Local Government Outcomes Framework (LGOF): Response on behalf of the Local Government Association

Question 1: How would you like to see the framework used as a tool to support local authorities and local partners to deliver against key national outcomes? (For example, undertaking quiet conversations with councils based on outcome trajectory, convening departments to coordinate support where there are concerns across multiple outcomes.)

1. The framework rightly recognises the significant contributions that local government makes to improving key outcomes for local communities. In many cases, this is achieved through close partnership working across public services in each place: local authorities rarely hold all of the levers to drive necessary changes. It is important this is acknowledged in the narrative which accompanies the framework and that, in due course, government incorporates the same outcomes into the frameworks of other local partners, so that all local public services are focussed on the same results. Additionally, explanation will be needed because the framework explicitly does not apply to Strategic Authorities, but some of the relevant activities will be led at Strategic Authority level with involvement from constituent councils.

2. In asserting the importance of improving key outcomes for local communities, it is also important to recognise that local authorities’ primary accountability is local, with priorities set by councillors following consultation with their residents and businesses. Local priorities may not exactly match the key national outcomes in the framework, and nor should this be expected.

3. Whilst we welcome the Government’s recognition that it needs to work with councils to achieve nationally for local people and communities, the list of outcomes and outputs within the framework is ultimately a top-down approach. In future, in the spirit of partnership, we would like to see government working with the sector to identify and unblock barriers to the achievement of the outcomes; to resource councils to deliver those; and to review and refresh the outcomes in due course.

4. We note the intention to create digital products which bring the data together, and we would like to see use made of the sector’s existing tool, LG Inform, to develop this (see paragraph 17).

5. The feedback document states (our boldening):

Partnership working across the different tiers of local government and across different public services will be essential for delivering better outcomes for local people in line with the LGOF. The LGOF … has been designed to support partnership working across tiers of government...This is in line with the government’s ambition to rewire how England is governed, where recasting the relationship between local and central government is fundamental. It is not an easy or quick fix as it requires a fundamental cultural shift across Whitehall – from siloed initiatives to strategic thinking; from micromanagement to local autonomy; from short-term pots for crisis-fighting to investment in prevention, from preventing failure to supporting long-term solutions.

6. Whilst we welcome the ambition, it is not yet clear how it will be achieved. It will be essential to ensure that, where outcomes requiring coordinated work across public services in a place are not achieved: 

• 6.1 there is recognition that, while local authorities will convene partners in their place to address local priorities, change to the priority outcomes and the metrics associated with them cannot be achieved solely by the local government sector. Local government cannot be held (or seen to be held) accountable for delivery of outcomes which are contingent on other partners. We would like to see a commitment to working with other government departments so that the metrics are added to partners’ outcomes frameworks within the next two or three years.
• 6.2 there is recognition that wider factors will also impact performance against metrics, such as varying levels of deprivation in different parts of the country, differing environmental or geographic factors. It will be important to ensure comparison between local authorities takes place only where there is appropriate comparability.
• 6.3 central government works in partnership with local government to identify barriers to the achievement of those outcomes and to unblock them, working across government as required.

7. In this context, and for the sake of clarity:

• 7.1 the framework should be retitled: ‘Local Outcomes Framework’
• 7.2 relevant metrics, such as the wider determinants of health, should be woven through expectations for all public sector partners
• 7.3 government should progress work to explore how subnational accountability can be better joined up as a matter of urgency: the LGA stands ready to contribute to this work.

8. As the framework is used, there should also be recognition of:

• 8.1 the importance of local priority-setting. Local authorities’ strategic plans will each prioritise different outcomes in response to local needs (particularly in light of the need to take difficult decisions in the context of constrained resources). These will not always align neatly with the framework.
• 8.2 the need for assurance activity by central government to be proportionate to risk and informed by sector-led assurance (see paragraphs 10 and 11, below) without duplicating activity.
• 8.3 the risk of local authorities’ performance against individual metrics and the wider framework being viewed out of context or without nuance. For example, many local authorities include both affluence and pockets of severe deprivation within their boundaries, and so reviewing performance at an authority level will only give part of the picture. Health inequalities will be greater in areas which have historically experienced multiple deprivations. There are also inevitable challenges related to forming a view on current performance where, say, annual metrics lag behind current conditions. Government should particularly address the risk that data is presented in the form of ‘league tables’. Comparisons should be made with similar statistical peers only, and with context alongside.
• 8.4 the need to review the metrics in two or three years’ time, recognising that not all of them are outcome measures and it’s possible that the selected output or process measures currently used instead may not prove to be the most effective or useful indicators of local authority and public sector partner delivery.

