8 Local Governmemnt Benchmarking Framework 2024-25 1
Renfrewshire Council · 18 May 2026
Back to Audit, Risk and Scrutiny Board — 18 May 2026 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
PUBLIC To: Audit, Risk and Scrutiny Board On: 18 May 2026 _______________________________________________________________________ Report by: Chief Executive _______________________________________________________________________ Heading: Local Government Benchmarking Framework 2024/25 _______________________________________________________________________ 1. Summary 1.1 The Local Government Benchmarking Framework (LGBF) is a high-level benchmarking tool which allows local authorities to compare their performance across a wide range of key service areas such as education, housing, and adult social care. Renfrewshire Council has participated in the development of the LGBF since its inception in 2010 and the framework has expanded to comprise 108 indicators. The purpose of the Framework is to support evidence-based comparisons and encourage shared learning and improvement across local authorities. Reports on Renfrewshire’s performance against LGBF indicators are provided to the Audit, Risk and Scrutiny Board every six months, with the Spring report also including a summary of the Improvement Service’s annual National Benchmarking Overview Report. 1.2 The Improvement Service releases LGBF data on a monthly basis, as it becomes available. This report therefore refers chiefly to all 2024/25 data released up to and including March 2025, with 92 indicators in total available. The tables in Appendix 1 provide data for 2022/23, 2023/24 and, where available, 2024/25. These tables also include a comparison with the national average and with the relevant family group of local authorities (i.e. those which have been assessed as having similar characteristics). 1.3 The Improvement Service provides an online dashboard which allows users to view and interact with the data. It allows comparison between a council and the national average, and with the family group. They infer particular judgements, such as cheapest equalling best. Local policy decisions can therefore impact on how local performance appears relative to others.
Page 2
PUBLIC 1.4 In order to provide elected members with additional insight into improvement relative to other councils, the data in Appendix 1 includes rankings based on our performance relative to the 31 other local authorities. It should also be noted that it is possible for performance to improve in real terms but for this not to be reflected in terms of an improvement in rankings because other councils have also improved. 1.5 Of the 92 indicators with data for 2024/25, 58 have improved or maintained performance and 65 have improved or maintained their ranking relative to other councils. There are 32 indicators ranked in the top 8 councils and 11 ranked in the bottom 8. This is a very positive position given the continuing context of significant demand for services and ongoing financial and workforce challenges as highlighted in the national report. Areas of particular progress include the poverty-related educational attainment gap and climate change indicators. 1.6 Renfrewshire Council actively contributes to national discussions and learning on the Local Government Benchmarking Framework and uses it to identify opportunities to explore areas of challenge and of best practice. 1.7 The Council also publishes its statutory Public Performance Reporting document – How are we doing? - on the Council’s website. Performance information gathered through the LGBF is included as part of the report which allows our residents to understand how the Council is performing, relative to other Councils. Services also publish performance information regularly through operational reports and updates on Service Improvement Plans and the Council Plan. 2. Recommendations 2.1 It is recommended that the Audit, Risk and Scrutiny Board • notes the contents of the report; • notes that an update on the LGBF will be provided to this Board in November 2026. 3. Background 3.1 All Scottish local authorities participate in the Local Government Benchmarking Framework (LGBF), which allows councils to compare their performance across a suite of indicators, including costs and performance of key council services, and levels of public satisfaction. Whilst there are always different views on the nature and calculation of specific indicators, the framework provides a tool for the Council to consider its performance in relation to delivering Best Value, as well as a platform for learning and sharing good practice. It is used in conjunction with other benchmarking tools, data and information that Council services use to assess performance, such as service key performance indicators, service improvement outturn reports, national and local surveys, inspections, and audits.
Page 3
PUBLIC 3.2 There are currently 108 indicators in the Framework, which cover the majority of council services across ten categories: • Children’s services; • Corporate services; • Adult social care; • Culture and leisure services; • Environmental services; • Housing services; • Corporate asset management; • Economic development; • Financial sustainability; • Tackling climate change. 3.3 The LGBF provides a useful means of comparing relative performance across all Scottish councils but like all performance information, it should be used with caution, with due consideration given to local priorities and investment decisions, and differences in council structures. It does not represent the full range of council service delivery. 3.4 The Accounts Commission have published a new Statutory Performance Indicator (SPI) Direction which covers three reporting years starting from 2025/26. The updated direction has an increased focus on the use of LGBF indicators and more frequent reporting. Renfrewshire Council moved to six monthly updates to elected members on the LGBF indicators, taking effect in 2025/26. 4. National Context 4.1 Each year, the Improvement Service (IS) produces a National Overview Report, commenting on general trends in local authority performance across Scotland and providing some context. The 2024/25 report was published in March 2026 and key messages remain similar to those in previous Improvement Service reports – that continued pressure on resources is limiting the scope to deliver continuous improvement across the Scottish local government sector. The 2026 report goes further than in previous years, and the Improvement Service believes that the financial, workforce and demand pressures are now a structural feature of local government which cannot be addressed through innovation, service redesign and partnership working alone. 4.2 In considering the financial pressures on local government, the IS reflect on the Accounts Commission’s recent reflection that “the cost of delivering services is rising faster than available funding.” As in previous years, the IS highlight the growth in local government funding being much lower than the growth in health funding – 1.1% and 4% respectively between 2024/25 and 2025/26, with an even wider gap over the longer term. The national report notes that the spending review published in early 2026 points to a reduction in local government funding of 2% in 2026/27 and 3.8% in 2027/28. It also highlights an increase in the proportion of funding which is ring-fenced or otherwise directed for specific national priorities; this was 21% of funding in 2023/24 and rose to 24% of funding in 2024/25.
