Cambridgeshire County Council Benchmarking report 24/1/218
Introduction This insight pack has been commissioned by Cambridgeshire County Council to support strategic planning discussions. The report has been prepared by Grant Thornton's Insights and Analytics team using CFO Insights, which is an online analysis tool that gives those aspiring to improve the financial position of their organisation instant access to insight on the financial performance, socio-economic context and service outcomes of theirs and every other council in England, Scotland and Wales. Sections 1 and 2 of this report are high level benchmarking exercises comparing the net expenditure and total service line income of Cambridgeshire County Council against all English Counties and a nearest neighbour group.. This has been undertaken using publically available financial data submitted by every council to the Department of Communities and Local Government. As part of section 3, we have also manually collated data on senior officer salaries from reports published by local authorities in accordance with Section 38 of the Localism Act 211, which requires that authorities publish their policies for the financial year relating to the remuneration of their chief officers and lowest paid employees, as well as the relationship between the salaries of its chief officers and employees who are not chief officers.
Contents Socio economic context 3 Benchmarking expenditure 6 Income generation 13 Senior officer salaries 18 3
Socio economic context 4
Socio economic overview Socio Economic characteristics Figure 1: Socio economic profile with two nearest neighbours In order to appropriately benchmark Cambridgeshire County Council against similar areas we used a variety of socio-economic measures to profile the council and then find other County Councils with similar characteristics. The measures used were specifically selected as they give a holistic picture of the population of Cambridgeshire and take into account spatial scale. Measures include age brackets, deprivation, earnings, employment rate and area size. The socioeconomic profile, to the right (figure 1), shows Cambridgeshire County Council in the context of all English Counties. The 5 line represents the group median, consequently points closer to the outside of the profile are 'very high' in comparison to the group and those closer to the centre are 'very low'. Age: 65+ (%) Age: 18-64 (%) Population density 1 75 5 25 Employment rate: 16-64 NVQ 4+: 16-64 % The spider chart shows that Cambridgeshire has a very high proportion of its population aged 18-64 years old in comparison to the group and a relatively low aging population (65+). Cambridgeshire s population also has very low levels of deprivation and very high level of skills. Age: -17 (%) Deprivation score Cambridgeshire Council A Council B 5
Nearest Neighbours Nearest neighbours Using the measures set out in the spider chart in figure 1, we have identified the ten most statistically similar County Councils to Cambridgeshire, with Council A being most similar overall. These are shown in the table and map to the right (figure 2). The nearest neighbour group identified has been used as a more focused benchmark group for this report in order to appropriately benchmark Cambridgeshire County Council against similar areas. Figure 2: Map of near neighbours Nearest Neighbours Council A Council B Council C Council D Council E Council F Council G Council H Council I Council J 6
Benchmarking expenditure 7
s /head Total Services Net expenditure in context The map to the right (figure 3) illustrates that Cambridgeshire s net expenditure per head (total population) on total service was 968.85 in 216/17, which is very low in the context of all County Councils. Figure 3: Net expenditure per head (216/17)- County context Compared to the nearest neighbour group (figure 4), Cambridgeshire has very low net expenditure per head on total services. The two Counties with the most similar level of spend are Council A and Council B, at 1,21.98 and 8.2 respectively. Based on revenue outturn returns submitted to the Department of Communities and Local Government by Cambridgeshire County Council it can be seen that between 29/1 and 216/17 there was a decrease in net expenditure for the total service of 14.3%. In comparison, total English County Council spend has decreased by 1.5% over this time period. Cambridgeshire s decrease in net expenditure is as a result of a decrease in gross expenditure of 12.4% (figure 5). But there was also a decrease in income over this time period of 5.1%. Figure 5: Gross Expenditure, Income and Net: Total Service (29/1 216/17) 1,, 8, Figure 4: Net expenditure per head (216/17)- Nearest neighbour context 1,4 1,2 6, 4, 2, 1, 8 6 4 2 29-1 21-11 211-12 212-13 213-14 214-15 215-16 216-17 Gross Expenditure Net Expenditure Total Income 8
