Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Report highlights poor quality data

  • 1 Comment

Most councils do not use their data well enough and are missing chances to improve services and cut costs as a result, according to the Audit Commission.

The Commission accused councils of failing to use “the wealth of intelligence available to them to inform key decisions” across a range of departments from treasury management to social care.

Fifty-five per cent of councils had “good data quality”, while less than 5.1% were rated “excellent”.

Almost 80% of councils told the commission a lack of in-depth analysis of data was “a major problem”, according to the Is there something I should know? report.

It says: “Better information makes for better decisions and therefore better and cheaper services. Councils know this, but few extract value from the information they already hold.”

The report cites the head of information at one unitary council, as saying: “We have big issues on data quality. If a user of our customer records system can’t find someone then we create another record – as a result one person features 67 times on one system.”  

But report author John Kirkpatrick said improvements in data use for some councils would not require spending large amounts of money.

“The best performing councils do not have the most expensive intelligence or information units,” he said. “In some cases, they spend less than 1% of their overall budget on it.”

As well as the Icelandic banking crisis and property estate management, the Commission cited understanding demographic portfolios to prepare for an aging population as examples where some councils had failed to capitalise on data they held.  

The report also said that two thirds of councils say members struggle to understand information, and half say that senior officers do. Despite this, half of councils provide no formal training in this area.

The commission did not name specific examples of bad practice because it had given assurances of anonymity to ensure honest responses.

A Local Government Association spokeswoman said the case studies of good practice were useful but the report’s
negative tone was disappointing.

“The report takes a halfempty rather than half-full tone,” she said. “There has been a dramatic improvement in
councils rated ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ 0- up from 25% in 2005-06 to 60% in 2007-08.”

  • 1 Comment

Readers' comments (1)

  • I might agree that LAs could do better on information, but this report is merely a roadmap to achieve CPA goals and no get better information.

    Of course the report doesn't highlight how the audit commission has been responsible for much of the poor data and performance indicators over the past decades. It is a little like a binge eater going to the supermarket and blaming the supermarket for providing the food that the binge eater demanded.

    Using the self-assessment framework from this study to
    understand where they need to improve, and the toolkit to
    help drive those improvements... is actually more hierarchical top-down methodologies that fit into their view of the world. And might it be possible to meet the specifications of the 'toolkit' or 'checklist' and still measures the wrong thing? I think so.

    A seriously flawed bit of research in my opinion

    NAME WITHHELD TO PROTECT JOB

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.