Page 4
PUBLIC The report notes that Councils have had to draw on reserves to achieve a balanced budget and the Improvement Service expresses concern about asset deterioration. 4.3 Demand for services continues to grow and local authorities have, in recent years, had additional responsibilities to deliver in relation to areas such as climate change, tackling poverty and digital transformation. Contributors to rising demand include demographic factors such as an ageing population, societal changes such as persistent poverty and greater mental health needs, and service-specific pressures such as the increase in homelessness. The IS note that a consequence of these factors has been a reduction in non-statutory services and highlight the risk of a reduction in funding for early intervention and prevention work. 4.4 In the chapter on workforce challenges, the report states that the overall local government workforce has grown by 6% over the last decade, mainly driven by ring-fenced funding for social care and education. There are recruitment and retention pressures in a number of fields, with most councils reporting critical shortages of social care staff and social workers, and around three-quarters having critical shortages of roles such as planners and environmental health officers. Pay levels and competition from other sectors are commonly cited as contributing factors. Sickness absence amongst local authority staff is at its highest level since the LGBF started reporting on it, and this is noted as adding to service resilience issues and creating additional strain on staff. The report expresses some concern about the age profile of the local government workforce (56% of staff aged 45-64) and the risks to succession planning and service continuity. 4.5 The chapter on adult social care continues the theme of structural funding gaps and increased pressures arising from workforce shortages, provider fragility and rising demand for services. It notes that real terms spending on the over 65s actually fell in 2024/25 but expenditure growth has been driven by demand within the 18-64 age groups, with large increases since 2010/11 on services for adults with learning disabilities, physical and sensory disabilities and mental health needs. The report highlights a trend towards more intensive social care packages for complex needs with more hours of care delivered but to fewer people. The Improvement Service acknowledges that the LGBF would benefit from more detailed insight into social care for those aged 18-64 and is doing preparatory work to understand what performance measures could be incorporated in the future. 4.6 On education, the report notes continued improvement in primary-level attainment, with performance exceeding pre-pandemic levels for both literacy and numeracy, and a continued narrowing of the poverty-related attainment gap. Senior phase attainment levels remain complex when identifying long-term trends, due to the disruption and changed assessment methods of the pandemic, but demonstrate a sustained broad upward trend. School attendance levels are showing some recovery but still remain before the previous norms for both primary and secondary phase. The report notes that performance relating to post-school destinations remains strong but has plateaued. On funding, the view of the Improvement Service is that commitments to maintain teacher numbers are a constraint on spending and are reducing the scope for delivering savings.
Page 5
PUBLIC 4.7 The chapter on tackling poverty highlights the important role local government plays in addressing poverty and the impact of whole system approaches. The report provides details of short-term improvements in Council Tax collection and rent arrears and speculates as to whether this is an early sign of cost-of-living strain easing for some people; the drop in demand nationally for Scottish Welfare Fund assistance for the second year in a row is also presented as a possible further sign of that easing. Nonetheless, it stresses the continued importance of councils in addressing drivers of poverty. 4.8 In concluding, the national report finds that the slowing rate of improvement is to be expected in the context of the pressures it sets out. It points out that there has been a slight shift back to improvement in 2024/25, it does not counter the broader trend. Long-term improvement remains positive, with 66% of indicators having improved since the base year, but shorter-term trends are more complicated, with the proportion of indicators in decline growing each year. The report highlights those areas where it believes there are emerging pressures, those where the IS believe there are persistent structural challenges, and those which are showing signs of recovery. It concludes by presenting some case studies of good practice. 5. Overview of Renfrewshire’s Performance 5.1 This section provides an overview of Renfrewshire’s LGBF performance in relation to service categories. Appendix 1 provides the Council’s data, ranked position, the Scottish average, and the family group range for all the indicators; for ease of use, indicators in the top quarter of performance are highlighted in pale green and those in the bottom quarter in pale red. Appendix 2 includes a list of those indicators in the top quarter and bottom quarter in terms of ranked performance of the 32 local authorities. Data for 2024/25 is available for 92 of the 108 indicators. 5.2 Of those 92 indicators, Renfrewshire has performed as follows: o 58 indicators have improved or sustained performance; o 32 indicators have falling performance; o 63 indicators maintained or improved their ranking; o 29 indicators have fallen in the rankings; o 32 indicators are ranked in the top 8 best performing councils for that measure and 55% of indicators are in the top half of councils; o 16 indicators are ranked in the 8 lowest performing councils for that measure. 5.3 Although the national report highlights an overall trend of slowing improvement, Renfrewshire Council progress relative to previous years and relative to others has shown an increased pace of improvement in 2024/25. Figure 1 below shows the number of indicators improving on the previous year since 2021/22, both in terms of outright performance and ranking (i.e. performance relative to others). It also shows the number of indicators which ranked in the top or bottom 8 in each of those years. Almost one-third of indicators rank in the top 8.
Page 6
PUBLIC 5.4 The Improvement Service provides some useful charts to indicate how each local authority’s performance has changed since the inception of the LGBF, and on the previous year. Figures 2 and 3 below show the profile of improvement in Renfrewshire on that base year and on the previous year; these charts only include the performance measures rather than cost, satisfaction or financial sustainability. Figure 2 shows that 79% of indicators have improved on the base year, well above the average of 66% noted in 4.8 above. Table 1 below shows how this compares with other local authorities in our Family Groups, with Renfrewshire having the highest proportion of improving indicators both since the base year and in the previous year. Figure 2: Performance indicators Change on base year (Renfrewshire) Figure 3: Performance indicators change on most recent year (Renfrewshire) 5.5 Renfrewshire Council ranks in the top 8 councils for 32 indicators, and in the bottom 8 for 16 indicators. Areas where we have strong relative performance include pupil attainment at levels 5 and 6 and in numeracy at primary school level, hospital readmissions and delayed discharges, the condition of Class A and B roads, rent arrears, the time taken for non- emergency housing repairs, some financial sustainability measures, and CO2 emissions from electricity, gas and transport. 47 50 30 14 36 41 23 15 46 43 23 23 58 65 32 16 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Number with performance improved or maintained from previous year Number with ranking improved or maintained from previous year Number in top 8 Number in bottom 8 Renfrewshire Council Post-Pandemic LGBF Performance 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25
Page 7
PUBLIC Areas where Renfrewshire ranks in the bottom quarter include school exclusions, satisfaction rates on street cleaning and refuse collection, council tax collection, and crisis grant processing. Table 1: Percentage of measures improving, comparison with Family Group councils % Performance Measures Improving on Base Year % Performance Measures Improving on Previous Year Angus 57% 53% Clackmannanshire 73% 38% Dumfries & Galloway 65% 49% East Renfrewshire 75% 43% Falkirk 65% 49% Fife 69% 53% Inverclyde 69% 44% Midlothian 66% 47% South Ayrshire 65% 44% South Lanarkshire 71% 41% West Lothian 60% 44% Renfrewshire 79% 55% 5.6 More detail on specific indicators is covered below under each LGBF category. Some caveats on the use of cost and satisfaction measures is also provided. Understanding Cost Indicators and Performance 5.7 The approach taken by the Improvement Service in relation to LGBF rankings on cost measures (of which there are 18) is to consider ‘cheapest’ as ‘best performing’. As such, any consideration of relative and absolute performance must take account of local policy decisions which target investment in priority areas, such as the investment in roads in Renfrewshire. Similarly, differences in the structure of every council can also account for variation as costs may be allocated differently (for example, management costs or maintenance costs). The cost of money advice services is included with environmental health and trading standards though some councils do not provide any money advice services and so this may not be a helpful comparison. 5.8 It should be noted that cost measures only present part of an assessment of performance and alone, they should not be perceived to equate to quality. Work is being undertaken across local authorities to get a clearer picture of differences in cost allocation so that these cost measures may be more comparable in future years.
