LGA writes to Rt Hon Michael Gove MP on Oflog concerns

2 May 2024

Rt. Hon. Michael Gove MP
Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
Fry Building
2 Marsham Street
SW1P 4DF

CC: Josh Goodman, Chief Executive, Office for Local Government

Dear Michael,

I am writing to you in the current absence of a Chair for the Office for Local Government regarding a Times article - Worst-performing councils in England revealed — where does yours rank? - which uses data published by Oflog. I have significant concerns about what this has demonstrated to councils and their leaders about the role of Oflog, underpinned by the lack of progress made in establishing Oflog as an independent body. These concerns are shared by my LGA Vice-Chairs, who join me in signing this letter.

All political groups and politicians at the Local Government Association have, since the inception of Oflog, been constructive in our approach whilst also highlighting our concerns about the currency of data, choice of metrics and the potential for data to be used in a way which is not helpful in providing the public with an accurate picture of the state of local government. We have been working closely with Oflog to seek to ensure that our work is complementary and not duplicative.

I do not want to be labelled as a Cassandra figure, but our warnings about the use of data and Oflog’s ability to advise and brief the media about what the data does and doesn’t show have now come to pass. The fact that this happened during the pre-election period when the ability for councils to adequately respond is curtailed has made this situation worse.

While I appreciate that the league table was compiled by a media organisation, we are very concerned that neither Oflog, nor DLUHC, stepped in swiftly to correct inaccuracies and misleading content – some of which are listed below:

• The method used to compile these indicators into a league table is fundamentally flawed. For example, awarding average scores to councils who don't deliver a particular service automatically rates them higher than half of the councils that do deliver those services.
• There are significant nuances which are missed by the league table approach. Consideration of data alone without any context, and the focus on a limited number of indicators, provides a snapshot and not the full picture. Councils deliver more than 800 services, whereas Oflog’s Local Authority Data Explorer does not cover this breadth.
• Oflog have consistently said that data should be used to ask questions and not to make judgements, and to use data to explore whether there are valid reasons for differences in performance, such as taking different approaches to the provision of services or recording of data or because of differences in local areas.
• The focus on a small number of indicators for each topic area (and then using these to compile a league table) misses considerable nuances and takes metrics at face value without truly understanding what the more complex ones are saying. For example, the indicator used by Oflog on debt uses core spending power which is a measure of the funding that the Government makes available for service delivery, but it excludes several important elements that may be contributing to the servicing of debt, such as service income, housing rents and investment income. This has the effect, amongst other things, of making councils with housing revenue accounts ‘perform’ worse on this metric since their debt for housing is included, but not their means of servicing it.
• Councils take legitimate policy decisions which are not necessarily reflected in the data. For example, councils which have relatively low recycling rates may have taken a policy decision to send waste for incineration as a way of deriving energy from waste. It’s also important to understand wider context and geography. Lower recycling rates are often associated with very urban areas with high numbers of flats, since it can be more difficult to store recycling bins or requires taking recycling to external/communal locations. This is not clear from crude rankings.
• Oflog’s data does not always include the most recent information. For example, data on the percentage of household waste recycled is now available for 2022/23.
• While both district and unitary/county councils deal with complaints, the nature and wider scale of services provided by upper tier/unitary councils may generate more complaints, for example, in relation to access to social care services.
• Ultimately, it’s important to compare councils which are comparable to each other in terms of their characteristics, for example using relevant benchmarking groups which take into account differences like demographics, deprivation, or whether a council has its own social housing.

I know that many of these issues are ones for The Times, but the question LGA Vice-Chairs and I are being asked is ‘What is Oflog doing to explain the limits of the data it publishes and how this should be used responsibly?’ And a question for you is how can we now rebuild the trust and confidence of the sector?

Let me reassure you that councils of all sizes, geography and political leadership remain committed to transparency and being held to account for our decisions and actions. However, I urge you to reflect on the objectives you set Oflog in February: to inform, to warn, and to support. Oflog's lack of action to correct misleading information calls into question its ability to inform, and the consequent impact on trust in the sector will impact its ability to warn and support.

I will be grateful if you will ask your officials to work with my office to arrange an urgent meeting between us, and with the LGA Vice-Chairs, to discuss the matters raised above.

Yours sincerely

Cllr Shaun Davies
Chair, Local Government Association

Cllr Kevin Bentley 
Senior Vice-Chairman

Cllr Nesil Caliskan
Vice-Chair

Cllr Joe Harris
Vice-Chair 

Cllr Marianne Overton
Vice-Chair