Department now made
an assessment of progress against the "Parks and Open Spaces"
target using the Best Value User Satisfaction survey?
The assessment of "on course" in the
2007 Annual Report was based on the fact that while we had yet
to receive data on public satisfaction with parks and open spaces
(BV199e) from the 2006-07 Best Value Satisfaction Survey, our
expectation at that point was that the indicator would be achieved.
The 2006-07 Best Value User Satisfaction Survey
data subsequently published in July 2007 reported that satisfaction
with local parks and open spaces has continued to improve from
2003-04 survey and baseline year (2003-04) up nationally from
71% to 73% and in deprived areas from 69% to 70%.
However, although we have seen satisfaction
continue to rise, it is below our target of achieving an aggregate
level of satisfaction of 75%, nationally and in deprived areas
over the lifetime of the PSA. The data also reports a widening
of 1% in the "gap" in satisfaction between national
and deprived areas.
However analysis of the data demonstrates that
we are seeing improvement in areas previously identified as performing
poorly. For example:
— of the 234 authorities in 2003-04
reported below 75% resident satisfaction, 54 are now above the
threshold and 146 have shown overall improvement; and
— of the 69 authorities in deprived
areas in 2003-04 reported below the 75% threshold, 11 are now
above and 39 have shown overall improvement.
We are currently developing a new national indicator
set for assessing local performance, including taking greater
account of citizens' views and perceptions. Details will be announced
as part of the forthcoming Comprehensive Spending Review 2007
announcement.
What effect has this had on the overall assessment
of progress on PSA8?
In view of the 2006-07 on public satisfaction
with parks and public spaces and latest available data on household
satisfaction where we have seen improvements but remain below
trajectory, will be revising our overall assessment of progress
on PSA8 in the Department's forthcoming Autumn Performance Report.
A final assessment of progress will be made
at the end of December 2008 against the criteria set out in the
published technical note.
Given that indicators (a)-(d) have been assessed
as either "Ahead" or "On course", why does
the Department consider that results of the EHCS surveyor assessment
(indicator (e)), and the SEH survey data (indicator (g)), which
give an overall indication of the quality of the environment,
are showing signs of slippage?
Performance indicators (e) and (g) provide an
assessment of physical and perceived quality, respectively, across
a wide range of factors to produce aggregated measures of poor
quality environments around housing (16 factors) and how people
perceive the quality of where they live (6 factors). As these
factors go wider than the specific services and service outcomes
measured in indicators (a) to (d) we would not expect there to
be a definite correlation between the different indicators.
Provisional full-year data for 2006-07 from
the Survey of English Housing (published after the 2007 Annual
Report) reports over the last 12 months household satisfaction
with quality of local area has increased from 64.6% to 65.6% nationally
and 60.1% to 61.4% in NRF areas. So while we remain below trajectory,
the increase in satisfaction is encouraging and reverses the previous
downward trend.
Although the 2005 English Housing Condition
Survey reports the number of households living in poor-quality
environments is not in line with expectations for indicator (e),
statistically there has been no significant change from our 2003
baseline position. A further assessment against this indicator
will be made in the Department's forthcoming Autumn Performance
Report.
What measures is the Department taking to improve
performance specifically against indicators (e) and (g)?
We continue to support local areas to create
and sustain high quality public spaces as a key part of our strategy
for delivery of PSA8. We do this through the following:
— The "how to" innovation
and good practice programme which uses a range of approaches to
encourage practitioners to take-up and use powers and tools to
improve physical quality of local areas including:
— revised and updated guides tailored
to support local service providers and practitioners to take more
effective and innovative action to deliver community aspiration
for high quality town centres, residential areas and parks;
— a series of nine action learning
events across the country—with a further three planned—focussing
on successful approaches for engaging children and young people
in the design, use, management and maintenance of public space;
and
— support to 44 Local Strategic Partnerships
(recipients of the Cleaner Safer Greener or Neighbourhood Elements
of Safer and Stronger Communities Fund) to help raise the profile
of PSA8 and to agree cross-partnership action to improve liveability
locally.
— Taking forward commitments in the
Local Government White Paper to empower communities to help shape
the quality of where they live by:
— extending take-up of neighbourhood
management, which evidence shows can improve the responsiveness
of local services, particularly where services are weak or failing,
delivering improved outcomes for communities particularly on liveability
issues; and
— simplifying the statutory `Right
to Manage' process to make it easier for local authority tenants
to work with their local authority to take on management of housing
services. As part of the tenant empowerment package also considering
possibility of voluntary extension of tenant management to Registered
Social Landlord tenants and how Tenant Management Organisations
could extend role into wider neighbourhood services.
Through our partnership with Groundwork and
support via the Special Grants Programme we are continuing to
work with a range of Third Sector partners to enable communities
to engage in transforming the physical quality of their neighbourhoods,
creating a greater sense of local ownership and pride.
9. PSA9 GENDER
EQUALITY
On PSA9, the Technical Note specifies that in
order to meet this target, the Department must meet all of the
first four sub-targets. Of these, two (childcare arrangements
and equal pay reviews) are not yet assessed, and the other two
have been judged against a variety of indicators with no clear
overall assessment made. Of the 19 indicators in total, five are
not yet assessed and five have been assessed as "Slippage".
On what basis has the Department arrived at its overall assessment
for PSA9 of "On course"?
At the end of July, the Prime Minister announced
plans to transfer responsibility for equality issues to a new
Government Equalities Office, to be located in the Department
for Work and Pensions and reporting to Barbara Follett MP, Parliamentary
Under-Secretary of State at the Department for Work and Pensions
and the Right Honourable Harriet Harman QC MP, Minister for Women.
Following the publication of the Annual Report,
in response to a National Audit Office report, which highlighted
concerns about some data sources underpinning the PSA, officials
have undertaken further analysis and concluded that, without modification,
they should revise their assessment to say that the PSA is not
now on course to be met. This is specifically because of problems
with the existing data source for the domestic violence sub-target
(following changes in the law) and with data collection to assess
the Equal Pay Review sub-target. In addition, there are difficulties
with the data used to assess the pensions, Information Technology,
Electronics and Communications and take-up of childcare by low
income families sub-targets which we are considering.
Can the Department provide data quantifying the
state of progress that has been made on these indicators?
Quality of individual data sources from a number
of departments across Government has been identified as poor,
and this is one of the areas for discussion with HM Treasury.
The current state of play on individual indicators is:
— data on employer provision of childcare
is expected from the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory
Reform in November. The first data on the take-up of formal childcare
by low income families is also expected to be published in November.