9. Fundamentally, it is essential to recognise that delivery is significantly impacted by funding. Prior to the 2025 Spending Review, the LGA estimated that councils faced a funding gap of £8.4 billion by 2028/29, compared to 2023/24, based on projected cost pressure and modelled income. Our analysis also demonstrates that councils made an estimated £24.5 billion in cuts and efficiencies in service spending between 2010/11 and 2022/23 in order to manage funding cuts, inflation, wage growth, demographic pressures and growing service demand over this period. The huge savings and efficiencies the sector has already made, and the damaging effect these have had on council finances and services for residents, cannot be ignored. Councils continue to strive to deliver efficiencies and greater value for money; they have no choice given the gap between their income and cost pressures. Any revision of the Best Value Standards to include consideration of LGOF data within an assessment of whether the Best Value Duty is being met must also recognise that locally accountable authorities will take their own decisions relating to scarce resources, service provision and relative strategic priorities.

10. The consultation document does not state how ‘concerns against outcome delivery’ will be calibrated by central government: what level of (non) delivery is sufficient to give rise to concerns? It is essential that context, as indicated above, is considered and that government works closely with the sector when any concerns are identified.

11. As referenced below, it will be important to ensure that the framework is appropriately used as part of a wider early warning system in which the sector works as an equal partner alongside government to identify authorities experiencing challenges to delivery and targets support to them. The LGA looks forward to working with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government  (MHCLG) to develop and implement this system further, including appropriate join-up between teams within MHCLG and across other government departments.

Question 2: How would your organisation use the Framework either in its own work or when working with partners?

12. The LGA is responding to a parallel review by MHCLG of statutory and non-statutory intervention, in which we present wider recommendations for a strengthened system for sector-led assurance and improvement, involving a closer, more meaningful partnership between MHCLG and the sector. This will include two-way, risk-informed sharing of information to enable support to be targeted where it is needed at an early, preventative stage, before challenges become entrenched.

13. The metrics contained within the framework would be one of many sources of data, insight and intelligence used as part of this early warning system.

14. The LGA is well-placed to work with government and other sector bodies to ensure that the sector takes ownership of its own improvement and assurance, and that government leads on addressing blockages to delivery, including national and partner barriers, in order to accelerate progress towards a more effective system.

Question 3: Do you have views on how the Framework can best support local innovation, partnership working and long-term planning?

15. There is a risk that centrally-set metrics stifle rather than support local innovation. It will be important to ensure that:

• 15.1 the metrics chosen are kept under review to ensure that no unintended consequences arise from a greater focus on these as opposed to other metrics
• 15.2 the framework is used to inform wider discussions about what will enable local innovation and partnership working, and is not an end in itself
• 15.3 wider government policies which have an impact on local areas’ ability to invest in innovation, such as funding flexibility and longevity, are forthcoming to allow local areas to deliver against the metrics.

16. The feedback document states that:

MHCLG is exploring how the use of the Framework as set out above could be supported through the provision of data-led digital products. These could help users:

• See the metrics all in one place and to understand progress towards outcomes across England.
• Spot opportunities for local prioritisation and/or self-improvement within an area, through presentation of the data in comparison to similar councils. Government is exploring the best approach to presenting it publicly as part of the Framework in a digital tool…. A potential digital tool should be live from April 2026.

17. LGOF is a list of metrics from a range of sources, and the LGA recognises the value of bringing the up-to-date metrics together in one digital tool. The vast majority of the metrics being consulted on are already in LG Inform. Funded by the UK Government, LG Inform has been running since 2011. As well as LGOF metrics, this on-line data service presents up-to-date published data for all English local authorities and fire and rescue services (FRSs), enabling comparison of performance, outcome and contextual data in local areas. It brings together over 15,000 individual data items (metrics) from over 40 publishers and over 230 individual data collections. It is well-used by the sector, with over 500,000 page views a year.

