Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Judging Haringey Council's Performance
How do you catch a cloud and pin it down?
How do you find a word that means Haringia?
A flibbertijibbet! A will-o'-the wisp! A clown!
How else to introduce a post that will probably have people clicking on before they start. But a soon to be should-think-about issue is how we can decide how well or how badly Haringey are doing. With elections coming up next year, we'll all soon be called on to make a judgement. Apart from our own particular political leanings, what should we take in to account. How well have they done and how do the y compare. As ever, the answers won't be easy to find and are more likely to be judged on an emotional basis or national issues. But, one ingredient of the recipe could be the new National assessment criteria.
From 1st April 2009, all local councils - including even Haringey - will have their performance judged against a (fairly) common set of criteria. This should make it easier for us to get a better sense of how they're doing.
These new criteria are called National Indicators. Whilst what I know about them would be a speck on the tip of an iceberg, here's what I've found out. (As for the rest that we Joe Public might need to know, I'd welcome hearing from any informed voices.).
The National Indicator Set (NIS) contains 198 performance indicators that apply across a range of public sector organisations. The indicators are designed to measure progress on national priorities where they are delivered by local councils acting alone or in partnership. Councils have to select up to with up to 35 core priorities to be chosen from the indicators Local targets can also be included which 'will not be seen as "second order" by Government Offices' and which 'carry equal weight . . . . as the other targets'. A further 17 statutory education and early years targets will also be used.
The national indicators will be the only indicators against which local authorities' performance, alone or in partnership, will be reported to Central Government. They will therefore be the only measures against which Government can agree targets with a local authority or partnership, through Local Area Agreements (LAAs), and the only trigger for performance management by Central Government, other than concerns highlighted by the inspectorates in the Comprehensive Area Assessment or other inspection activity.
The Set contains 25 indicators which are informed by citizens' views and perspectives. To reduce the number of surveys being undertaken by local authorities, 18 of these will be collected through a single Place Survey to be administered by each local authority. The results of the first survey are, I think ready. I'm just trying to get hold of the Haringey part. Might have some interesting stats/info on our borough.
The previous emphasis on service delivery is now combined with a requirement to consider strategic priorities.
Government Offices (GOs) will be the arbiters between central and local government agreeing the targets. (For us, that means the Government Office of London).
Haringey’s chosen Indicators can be seen here (from page 19 on) at the back of their Local Area Agreement 2008-2011 document.
(On an somewhat esoteric level, I’m not sure what the status of each indicator is. This document which purports to show the indicators chosen by all UK local authorities shows only 8 for Haringey. – Remember they only have to choose UP TO 35. – These eight are also shown differently in the LAA. They’re the only one with the NI number given. I’m not sure what this is about, but if I don’t fall asleep first, I’ll see if I can find out)
I’m not sure how helpful this whole system will be to we Jo Public, but it could add another level to out ability to scrutinise and judge…………if we can be bothered.
Tags for Forum Posts: LAA, Local Area Agreement, national indicators
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
Since Sharon Shoesmith is shown as being responsible for a number of issues concerning children, the results should be interesting.
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
I do not know what the merits of such indicators are, only that they would seem to be naturally allied to the Targets culture of the current national government. There have to be all sorts of caveats to such a quantitative approach, so beloved of MBAs, Americans and New Labour.
To name one, in the area of Planning, there is a broadly wise national priority, to shift freight from road to rail.
When applied at the local level – in fact to the immediate west of Harringay Ward – it made little sense. The concrete factory, which is currently going ahead, was granted approval by the Planning Inspectorate on Appeal by London Concrete, mainly because it would use a rail head and (arguably) would put some road journeys to rail. There were of course many other factors.
The effects of this national policy were met with almost uniform (valid) opposition on the ground.
The council's input in all this was mostly careless, i.e. slipshod in the long run and not caring sufficiently for residents.
First, some time ago, they allowed changes to the Unitary Development Plan without understanding the possible repercussions. In Cranford Way (Hornsey) which had previously been zoned for light industry, the changes would permit heavy ("general") industry unreasonably close to housing.
Then, they took litttle notice of the public opposition until forced to by a local activiist and a local councillor. The defeatist attitude of the council was that, it would all be lost on Appeal and this characterised their attitude for a long time.
The council's planning committee's declinatory decision was overturned on Appeal. But thanks to the well-organised campaign to Stop the Concrete Factory and the points made to the Planning Inspector, the final Report which gave approval, also contained 42 conditions, about six of which are quite onerous. But the original instinct of the council was to Approve, in order that they could have an easy life.
Where were the studies on base-line noise and dust conditions that campaigners had called for? Had those measurements been performed, they might have been useful in monitoring the factory after it is built. There was no money for this practical task, but there is unlimited cash to spend on the most expensive consultants (PR, lawyers etc.) for pet projects, like flogging Alexandra Palace.
How should Haringey be rated on all this? Well it seems with the concrete factory that they did the bare minimum on behalf of the community whose interests they purportedly represent.
More information about the unwanted and unloved concrete factory, brought about in the long run, through carelessness, can be found on the comprehensive GreenN8 website.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