Officials are working to resolve how data can be provided for
the remaining sub-targets which have not yet been assessed: these
are numbers of women in Information Technology, Electronics and
Communications, and coverage of second tier pensions;
— performance against target is currently
slipping on five indicators: employee awareness of flexible working
arrangements, women's representation in Science, Engineering and
Technology related boards and councils, public appointments, appointments
to the Senior Civil Service and appointments to top management
posts;
— six sub-targets are currently assessed
as ahead or on course: employer provision of flexible working
(latest figure), numbers of registered childcare places, number
of women starting up in business and three sub-targets to improve
gender balance on three different National Vocational Qualifications.
The public transport sub-target is on course, although the regional
element is challenging. The sub-target on the introduction of
a Childcare Approval Scheme has been achieved; and
— the analysis of data sources undertaken
by officials has revealed particular issues with collection of
data on domestic violence incidents and numbers of large employers
who have carried out Equal Pay Reviews, which they are working
to resolve.
What measures is the Department taking to improve
performance on those indicators where performance is currently
slipping?
A number of Government departments contribute
to action on these sub-targets. Action includes:
— On Senior Civil Service posts, as
part of the Government's 10-Point Plan for achieving Diversity
in the Civil Service, action has been taken both at corporate
and individual Department level on target-setting, recruitment
and selection, developing the talent pool and identifying and
sharing good practice.
— The former Department for Trade and
Industry took and the new Department for Innovation, Universities
and Skills takes a proactive approach to increasing women's representation
on science, engineering and technology boards and councils—including
funding the UK Resource Centre for Women in Science Engineering
and Technology, which has a comprehensive strategy in place.
— On flexible working, the Department
for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform extended the right
to request flexible working to carers of adults in April 2007
(this is in addition to the parents of children under six and
disabled children under 18 who already had the right to request).
The Government has set up a £500,000 fund to support initiatives
to increase the number of quality jobs which are available on
a part-time or job share basis.
Paragraph 8.18 states that the Department is "on
track to report to HM Treasury by the end of July 2007 on agreement
of outstanding baselines, trajectories and targets" for PSA9.
Have all these now been agreed with the Treasury? Can the Department
provide this information?
In discussion with HM Treasury earlier this
year, it was agreed that departmental resources would be best
applied to developing the new PSA targets and underpinning analytical
frameworks as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review, rather
than producing a separate report in this instance on outstanding
baselines, trajectories and targets under PSA9. Normal reporting
to HM Treasury on PSA9 performance has continued.
10. PSA10 COHESION
Can the Department supply data to support the
statement in paragraph 8.22 that performance in some areas of
the first indicator (discrimination by organisation) has improved
for selected organisations?
The attached table (Annex A) shows the position
on PSA 10 at the end of 2006-07. It shows: (i) that Black and
Minority Ethnic perceptions of each of the eight organisations
monitored by Home Office Citizenship Survey (now called the Citizenship
Survey) improved between 2001 and 2005; and (ii) that our proxy
data suggested that Black and Minority Ethnic perceptions of each
organisation continued to improve between March 2005 and December
2006.
For reasons to do with the way the participants
were selected, and the research conducted, the proxy data gave
higher initial figures in March 2005. But they matched Citizenship
Survey in showing a clear pattern of improvement during the period
to December 2006. Our most recent data from the Citizenship Survey,
covering the first quarter of the current financial year, was
published on 4 October 2007 and demonstrates progress. This is
attached at Annex A2 (Chart 8) and A3 (Table 9).
On PSA10, how will the Department improve performance
in this area, and what changes it has made (or does it intend
to make) to its workplan in order to address the reported slippage?
Delivering PSA10 depends on changing the way
that the 8 organisations we monitor are perceived; changing the
way that people from BME backgrounds feel they are treated in
the job market; and changing the way that people feel about the
cohesiveness of their communities. The Department therefore works
closely with other Departments, the regional Government Offices,
the Regional Development Agencies, the Commission for Racial Equality,
employer organisations, and particular local authorities and their
partners to make progress in this area. These workstrands and
our progress with them to date were set out in detail in our 7
August publication Improving Opportunity, Strengthening Society—Two
years on.
Our work since that publication has built on
the workstrands set out there, but also taken account of developments
since. On cohesion, we are currently focussed on:
— engaging faith communities in building
cohesion, improving their engagement with Government and with
each other; and
— responding to the Commission on Integration
and Cohesion and beginning to implement its recommendations.
The Commission recommended a new typology of
areas, grouping areas with similar challenges together to provide
less of a "one size fits all" approach to support from
central Government. It also set out ideas for a national framework
for improved local delivery. The Government will respond to the
Commission in autumn 2007.
On race equality, our recent work has focussed
on the following areas:
— education and life chances—we
are working on implementing the recommendations of the REACH report,
on raising the aspirations of Black boys and young Black men;
— employment—we continue our
work in support of the Ethnic Minority Employment Task Force and
have recently contributed to the National Employment Panel Business
Commission's report on Ethnic Minorities in the Workplace; and
— criminal justice—we are working
with Ministry of Justice colleagues and others on the response
to the Home Affairs Select Committee report into young Black people
and the Criminal Justice System, and supporting recent work on
gun crime and tackling gangs.
11. REVISED PSAS
The Committee would like to see a draft set of
the revised PSA targets for the Department as soon as possible.
Revised PSAs have yet to be published. As soon
as they are announced we will provide the Committee with those
for which the Department is responsible and those in which it
has an interest.
EFFICIENCY PROGRAMME
12. What was the basis for the forecast of
RSL efficiency savings set out in the Efficiency Technical Note,
which have been significantly exceeded?
The forecasts for Registered Social Landlords
efficiency savings set out in our Efficiency Technical Note were
developed at the beginning of the Spending Review 2004 efficiency
programme, based on our knowledge of the sector and support that
was being put in place to drive the efficiency agenda.
For example, for capital works we saw the development
of procurement consortia as the vehicle by which efficiencies
would be delivered and that these would take time to set up following
the appointment of the National Change Agent. As a result our
assumption was that £2million could be delivered through
this route in the first year. In the event Registered Social Landlords
were able to deliver initial efficiencies without the development
of consortia and this is reflected in the higher figures they
have achieved.
Similarly in other areas, Registered Social
Landlords have achieved efficiency savings significantly above
early expectations and we have an increasingly detailed knowledge
of what can be achieved. Whilst the target was set in Spending
Review 2004, we continue to revise forecast efficiencies internally
and to deliver continuing improvement.
13. In light of efficiency savings achieved
so far by RSLs, why are their forecasts for future saving not
being reviewed in the same manner as RDAs (Annual Report table
2, p.104)?
All the workstreams within our efficiency programme
are required to review forecasts on a regular basis. Forecasts
for efficiency savings in the Registered Social Landlord sector
have been reviewed at various stages throughout the programme.
The most recent forecasts for Registered Social Landlords that
took account of savings achieved to date were stated in the Annual
Report. The Regional Development Agencies were in the process
of reviewing forecasts but we were not in a position to provide
revised Regional Development Agency figures at the time of writing
our Annual Report.