18. We recommend that the proposed new digital tool uses the scope, experience and success of the LG Inform programme. It provides an exceptional opportunity for Government either to use LG Inform directly for LGOF, and thereby enhance the value of this existing, popular platform, or to use the LG Inform API (Application Programming Interface – a direct data feed) to update any newly-developed digital tool, so leveraging the value of LG Inform indirectly. Use of the LG Inform API connection to update any new digital tool will keep the data up to date in perpetuity. In both cases, using LG Inform will ensure good value for the public pound, and avoid duplication.

19. Finally, in future, we would like to see government providing the sector access, at a local level, to all the outcomes data which currently only exists at a national level.

Question 4a: To what extent do you agree that these are appropriate metrics to assess local progress against the priority outcome (given the standards set out in para 27)?

• Strongly agree 

• Agree 

• Neutral 

• Disagree 

• Strongly

• Disagree

20. We have scored this as neutral, as we have both some generic and specific points for the metrics. Please see these below.

21. We welcome the statement that “The LGOF is not a mechanism to collect new data and there is no new reporting requirement or data collection for local authorities associated with the LGOF, in line with the ambition to reduce burdens.” This is an important principle to which the framework must continue to adhere as it develops.

22. However, we note the earlier statement that “There are a limited number of placeholders for metrics already announced for development or where it was not obvious which metrics would be most suitable”. It is essential that any new metrics or collections should follow the new burdens process in full and the government should work with the sector to design them.

Question 4b: If you disagreed with any of the metrics in question 4a) above, please explain why.

Homelessness and rough sleeping

23. We question the inclusion of the metric for ‘number of people sleeping rough on a single night’. Colleagues in councils noted this is less likely to identify rough sleeping women and other more marginalised groups, and there is support for a metric for ‘number of people sleeping rough over the month who are long term’ as a more accurate outcome measure. Contextual information would, however, be needed with that metric, since some factors outside of councils’ control can influence homelessness which would make comparisons between areas misleading.

Keeping children safe and family security

24. We question the inclusion of the children looked after rate, which is normally not considered to have a polarity because, for some children, care is the best option. A better outcome metric would be the academic achievement of children looked after.

25. In addition, the metric related to the percentage of child protection plans which were a second or subsequent plan may benefit from a timescale, since some children will legitimately need a subsequent plan if their circumstances change in time. At the very least, some contextual information will be needed to explain the metric. DfE explains that, while a low level is generally felt to be good, a very low level may mean that a local authority is not recognising a child’s changing needs; and that it is expected that each child's individual circumstances will differ and therefore a zero-percentage value for this indicator is not likely (or desirable).

Neighbourhoods

26. We welcome the recognition of the contribution that libraries and cultural assets make to communities, and agree with the inclusion of the existing metrics as the best currently available data. Local government is working with central government on ambitious plans to enhance these datasets, including a new range of cultural vitality indicators developed by the Centre for Cultural Value. As these are finalised, and subject to the usual new burdens process where appropriate, they should be considered for replacing the existing metrics, as the proposed metrics do not capture the full impact and contribution of libraries or cultural facilities.

27. Consideration could also be given to developing existing DCMS surveys to give more granular detail on number of visits and participation in cultural and sporting activities at local authority level, as this would also make these surveys more useful to councils in planning their services. The data on youth participation in culture and sporting activities could then be used to inform the ‘Every child achieving and thriving’ metric. There should also be recognition of cultural and creative impacts in the economic regeneration section, linked to the Creative Industries Sector Plan as part of the Industrial Strategy, which is highlighted elsewhere (paragraph 38) in this response as disconnected from the draft Framework.

Health and wellbeing

28. For the physical activity metrics, we have some concerns about reliance on small sample sizes (for example, the Active Lives Survey) and therefore the accuracy of that information. These concerns are shared for the smoking quitter metrics. We would welcome work on improving the accuracy of these, and the fact that they are estimates should be acknowledged.

29. We note the metric on adults’ inactivity, but feel that children’s inactivity is equally as important and should be included too, given the government’s focus on prevention.

