Local Government Outcomes Framework (LGOF) User & Service Manual PDF by Kaiyi (EN)

Local Government Outcomes Framework How would you like to see the framework used as a tool to support local authorities and local partners to deliver against key national outcomes? The council welcomes the Local Government Outcomes Framework (LGOF)and its aims to: Support the simplification of grant funding by setting key outcomes central government wants to work with local government to deliver this Spending Review period with more flexible funding. Provide greater freedom for local authorities to make their own decisions about how best to delivery for local people and communities – in alignment with the government’s devolution agenda.

Promote better joint working between local partners, central and local government, and across Government. We also support the work MHCLG advises is occurring in the background to support local government delivery against the LGOF, including: Moving to multi-year settlements and delivering significant funding reforms, including simplified funding arrangements. Streamlining reporting requirements, such as by reviewing the Single Data List and bringing more grants onto the MHCLG Funding Service. Unless absolutely necessary, removing instances where a Secretary of State is required to give consent for local authorities to take action.

Reviewing statutory duties with a focus on reducing unnecessary burden The Framework must recognise the varying contexts between and within areas It is good to see the LGOF recognises the significant contributions that local government makes to improving outcomes for local communities. We note that local authorities will each prioritise different outcomes in response to local circumstances, which will not always align neatly with the framework. Our primary accountability is local and not national. It is important that any monitoring framework considers and represents local variations. It is also important to recognise the differences to be found within council areas.

We note that data sets will be reported at LA level and would like to reiterate the message given at many webinars of the importance of granularity of data lower than LA level. Outcomes that are reported at Oxfordshire County level for instance will not fairly represent outcomes differentials between the Oxford City and the heavily rural parts of the authority. This is particularly important for rural authorities where both presenting issues and possible systems solutions are very different from more urban areas. We would welcome further discussion on how the Framework’s reporting methodology could reflect or take account of the wide disparities in context within and across areas.

The LGOF must complement other statutory duties local authorities carry We would like to better understand how the framework will link in with the demanding regulatory systems that already sit over the top of services such as children's social care, planning, etc. We accept MHCLG’s statement that there is no appetite to add to the regulatory or reporting burden, but we would welcome a well signposted process for how MHCLG will manage the LGOF cycle. For example, the council would like to know how enquiries on performance will be provided to local authorities in such a way that they align with existing scrutiny mechanisms and don't create

Стр. 1

more work. Also, we would like some clarification on how the LGOF will link into the existing performance management reporting that HM Government currently requires us to do. Greater clarity is required on the role of partnership working Local government achieves outcomes through working in partnership across public services in place. Given the importance of partnership working, we would like to see greater recognition in the LGOF of the place of partnership working and the relative contributions of system partners to achieving outcomes.

While the Framework states it has been designed to support partnership working across different public services, it is not yet clear how this ambition will be achieved. In many respects, the LGOF is really an outcomes framework for place. We understand that the purpose of the Framework is to focus on local government contributions to achieving place-based priority outcomes.

However, we agree with the LGA that while local authorities will convene partners in their place to achieve local priorities, where outcomes requiring coordinated work across public services in a place are not achieved, it will be essential that local government is not held accountable for delivery of outcomes which are contingent on other partners. We would welcome further discussion on how non-council partners will be incentivised (or held accountable) for those outcomes which are place-based and can’t be delivered by councils alone.

It is not yet clear how the LGOF will be used to drive change We would like to see central government working in partnership with local government to identify barriers to the achievement of priority outcomes and unblock them, working across government as required. However, we do not want local authorities' performance against individual metrics and the wider framework to be viewed out of context or without nuance. We would like to understand more about how the findings will be used to drive change. If as stated, the LGOF won’t be used to set targets, how will MHCLG assess what good looks like, especially if using the LGOF to feed into an assessment of councils Best Value Duty?

Equally, will the LGOF be linked to the Fair Funding Review and the agreed settlement? Government should particularly address the risk that data is presented in the form of 'league tables'. The consultation document does not state how 'concerns against outcome delivery' will be calibrated by central government: what level of (non) delivery is sufficient to give rise to concerns?

It will be essential that context is considered and that government works closely with the sector when any concerns are identified, as part of an early warning system in which the sector works as an equal partner alongside government to identify authorities experiencing challenges to delivery and targets support to them. We would also ask for consideration of how the LGOF could reflect the reality of delivering against statutory and non-statutory services. As budgets continue to tighten, there may well be an imbalance in performance not driven by quality bu ty by finance. Non-statutory services may suffer disproportionately. How will this be recognised?

We have concerns regarding local authorities focusing on delivering against the proposed LGOF metrics to the detriment of other priorities. If the LGOF metrics are used as a primary indicator of performance, councils will understandably focus their efforts on these areas. The use of publicly available data is welcome but better metrics are needed It has been striking during the LGOF webinars how often a better metric hasn’t been used because of a lack of national data, or conversely because the data is not available at LA scale.

We would strongly support any efforts to build better data that will support improved outcomes reporting, including by reflecting on the wealth of feedback that has been given and received throughout this process.

Стр. 2

Reinforcing this point is concern about the quality/validity of the inputs being proposed. Many metrics still rely on 2021 census data, which is problematic for many reasons e.g. COVID-related errors that have skewed movement data. We would welcome clarity on any proposals to address the issue of 2021 census data. Similarly, we have concerns about the extensive use of surveys in the LGOF, when we know survey responses are falling, and in areas with small populations, survey results can widely skew findings.