Page 8
PUBLIC Understanding Customer Satisfaction Measures 5.9 The LGBF reports on seven customer satisfaction measures, and uses the Scottish Household Survey (SHS) as its source for these indicators. Because of very low sample sizes once the survey is broken down to local authority level, the measures use an average over the most recent three year period; the 2024/25 figures are therefore an average of results from 2022/23, 2023/24 and 2024/25. The survey uses a general sample of the population rather than being restricted to people who use the services they are being asked. Satisfaction ratings from those who actually use services are typically much higher than the general measures. As the respondents are different each time, it is not possible to state whether a person’s perception improves or worsens over time. 5.10 As well as the small sample size per local authority, and the use of value judgements rather than measurable quality, there are two further caveats to be considered when using SHS data. The first is that the LGBF uses the figures for those who actively express satisfaction, rather than those actively expressing dissatisfaction – this is relevant because many people state that they have no view. The second is that SHS statistics are provided with a note of the sampling error, which tells users how much margin of error there is with the figure depending on the estimate and the sample size. For small sample sizes, that margin of error can make a considerable difference. 5.11 In 2025, the Council carried out its own resident research and included questions on satisfaction with particular services. The sample size was much larger than the latest Scottish Household Survey (1,016 residents in the Council’s survey compared with 250 in the SHS) and follow-up focus groups were held to get a deeper understanding of the issues raised. Table 2 below provides a comparison of the satisfaction rates reported in the LGBF and in the Council’s 2025 Resident Survey. Table 2: Percentage of residents satisfied with selected council services Reported in LGBF (Scottish Household Survey) Reported in Resident Survey Leisure facilities 64% 84% Libraries 61% 88% Museums and galleries 60% 84% Parks and open spaces 85% 88% Refuse collection 75% 73% Schools 64% 94% Street cleaning 49% 64%
Page 9
PUBLIC Children’s Services 5.12 There are now three years of consistent data available for attainment (these were disrupted by the pandemic and attainment figures were not directly comparable) and Renfrewshire is one of the top-performing councils for several attainment measures, including the overall tariff score at senior phase, and the percentage of children in P1, P4 and P7 meeting expected levels in numeracy. The poverty-related attainment gap for primary age children narrowed in 2024/25 and is now smaller than pre-pandemic levels. The poverty-related gap in literacy also reduced considerably in 2024/25 and was 18.9 percentage points, compared with 23.9 in 2023/24. In 2024/25, Renfrewshire was slightly behind the national average in terms of tariff scores for school leavers in the most deprived and least deprived 20% but ahead for those in the other SIMD quintiles. 5.13 School attendance has been an area of challenge nationally since the pandemic, but there has been further improvement in 2024/25. Renfrewshire’s attendance rate is 91% which is the same as the Scottish average and slightly higher than the family group average. However, exclusions remain a difficult local issue, with Renfrewshire ranked 30th out of 32 local authorities and an exclusion rate of 25.1 exclusions per 1000 pupils compared with a Scottish average of 15.2. There has been a great deal of fluctuation on this indicator over the lifetime of the LGBF. Children’s Services are progressing several pieces of work to improve attendance and reduce exclusions, including a collaboration between Educational Psychology and Social Work to support neurodiverse care-experienced young people, using the Flexible Learning Resource to support those with Emotionally-Based School Avoidance, and creating a new Virtual Head Teacher post to provide additional, dedicated leadership relating to flexible learning, attendance and exclusion. 5.14 The percentage of children on the child protection register who were reregistered within 18 months fell from 10.7% in 2023/24 to 3% in 2024/25. Registration is always based on an assessment of risk and is therefore not an area where high or low figures denote good or bad performance; reregistrations may often occur when the risk factors in a child’s life change. Adult Social Care 5.15 Renfrewshire remains high-performing in relation to minimising delayed discharges from hospital, with the lowest rate in the country. Although the rate of bed days lost per increased in 2024/25, Renfrewshire was the best performing council for the second year in a row, and has been in the top 5 best performing councils for all but two years of the LGBF; the current Scottish average is more than five and a half times the Renfrewshire rate. Renfrewshire also has one of the lowest rates of hospital readmission within 28 days of discharge. Both these indicators point to the responsiveness and effectiveness of community health and social care locally.
Page 10
PUBLIC 5.16 The percentage of people aged 65 and over who have long term care needs and receive personal care at home has been fairly stable in recent years, despite growing demands. In 2024/25, there was an increase in the number of people supported at home in this way – 65% compared with 63.2% in 2023/24. 5.17 The proportion of care services graded Good (4) or better by the Care Inspectorate has increased from 75.4% to 82.1%, moving Renfrewshire out of the bottom 8 in terms of performance. It must be noted that this refers to all registered care services in Renfrewshire and not just those provided directly by the Council or HSPC, or those commissioned by the Council or HSPC. No HSPC-provided services have gradings below Good; five are graded Very Good and three are graded Excellent. Corporate Services and Corporate Assets 5.18 The gender pay gap in Renfrewshire has moved to a position whereby women are slightly out-earning men in similar roles for the first time, and the Council ranks sixth highest for this indicator, though the gap is slightly wider than 2023/24 but has tipped in favour of female staff. Rankings are based on how close to 0% the gap is. The change is partly related to pay deals in recent years which have had a greater impact on the lowest paid staff who are disproportionately female. Renfrewshire Council remains in the bottom quarter of the rankings for the percentage of the highest paid staff who are female – the percentage fell a little in 2024/25 and the trend in recent years has been for this to be fairly stable at between 55 and 58%. It remains lower than the Scottish average and not yet reflective of the workforce as a whole, of whom around 75% are women. 5.19 Performance on invoice processing remains strong, meaning our suppliers are paid promptly. In 2024/25, more than 97% of invoices were processed within 30 days, compared with a national average of just over 93%. Renfrewshire is the third best performing council on this measure and has performed strongly over a number of years. 5.20 As noted above, the national report by the Improvement Service highlights how the cost of living continues to impact on council services. Renfrewshire Council continues to prioritise support for households in need, and distributes the 5th highest percentage of Social Welfare Fund monies and the highest percentage of Discretionary Housing Payments in Scotland. We continue to receive a high volume of crisis grant applications – 8,930 in 2024/25 and 89.4% were given a decision within one working day, However, this compares with a Scottish average of 96% though that average does not take account of how many applications a council receives (which ranges from 125 to 38,995). Our internal target for processing Crisis Grant is 2 days which is aligned fully to the Scottish Welfare Fund statutory guidance, and is consistently achieved. The Council also processed 2,815 Community Care grant applications in 2024/25 with 92 % receiving a decision within 15 days, higher than the national average of 90.7%.