30. The inclusion of HIV testing as a metric is clearly aligned with the government’s ambition to reduce HIV transmission in the HIV Action Plan, which we fully support. However, the proposed metric HIV testing rate per 100,000 population is too narrow in scope given the broader responsibilities of local authorities in delivering integrated sexual health services.

31. A more comprehensive sexual health metric such as STI testing rate per 100,000 population would better reflect the full range of sexual health services and STIs. Syphilis diagnoses and gonorrhoea diagnoses are both at record levels. These trends follow a period of increasing cases. This isn’t to detract from the importance of HIV prevention, but rather to ensure the Framework supports a more holistic and prevention-focused approach to all sexually transmitted infections.

32. On the drug and alcohol metric: Proportion of the opiate and/or crack prevalent population (15-64) and the proportion of alcohol dependent population (18 and over) that are not in treatment (unmet need) we have concerns. Our chief concern is about the accuracy of the prevalence data, which is seen by local commissioners as inaccurate and out of date (2020). Suggested alternatives are the progress and retention data from the National Drug Treatment Monitoring System (NDTMS), which is widely seen as a good source of accurate treatment data. Combining multiple indicators (consumption, admissions, mortality, and survey data) would provide the most accurate picture.

33. On the CVD metric, we recognise the rationale behind introducing a standardised metric to measure the proportion of NHS Health Checks completed across the eligible population. However, these risk, undervaluing the real impact of local authority work, particularly where councils have made a strategic decision to focus limited resources on targeted interventions rather than universal offer. The proposed metric may not adequately capture the efforts of local authorities working with underserved communities and inclusion health groups. Where a council has deliberately prioritised targeted Health Checks for those most at risk, this approach should be recognised and valued, not penalised. We recommend that the metric be refined to reflect both the quantity and quality of delivery, including the extent to which services are reaching those with the greatest need.

Transport and local infrastructure

34. The connectivity score for public transport to key services does not take into account other ways that councils/transport authorities support residents to connect to services. For example, through shared bike/e-bike/e-scooter schemes, cycling infrastructure, or by bringing services closer to people. This other support should, at least, be mentioned in the context of the metric. The available data on travel time to amenities, from the Access to Local Amenities in England and Wales collection, could be a broader measure.

Question 4c: Do you think any other metrics should be added to indicate progress towards the priority outcome? (If you suggest alternative metrics, please provide specific examples including links to data sources. They must meet our data standards.)

Every child achieving and thriving

35. Although not directly in the control of local authorities, and therefore needing some context, possible metrics which measure this outcome are: 

• permanent exclusions and suspensions (especially for SEND, children with EHCPs and disadvantaged pupils)
• children experiencing emotionally based school avoidance (EBSA)
• attainment gap tracking (e.g. those in receipt of free school meals against those not)
• attainment outcomes for children in care.

Health and wellbeing

36. Within this section there are no metrics related to mental health and emotional wellbeing. Possibly one or two of the following would help with this:

• high anxiety prevalence
• mental health conditions prevalence
• hospital admissions as a result of self-harm (10 to 24 years) – although this may sit better in "Every child achieving and thriving"
• suicide rate.

37. Healthy ageing is not recognised within the framework. Although older people feature in the adult social care section, this reflects only a proportion of older adults, not the full older population.

Economic prosperity and regeneration

38. Across all the sections of the framework, there needs to be a stronger relationship with metrics used for national and local growth ambitions. In particular, for economic prosperity and regeneration there is little relationship between LGOF and the national indicators in the Industrial Strategy and ‘Get Britain Working’, both of which rely heavily on local government’s contribution. For example, an indicator such as economic inactivity could be considered.

Question 4d: Relevant contextual information will be presented alongside the metrics e.g. detail of influencing factors outside of local authority control such as population demographics or geography. (Is there specific contextual information you think should be captured alongside any of the metrics?) Please be as specific as possible.