14. £6.8 million of administration savings
have been achieved to date, against a target of £25 million.
What level of administration efficiency savings does the Department
expect to achieve by March 2008?
Although we have claimed only £6.8m in
administration savings to date, our approach has been to ensure
we claim only those savings which we are confident are robust.
Estimated savings to date are up to a further £7 million,
although these additional savings have not yet been validated
and are subject to review.
The Department's Internal Auditors are auditing
the administration workstream as part of their regular reviews
of our efficiency programme, during which they will quality assure
the robustness of the methodologies for claiming savings. The
validation exercise will look to provide further assurance on
savings already claimed, as well as forecast figures up to March
2008.
We are, however, also reviewing our plans to
try to ensure that we achieve our target even if some of the anticipated
savings are deemed insufficiently robust at this late stage.
15. Can the Department provide an analysis
showing what element of the reported efficiency savings have been
classified by each of the OGC categories as "provisional",
"interim" and "final"?
The OGC require departments to classify efficiency
gains into three categories: Preliminary, Interim, and Finalised.
These classifications combine a number of factors including: measurement
methodology; assurance about quality of service; and data maturity.
So for example, where there is an indication that reported data
is likely to change it is classified as preliminary, where
it may change (eg minor changes as a result of year-end adjustments),
it is classified as interim. Efficiency gains are classified
as finalised when there is no expectation that the data
will change.
We reported delivery of £756 million efficiency
gains at December 2006, of which £145.6 million (19%) had
been classified as finalised, £598.7 million (79%) as interim,
and £11.7 million (2%) as preliminary.
16. Can the Department supply further details
on how it monitors the effect of claimed efficiency savings on
service delivery, so as to ensure that unintended falls in the
quality of service delivery are avoided?
All workstreams within the Department's Efficiency
Programme include performance quality measures to monitor the
quality of service delivery. These demonstrate that efficiency
savings have not affected service quality.
For example, in the homelessness workstream,
service delivery is monitored at the individual housing authority
level and through regular progress visits to authorities. The
data includes details on the level of homelessness applications,
the number of "accepted" cases for accommodation, the
number of individuals in temporary accommodation and the settled
outcomes secured for those households. This data is monitored
to ensure that the efficiencies delivered by local authorities
are not at the expense of the level of service provision.
Other worksteams have quality measures that
have been factored into the measurement methodology. For example,
in the Social Housing New Supply workstream, the measurement methodology
established ensures that efficiency gains are not at the expense
of the provision of units of the size, type and location needed.
17. Departments provide reports to the OGC
with a quarterly breakdown of planned and actual efficiency savings.
The Committee would like to see a copy of the most recent such
quarterly report submitted to the OGC.
The most recent return to OGC (Quarter 1 2007/08)
is attached at Annex B.
18. The Firelink project was examined by
the National Audit Office in its second review of progress on
the Efficiency Programme [HC 156-I 2006-07, published 8 February
2007]. What is the Department's response to the NAO's findings,
namely that:
I. "the Department . . . may be considerably
overstating the efficiency gains" [HC 156-I, para 2.18],
II. "the reported efficiencies will
be sustainable only until 2010" [HC 156-I, para 2.31],
III. the overall assessment of the gains
is reported as "Red", defined as "There may be
efficiencies taking place, but the measures used either do not
yet demonstrate efficiencies, or the reported gains may be substantially
incorrect"?
The Department's response to these findings
was set out in the Permanent Secretary's letter of 5 February
2007 to the National Audit Office, a copy of which it attached
at Annex C.
How do the Department's systems for demonstrating
and measuring efficiencies on this project compare to those in
place on other projects across the Department?
The level of efficiencies we expected to deliver
through the Firelink: Operational Continuity Project were relatively
small in comparison to other areas within our efficiency programme
and as a consequence the measurement systems were not as detailed.
Those areas within our programmes delivering significant efficiency
gains have more robust methodologies which have been supported
by various reviews. These include an analysis of Registered Social
Landlord Annual Efficiency statements by the Housing Corporation
and the Fire and Rescue service performance assessment use of
resources audit by the Audit Commission, as well as periodic reviews
by our internal audit services. The findings of these reviews
have been positive and give us no reason to believe we are overstating
efficiencies in other areas.
19. Note 8 of the Department's Resource Accounts
(Other Administrative Costs) shows that total administrative expenditure
has risen by 15% since last year, from £130 million to £150
million. Why has expenditure on administration risen so significantly,
when the efficiency programme might have been expected to have
resulted in less expenditure on administration? What does the
"Other" administrative expenditure listed in note 8
consist of, which has risen from £4.5 million last year to
£20 million in 2006-07?
The majority of the increase in total administrative
expenditure is accounted for by the following items of expenditure
contained within the "other" administrative expenditure
listed in note:
— the costs of running a staff early
severance/early retirement scheme (£13.3 million) in the
Government Offices (GOs) as part of the implementation of the
GO Review which aims to reduce overall GO headcount by 33% between
October 2004 and December 2008; and
— an increase of £8.4 million
(of which £6 million was for the GOs) in the non- cash provision
for early retirements, which reflects the future year costs of
staff early retirements in 2006-07.
"Other" expenditure is mainly the
costs of staff early exits, of which £13.3 million relates
to the Government Offices, and £2.2 million to the Central
Department, but it also includes a range of sundry items, of which
Publicity (£1.6 million) and Publications £0.6m) are
the most significant.
CORE AND
OTHER FINANCIAL
INFORMATION
20. On 4 April 2007 the European Commission
suspended payments to ERDF programmes (for which the Department
is responsible) in five of the nine regions of England plus one
programme in a sixth.[4]
Payments will not be resumed until the Commission is satisfied
that EU regulations governing how the funding had been spent in
the past had been complied with. Paragraphs 4.12 and 10.7 of the
Departmental Annual Report refer briefly to ERDF funding, but
there is no mention of this issue. In the Department's Resource
Accounts, there is a contingent liability of £62 million
for potential fines from the European Commission, but no provision
is made for this. Paragraph 1.19.5 of the notes to the Resource
Accounts states that "there remains a debtor in the Department
for receipt of these funds . . .", however the Resource Accounts
do not reveal the value of this debtor.
What is the latest position with regards to the
suspension of some ERDF payments to the UK by the European Commission?
What if any financial correction does the Department
consider is likely to be imposed by the Commission?
Following recent detailed submissions to the
European Commission indicating the measures taken to address EC
concerns, follow up audits have now been completed by the EC on
all the regions affected by the suspensions. Each region is being
assessed individually by the Commission.
So far the North East, North West Objective
1, Yorkshire and The Humber Objective 2 and Peterborough have
received the all clear and the suspension has been lifted.
The Commission is continuing to evaluate the
work done in the other regions with the exception of the North
West 2 objective and Burnley Urban. For these two programmes the
Commission has indicated in a letter of 27 September that it is
minded to impose a financial correction. This is subject to the
scale of remedial action taken by the North West Government Office
under direction from the Department prior to a hearing in early
December when any financial correction is expected to be determined.