Page 11
PUBLIC 5.21 There has been a slight increase in the level of Council tax collected as a percentage of the amount due – from 94.3% in 2023/24 to 94.5% in 2024/25. The national average collection rate is 95.5%. Collection rates need to be considered within the context of the cost of living and the considerable variation in levels of deprivation across different local authorities. The cost per dwelling of collecting Council Tax fell in 2024/25 due to internal efficiencies. 5.22 Staff sickness absence is noted in the national report as being one of the biggest challenges for local authorities. Renfrewshire Council has improved it’s relative position this year in relation to non-teaching staff though the number of days lost per FTE increased from 14.69 in 2023/24 to 15.1 in 2024/25. In the same period, days lost for teaching staff rose from 7.23 to 8.4 days. Addressing absence levels is a key focus for the Council during 2025/26 and a multi-faceted programme of work is underway to deliver improvements. This includes the development of new guidance for managers, more awareness raising of the wellbeing support available to staff, and additional tools to support scrutiny of absence recording and reporting. Culture and Leisure Services 5.23 There are four cost measures and four satisfaction measures for Culture and Leisure services, and none specifically tracking performance. As noted earlier in the report, higher costs can represent investment such as the case of our parks and open spaces. Satisfaction levels as reported through the Scottish Household Survey show a declining trend, though the Council’s resident research carried out in 2025 indicated satisfaction rates for culture and leisure services ranging between 84% and 88%. Environmental Services 5.24 Renfrewshire’s performance exceeds the national average for roads requiring maintenance treatment for all four classes of road, and ranks in the top 10 for three of the four categories. Performance relative to the family group shows that Renfrewshire is the second best performing council for A, B and U roads. Investment in roads remains above average. 5.25 The Street Cleanliness score, based on three random samples across the year, increased from 88.5% to 91.7% which is exactly in line with the Scottish average. Satisfaction with street cleaning, as measured by the Scottish Household Survey, was 48.6%, a fall from last year; Renfrewshire’s own Resident Research carried out in 2025 reported a satisfaction rate of 64% as noted earlier in the report. 5.26 There has been a reduction in the proportion of waste being recycled, which was 44.3% in 2023/24 and is 42.8% in 2024/25. This is partly due to changes in regulations for some materials, and a change in local processing arrangements; there is now a greater proportion being diverted for incineration rather than recycling. Economic Development
Page 12
PUBLIC 5.27 Employability services in Renfrewshire continue to out-perform the national average in relation to the proportion of people supported into paid work, with 16.3% supported into employment. The service also supports people with training, work experience and qualifications and in 2024/25 provided a service to over 1400 people. The number of businesses supported by Business Gateway who progressed to start-up also fell but still out-performed the Scottish average. 5.28 There has been a further increase in the proportion of Council procurement spend with local suppliers, from 20.15% in 2023/24 to 22% in 2024/25. The Council has continued its programme of work to support local suppliers to bid for contracts through supplier events, market engagement and changes to our standing orders. Increasing direct spend with local businesses is also a key element of the Council’s Community Wealth-Building work. 5.29 Renfrewshire has one of the highest town vacancy rates and this rose to 19% in 2024/25. The figure is impacted by the decision to leave some units in the Paisley Centre vacant ahead of any redevelopment. Housing 5.30 There continues to be an improving picture in relation to rent arrears, which now account for 7.1% of all rents due, compared with 8.32% in 2023/24. Arrears have consistently tracked below both the Scottish and family group averages, though none have yet fallen to pre- pandemic levels. Strong performance may be due in part to the Council’s ongoing topping- up of the Discretionary Housing Payment Fund and the Tenant Support Fund that was introduced in 2023. There has also been a further improvement on rent loss due to void properties, which is at its lowest level since being added to the LGBF in 2013/14. 5.31 The time taken to deal with non-emergency repairs is another strength, and improved to 6.9 days, again comparing favourably with both the Scottish and family group averages. 5.32 Additional resource was put in place to address performance against the Scottish Housing Standard, which had been impacted by the timing of changes to the standards, which coincided with pandemic lockdowns and consequent delays in work being carried out. This extra resource has resulted in improvement from 68% achieving standard in 2023/24 to 80% in 2024/25. The proportion not meeting the standard will include some abeyances, for example where tenants do not allow access to the property for work to be carried out. Financial Sustainability 5.33 Renfrewshire’s performance against these measures remains strong; three of the six indicators are ranked in the top quarter. An additional indicator has been added to this category for 2024/25 – Reliance on Reserves as a Percentage of Net Expenditure. Historic data has been provided for the new indicator so that local authorities can compare trends. Renfrewshire Council ranks in the middle of the rankings for this indicator and is above the national average. Tackling Climate Change
Page 13