Every child achieving and thriving

39. Contextual information about the proportion of children with special educational needs or with EHCPs, plus rates of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, would be helpful alongside the outcomes measures; and a note that a significant part of the difference between councils can be due to such characteristics of the local population that are not necessarily within councils’ control. Free school meal uptake could also be added as an output measure. Similarly, contextual information would be helpful on the percentage of 16-17 year old NEETs. While local authorities have statutory duties (September Guarantee), they have limited influence over certain factors e.g. sufficiency of places, re-engagement activity.

Adult social care – all sections

40. It would be helpful to note that a significant part of the difference between councils can be due to characteristics of the local population that are beyond the control of the council. For example, an area with a well-performing care system could appear to have worse outcomes than another area with a poorer-performing system, because its population has higher needs for care and support. The data can, however, provide information to monitor the impact of local interventions and decisions over time: councils can compare the ‘before’ and ‘after’ in their own authority for changes in outcomes that matter most to people, and to identify their priorities for making improvements.

41. For carer quality of life it should be noted that, while the measure gives an overall indication of the reported outcomes for carers, government statisticians note that it does not, at present, identify the specific contribution of councils’ adult social care services towards those outcomes. Therefore, comparisons between authorities are not necessarily meaningful.

Adult social care - quality

42. For workforce turnover, it is fair to say this indicator is important because it is recognised that a lower turnover is more likely to lead to more effective continuity of care and retention of skills, thereby delivering a workforce more capable of delivering high quality care. However, additional context should note that while a lower turnover rate could indicate better working conditions it is also affected by conditions in local labour markets, which means that achieving a lower level of workforce turnover will be more challenging in some local authority areas than in others.

Environment, circular economy and climate change

43. In relation to tackling climate change, the only measure currently available is on recycling. Whilst important, authorities undertake a much wider range of activities to support this. Although not available as metrics, the contextual information should describe their role more broadly, which includes retrofitting homes to enhancing energy efficiency, rolling out active travel programmes; and their more strategic role in supporting low carbon energy, reducing emissions from their own assets and activity, and developing Local Nature Recovery Strategies. Some also support supply chains and attract investment and finance to support decarbonisation and new technologies.

Transport and infrastructure

44. There are three areas within the transport and local infrastructure section where we think contextual information will be helpful:

1. the connectivity score for public transport to key services - public transport continues to be a deregulated service in most areas. More areas are also adopting franchising allowing them to have control over routes; other areas will have an Enhanced Partnership model with less say over routes. It would therefore help to say what type of bus regime operates in the area and explain the impact of that.
2. EV charging devices per 100,000 population - the provision of EV charging infrastructure is not a statutory duty for local authorities. Whilst many have taken up Government grant funding, councils may wish to focus their budgets on other priorities, such as public transport, active travel infrastructure, or other priority services. If the Government does use this measure, then we propose that the context such as EV ownership rate, the impact of housing type and availability of off-street parking should be included. For example, people charging at home are much less likely to require public charge points.
3. For the highways condition metric, local factors such as historical road condition, road structure, terrain, local environment, level of use and weather patterns will affect them. As a result, comparisons with other authorities, even those of similar types, can be unhelpful. For this reason, it is probably most useful to look at the metric on a longitudinal basis, reviewing it over time.

Economic prosperity and regeneration

45. For this contextual theme, there needs to be a recognition of external factors that may impact on the metrics for a local area, such as sector specific shocks resulting from changing international trading relationships. In addition, it should include the amount of, and timeline to deliver, growth funding provided to a place.

Housing

The metric ‘Proportion of rental housing in local authority area deemed decent’ uses modelled data given the lack of suitable alternatives. To what extent do you think the use of modelled data is suitable?

46. In the absence of robust local data, modelled data is suitable. However, we are aware of the limitations of this approach, which should be made clear in contextual information. Users should also be directed to view the Local Authority Housing Statistics data collection (which contains self-reported local authority stock condition data) and the Private Registered Provider Social Housing Stock and Rents in England publication (contains self-reported private registered provider stock condition data) to give context to this modelled data.

The metric ‘Percentage of planning applications decided on time (dwellings)’ combines both major and non-major planning decisions, which operate on different legal timeframes. To what extent do you think this combined metric is suitable?

47. We do not feel that a combined metric is helpful. Major planning applications are where the majority of dwellings are handled but are vastly outnumbered by non-major applications. Mixing them up would produce a statistic without value.