We are taking significant action to provide the Commission with
further evidence to minimise the extent of any correction.
The Commission has not completed its deliberations
in respect of ERDF programmes in London, West Midlands or Yorkshire
and Humber Objective 1. We expect the Commission's findings on
these programmes by the end of October, although it is thought
to be unlikely that financial corrections will be proposed.
What is the current value of the debtor in the
Resource Accounts for suspended ERDF payments?
The contingent liability of £62 million
referred to in the Resource Accounts took account of the reference
in the Commission's 2005 Annual Report of a possible £62
million correction—equivalent to 10% of all declared expenditure
across the English regions in 2005. Negotiations are continuing
with the Commission. Any cost, once determined, will be reflected
in the Resource Accounts 2007-08.
21. What preparations has the Department
made for the merger of English Partnerships and the Housing Corporation?
Has the Department considered how the performance of the new body—Communities
England—will be assessed, including possible performance
and financial targets? What will be the responsibility of the
new body for PSA target 7?
On 19 June 2007, the Department published a
consultation paper, Delivering Housing and Regeneration: Communities
England and the future of social Housing Regulation, on proposed
arrangements to establish the new agency (which will be called
the Homes and Communities Agency). The consultation closed on
10 September.
Taking account of consultation responses, the
Government intends to bring forward provisions in the forthcoming
Housing and Regeneration Bill, announced by the Prime Minister
in his statement on 11 July and published in The Governance
of Britain: the Government's Draft Legislative Programme,
to announce the new agency.
In addition, a transition team under Baroness
Ford will advise the Department on preliminary preparatory arrangements
for establishing the new agency, subject to parliamentary approval
of the Government's proposals.
The proposed responsibilities of the new agency,
including in respect of performance targets, will be set out when
the Bill is published.
CAPABILTY REVIEWS
22. The Committee would like to have further
details of the work the Department has taken and intends to take
to address the shortcomings identified in the Capability Review.
What progress has been made on the actions required after the
Capability Review that are already due to be completed?
The Capability Review said "Communities
and Local Government's reshaped role and responsibilities and
the sense of ambition and momentum imparted by the Permanent Secretary
and Board are positioning it well to meet an increasingly challenging
and complex agenda".
The Department has committed to a number of
actions under four areas in response to the Review; to:
1. lead and enthuse partners in creating
successful communities and services;
2. base policy making and delivery consistently
on evidence;
3. sharpen our delivery focus and ensure
we have strong performance management systems and skills; and
4. manage our people effectively, and ensure
we have the critical skills we need.
At our six month stocktake in July, we provided
assurance to the Prime Minister's Delivery Unit (PMDU) and the
Cabinet Secretary that we have made good progress on our Capability
Review actions. We have delivered all the actions and milestones
required by September 2007; specific examples of achievements
and evidence of impact are given at Annex D.
Has the Department made any assessment of the
results of the measures undertaken so far to improve performance
in the "urgent development areas" identified in the
Capability Review?
The "urgent development areas" were
to:
— Base choices on evidence.
— Develop clear roles, responsibilities
and business model(s).
We have taken a range of steps to address these
areas. For example, we have:
— recruited new professionals including
a DG to strengthen HR management;
— carried out a skills audit to build
capability;
— launched expert panels, appointed
more senior analysts and set up a major training programme to
improve our use of evidence;
— published a vision statement for
the Department to explain our business to staff and stakeholders;
and
— improved our management and reporting
on risk and critical project delivery to help manage delivery
better.
We presented the Prime Minister's Delivery Unit
with a range of metrics to show the impact of these and other
actions, including quantitative data (eg numbers of analyst posts
in the department, staff survey results) and qualitative feedback
(eg from stakeholders and staff).
23. STAFF SURVEY
We attach a letter from the Permanent Secretary
to the Committee setting out the latest Staff Survey results at
Annex E.
24. PAYMENT PERFORMANCE
Paragraph 2.44 of the Department's Resource Accounts
states that in 2006-07 the Department missed its Service Delivery
Agreement to pay 98% of invoices within 30 days of receipt. In