PUBLIC 5.34 There is a considerable lag in the reporting of the area-wide emissions indicators and so data for 2024/25 is not available for area-wide per capita CO2 or for area-wide CO2 emissions within the scope of the local authority to impact. 5.35 The latest data for emissions from transport, electricity and gas show that Renfrewshire Council continued to reduce CO2 emissions in all three areas in 2024/25; performance in all three keeps Renfrewshire in the top quarter of performers, and as the best-performing council on electricity emissions. 6. Monitoring and reporting of LGBF 6.1 The performance of the LGBF indicators will continue to be monitored by the Corporate Management Team, the officer Performance Group, through service improvement planning processes and through further benchmarking activities to develop and share best practice. A report on the LGBF will continue to be submitted to the Audit, Risk and Scrutiny Board on a six-monthly basis to review performance and monitor progress. 6.2 Renfrewshire Council publishes its statutory Public Performance Reporting document on the Council’s website in March each year. Relevant performance information gathered through the LGBF is included as part of the report. Implications of this report 1. Financial – No direct implications though the report includes cost-based measures. 2. HR and Organisational Development – no direct implications from the report but there are several indicators relating to staff. 3. Community/Council Planning – the indicators contribute to our understanding of performance in relation to Community Plan and Council Plan themes. 4. Legal – none 5. Property/Assets – no direct implications but the report references indicators relating to council assets. 6. Information Technology – n/a 7. Equality & Human Rights – The recommendations contained within this report have not been assessed in relation to their impact on equalities and human rights. The report contains information about past performance and is for noting. 8. Health and Safety – none
Page 14
PUBLIC 9. Procurement – no direct implication but the report includes details of an indicator relating to the Council’s procurement spend. 10. Risk – none 11. Privacy Impact – none 12. COSLA Policy Position – the LGBF framework represents a joint commitment by SOLACE (Scotland) and COSLA to develop better measurement and comparable data to target resources and drive improvements. 13. Children’s Rights – no direct implications from the recommendations but the report contains information about performance indicators relating to services for children and young people. 14. Climate Risk – no direct implications but the report includes measures relating to CO2 emissions. Author: Lisa Fingland, Policy Manager, lisa.fingland@renfrewshire.gov.uk
Page 15
PUBLIC Appendix 1: Renfrewshire’s 2024/25 data Indicators are grouped by service category. The tables show Renfrewshire’s position for the last three years, the Scottish average, and the Family Group range and ranking. Indicators which are in the top eight councils for performance are highlighted in pale green and indicators in the bottom eight councils are highlighted in pale red. Family Groups allow comparisons and encourage discussions between similar councils. Renfrewshire is currently in the following family groups: • Family Group 3 for population type, which includes Children Services, Adult Social Care and Housing Services – Clackmannanshire, Dumfries & Galloway, Falkirk, Fife, Renfrewshire, South Ayrshire, South Lanarkshire, and W est Lothian. • Family Group 3 for area, which includes Corporate Services, Culture and Leisure, Environmental Services, Corporate Assets, Economic Development, Financial Sustainability, Tackling Climate Change – Angus, Clackmannanshire, East Renfrewshire, Inverclyde, Midlothian, Renfrewshire, South Lanarkshire and W est Lothian. Children’s Services 25 of the 32 indicators have 2024/25 data available. Eleven are ranked in the top quarter, three are ranked in the bottom quarter. Indicator Ranked Position Data Scottish Average Fam ily Group (Maxim um /Minim um ) Fam ily Group Ranking 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 CHN1 Cost Per Primary School Pupil 13 8 8 £7,306.00 £7,166.00 £7,299.13 £7,606.00 East Renfrewshire £6,945.19 to Clackmannanshire £8,251.59 2 CHN2 Cost per Secondary School Pupil 3 5 1 £8,222.93 £8,362.30 £8,356.70 £9,341.00 Renfrewshire £8,356.70 to Clackmannanshire £10056.58 1 CHN3 Cost per Pre-School Education Registration 6 14 10 £10,549.9 8 £12,219.0 1 £11,584.03 £12,055.32 W est Lothian £9,652.77 to Falkirk £13,145.88 4 CHN4 % of Pupils Gaining 5+ Awards at Level 5 7 10 8 71 69 71.9 68.6 W est Lothian (81% ) to Clackmannanshire (58% ) 2 CHN5 % of Pupils Gaining 5+ Awards at Level 6 10 7 8 39 42 43.5 40.8 W est Lothian (55.1% ) to Clackmannanshire (30.1% ) 3
Page 16
PUBLIC Indicator Ranked Position Data Scottish Average Fam ily Group (Maxim um /Minim um ) Fam ily Group Ranking 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 CHN6 % of Pupils from Deprived Areas Gaining 5+ Awards at Level 5 (SIMD) 5 8 10 57 51 53.7 53 W est Lothian (68.6% to Clackmannanshire (43.4% ) 4 CHN7 % of Pupils from Deprived Areas Gaining 5+ Awards at Level 6 (SIMD) 12 6 9 22 24 25.2 24.3 W est Lothian (36.1% )% to Clackmannanshire (14.0% ) 3 CHN8a The Gross Cost of "Children Looked After" in Residential Based Services per Child per W eek 27 31 Not availabl e £6,368.56 £7,752.02 Not available 23/24 - 5477.1782 Renfrewshire (£7752) and Dumfries & Galloway (£4533) 8 CHN8b The Gross Cost of "Children Looked After" in a Community Setting per Child per W eek 7 8 Not availabl e £348.59 £400.92 Not available 23/24 - 492.2316 Fife (£609) and Renfrewshire (£400.9) 1 CHN9 % of children being looked after in the community 9 5 Not availabl e 91.7 92.8 Not available 23/24 - 88.8% Clackmannanshire (93.87% ) and Falkirk (84.9% ) 2 CHN11 Proportion of Pupils Entering Positive Destinations 10 5 2 96.4 97.1 97.9 95.7 Renfrewshire 97.9 to W est Lothian 95.6 1 CHN12a Overall Average Total Tariff 10 9 8 973 953 938 922 W est Lothian (1019.13) and Clackmannanshire (755.58) 4 CHN12b Average Total Tariff SIMD quintile 1 6 5 13 697 723 647 655 W est Lothian (732) and Clackmannanshire (465) 4 CHN12c Average total tariff SIMD quintile 2 9 17 13 838 742 786 772 South Lanarkshire (858) and Clackmannanshire (677) 5 CHN12d Average total tariff SIMD quintile 3 4 14 7 1005 933 993 895 W est Lothian (1057) and Fife (825) 3 CHN12e Average total tariff SIMD quintile 4 8 10 6 1155 1123 1165 1049 Falkirk (1205) and Clackmannanshire (962) 3 CHN12f Average total tariff SIMD quintile 5 12 8 8 1235 1288 1258 1269 W est Lothian (1343) and Dumfries & Galloway (1041) 3 CHN13a % of P1, P4 and P7 pupils combined achieving expected CFE Level in Literacy 13 12 10 73.78% 76.19% 77.40% 74.50% Fife 72% to W est Lothian/Falkirk/South Ayrshire 79% 4