Deprivation (percentile) Does spend align with socio economic conditions? The scatter chart (figure 6, right) shows unit cost total service line expenditure against council area deprivation. From this chart we can see that there is no clear relationship between these two measures. Whereas, if you were to do a similar chart for single tier authorities a clear relationship would be found with councils with higher levels of deprivation having higher spend per head. Our analysis has also shown that there is no relationship between unit cost spend and rurality or population density. This means that other and more complex factors are driving relative spending. Our analysis shows that Cambridgeshire has a relatively young population by comparison with nearest neighbours, it may be that this is associated with lower unit costs for adult social care as analysed on following pages. However, from the scatter chart we can see that Cambridgeshire has both very low unit cost spend and deprivation in this landscape. Figure 6: Net expenditure per head (216/17)- County context 1 75 5 Council J Council G Council F Council H Council D Council C 25 Cambridgeshire Council B Council E Council A Council I 25 5 75 1 Unit Costs Total Service Expenditure (percentile) 9
Service line breakdown Service line benchmarking The table to the right (figure 7) shows how unit cost spend for each council service line compares to all English county councils and also the nearest neighbour group. Although total service spend overall is very low in both a county and near neighbour context it is clear that there are variations in the relative levels of spend across service lines. For example, service lines which are outliers due to higher levels of spend include children s social care and environmental and regulatory services. However, there are also outliers due to low levels of spending such as adult social care, highways and transport, planning and development and cultural and related services, which also warrant further investigation. Figure 7: Net expenditure per head (216/17) 216/17 % total spend County Council context Nearest Neighbour Context Education Services 45.86 Very Low Low Adult social care 24.46 Very Low Low Children's social care 12.87 Average Average Four service lines have been selected for further analysis of financials due to being outliers and will be explored further in the following pages: Environmental and Regulatory Services Children s Social Care Adult Social Care Planning and Development Services Housing services (GFRA) Very Low Very Low Highways and Transport Services Environmental and Regulatory Services Planning and Development Services 4.56 Very Low Very Low 5.33 High High.32 Very Low Very Low Cultural and Related Services 1.9 Very Low Very Low Public Health Services 4.41 Average Low Central Services 1.12 Average Low Total Services 1 Very Low Very Low 1
s /head Environmental & Regulatory Services Net expenditure in context The map to the right (figure 8) illustrates that Cambridgeshire s net expenditure per head (total population) on environmental and regulatory services was 51.61 in 216/17, which is high in the context of all County Councils. Figure 8: Net expenditure per head (216/17)- County context Compared to the nearest neighbour group (figure 9), Cambridgeshire has high net expenditure per head on environmental and regulatory services. The two Counties with the most similar level of spend are Council G and Council B, at 52.13 and 45.55 respectively. Based on revenue outturn returns submitted to the Department of Communities and Local Government by Cambridgeshire County Council it can be seen that between 29/1 and 216/17 there was an increase in net expenditure for environmental and regulatory services of 4.6%, amounting to approximately 9.7 million. This was as a result of an increase in gross expenditure of 42.8% (figure 1). Figure 1: Gross Expenditure, Income and Net (29/1 216/17) 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, Figure 9: Net expenditure per head (216/17)- Nearest neighbour context 6 5 4 3 2 1 29-1 21-11 211-12 212-13 213-14 214-15 215-16 216-17 Gross Expenditure Net Expenditure Total Income 11
s /head Children's social care Net expenditure in context The map to the right (figure 11) illustrates that Cambridgeshire s net expenditure per head (aged -17) on children s social care services was 64.92 in 216/17, which is average in the context of all County Councils. Figure 11: Net expenditure per head (216/17)- County context Compared to the nearest neighbour group (figure 12), Cambridgeshire has average net expenditure per head on children s social care services. The two Counties with the most similar level of spend are Council F and Council G, at 612.6 and 63.27 respectively. Based on revenue outturn returns submitted to the Department of Communities and Local Government by Cambridgeshire County Council it can be seen that between 211/12 and 216/17 there was an increase in net expenditure for children s social care services of 11.57%. This was as a result of an increase in gross expenditure of 13.63% (figure 13). Figure 13: Gross Expenditure, Income and Net (29/1 216/17) 1, 8, 6, 4, 2, Figure 12: Net expenditure per head (216/17)- Nearest neighbour context 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 29-1 21-11 211-12 212-13 213-14 214-15 215-16 216-17 Gross Expenditure Net Expenditure Total Income 12