Multiple disadvantage (MD)

The approach to capture multiple disadvantage (MD) outcomes has been to look at data covering elements of MD and proxy the MD cohort by looking at the existing overlaps with other support needs captured in the data. To what extent do you agree with this approach? Please expand.

48. We welcome recognition of local authorities’ work with local delivery partners to improve the lives of adults experiencing multiple disadvantage (defined by adults experiencing three or more of the following five: homelessness, substance dependence, mental health issues, domestic abuse, and contact with the criminal justice system). The approach to this metric therefore feels reasonable. We note, however, that a pilot programme for gathering this data is still underway. We recommend that the final decision about the usefulness of this metric is made after the evaluation has been completed. This should also include a new burdens assessment, if a new metric or data collection/analysis is rolled out to councils as a result.

49. In the meantime, a set of metrics from the Indices of Deprivation could be appropriate here, as they are well-tested. They also include income, which is currently missing from the five characteristics of multiple disadvantage, and which we think could sensibly be added as a contextual measure. 

50. We note that there is a strong interaction between MD and outcomes in other parts of the framework, which should be recognised in any overall context. Whilst tackling MD leads to an outcome in itself, it is also contextual and so could be placed in that section of the framework as well.

Are there any suitable data sources that could be used to capture outcomes around:

• the role of local authorities in improving population mental health 

• local efforts to support people leaving prison and/or serving sentences in the community to secure settled accommodation?

51. DHSC mental health intelligence profiles provide information to develop an understanding of mental health, related risk, and service provision at a local level. The data can be found in Fingertips, at: https://fingertips.phe.org.uk/profile-group/mental-health.

52. The Public Health Outcomes Framework (PHOF) sets out many outcomes and indicators relevant to population mental health, including wellbeing and wellbeing and wider determinants of mental health, such as physical activity. We also suggest some mental health metrics for the ‘Health and wellbeing’ section, in paragraph 36.

53. We are not aware of a regularly collected, consistent measure for the support offered by councils to support the needs of people leaving prison/serving sentences in the community.

How can we best capture the holistic efforts to coordinate services across delivery partners to improve the lives of those experiencing MD?

54. We are not convinced that measuring the efforts of partners would be a good outcome metric. The proposed approach is already intended to develop an outcome which can only be delivered if other key national partners contribute, including the Department for Work and Pensions and other government departments, the advice sector, utilities, housing providers, and the financial services sector. This should be acknowledged in the context of the metric (both the intended one, and any metric that is used in the interim).

Would more flexibility be required in the definition of MD to accurately capture the MD population in your area? Are there suitable data sources that capture this?

55. As noted above, we feel poverty is an important factor in MD – both as a contextual factor and as an outcome. As noted above, we would support the inclusion of contextual Multiple Deprivation measures. We would also support the adoption and use of the pilot Households Below Average Resources poverty measure.

There are data gaps that make measuring this cohort difficult. Putting those data gaps to one side, what would an ideal priority outcome area for MD measure?

56. This should be explored as part of the evaluation of the MD pilot.

Is there work ongoing in your area to improve data collection/linking around identifying individuals experiencing MD?

57. Examples of work to support and improve data collection/linking include Complex Lives in Liverpool, and the Data Accelerator project in Greater Manchester. As part of their Changing Futures programme, Westminster City Council introduced a service for 18 to 25 year-olds who experience MD, to bridge the gap between children’s and adults’ services (a vulnerable cohort which can slip through the net in the transition to adults’ services). 

Best start in life

The duty on local authorities to secure sufficient childcare is currently proposed to be measured through take-up rates for early years entitlements. Are there any available metrics that can be used to measure local government’s duty to secure childcare sufficiency more broadly (including early years, school-aged childcare and childcare for children with SEND)?

58. We have no suggested existing metrics for this. The context for the metric should note that the outcome is strongly affected by demand (for example, take-up is lower in authorities with communities which prefer to care for their children within the family). In addition, it would be helpful to add that authorities have a wider role in securing childcare, as outlined in the question above.

We intend to include an outcome measure in the LGOF for the Family Hubs and Start for Life programme. Family Hubs and their services support a wide range of parental and child health and development outcomes. What do you think is most important and practical [metric] for the LGOF to include?