Page 17
PUBLIC Indicator Ranked Position Data Scottish Average Fam ily Group (Maxim um /Minim um ) Fam ily Group Ranking 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 CHN13b % of P1, P4 and P7 pupils combined achieving expected CFE Level in Numeracy 7 8 4 82.90% 83.72% 84.90% 80.30% Clackmannanshire 75% to Renfrewshire/South Ayrshire 84.9% 2 (we are first equal with South Ayrshire) CHN14a Literacy Attainment Gap (P1,4,7 Combined) - percentage point gap between the least deprived and most deprived pupils 24 24 14 0.264pp 0.233pp 18.9 19.36 Dumfries and Gallow 15.5 to South Ayrshire 21.3 5 CHN14b Numeracy Attainment Gap (P1,4,7 Combined) - percentage point gap between the least deprived and most deprived pupils 18 17 11 0.179pp 0.179pp 14.9 16.61 Dumfries and Galloway12.6 to South Lanarkshire 17.7 3 CHN17 % of children meeting developmental milestones 28 25 Not availabl e 79 80.6 Not available 23/24 - 83.3% Fife (83.52% ) and Dumfries & Galloway (78.89% ) 6 CHN18 % of funded early years provision which is graded good/better 22 23 27 90.10% 88.70% 84% 89.00% Renfrewshire 84% to South Ayrshire 98% 8 CHN19a School attendance rate 20 18 20 90.20% 90.30% 91% 91.00% Fife 90.2% to Falkirk 91.5% 5 CHN19b School attendance rate (Looked After Children) 26 21 Not availabl e 82.2 82.98% Not available 83.7% (2324) Falkirk (87.94% ) and Dumfries & Galloway (77.71% ) 6 CHN20a School exclusion rate (per 1,000 pupils) 31 n/a 30 29.33 n/a 25.14 15.17 Clackmannanshire 0 to Renfrewshire 25.14 8 CHN10 % of Adults Satisfied with Local Schools 27 n/a Not availabl e 164.49 n/a Not available Not available Not available Not available
Page 18
PUBLIC Corporate Services Updated data is available for all twelve Corporate Services indicators. Four indicators are ranked in the top quarter, four are ranked in the bottom quarter. Indicator Ranked Position Data Scottish Average Fam ily Group (Maxim um /Minim um ) Fam ily Group Ranking 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 CORP 1 Support services as a % of total gross expenditure 30 30 28 5.30% 5.59 5.20% 4.00% W est Lothian 3% to Midlothian 5.3% 7 CORP 3b % of the highest paid 5% employees who are women 21 20 25 56.80% 57.59% 57.10% 60.30% Renfrewshire 57.1% to Angus 68.7% 1 CORP 3c The gender pay gap (% ) 4 7 6 0.50% 0.44% -0.50% 1.40% Renfrewshire -0.5% to East Renfrewshire 5.67% 1 CORP 4 The cost per dwelling of collecting council tax 20 24 21 £8.70 £8.30 £7.77 £5.98 W est Lothian £4.86 and Midlothian £13.84 5 CORP 6a Sickness absence days per teacher 25 13 20 7.4 7.23 8.4 7.8 East Renfrewshire 5.9 to Inverclyde 9.5 5 CORP 6b Sickness absence days per employee (non- teacher) 26 23 21 15.2 14.69 15.1 14.5 Midlothian 12.6 to W est Lothian 17.6 5 CORP 7 % of income due from council tax received by the end of the year 24 25 25 95.30% 94.30% 94.50% 95.50% East Renfrewshire 97.6% and Midlothian 93.9% 7 CORP 8 % of invoices sampled that were paid within 30 days 18 3 3 90.21% 96.80% 97.80% 93.10% Angus 90.2% to Renfrewshire 97.8% 1 CORP 9 % of Crisis Grant decisions within 1 day 26 30 30 83.20% 86.10% 89.40% 96.00% East Renfrewshire 100% and Renfrewshire 89.4% 8 CORP 10 % of CCG Grant decisions within 15 days 16 24 24 90.60% 86.60% 92.00% 90.70% Clackmannanshire, East Renfrewshire, Midlothian 100% and Angus 86% 7 CORP 11 The proportion of SW F Budget Spent 17 9 5 129% 145% 97.00% 82.9% East Renfrewshire (133% ) and W est Lothian (66% ) 3 CORP 12 Proportion of DHP Funding spent 1 1 1 106% 119% 117% 99% Renfrewshire (117% ) and Angus (83% ) 1
Page 19
PUBLIC Adult Social Care Updated data is available for all seven indicators. Four are ranked in the top quarter, none are ranked in the bottom quarter. Indicator Ranked Position Data Scottish Average Fam ily Group (Maxim um /Minim um ) Fam ily Group Ranking 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 SW 1 Home care costs per hour for people aged 65 or over 12 12 7 £31.33 £33.41 £24.78 £32.54 Clackmannanshire £6.71 to Fife £48.93 3 SW 2 Self Directed Support (Direct Payments + Managed Personalised Budgets) spend on adults 18+ as a % of total social work spend on adults 18+ 21 21 22 4.67% 4.67% 6% 9.40% Dumfries and Galloway 9% and Clackmannanshire 3% 5 SW 3a % of people aged 65 and over with long-term care needs who receiving personal care at home 11 14 10 63.06% 62.45% 65% 62.29% Clackmannanshire (72% ) and W est Lothian (67% ) 5 SW 4b % of adults supported at home who agree that their services and support had an impact in improving or maintaining their quality of life n/a 28 Not availabl e n/a 64.2 Not available Not available Not available Not available SW 4c Percentage of adults supported at home who agree that they are supported to live as independently as possible n/a 30 Not availabl e n/a 65.5 Not available Not available Not available Not available SW 4d Percentage of adults supported at home who agree that they had a say in how their help, care or support was provided n/a 28 Not availabl e n/a 54.3 Not available Not available Not available Not available SW 4e Percentage of carers who feel supported to continue in their caring role n/a 23 Not availabl e n/a 28.5 Not available Not available Not available Not available SW 5 Residential costs per week per resident for people aged 65 or over 6 6 5 £574.00 £587.00 £553.00 £725.00 Clackmannanshire (£397) and Fife (£1,072) 6
Page 20