s /head Adult Social Care Net expenditure in context The map to the right (figure 14) illustrates that Cambridgeshire s net expenditure per head (aged 18+) on adult social care services was 298.51 in 216/17, which is very low in the context of all County Councils. Figure 14: Net expenditure per head (216/17)- County context Compared to the nearest neighbour group (figure 15), Cambridgeshire has very low net expenditure per head on adult social care services. The two councils with the most similar level of spend are Council J and Council C, at 32.21 and 278.5 respectively. Based on revenue outturn returns submitted to the Department of Communities and Local Government by Cambridgeshire it can be seen that between 211/12 and 216/17 there was an decrease in net expenditure for adult social care services of 6.67%. This was as a result of an increase in income of 62.6% (figure 16). Figure 16: Gross Expenditure, Income and Net (29/1 216/17) 25, 2, 15, 1, 5, Figure 15: Net expenditure per head (216/17)- Nearest neighbour context 4 35 3 25 2 15 1 5 29-1 21-11 211-12 212-13 213-14 214-15 215-16 216-17 Gross Expenditure Net Expenditure Total Income 13
s /head Planning & Development Services Net expenditure in context The map to the right (figure 17) illustrates that Cambridgeshire s net expenditure per head (total population) on planning and development services was 3.6 in 216/17, which is very low in the context of all County councils. Figure 17: Net expenditure per head (216/17)- County context Compared to the nearest neighbour group (figure 18), Cambridgeshire has very low net expenditure per head on planning and development services. The two boroughs with the most similar level of spend are Council I and Council F, at 3.58 and 2.15 respectively. Based on revenue outturn returns submitted to the Department of Communities and Local Government by Cambridgeshire County Council it can be seen that between 29/1 and 216/17 there was a decrease in net expenditure for planning and development services of 62.9%, amounting to 3.4 million. This was as a result of a decrease in gross expenditure of 55.1% (figure 19). Figure 19: Gross Expenditure, Income and Net (29/1 216/17) Figure 18: Net expenditure per head (216/17)- Nearest neighbour context 1, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 29-1 21-11 211-12 212-13 213-14 214-15 215-16 216-17 Gross Expenditure Net Expenditure Total Income 2 18 16 14 12 1 8 6 4 2 14
Income generation 15
s /head Income generation: Total Services Income generation in context The map to the right (figure 2) illustrates that Cambridgeshire s total service line income per head (total population) was 285.3 in 216/17, which is high in the context of all County Councils. Figure 2: Income generation per head (216/17)- County context Compared to the nearest neighbour group (figure 21), Cambridgeshire has average total service line income generation per head. The two Counties with the most similar level of income generation are Council I and Council F, at 293.51 and 283.77 respectively. Based on revenue outturn returns submitted to the Department of Communities and Local Government by Cambridgeshire County Council it can be seen that between 29/1 and 216/17 there was a decrease in total service line income of 5.1%. However, since 213-14 there has been increase in income generation on 49.42% (figure 22). Figure 22: Service Line Income: Total Service (29/1 216/17) 25, 2, 15, 1, 5, Figure 21: Income generation per head (216/17)- Nearest neighbour context 45 4 35 3 25 2 15 1 5 29-1 21-11 211-12 212-13 213-14 214-15 215-16 216-17 16
Total Income (percentile) Income generation Income generation in context The scatter chart (figure 23, right) shows total service line expenditure against total service line income. From this chart we can see that there is a clear relationship between these two measures. Generally areas with higher gross expenditure also have high levels of income. Figure 23: Income generation per head (216/17) 1 Council E However, authorities that are to the left of the trend line, Cambridgeshire is one such example, have high levels of income for their level of gross expenditure. Whereas those to the right have high gross expenditure and to their level of income. 75 Council H Council F Council C 5 Cambridgeshire 25 Council B Council I Council A Council G Council D Council J 25 5 75 1 Gross Expenditure (percentile) Cambridgeshire Near neighbours Counties 17
Income generation Income generation benchmarking by service line The table to the right (figure 24) shows how unit cost income for each council service line compares to all English county councils and also the nearest neighbour group. Although total service income overall is high in both a county and near neighbour context it is clear that there are variations in the relative levels of income generation across service lines. The table also identifies the three counties, of the nearest neighbour group, that generate the most income for each service line. Figure 24: Income generation per head (216/17) 216/17 County Council context Nearest Neighbour Context Education Services High High Adult social care High High Children's social care Very High Very High Housing services (GFRA) Low Low Top 3 income generators from Nearest neighbour group 1. Council C 2. Council B 3. Council F 1. Council F 2. Council B 3. Council H 1. Council I 2. Cambridgeshire 3. Council C 1. Council A 2. Council B 3. Council G Highw ays and Transport Services Average High 1. Council C 2. Council B 3. Cambridgeshire Environmental and Regulatory Services High Average 1. Council F 2. Council I 3. Council G Planning and Development Services Average Average 1. Council C 2. Council F 3. Council I Cultural and Related Services Low Very Low 1. Council G 2. Council E 3. Council C Public Health Services Very Low Very Low Central Services Average Average Total Services High Average 1. Council B 2. Council I 3. Council A 1. Council H 2. Council E 3. Council C 1. Council C 2. Council H 3. Council E 18