2006-07, 95.37% of invoices were paid within this timeframe, compared
to 98.09% in the previous year. What is the reason for this fall
in performance?
During 2006-07, the Department implemented changes
to the way the financial support role is delivered. This was well
designed, planned and piloted. However, non-compliance to the
procurement processes resulted in a down-turn in prompt payment
performance. In 2007-08 transactional processing from purchase
ordering to invoice payment will be centralised. Compliance will
be delivered by a combination of improved processes and procedures
with the aim of achieving the 98% target by beginning of 2008-09.
Annex A
PERCEPTIONS OF DISCRIMINATION BY KEY ORGANISATIONS—MARCH
2007
| PSA 10.1.1 (percentage decrease of (BME) people who believe they are likely to suffer racial discrimination by identified range of organisations)
| Baseline | Latest Estimate
| On Track | Target
| Proxy ICM BME n = 500 telephone survey
| Likelihood of Delivery |
| Organisational perception | HOCS
2001
| HOCS
2005 | | CS 2007
| Mar 05 | Dec 06 |
|
| Aggregate—one or more | 38%
| 37% | *Inconsistent evidence
| 35% | 62% | 51%
| Amber/Red |
| Courts | 14% | 12%
| | 12.4% | 29%
| 21% | |
| CPS | 14% | 11%
| | 11.8% | 30%
| 23% | |
| Police | 27% | 24%
| | 2.5% | 44%
| 36% | |
| Prison Service | 21% | 17%
| | 18.4% | 44%
| 31% | |
| Probation Service | 11% |
10% | | 9.2% |
24% | 18% | |
| Council Housing/HA | 13% |
13% | | 11.2% |
24% | 17% | |
| Local Doctors Surgeries | 3.9%
| 3% | | 2.9% |
6% | 5% | |
| Local Schools | 7.1% | 6%
| | 5.8% | 15%
| 10% | |
Annex A3
Table 1
PARTICIPATION IN COMMUNITY AND VOLUNTARY ACTIVITIES, 2001,
2003, 2005 AND APRIL TO JUNE 2007
| Percentages |
| | | England, 2001, 2003, 2005 and April to June 2007
|
| At least once a month
| | | At least once in last year
|
| 2001
| 2003 | 2005
| April to June 2007
| 2001 | 2003
| 2005 | April to June 2007
|
| Civic participation |
3 | 3
| 2 | 3
| 38 | 38
| 38 | 40
|
Informal volunteering
| 34 | 37
| 37 | 35
| 67 | 63
| 68 | 63
|
Formal volunteering
| 27 | 28
| 29 | 27
| 39 | 42
| 44 | 45
|
All volunteering
| 47 | 50
| 50 | 48
| 74 | 72
| 76 | 73
|
All respondents |
9,430 | 8,922
| 9,195 | 2,018
| 9,430 | 8,922
| 9.195 | 2,018
|
Table 2
PARTICIPATION IN VOLUNTARY ACTIVITIES AT LEAST ONCE A
MONTH BY GROUPS AT RISK OF SOCIAL EXCLUSION, 2001, 2003, 2005
AND APRIL TO JUNE 2007
| Percentages | |
| | | |
| | England, 2001, 2003, 2005 and April to June 2007
|
| Informal Volunteering
| | Formal Volunteering
| | Any Volunteering
|
| 2001 | 2003
| 2005 | April to June 2007
| 2001 | 2003 |
2005 | April to June 2007
| 2001 | 2003 |
2005 | April to June 2007
|
| LTLI/Disability | 33 | 35
| 35 | 33 | 23 |
23 | 23 | 23 | 44
| 45 | 44 | 43 |
| Respondents | 2,353
| 2,206 | 2,026 |
460 | 2,353 | 2,206
| 2,026 | 460 |
2,353 | 2,206 | 2,026
| 430 |
| No qualifications | 26 | 30
| 29 | 29 | 16 |
16 | 16 | 16 | 34
| 38 | 38 | 35 |
| Respondents | 2,816
| 1,690 | 1,583 |
338 | 2,816 | 1,690
| 1,583 | 338 |
2,816 | 1,690 | 1,583
| 338 |
| Minority ethnic groups1 | 31 |
34 | 34 | 32 | 25
| 23 | 24 | 23 |
42 | 44 | 44 | 41
|
| Respondents | 6,029
| 5,235 | 5,096 |
1,411 | 6,209 | 5,235
| 5,096 | 1,411 |
6,029 | 5,235 | 5,096
| 1,411 |
| Groups at risk of social exclusion1 | 31
| 34 | 34 | 34 |
21 | 22 | 22 | 22
| 41 | 44 | 43 |
43 |
| Respondents | 9.811
| 8.335 | 8.055 |
2,053 | 9,811 | 8,335
| 8,055 | 2,053 |
9,811 | 8,335 | 8,055
| 2,053 |
| All adults | 34 | 37
| 37 | 35 | 27 |
28 | 29 | 27 | 47
| 50 | 50 | 48 |
| Respondents | 9,426
| 8,922 | 9,195 |
2,018 | 9,426 | 8,922
| 9,195 | 2,018 |
9,426 | 8,922 | 9,195
| 2,018 |
Figures for minority ethnic groups and groups at risk of social
exclusion based on the combined sample, other figures based on
the core sample
Table 3
PARTICIPATION IN COMMUNITY AND VOLUNTARY ACTIVITIES AT
LEAST ONCE A MONTH IN THE 12 MONTHS PRIOR TO INTERVIEW BY AGE,
SEX AND ETHNICITY, APRIL-JUNE 2007
| Percentages |
| | | England, April-June
2007
| |
| | Civic participation
| Informal volunteering | Formal volunteering
| Any volunteering | All activities
| Respondents |
| Ethnicity1 | |
| | | |
| |
| White | 3 |
36 | 29 | 49 | 50
| 1,853 |
| All Asian | 4
| 27 | 21 | 36 |
37 | 727 |
| Indian | 2
| 30 | 27 | 42 |
42 | 370 |
| Pakistani | 5
| 23 | 14 | 28 |
29 | 203 |
| Bangladeshi | 5
| 24 | 12 | 29 |
30 | 83 |
| All Black | 2
| 40 | 30 | 52 |
54 | 421 |
| Caribbean | 2
| 36 | 28 | 47 |
48 | 173 |
| African | 3
| 42 | 31 | 55 |
56 | 230 |
| Mixed Race | —
| 40 | 23 | 49 |
51 | 121 |
| Chinese/Other | —
| 31 | 14 | 38 |
38 | 142 |
| Minority ethnic groups |
3 | 32 | 23 | 41
| 42 | 1,411 |
| White | 3 |
36 | 29 | 49 | 50
| 1,853 |
| Sex | | |
| | |
| |
| Male | 2 |
30 | 24 | 42 | 44
| 910 |
| Female | 3 |
40 | 41 | 53 | 54
| 1,108 |
| Age | | |
| | |
| |
| 16 to 24 | 3
| 40 | 25 | 51 |
52 | 175 |
| 25 to 34 | 3
| 37 | 23 | 46 |
48 | 326 |
| 35 to 49 | 2
| 38 | 27 | 50 |
51 | 546 |
| 50 to 64 | 3
| 30 | 31 | 46 |
47 | 466 |
| 65 to 74 | 4
| 36 | 32 | 50 |
51 | 245 |
| 75 and over | 3
| 28 | 26 | 42 |
43 | 258 |
| All | | 3 |