59. We recommend prioritising school readiness and early development, aligned with the national ambition for 75 per cent of children to achieve a good level of development (GLD) by age 5 by 2028. While this is a useful national benchmark, we recognise that some councils have concerns about its suitability as a local performance measure, given the influence of wider social and economic factors. We therefore recommend that contextual information about the factors that affect performance on this measure are included alongside it.

60. Children’s 2-2½  health visiting reviews could also be included, but we note this has been included under the Health and Wellbeing section.

Every child achieving and thriving

Are there any available metrics that can measure participation by young people in youth services in a local authority area, or reflect the quality of youth services delivered by LAs?

61. The Moving Communities platform captures key data about the impact of local leisure centres, including characteristics of users, which could be a measure of service reach in an authority. The platform collates data from local leisure centres across a range of the outcomes in this framework and should be considered as a possible core data, possibly for other sections of the framework too.

Are there any available metrics to capture local authorities’ contribution to delivering the aims of the youth justice service?

62. The impact data in the Moving Communities platform also allows a calculation about reduced chances of engagement with the youth justice system, based on Sport England commissioned research. This could be explored as a possible metric.

Health and wellbeing

The Slope Index of Inequality (SII) in life expectancy has been proposed as a metric to track changes in health inequality within LAs. To what extent do you think this is a suitable indicator to measure changes in health inequality at local authority level?

63. While the Slope Index of Inequality (SII) remains a widely used metric for assessing health inequalities in life expectancy, particularly at the national level, there are alternatives that aim to address some of the limitations of SII, especially its sensitivity to statistical assumptions and its sometimes-limited context for local authorities.

Is there an alternative metric available to measure health inequality at local authority level, which is better aligned to local authority delivery?

64. One such alternative is the absolute difference method, which calculates the gap in life expectancy or healthy life expectancy between the most and least deprived quintiles. This approach, used by the Public Health Wales Observatory, is often more intuitive and stable than SII, particularly in areas with smaller populations or less granular data. However, it does not account for the full distribution of deprivation and may overlook inequalities affecting middle quintiles.

65. Some researchers and public health bodies have advocated for pairwise comparisons between income or deprivation quintiles. These comparisons are often easier to communicate to the public and have shown strong correlation with SII, suggesting they could serve as effective proxies or complements in certain contexts.

66. SII remains valuable for capturing the full social gradient in health outcomes, we feel a better measure would be simpler, more interpretable metrics such as absolute differences and pairwise comparisons. For policy evaluation, local authorities need to be able to identify group-specific trends that offer deeper insights into the drivers of inequality and the effectiveness of targeted interventions.

Are there any available metrics that could be used to capture outcomes around the role of local authorities in improving population mental health?

67. Whilst we have suggested some possible metrics for measuring population mental health (see paragraph 36), they do not specifically cover the role of local authorities in improving this. In addition, councils have suggested a metric related to data available on Approved Mental Health Professionals in an area.

Neighbourhoods

Are there any available metrics to capture local authority responsibility for reducing anti-social behaviour?

68. While there is no single national metric that directly captures local authority responsibility for reducing anti-social behaviour (ASB), a range of indicators demonstrate their central role in tackling the issue. Councils are the primary users of civil enforcement powers such as Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPOs), Community Protection Notices (CPNs) and Closure Orders – tools designed specifically to disrupt and prevent ASB. They are also responsible for managing the ASB Case Review (formerly the Community Trigger), ensuring that victims can seek redress when agencies fail to act. The frequency of these powers and processes undertaken give measurable indicators of local authority accountability and responsiveness. This should be a conservative estimate of the involvement of local authorities in tackling ASB, as the proposal to use such powers and processes sometimes achieves the desired outcome without needing to use them (and this should be noted as contextual information).

69. In addition, councils lead (and, in some cases, work with the Environment Agency and private landowners) to tackle environmental ASB issues, such as noise complaints, fly-tipping and graffiti, where they are often the first and only agency residents engage with. Many also manage ASB in social housing, enforcing tenancy agreements and supporting resolution of neighbour disputes. Although most of this activity is not captured in a consistent way, fly-tipping data is available. It would, however, need contextual information to explain the shared responsibility with the Environment Agency and the definitional difficulties of assessing the volume of fly-tipping, plus the fact it can be impacted by factors outside a council’s control.