Income generation: Key case studies Income generation benchmarking by service line Of the near neighbour group only three authorities have greater income generation per head of population than Cambridgeshire, these councils are: Council E, Council H and Council I. The service line income generation profile, to the right (figure 25), shows Cambridgeshire County Council in the context of all English Counties. The 5 line represents the group median, consequently points closer to the outside of the profile are 'very high' in comparison to the group and those closer to the centre are 'very low'. Overlaid onto this is also the three authorities that have greater income generation than Cambridgeshire. From the spider chart we can see that in comparison to these three authorities the areas in which potentially greater levels of income generation could be achieved include: cultural and related services, environmental and regulatory services and central services. Figure 25: Income generation per head (216/17) Total adult social care Total children social care Council E Council H Council I Cambridgeshire Total public health Total education services 1 75 5 25 Total highways and transport services Total housing services (gfra only) Total cultural and related services Total service expenditure Total environmental and regulatory services Total central services Total planning and development services 19
Senior officer salaries 2
Total Service Spend Council top salaries Council top salaries Under the Localism Act 211 all councils must publish the authority s policies for the financial year relating to the remuneration of their chief officers and lowest paid employees, as well as the relationship between the salaries of its chief officers and employees who are not chief officers. We have captured this data from council websites for the ten authorities in the near neighbour group in order to benchmark Cambridgeshire. The table below (figure 26) shows a rank of highest council salaries. This shows that of the near neighbour group Cambridgeshire has the lowest top council salary at just less than half that offered at Council E. The scatter chart to the right (figure 27) seeks to but this salary data in context by correlating top salaries with total net expenditure by the council. There is no clear correlation between these measures, however it does place Cambridgeshire in a landscape. We can see that Cambridgeshire has both low spend and low highest salary in this context. Figure 26: Rank of highest council salary - Near Neighbour context Rank County Council Highest Salary 1 Council E 214,54. 2 Council I 195,. 3 Council B 19,74. 4 Council J 185,488. Figure 27: Council highest salary against total council spend 1 Council H Council F 75 Council J Council A 5 Council D Cambridgeshire 25 Council C Council G Council E Council I 5 Council A 181,37.76 6 Council F 18,. 7 Council C 172,866. 8 Council G 163,729.5 9 Council H 15,778. 1 Council D 131,581. 11 Cambridgeshire 123,728. Council B 25 5 75 1 Highest Salary 21
Total service employee spend (percentile) Salary multiples Pay multiples of near neighbour group Pay multiples show how many times larger the top salary in the council is in comparison to the median. The pay multiples of the near neighbour are shown in the rank table below in figure 28. Figure 29: Council pay multiple against total council spend 1 Council H Council E Of the near neighbour group Cambridgeshire has the lowest pay multiple of median salary at 4.5. In comparison to Council E which has the greatest at 9.97. Pay multiples correlate weakly with total council spend on employees per head of population as shown in figure 29, where Cambridgeshire has low spend on employees and also low pay multiples. 75 Council D Council C Council I 5 Council A Figure 28: Council pay multiple of median salary near neighbour context Council F Rank Council Pay multiple of median salary Cambridgeshire 1 Council E 9.97 25 2 Council H 8.1 Council G 3 Council F 8. 4 Council B 7.93 5 Council G 7.89 6 Council I 7.2 7 Council C 7. 8 Council J 6.9 9 Council A 6.1 1 Council D 5.8 11 Cambridgeshire 4.5 Council J Council B 25 5 75 1 Pay multiple of median salary (percentile) 22
Want to see more benchmarks for your authority? 23
Download the CFO insights app Free on ios and android devices, get: headline financial data comparisons on key service line outcomes insightful commentary on current events in public sector a spotlight on best practice and innovation in the local government sector a taster of our platform that is used by over 7 authorities to benchmark their spend Benchmarks in your pocket: iphone: buff.ly/2yl9sbn Android: bit.ly/2alcnq 24
Grant Thornton refers to the brand under which the Grant Thornton member firms provide assurance, tax and advisory services to their clients and/or refers to one or more member firms, as the context requires. Grant Thornton UK LLP is a member firm of Grant Thornton International Ltd (GTIL).GTIL and the member firms are not a worldwide partnership. GTIL and each member firm is a separate legal entity. Services are delivered by the member firms. GTIL does not provide services to clients. GTIL and its member firms are not agents of, and do not obligate, one another and are not liable for one another s acts or omissions. grantthornton.co.uk