We believe there is clear need for an ongoing conversation on improving the quality of our data, including identifying metrics that would best indicate progress against priority outcomes, and then working out how to measure those factors. How the data is reported will be fundamental to its success We firmly support MHCLG's ambition of having all data and reporting related to the LGOF in one place where it will be readily accessible and enable comparison between areas. We urge MHCLG to commit to publishing the data in a careful way, couched in the necessary nuance needed to convey the reality of differing situations across the country.

How the data is reported will be a significant element of the success of the LGOF. For example, the reporting platform should clearly cross-reference metrics that cut across domains, enabling local government and our partners to better understand the impacts of interventions across multiple outcomes. It should explain the strengths and weaknesses of the data, where data sets are sourced, and why the metrics were chosen. The platform must be easy to access and navigate and enable robust interrogation of the data and its findings.

If the reporting platform is successful, it could help provide a shared understanding of the drivers of local government performance and explain changes in outcomes (whether positive or negative). This in turn may lead to improved understanding of local government’s mission and purpose, helping to secure a more stable funding settlement and reducing reliance on competitive bidding pots, which add cost, create uncertainty, and encourage short-term thinking. How would your organisation use the Framework either in its own work or when working with partners? The framework will provide a consistent set of measures at a national level that can be monitored and compared at a local authority level.

This could enable consistent comparisons across partnership areas, fostering evidence-based discussions and sharing of successful approaches. Additionally, the use of a consistent set of measures will support long-term trend analysis and scenario planning. The development of the framework will strengthen our understanding of the interdependencies between policies by synthesising evidence across domains. It will also provide a robust foundation for assessing the implications of potential policy choices. Specifically, the council will use the LGOF as part of our strategic planning, performance monitoring and reporting system, currently expressed in our Council Plan 2025-2029.

We will use the LGOF to help us benchmark progress, identify areas for improvement, and support integrated planning with partners such as upper tier authorities and the Integrated Care System. We will review our outcomes and measures for our 26/27 Delivery Plan to align with the LGOF, incorporating the LGOF metrics into our strategic planning, and helping the council and partners to align local objectives with national missions We will look to use the shared language and metrics provided by the LGOF to support our partnership working more broadly, helping align the council with existing or new partners in the public, private and third sectors.

Стр. 3

Do you have views on how the Framework can best support local innovation, partnership working and long-term planning? Principally, the LGOF could function as a coordination tool across government departments, for example bringing local government together with DfE, MoJ and MHCLG where concerns cut across multiple outcomes such as SEND, youth justice, housing quality, or multiple disadvantage. By shifting from rigid, ringfenced funding and output-based reporting to outcome-focused accountability, the LGOF could give councils more freedom to design and test local solutions. It could also encourage alignment across public services (e.g.

health, education, housing) by providing a shared set of outcomes and metrics. Having a set of commonly understood outcomes will support councils to work with partners, particularly where those partners work with numerous councils. It will provide a consistent starting point for local intervention design and understanding across multiple disciplinary partnerships. The LGOF will support improved local outcomes if it is integrated into the wider system However, LGOF will best support local outcomes if it is clear how it fits into the bigger picture.

How do all the individual elements of the government’s reforms for local government – such as reorganisation, devolution, and financial reform tie together? The challenge lies in creating a cohesive whole that is stronger and more impactful than the sum of its individual parts. We have heard in many of the webinars of other system elements (including outcomes frameworks) that could tie in with the LGOF – or could result in duplication, wasted effort, and confusion. For example, will the LGOF align with the Public Health Outcomes Framework, and what of the impact of the NHS 10 Year Plan on how services are organised and delivery?

We would like to see effort go into mapping all the seemingly disparate system pieces related to performance, measurement, and funding, and an explanation from central government of how they will coalesce into a unified and effective system that works best to deliver for our communities. The council particularly notes the difficult timing of the introduction of the LGOF with so many authorities facing reorganisation and devolution in the coming 3 years. In areas that are currently 2-tier, it will be important for upper and lower tier authorities to come together to plan for delivery against the Framework in advance of unitary authorities and strategic authorities being in place.

The Framework will have to be integrated into future strategic plans by shadow authorities. The challenges of making this a priority should not be underestimated. Transparent and collaborative monitoring and review will support be essential To ensure that centrally set metrics do not stifle local innovation, it will be important to ensure that the metrics chosen are kept under review to ensure no unintended consequences arise. The commitment to review the framework on an annual basis with MHCLG allows for co-design, the building in of the understanding of cause and effect, and the potential adoption of best practice intervention design where appropriate.

It is also important that measurements do not turn into targets – clarity on how they will be monitored and progressed is crucial. We support a framework that drives up minimum standards, butthey not if it acts as a brake on local innovation and creates significant additional administrative burden. This has been the experience of the past, and we are unsure how central government intends to ensure the same doesn’t happen this time around.

The best results will be achieved if we all share a common understanding It is crucial that the LGOF supports shared understanding, and therefore we would like to see clear definitions for all terms used in the LGOF, particularly where feedback indicates there is little current agreement on what a central term means (e.g. multiple disadvantage). We would also support the distribution of shared language around outcomes, indicators, metrics and measurements tools alongside the LGOF, to support clarity of understanding between central and

Стр. 4