Title

Do you care that so many people believe councils do little but empty the bins? If so, then it will come as bad news to hear that local authorities are becoming worse at keeping residents informed about what they do. This failure makes life harder for everyone in the sector and those with its best interests at heart. The consequences are stark. Residents are increasingly enthusiastic about council services, but ever-more unhappy with councils themselves. So, while authorities are working at full throttle to improve services, they are failing to win plaudits – and many of the knock-on benefits – for what they achieve. This widening gap between what people think about their local authority and its services explains why one in two residents consider councils don't provide value for money, and around seven in 10 don't bother voting. It also encourages local and national media to rough-up local government more than it deserves. In 2005, the LGA and IDeA launched the Reputation campaign to bridge this credibility gap. Two out of three people are ignorant or know next-to-nothing about local government. So the campaign's thesis was that, by tying services more explicitly to the local authority, the latter's standing with the public would increase, because people would see where their council taxes were going. Councils were asked to commit to 12 basic but tried-and-tested core actions, devised by top practitioners from the sector. Seven were about improving the environment and five about getting better at communications. Two years later, more than 250 councils have committed themselves to the core actions but recent, independent research has produced two, important findings. First, the campaign's original thesis was correct. Second, councils have done well on environmental actions but are struggling to do better on communications. The undoubted good news from BVPi for single and upper-tier councils was the extraordinary increase in satisfaction with services since 2003 – three out of five people are happy with street cleaning, up 9%; seven out of 10 happy with recycling, up 5%; three out of five happy with local buses, up 6%; and seven out of 10 happy with parks, up 2%. Despite these glowing reports, however, half of residents were unhappy with councils themselves, up 2% from 2003. So why is this happening? Why are councils failing to win approval for their achievements? Why are they perceived not to demonstrate value for money? The BVPi report is clear: ‘Those who felt well informed are more satisfied than those who do not feel informed.' How did councils do in this area? There was a 9% drop in those saying they were very or fairly well informed, and an 8% increase in those feeling not very well informed or not informed at all. When Ipsos MORI number-crunched BVPi, its report came out with the exactly the same conclusion. ‘The difference between resident satisfaction with services and overall satisfaction with councils remains unhealthily strong… Analysis… indicates those authorities which consistently communicate their message are better regarded than those where levels of information are perceived to be lower.' Interviews with 300 heads of communications in councils carried out by Karian and Box, a consultancy, go some way to explaining why this is happening. Researchers found one in five said informing residents was not a priority. Half also reported that developing and policing the council's brand was equally unimportant. This autumn, the LGA and IDeA are to redouble their efforts to promote the Reputation campaign. We shall demonstrate the benefits of ensuring that communications is an intrinsic part of running a council, and provide communications staff with new and easy ways to implement the core actions. Then we can get on with showing that local government does a lot more than empty the bins. Edward Welsh is programme director, media and campaigns, LGA

Title

WHITEHALL

Avoiding a dog's dinner

SUBSCRIBE TO CONTINUE READING