PUBLIC Indicator Ranked Position Data Scottish Average Fam ily Group (Maxim um /Minim um ) Fam ily Group Ranking 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 SW 6 Rate of readmission to hospital within 28 days per 1,000 discharges 6 7 7 80.15 83.9 83.57 102.8 Renfrewshire (83.57) and Falkirk (140.91) 1 SW 7 Proportion of care services graded 'good' (4) or better in Care Inspectorate inspections 15 24 19 78 75.4 82.1 81.9 Falkirk (89.9% ) and Fife (73.5% ) 5 SW 8 Number of days people spend in hospital when they are ready to be discharged, per 1,000 population (75+) 3 1 1 251.3076 268 138.74 159.579991 9 899 Renfrewshire (159.57) and South Ayrshire (1600) 1 Culture and Leisure Data is available for seven of the eight indicators. One is ranked in the top quarter, two are ranked in the bottom quarter. Indicator Ranked Position Data Scottish Average Fam ily Group (Maxim um /Minim um ) Fam ily Group Ranking 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 C&L1 Cost per attendance at sports facilities 15 20 24 £4.48 £4.58 £4.73 £3.77 Midlothian £7.79 to W est Lothian £0.68 4 C&L2 Cost per library visit 4 2 1 £1.51 £0.88 £0.78 £2.71 Inverclyde £5.20 to Renfrewshire £0.78 1 C&L3 Cost per visit to Museums & Galleries n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a C&L4 Cost of parks & open spaces per 1,000 population 31 31 29 £52,265. 04 £40,814.5 3 £33,572.98 £21,997.69 Midlothian £680.82 to Renfrewshire £33,572 8 C&L5a % of adults satisfied with libraries 32 29 25 56% 55% 61% 65% W est Lothian to 42% South Lanarkshire 68.7% 6 C&L5b % of adults satisfied with parks and open spaces 17 21 12 87% 83.70% 85% 84% East Renfrewshire 89% to South Lanarkshire 83.3% 4 C&L5c % of adults satisfied with museums and galleries 29 27 21 54.7 56 60.30% 67% South Lanarkshire 70% to Clackmannanshire 36.7% 4 C&L5d % of adults satisfied with leisure facilities 26 25 19 67.3 64.7 64% 65% Inverclyde 74% to Clackmannanshire 28.7% 4
Page 21
PUBLIC Environment Updated data is available for all fifteen indicators. Three are ranked in the top quarter, four in the bottom quarter. Indicator Ranked Position Data Scottish Average Fam ily Group (Maxim um /Minim um ) Fam ily Group Ranking 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 ENV1a Net cost of waste collection per premise 26 13 19 £99.51 £78.74 £71.27 £77.26 Inverclyde 44.33 to South Lanarkshire 83.48 6 ENV2a Net cost of waste disposal per premise 17 14 12 £110.35 £105.65 £100.19 £104.45 Midlothian 64.37 to W est Lothian 118.87 4 ENV3a Net cost of street cleaning per 1,000 population 3 5 8 £8,509 £9,497 £10,884.00 £17,869 East Renfrewshire £9,976 and Angus £23,752 2 ENV3c Street Cleanliness Score 10 26 17 93.30% 88.50% 91.70% 91.70% East Renfrewshire (94.86% ) and Clackmannanshire (82.38% ) 4 ENV4a Cost of Roads per kilometre 24 20 22 £21,827 £17,129 £18,424.93 £13,629.32 Clackmannanshire £10,102 and East Renfrewshire £46,565 6 ENV4b % of A Class roads that should be considered for maintenance treatment 29 28 28 £37,853 £35,490 £33,308.66 £21,671.20 Renfrewshire £33,308.66 and Clackmannanshire £13,030 8 ENV4c % of B Class roads that should be considered for maintenance treatment 29 30 30 £13,411 £13,852 £14,944.23 £7,202.58 Renfrewshire £14,944.23 and Clackmannanshire £2,609 8 ENV4d % of C Class roads that should be considered for maintenance treatment 28 26 24 £24,442 £21,637 £18,364.43 £14,468.62 W est Lothian £7,369.66 to Renfrewshire £18,364.43 8 ENV4e % of U Class roads that should be considered for maintenance treatment 6 19 22 54% 44% 42.80% 44.30% South Lanarkshire 40.7% to Clackmannanshire 57.2% 7 ENV5 Cost of Trading Standards and environmental health per 1,000 population 2 2 4 15.50% 14.80% 18.10% 31.00% W est Lothian (34% ) and Inverclyde (17.8% ) 2 ENV5a Cost of Trading Standards per 1000 4 3 5 19.20% 20.70% 25.27% 35.00% Angus (42% ) and Clackmannanshire (23% ) 2
Page 22
PUBLIC Indicator Ranked Position Data Scottish Average Fam ily Group (Maxim um /Minim um ) Fam ily Group Ranking 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 ENV5b Cost of environmental health per 1,000 population 11 11 17 27% 27.60% 31.00% 34.20% Clackmannanshire and Midlothian (28% ) and W est Lothian (42% ) 5 ENV6 % of total household waste arising that is recycled 7 9 10 30.10% 30.90% 31.10% 36.00% East Renfrewshire (42.8% ) and W est Lothian (30% ) 2 ENV7a % of adults satisfied with refuse collection 25 26 25 73.30% 75.30% 75.30% 78.00% Clackmannanshire 66.6% to Inverclyde 88.3% 7 ENV7b % of adults satisfied with street cleaning 31 29 28 50.67% 51.30% 48.70% 57% Inverclyde 72% and Renfrewshire 48.7% 8 Housing Data is available for all four indicators. Two indicators are ranked in the top quarter, none in the bottom quarter. Indicator Ranked Position Data Scottish Average Fam ily Group (Maxim um /Minim um ) Fam ily Group Ranking 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 HSN1b Gross rent arrears (all tenants) as at 31 March each year as a percentage of rent due for the reporting year 11 11 7 8.59 8.32 7.10% 8.60% Falkirk 3.9 to South Ayrshire 13.3 2 HSN2 % of rent due in the year that was lost due to voids 19 15 14 1.90% 1.50% 1.30% 1.70% South Lanarkshire 0.4% to Falkirk 1.66% 5 HSN3 % of council dwellings meeting Scottish Housing Standards 14 20 20 68% 69% 80% 83% Renfrewshire 80% to W est Lothian 95.8% 7 HSN4b Average number of days taken to complete non- emergency repairs 3 9 6 6.1 7.9 6.9 10.1 Clackmannanshire 5 to South Lanarkshire 13 3
Page 23
PUBLIC Corporate Asset Data is available for both indicators. There are none in the top or bottom quarter. Indicator Ranked Position Data Scottish Average Fam ily Group (Maxim um /Minim um ) Fam ily Group Ranking 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 CORP-ASSET1 Proportion of operational buildings that are suitable for their current use 11 11 13 90.90% 91.70% 91.70% 85.70% Midlothian 74.3% to W est Lothian 96.3% 5 CORP-ASSET2 Proportion of internal floor area of operational buildings in satisfactory condition 11 24 23 93.20% 88.94% 88.90% 90.30% Midlothian 84.3% to Angus 99.6% 6 Economic Development Data is available for eleven of the thirteen indicators. One is ranked in the top quarter and three in the bottom quarter. Indicator Ranked Position Data Scottish Average Fam ily Group (Maxim um /Minim um ) Fam ily Group Ranking 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 ECON1 % of unemployed people assisted into work from council operated / funded employability programmes 10 9 11 18.50% 18.40% 16.30% 14.20% East Renfrewshire (19.5% ) and Angus 5.5% ) 3 ECON2 Cost of Planning & Building Standards per planning application 15 12 15 £6,022 £6,346 £6,977.000 £6,938.00 Midlothian £9960 to Clackmannanshire £3454 5 ECON3 Average time per business and industry planning application (weeks) 20 26 28 12.94 13.55 16.22 14.32 Angus 7.12 to Midlothian 79.14 6 ECON4 % of procurement spend spent on local enterprises 26 26 25 19.30% 20.20% 22.00% 31.50% East Renfrewshire 11.6% to Angus 31.2% 5
Page 24