70. Tackling ASB is also the responsibility of police, registered social landlords (housing associations), community safety partnerships (CSPs), probation services and youth offending teams (YOTs). Other organisations may not have responsibility for tackling ASB but do have an important role to play as well. This shared responsibility should be described in contextual information.

Environment, circular economy and climate change

Are there any available metrics to measure local government’s contribution to flood resilience?

71. We have no suggestions for this.

Are there any available metrics to measure local government’s contribution to biodiversity?

72. We have no suggestions for this.

Transport and local infrastructure

Do you have views on how the transport responsibilities at different tiers of government could be clearly reflected in the presentation of the metrics?

73. Public transport metrics, such as connectivity, passenger journeys and vehicle kilometres on local bus services should reflect the level at which decisions on those services are made – for example, data should be presented at Mayoral Combined Authority level where they are the public transport body for the area they serve; and unitary or county council geography, where they are responsible for providing public transport directly. The contextual information should explain this situation.

Economic prosperity and regeneration (contextual outcome)

Are there any available metrics to capture local authorities’ responsibilities for reducing poverty and delivering employment support?

74. Councils will contribute to addressing economic inactivity through delivery of DWP’s Connect to Work service, for which they have developed delivery plans. Many are working across clusters to reflect wider local labour market geographies. LGA-commissioned analysis on Economic Inactivity Interdependencies includes useful metrics. It would be helpful also to have read- across to local Get Britain Working Plans, which again reflect wider labour markets.

75. Whilst a range of factors influence the skills of a local population, most local authorities specifically deliver Adult Community Education services, which aims primarily to support residents with low or no qualifications acquire skills for further learning and work. A contextual measure looking at the proportion of resident with low or no qualifications could be relevant here, reflecting the focus of these services.

Are there specific local authority activities you think should be highlighted in the contextual narrative when presenting this priority outcome?

76. Local government is a critical partner to deliver local growth and prosperity. Recent research commissioned by the LGA found that £276bn could be unlocked if local authorities were enabled to deliver. However, it is crucial to recognise that the delivery of local growth and prosperity is not solely within the gift of local authorities. It is positive that the Outcomes Framework recognises this.

77. Broadly speaking, the role of local government in delivering local growth can be categorised under the following four categories, which have been identified by the LGA in a report to be published later this year:

• Orchestrators: councils' local democratic mandate makes them best placed to galvanise the energy and convene actors across in the entirety of their place.
• Growth facilitators: provide functions which are critical to place shaping - creating the conditions for economic development through capital investment, making the case for inward investment, as a planning authority as well as enabling skills development and employment support.
• Service providers: local government plays an essential role in addressing some of the main barriers to inclusive growth, through tackling social determinants of health and wellbeing, addressing barriers relating to disability, employment support and social housing.
• Anchor institutions: councils are often one of the most significant, if not the largest employers and buyers in their places, meaning that they are significant economic actors by dint of their size and buying power.

Child poverty (contextual outcome)

Reducing and mitigating the impacts of poverty and deprivation, particularly in children, is a key priority for many local authorities. We have captured relevant metrics in housing, homelessness and rough sleeping and the wider children’s focused outcomes. Are there any other available metrics that could help provide additional context on the role of local authorities in tackling child poverty?

78. Possible metrics might be:

• Free School Meal and Healthy Start scheme eligibility and uptake - this is a widely accepted proxy for child poverty. Monitoring both eligibility and actual uptake helps identify gaps in access and support.
• Access to funded early years education - take-up of funded childcare for disadvantaged 2- and 3-year-olds reflects local efforts to mitigate poverty’s impact on early development.
• Child health inequalities - metrics such as levels of child obesity (e.g. through the National Child Measurement Programme) and rates of dental decay/tooth extractions can serve as indirect indicators of poverty’s impact on children’s health.

Juliet Whitworth, Head of Research and Information

Email: [email protected]

Heather Wills,  Assistant Director, Programmes (Corporate)

Email: [email protected]