There is an issue with the EH cost measure as the costs includes the provision of public conveniences. Through working with APSE (Association for Public Service Excellence) we have identified the components which are included in the total costs and this allows a better comparison of the trends in environmental health. It is important that the LGBF indicators are meaningful and there is concern that this is not the case for ENV5 (EH and TS). Through the Society of Chief Officers of Environmental Health in Scotland (SOCOEHS) National Project Teams have been established teams to work with the Association of Public Services Excellence (APSE) are these have developed a range of meaningful measures. These are very specific to the services and promotes benchmarking and meaningful data (e.g. cost of EH service/head of population is £11.68 compared with highest /average of £19.81/£9.43; food hygiene inspection in Argyll and Bute is £4.04/inspection compared to Scottish average of £2.06). The level of income we generate as a % of expenditure is in the top quartile in Scotland (36%). Contrary to the year on year reductions the percentage of broadly complaint food business remains high at a Scottish average of 92.7% through targeted use of resources at higher risk activities/premises. Key challenges are reducing budgets against increasing demands for service in terms of reactive complaints and business support (e.g. export certificates). This workload is likely to increase, the later as a result of Brexit, and there is a need to ensure that there are appropriate regulatory arrangement in place. LOOKING FORWARD: A reduction in EH budget associated within budget savings will see a further reduction in costs. Looking for other efficiencies and shared services/mutual support/new ways of working through benchmarking using other figures. Need more outcome focused measures The LGBF measures are important strategically as it provides a focus on services, although they are not the key driver for performance. There are issues which prevent the measures being comparable and useful (other than our own trends) and there are other measures being used from other frameworks or statutory returns which provide a greater focus on driving improvements. They require to be more outcome focussed and the expiating measures require to be reviewed by the LGBF in discussions with Councils and professional bodies.
There is an issue with the EH cost measure as the costs includes the provision of public conveniences. Through working with APSE (Association for Public Service Excellence) we have identified the components which are included in the total costs and this allows a better comparison of the trends in environmental health. It is important that the LGBF indicators are meaningful and there is concern that this is not the case for ENV5 (EH and TS). Through the Society of Chief Officers of Environmental Health in Scotland (SOCOEHS) National Project Teams have been established teams to work with the Association of Public Services Excellence (APSE) are these have developed a range of meaningful measures. These are very specific to the services and promotes benchmarking and meaningful data (e.g. cost of EH service/head of population is £11.68 compared with highest /average of £19.81/£9.43; food hygiene inspection in Argyll and Bute is £4.04/inspection compared to Scottish average of £2.06). The level of income we generate as a % of expenditure is in the top quartile in Scotland (36%). Contrary to the year on year reductions the percentage of broadly complaint food business remains high at a Scottish average of 92.7% through targeted use of resources at higher risk activities/premises. Key challenges are reducing budgets against increasing demands for service in terms of reactive complaints and business support (e.g. export certificates). This workload is likely to increase, the later as a result of Brexit, and there is a need to ensure that there are appropriate regulatory arrangement in place. LOOKING FORWARD: A reduction in EH budget associated within budget savings will see a further reduction in costs. Looking for other efficiencies and shared services/mutual support/new ways of working through benchmarking using other figures. Need more outcome focused measures The LGBF measures are important strategically as it provides a focus on services, although they are not the key driver for performance. There are issues which prevent the measures being comparable and useful (other than our own trends) and there are other measures being used from other frameworks or statutory returns which provide a greater focus on driving improvements. They require to be more outcome focussed and the expiating measures require to be reviewed by the LGBF in discussions with Councils and professional bodies.