PUBLIC Indicator Ranked Position Data Scottish Average Fam ily Group (Maxim um /Minim um ) Fam ily Group Ranking 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 ECON5 No of business gateway start-ups per 10,000 population 29 16 17 11.3 16.2 14 12.38 Angus (17.67) and South Lanarkshire (7.39) 4 ECON6 Investment in Economic Development & Tourism per 1,000 Population 10 19 22 £133,638 £103,211 £97,869.64 £138,745.2 5 East Renfrewshire £48,913.15 to Inverclyde £179,424.44 3 ECON7 Proportion of people earning less than the real living wage 13 19 23 12.50% 16% 15.50% 11.30% Midlothian 11.5% and Angus 18.7% 4 ECON8 Proportion of properties receiving superfast broadband 7 9 2 98.60% 98.30% 99.60% 97.10% Angus 90.9% to Renfrewshire 99.6% 1 ECON9 Town Vacancy Rates 28 27 30 18 17.7 19.00 11.4 East Renfrewshire 3% and Renfrewshire 19% 8 ECON10 Immediately available employment land as a % of total land allocated for employment purposes in the local development plan 11 5 Not availabl e 32.67 74.3 Not available Not available Not available Not available ECON11 Gross Value Added (GVA) per capita 14 15 Not availabl e £26,317 £25,925 Not available Not available Not available Not available ECON12a Claimant Count as % of W orking Age Population 21 20 17 3.2 3.1 2.7 3.1 East Renfrewshire (1.7% ) and Inverclyde (3.3% ) 5 ECON12b Claimant Count as % of 16-24 Population 19 17 16 3.8 3.7 3.3 3.3 East Renfrewshire (1.64% ) and Clackmannanshire (4.5% ) 4
Page 25
PUBLIC Financial Sustainability Updated data is available for all six indicators. Three are ranked in the top quarter and none are in the bottom quarter. Indicator Ranked Position Data Scottish Average Fam ily Group (Maxim um /Minim um ) Fam ily Group Ranking 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 FINSUS1 Total useable reserves as a % of council annual budgeted revenue 3 4 3 49.2% 43.2% 41.71% 20.45% W est Lothian 12.2% to Renfrewshire 41.71% 1 FINSUS2 Uncommitted General Fund Balance as a % of council annual budgeted net revenue 19 19 21 2.2% 2.1% 1.90% 2.0% Angus 0.02% to East Renfrewshire 2.7% 4 FINSUS3 Ratio of Financing Costs to Net Revenue Stream - General Fund 7 7 3 3% 3.13% 2.90% 6.0% Midlothian 1.6% to Inverclyde/East Ren 8% 2 FINSUS4 Ratio of Financing Costs to Net Revenue Stream - Housing Revenue Account 22 17 13 32.5% 27.7% 23% 20.7% Angus 6.5% to Midlothian 42.8% 4 FINSUS5 Actual outturn as a percentage of budgeted expenditure 13 13 3 101.7% 100.6% 100% 100.1% East Renfrewshire 96.6% to Clackmannanshire 102.2% 3 FINSUS6 Reliance on Reserves as a % of Net expenditure 13 16 21 0.40% 0.50% 1.28% 0.6% Midlothian 0% to Clackmannanshire 5% 6
Page 26
PUBLIC Tackling Climate Change Data is available for three of the five indicators and all three are ranked in the top quarter. Indicator Ranked Position Data Scottish Average Fam ily Group (Maxim um /Minim um ) Fam ily Group Ranking 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 CLIM01 CO2 emissions area wide, per capita 19 16 Not availabl e 4.37 4.06 Not available Not available Not available Not available CLIM02 CO2 emissions area wide, emissions within scope of LA, per capita 10 7 Not availabl e 3.8 3.5 Not available Not available Not available Not available CLIM03: Emissions from transport per 1,000 population 10 7 7 18.2 17.04 16.4 29.38 South Lanarkshire (23.94) and East Renfrewshire (7.81) 3 CLIM04: Emissions from electricity per 1,000 population 1 1 1 30.27 31 30.32 45.6 Midlothian (56.46) and Renfrewshire (30.32) 1 CLIM05: Emissions from natural gas per 1,000 population 8 6 7 46.18 43.16 42.27 55.52 Inverclyde (87.0) and Clackmannanshire (42.09) 2
Page 27
PUBLIC Appendix 2: Indicators ranked in top eight and bottom eight of local authorities Top quarter ranking • CHN5 % of Pupils Gaining 5+ Awards at Level 6 • CHN11 Proportion of Pupils Entering Positive Destinations • CHN12a Overall Average Total Tariff • CHN12d Average total tariff SIMD quintile 3 • CHN12e Average total tariff SIMD quintile 4 • CHN12f Average total tariff SIMD quintile 5 • CHN13b % of P1, P4 and P7 pupils combined achieving expected CFE Level in Numeracy • CHN22 % of child protection re-registrations within 18 months • CORP 3c The gender pay gap (% ) • CORP 8 % of invoices sampled that were paid within 30 days • CORP 11 The proportion of SW F Budget Spent • CORP 12 Proportion of DHP Funding spent • SW 1 Home care costs per hour for people aged 65 or over • SW 5 Residential costs per week per resident for people aged 65 or over • SW 6 Rate of readmission to hospital within 28 days per 1,000 discharges • SW 8 Number of days people spend in hospital when they are ready to be discharged, per 1,000 population (75+) • C&L2 Cost per library visit • ENV3a Net cost of street cleaning per 1,000 population • ENV4b % of A Class roads that should be considered for maintenance treatment • ENV4c % of B Class roads that should be considered for maintenance treatment • HSN1b Gross rent arrears (all tenants) as at 31 March each year as a percentage of rent due for the reporting year • HSN4b Average number of days taken to complete non-emergency repairs • ECON8 Proportion of properties receiving superfast broadband • FINSUS1 Total useable reserves as a % of council annual budgeted revenue • FINSUS3 Ratio of Financing Costs to Net Revenue Stream - General Fund • FINSUS5 Actual outturn as a percentage of budgeted expenditure • CLIM03 CO2 emissions from Transport per 1000 population • CLIM04 CO2 emissions from Electricity per 1000 population • CLIM05 CO2 emissions from Natural Gas per 1000 population
Page 28
PUBLIC Bottom quarter ranking • CHN18 % of funded early years provision which is graded good/better • CHN20a School exclusion rate (per 1,000 pupils) • CHN10 % of Adults Satisfied with Local Schools • CORP 1 Support services as a % of total gross expenditure • CORP 3b % of the highest paid 5% employees who are women • CORP 7 % of income due from council tax received by the end of the year • CORP 9 % of Crisis Grant decisions within 1 day • C&L4 Cost of parks & open spaces per 1,000 population • C&L5a % of adults satisfied with libraries • ENV5 Cost of Trading Standards and environmental health per 1,000 population • ENV5a Cost of Trading Standards per 1000 • ENV7a % of adults satisfied with refuse collection • ENV7b % of adults satisfied with street cleaning • ECON3 Average time per business and industry planning application (weeks) • ECON4 % of procurement spend spent on local enterprises • ECON9 Town Vacancy Rates