35 | 27 | 48 | 49
| 2,018 |
— = Number of respondents too small to report on
1 Ethnicity figures based on the combined sample, other figures
based on the core sample
Table 4
WHETHER PEOPLE FEEL ABLE TO INFLUENCE DECISIONS AFFECTING
THEIR LOCAL AREA AND GREAT BRITAIN, 2001, 2003, 2005 & APRIL-JUNE
2007
| Percentages | |
| | | England 2001, 2003, 2005 & April-June 2007
|
| 2001 |
2003 | 2005
| April-June 2007 |
| People agreeing1 they can influence decisions affecting
| % | Respondents
| % | Respondents
| % | Respondents
| % | Respondents
|
| Local area | 44 | 9,040
| 38 | 8,754 | 39
| 8,751 | 57 | 1.920
|
| Great Britain | 25 | 9,088
| 20 | 8,793 | 22
| 8,836 | 20 | 1,928
|
1 "Definitely agree" or "tend to agree"
Table excludes respondents answering "Don't know"
Table 5
WHETHER PEOPLE FEEL ABLE TO INFLUENCE DECISIONS AFFECTING
THEIR LOCAL AREA AND GREAT BRITAIN BY AGE, SEX AND ETHNICITY APRIL-JUNE
2007
| Percentages | |
| England, April-June 2007
|
| | | People agreeing they can influence decisions affecting local area
| People agreeing they can influence decisions affecting Great Britain
|
| | %
| Respondents | %
| Respondents |
| Ethnicity1 | |
| | | |
| White | 37 |
1,772 | 19 | 1,785
|
| All Asian | 45
| 630 | 32 | 617
|
| Indian | 47
| 331 | 32 | 321
|
| Pakistani | 42
| 169 | 33 | 170
|
| Bangladeshi | 47
| 69 | 36 | 68 |
| All Black | 47
| 381 | 32 | 373
|
| Caribbean | 51
| 161 | 33 | 157
|
| AFrican | 45
| 205 | 31 | 201
|
| Mixed Race | 44
| 110 | 29 | 113
|
| Chinese/Other | 39
| 117 | 27 | 121
|
| Minority etchnic groups |
45 | 1,238 | 31 |
1,224 |
| White | 37 |
1,772 | 19 | 1,785
|
| Sex | | |
| | |
| Male | 36 |
873 | 21 | 881 |
| Female | 38
| 1,047 | 19 | 1,047
|
| Age | | |
| | |
| 16 to 24 | 32
| 162 | 22 | 162
|
| 25 to 34 | 40
| 312 | 22 | 315
|
| 35 to 49 | 38
| 524 | 19 | 528
|
| 50 to 64 | 39
| 452 | 20 | 451
|
| 65 to 74 | 35
| 237 | 16 | 235
|
| 75 and over | 32
| 232 | 21 | 235
|
| All | | 37 |
1,920 | 20 | 1,928
|
Table excludes respondents answering to "Don't know"
1 Ethnicity figures based on the combined sample, other figures
based on the core sample
Table 6
COMMUNITY FOHESION BY AGE, SEX AND ETHNICITY, 2001, 2003,
2005 & APRIL-JUNE 2007
| Percentages | |
| England, April-June 2007
|
| | | Percentage agreeing that their local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get on well together
| |
| | 2003
| 2005 | April-June 2007
| April-June 2007 respondents |
| Ethnicity1 | |
| | | |
| White | 80 |
79 | 81 | 1,741 |
| All Asian | 83
| 83 | 86 | 687
|
| Indian | 81
| 83 | 87 | 357
|
| Pakistani | 84
| 80 | 82 | 187
|
| Bangladeshi | 87
| 86 | 88 | 77 |
| All Black | 80
| 83 | 81 | 383
|
| Caribbean | 84
| 84 | 86 | 160
|
| AFrican | 78
| 81 | 80 | 206
|
| Mixed Race | 79
| 76 | 76 | 111
|
| Chinese/Other | 85
| 85 | 86 | 124
|
| Minority etchnic groups |
82 | 82 | 84 | 1,305
|
| White | 80 |
79 | 81 | 1,741 |
| Sex | | |
| | |
| Male | 81 |
79 | 82 | 877 |
| Female | 80
| 80 | 81 | 1,014
|
| Age | | |
| | |
| 16 to 24 | 73
| 76 | 82 | 173
|
| 25 to 34 | 76
| 76 | 70 | 308
|
| 35 to 49 | 80
| 78 | 82 | 534
|
| 50 to 64 | 84
| 80 | 84 | 430
|
| 65 to 74 | 84
| 85 | 83 | 238
|
| 75 and over | 89
| 91 | 90 | 206
|
| All | | 80 |
80 | 81 | 1,891 |
| Respondents (core sample)8,2658,491
| 1,891 | | |
|
Table excludes respondents answering "Don't know
1 Ethnicity figures based on the combined sample, other figures
based on the core sample
Table 7
WHETHER PEOPLE FEEL THAT THEY BELONG STRONGLY TO THEIR
NEIGHBOURHOOD AND GREAT BRITAIN, 2003, 2005 & APRIL-JUNE 2007
| Percentages | |
| England 2001, 2003, 2005 & April-June 2007
|
| | People feeling they belong strongly to the neighbourhood
| | People feeling they belong strongly to Great Britain
|
| 2003 | 2005
| April-June 2007 | 2003 | 2005
| April-June 2007 |
| Very strongly | 28 | 32
| 36 | 49 | 51 |
45 |
| Fairly strongly | 43 | 43
| 41 | 36 | 35 |
40 |
| All responding strongly | 71 |
75 | 77 | 85 | 86
| 85 |
| Respondents | 9,189 | 9,628
| 2,145 | 9,486 | 9,622
| 2,142 |
Table excludes respondents answering "Don't know"
Table 8
WHETHER PEOPLE FEEL THAT THEY BELONG STRONGLY TO THEIR
NEIGHBOURHOOD AND GREAT BRITAIN BY AGE, SEX AND ETHNICITY, APRIL-JUNE
2007
| Percentages |
| | England & Wales,
April-June 2007
|
| | People feeling they belong strongly to the neighbourhood
| People feeling they belong strongly to Great Britain
|
| | % | Respondents
| % | Respondents |
| Ethnicity1 | |
| | | |
| White | 77 |
1,980 | 84 | 1,978
|
| All Asian | 83
| 730 | 88 | 726
|
| Indian | 83
| 373 | 89 | 369
|
| Pakistani | 85
| 201 | 87 | 201
|
| Bangladeshi | 83
| 85 | 91 | 84 |
| All Black | 73
| 411 | 84 | 414
|
| Caribbean | 74
| 171 | 85 | 172
|
| AFrican | 73
| 223 | 84 | 225
|
| Mixed Race | 70
| 120 | 85 | 1,396
|
| Chinese/Other | 62
| 140 | 72 | 136
|
| Minority etchnic groups |
77 | 1,401 | 85 |
1,396 |
| White | 77 |
1,980 | 84 | 1,978
|
| Sex | | |
| | |
| Male | 76 |
960 | 84 | 959 |
| Female | 79
| 1,185 | 87 | 1,183
|
| Age | | |
| | |
| 16 to 24 | 72
| 180 | 85 | 182
|
| 25 to 34 | 69
| 341 | 79 | 340
|
| 35 to 49 | 75
| 584 | 85 | 581
|
| 50 to 64 | 79
| 493 | 86 | 494
|
| 65 to 74 | 90
| 266 | 88 | 265
|
| 75 and over | 87
| 279 | 92 | 278
|
| All | | 77 |
2,145 | 85 | 2,142
|
| | | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
Table excludes respondents answering "Don't know
1 Ethnicity figures based on the combined sample, other figures
based on the core sample
Table 9
PERCENTAGE WHO EXPECT ORGANISATIONS TO TREAT THEM WORSE
THAN OTHER RACES BY ETHNICITY, 2001, 2003, 2005 & APRIL-JUNE
2007
| Percentages |
| | | |
| | England & Wales, 2001, 2003, 2005 and April to June 2007
|
| | 2001
| | | 2003
| | | 2005
| | April-June 2007
|
| Minority ethnic groups
| White | All1
| Minority ethnic groups
| White | All1
| Minority ethnic groups
| White | All1
| Minority Ethnic groups
| White | All1
|
| Police
| 27 | 6
| 8 | 23
| 5 | 7
| 24 | 5
| 8 | 23
| 6 | 8
|
| Prison Service | 21
| 4 | 6
| 17 | 2
| 3 | 17
| 2 | 4
| 15 | 2
| 3 |
| Courts | 14
| 5 | 6
| 13 | 6
| 7 | 12
| 6 | 6
| 12 | 5
| 6 |
| Crown Prosecution Service
| 14 | 5
| 5 | 12
| 5 | 6
| 11 | 5
| 6 | 12
| 4 | 5
|
| Probation Service | 11
| 4 | 4
| 10 | 3
| 3 | 10
| 3 | 3
| 10 | 2
| 3 |
| Council housing department or housing association
| 13 | 15
| 15 | 12
| 21 | 20
| 13 | 21
| 20 | 12
| 24 | 23
|
| Local GP | 4
| 2 | 2
| 4 | 2
| 2 | 3
| 1 | 1
| 5 | 2
| 2 |
| Local school | 7
| 3 | 4
| 4 | 2
| 3 | 6
| 2 | 3
| 6 | 3
| 4 |
| Any of the five CJS organisations
| 38 | 20
| 22 | 36
| 27 | 28
| 37 | 26
| 28 | 35
| 29 | 29
|
| Respondents | 5,445
| 8,580 | 9,179
| 5,288 | 8,744
| 9,486 | 5,150
| 8,925 | 9,670
| 1,420 | 1,993
| 2,159 |
1 The "All" columns are based on the
core sample, not the combined sample
Table 10
REASONS FOR BEING REFUSED A JOB BY ETHNICITY,
2001, 2003, 2005 & APRIL-JUNE 2007
| Percentages |
| | |
| | England & Wales, 2003, 2005 & April-June 2007
|
| | 2003
| | 2005 |
| April-June 2007 |
| Percentages | Minority ethnic groups
| White | All1 |
Minority ethnic groups | WhiteAll1
Minority ethnic groups
White
All1
|
| Gender | 5 | 4
| 4 | 5 | 3 |
3 | 6 | 2 | 3
|
| Age | 18 | 30
| 28 | 16 | 24 |
23 | 18 | 19 | 20
|
| Race | 24 | 1
| 4 | 22 | 2 |
6 | 24 | 3 | 9
|
| Religion | 5 | —
| 1 | 6 | 1 |
2 | 4 | — |
— |
| Colour | 20 | 1
| 3 | 17 | 1 |
4 | 19 | — |
7 |
| Where you live | 6 | 5
| 5 | 7 | 5 |
6 | 8 | — |
2 |
| Respondents who had been refused a job in last five years
| 815 | 854 | 958
| 817 | 716 | 844
| 215 | 130 | 152
|
— = Number of respondents too small to report on
1 The "All" column is based on the core samplenot
the combined sample."
Table 11
REASONS FOR BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST WITH REGARD TO
PROMOTION OR PROGRESSION BY ETHNICITY
| Percentages | |
| | | | England & Wales, 2003, 2005 & April-June 2007
|
| | 2003
| | 20052 |
| April-June 2007 |
| Percentages2 | Minority ethnic groups
| White | All1 | Minority ethnic groups
| WhiteAll1
Minority ethnic groups
White
All1
|
| Gender | 8 | 14
| 13 | 14 | 25 |
22 | 14 | 30 | 25
|
| Age | 15 | 22
| 22 | 18 | 29 |
27 | 14 | 25 | 20
|
| Race | 46 | 3
| 6 | 50 | 5 |
12 | 57 | 6 | 17
|
| Religion | 10 | —
| 1 | 10 | 2 |
2 | 9 | — |
— |
| Colour | 36 | 2
| 4 | 41 | 2 |
7 | 47 | — |
15 |
| Where you live | 2 | 3
| 3 | 3 | 4 |
3 | — | —
| 2 |
| Respondents who had been discriminated against regarding a promotion in last five years
| 450 | 500 | 557
| 488 | 416 | 497
| 124 | 80 | 95
|
— = Number of respondents too small to report on
1 The "All" column is based on the core sample,
not the combined sample
2 2005 figures are not strictly comparable to 2003 or 2007
as the question was not asked to exactly the same group of respondents
Table 12
PERCEPTIONS OF RACIAL PREJUDICE BY AGE, SEX AND ETHNICITY,
2001, 2003, 2005 & APRIL-JUNE 2007
| Percentages | | England & Wales, 2001, 2003, 2005 & April-June 2007
|
| Percentage saying there is more racial prejudice today than five years ago
| | 2001 | 2003
| 2005 | April-June 2007
| April-June 2007 respondents |
| Ethnicity2 | |
| | | |
|
| White | 44
| 49 | 50 | 58 |
1,993 |
| All Asian | 33
| 32 | 35 | 38 |
734 |
| Indian | 31
| 31 | 34 | 34 |
374 |
| Pakistani | 38
| 39 | 43 | 49 |
204 |
| Bangladeshi | 35
| 30 | 27 | 28 |
84 |
| All Black | 25
| 20 | 22 | 25 |
421 |
| Caribbean | 28
| 24 | 27 | 26 |
173 |
| African | 21
| 14 | 18 | 22 |
230 |
| Mixed Race | 32
| 30 | 33 | 37 |
121 |
| Chinese/Other | 28
| 22 | 32 | 21 |
142 |
| Minority ethnic groups |
31 | 27 | 31 | 32
| 1,418 |
| White | 44
| 49 | 50 | 58 |
1,993 |
| Sex | | |
| | |
|
| Male | 41 |
46 | 46 | 54 | 966
|
| Female | 45
| 48 | 50 | 58 |
1,193 |
| Age1 | | |
| | |
|
| 16 to 24 | N/A
| 38 | 39 | 41 |
185 |
| 25 to 34 | N/A
| 41 | 47 | 57 |
342 |
| 35 to 49 | N/A
| 45 | 49 | 58 |
587 |
| 50 to 64 | N/A
| 53 | 52 | 60 |
496 |
| 65 to 74 | N/A
| 59 | 53 | 65 |
266 |
| 75 and over | N/A
| 52 | 46 | 53 |
281 |
| All | | 43 |
47 | 48 | 56 | 2,159
|
| Respondents (core sample) | 10,015
| 9,482 | 9,671 | 2,159
| |
1 Age data using these age categories is not available for
2001.
2 Ethnicity figures based on the combined sample, other figures
based on the core sample.
Annex B
QUARTERLY REPORTING SCHEDULE
RECORD OF
FORECASTS AND
ACTUALS
Department: DCLG
Target: 622.0 £m
Quarter Reported: Q1 2007-08
| |
| | | |
| | | Forecast
| | Update
|
| Initiative Title |
Cashable
Savings
| 2004-05
| 2005-06
| | 2006-07
| | 2007-08
|
| | Q3
| Q4 | Q1
| Q2 | Q3
| Q4 | Q1
| Q2 | Q3
| Q4 | Q1
| Q2 | Q3
| Q4 |
| | Dec-04
| Mar-05 | Jun-05
| Sep-05 | Dec-05
| Mar-06 | Jun-06
| Sep-06 | Dec-06
| Mar-07 | Jun-07
| Sep-07 | Dec-07
| Mar-08 |
| DCLG0101: New Supply RSL
| 276.0 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 0.0
| 392.0 | 392.0
| 392.0 | 276.0
| 276.0 | 276.0
| 276.0 | 276.0
| 276.0 |
| DCLG0102: Capital works RSL
| 0.0 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 0.0
| 163.4 | 163.4
| 163.4 | 79.4
| 84.3 | 84.3
| 86.0 | 86.0
| 86.0 |
| DCLG0103: Management and maintenance RSL
| 0.0 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 0.0
| 194.6 | 194.6
| 194.6 | 131.2
| 137.6 | 137.6
| 138.0 | 138.0
| 138.0 |
| DCLG0104: Commodities RSL
| 0.0 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 0.0
| 38.5 | 38.5
| 38.5 | 26.4
| 29.1 | 29.1
| 30.0 | 30.0
| 30.0 |
| DCLG0108: Fire Service Modernisation—Productive time
| 116.5 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 0.0
| 79.7 | 79.7
| 79.7 | 80.2
| 80.2 | 102.8
| 116.5 | 116.5
| 116.5 |
| DCLG0108A: Fire Service Modernisation—Procurement
| 12.8 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 4.8
| 4.8 | 7.5
| 12.8 | 12.8
| 12.8 |
| DCLG0108B: Fire Service Modernisation—Corporate servcies
| 12.0 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 4.6
| 4.6 | 9.9
| 12.0 | 12.0
| 12.0 |
| DCLG0109: RDA efficiency
| 96.6 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 0.0
| 38.3 | 48.4
| 72.5 | 74.1
| 78.6 | 89.3
| 166.5 | 194.8
| 239.4 |
| DCLG0110: Firelink | 0.0
| 0.0 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 8.0
| 8.0 | 8.0
| 8.0 | 8.0
| 8.0 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 0.0
|
| DCLG0111: Other admin efficiencies—PFR
| 0.0 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 0.0
| 3.8 | 3.8
| 3.8 | 3.8
| 8.0 | 8.0
| 8.0 | 8.0
| 12.0 |
| DCLG0111A: Other admin efficiencies—Procurement
| 6.2 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 0.0
| 2.9 | 2.9
| 2.9 | 2.9
| 5.9 | 5.9
| 5.9 | 5.9
| 9.0 |
| DCLG0111B: Other admin efficiencies—Corporate services
| 2.4 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 0.0
| 1.3 | 1.3
| 1.3 | 2.2
| 2.6 | 2.6
| 2.6 | 2.6
| 4.0 |
| DCLG0121: Homelessness efficiency gains
| 33.0 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 0.0
| 21.0 | 21.0
| 21.0 | 35.1
| 46.2 | 46.2
| 46.2 | 46.2
| 55.7 |
| 555.5 |
0.0 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 943.5
| 953.6 | 977.7
| 728.7 | 765.9
| 807.1 | 900.5
| 928.8 | 991.4
|
| 555.5 |
0.0 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 943.5
| 953.6 | 977.7
| 728.7 | 765.9
| 807.1 | 900.5
| 928.8 | 991.4
|
QUARTERLY REPORTING SCHEDULE (continued)
| | | |
| | Actual |
| | | |
| |
| Initiative Title | 2004-05
| 2005-06 | | 2006-07
| | 2007-08 |
| Q3 | Q4 |
Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4
| Q1 | Q2 | Q3 |
Q4 | Q1 | Q2 | Q3
| Q4 |
| Dec-04 | Mar-05
| Jun-05 | Sep-05 | Dec-05
| Mar-06 | Jun-06 | Sep-06
| Dec-06 | Mar-07 | Jun-07
| Sep-07 | Dec-07 | Mar-08
|
| DCLG0101: New Supply RSL | 0.0
| 202.0 | 202.0 | 202.0
| 202.0 | 276.0 | 276.0
| 276.0 | 276.0 | 276.0
| 276.0 | | |
|
| DCLG0102: Capital works RSL | 0.0
| 64.4 | 64.4 | 64.4
| 64.4 | 81.0 | 81.0
| 81.0 | 81.0 | 81.0
| 81.0 | | |
|
| DCLG0103: Management and maintenance RSL |
0.0 | 74.6 | 74.6 |
74.6 | 74.6 | 130.0
| 130.0 | 130.0 | 130.0
| 130.0 | 130. |
| | |
| DCLG0104: Commodities RSL | 0.0
| 11.5 | 11.5 | 11.5
| 11.5 | 27.0 | 27.0
| 27.0 | 27.0 | 27.0
| 27.00 | | |
|
| DCLG0108: Fire Service Modernisation—Productive time
| 0.0 | 38.0 | 38.0
| 38.0 | 38.0 | 84.2
| 84.2 | 84.2 | 84.2
| 116.5 | 116.5 |
| | |
| DCLG0108A: Fire Service Modernisation—Procurement
| 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 0.0 | 8.4
| 8.4 | 8.4 | 8.4
| 12.8 | 12.8 |
| | |
| DCLG0108B: Fire Service Modernisation—Corporate servcies
| 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 0.0 | 7.0
| 7.0 | 7.0 | 7.0
| 12.0 | 12.0 |
| | |
| DCLG0109: RDA efficiency | 0.0
| 0.0 | 11.9 | 27.9
| 38.6 | 63.7 | 77.0
| 97.3 | 128.9 | 187.6
| 187.6 | | |
|
| DCLG0110: Firelink | 0.0 |
0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
0.0 | | |
|
| DCLG0111: Other admin efficiencies—PFR
| 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| |
| DCLG0111A: Other admin efficiencies—Procurement
| 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.7
| 2.7 | 4.4 | 4.4
| 5.2 | 6.2 | |
| |
| DCLG0111B: Other admin efficiencies—Corporate services
| 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.4
| 2.4 | 2.4 | 2.4
| 2.4 | 2.4 | |
| |
| DCLG0121: Homelessness efficiency gains |
0.0 | 15.7 | 15.7 |
15.7 | 15.7 | 35.1
| 35.1 | 39.1 | 39.1
| 44.5 | 44.5 |
| | |
| 0.0 | 406.2
| 418.1 | 434.1 | 444.8
| 717.5 | 730.8 | 756.8
| 788.5 | 895.1 | 896.1
| | | |
| 0.0 | 406.2
| 418.1 | 434.1 | 444.8
| 717.5 | 730.8 | 756.8
| 788.5 | 895.1 | 896.1
| | | |
1
CLG-HMT-DTI, Regional Economic Performance: Progress to Date,
December 2006. Back
2
Greenstreet Berman Report on Fires in the Home, Communities and
Local Government (2004). Back
3
English Housing Condition Survey report 2005 (published 2007)
The EHCS data are aggregated over a two year period. These data
cover the period 2004-06 and are reported as the position at the
mid point, ie 2005. Back
4
Speech by Siim Kallas, vice president of the EC, to the European
Parliament 24 April 2007: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/07/247&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en Back
| 
