State of the Market in Street Cleansing 2016 O'Brien - Session 2...Paul O’Brien Chief Executive Email: po’[email protected] Twitter: @apsetweets Association for Public Service

State of the Market in Street Cleansing 2016

Paul O’Brien,

Chief Executive, APSE

UK local government spending as a share of GDP: current spending, already below the 1979‐2014 minimum, is

projected to go on falling to 2020

Balance of core spending power 15/16 and 19/20: as RSG shrivels beyond London and the Mets, most

LA funding will come from council tax

A 9% squeeze on upper tier LAs only looks benign set alongside the 21% squeeze on Districts and the record of the last five years. Liveability services are under threat everywhere. The extra 2% on CT looks about enough to meet the growth in ASC demand. If so, the case for sustainable local government services – highways, housing, libraries, leisure and recreation, environmental health, planning – must be made in their own right.

CONCLUSION: LIVEABILITY SERVICES

www.apse.org.uk

0.0%

2.6%

26.3%

26.3%

10.5%

23.7%

10.5%

Increase by up to 10%

Increase by up to 5%

Decrease by up to 5%




Decrease by more than 20%

0% 10% 20% 30%

What is your expectation of the level of funding in your service budget in the coming five years?

www.apse.org.uk

www.apse.org.ukwww.apse.org.uk

21.1%

26.3%

26.3%

47.4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Shared services with another localauthority

Implementing an overall strategy togenerate fees from new sources through

charging (not through a wholly ownedcouncil company)

Trading and charging through a whollyowned council company

Increased fees and charges

How are you implementing your income generation strategy?

Income generation• Providing property clearance and cleaning services to the ALMO• Private sector cleansing e.g. car parks, road sweeping, weed killing, removal of

syringes and dead animals from commercial land, etc• Cleanse on behalf of developers for unadopted highway• Renting available space within our depots to local businesses• Sponsorship and advertising panels in litter bins • Events e.g. sporting events• Care of garden charging• Charging to other in‐house sections e.g. parks and cemeteries• Offering services to Parish Councils• Provide services to other public services e.g. NHS, educational establishments,

Fire services and Military

www.apse.org.uk

Where the costs are…

Cost Proportion of total

Staff 66%Transport 21%Central establishment charges 7%Premises 2%External 1%Departmental admin. 1%Waste disposal 1%Subcontracting 1%

www.apse.org.uk

£35.60

£36.53£36.67

£35.44

£37.04

£31.33

£32.98

£32.57

£20

£22

£24

£26

£28

£30

£32

£34

£36

£38

Yr 10 Yr 11 Yr 12 Yr 13 Yr 14 Yr 15 Yr 16 Yr 17

PI 03 Cost of cleansing service per household(including CEC)


28.9%

7.9%

28.9%

55.3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Voluntaryredundancy

Compulsoryredundancy

Recruitmentfreeze

None of these

Has or does your service intend to implement any of the following within the next 12 months:


Less than 5%, 17.2%

Between 6% and 10%, 10.3%

11% to 15%, 3.4%

15% to 20%, 0.0%

More than 20%, 3.4%

Don't yet know, 13.8%

Not applicable, 51.7%

If your service area is subject to redundancy measures what percentage of staff do you expect to lose from the service?



0.0%

7.3%

12.2%

19.5%

26.8%

48.8%

0% 20% 40% 60%

Cross boundary inspection systems withother neighbouring councils

Using Leqs Pro or Leams but with areduced sample size

We didn't have the resources to do this

Using residents perceptions as anindicator rather than quality inspections

Using Leqs Pro or Leams across the fullrecommended sample size

Through a locally developed inspectionsurvey

How did you measure street cleanliness quality during 2015?

8.0%7.9%

5.9%

7.1%

6.1%

5.2%5.0%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

Yr 11 Yr 12 Yr 13 Yr 14 Yr 15 Yr 16 Yr 17

PI 37a NI 195 percentage of sites that fall below grade B (England only - full inspections)


13.2%

15.8%

18.4%

28.9%

39.5%

44.7%

52.6%

55.3%

100.0%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Enforcement

Rangers

Street Champions Scheme

Education initiatives

Parish council organised events

Local environmental improvementprojects

Friends of Groups

Community payback schemes

Clean ups and community litterpicks

How are volunteers involved in the street cleansing service?

Demand management

• Litter campaigns (93%)• Educational awareness in schools (58%)• Dog fouling campaigns (68%)• Smoking‐related litter campaigns (36%)• Chewing gum campaigns (14%)• National Love Where You Live campaign (17%)• Graffiti campaigns (11%)• Junior citizen events (7%)• Community wardens (18%)

• Litter campaigns (93%)• Educational awareness in schools (58%)• Dog fouling campaigns (68%)• Smoking‐related litter campaigns (36%)• Chewing gum campaigns (14%)• National Love Where You Live campaign (17%)• Graffiti campaigns (11%)• Junior citizen events (7%)• Community wardens (18%)

Education

• On the spot fines for littering (83%)• Issue of FPNs to businesses not registered to carry waste (65%)• Issue of litter clearing notices (66%)• Use of dog control orders (58%)• Issue of street litter control notices (58%)• On the spot fines for fly‐posting (30%)• Control/prevention of the sale of vehicles on the road (33%)• On the spot fines where waste is left out at the wrong times (30%)

• On the spot fines for littering (83%)• Issue of FPNs to businesses not registered to carry waste (65%)• Issue of litter clearing notices (66%)• Use of dog control orders (58%)• Issue of street litter control notices (58%)• On the spot fines for fly‐posting (30%)• Control/prevention of the sale of vehicles on the road (33%)• On the spot fines where waste is left out at the wrong times (30%)

Enforcement

www.apse.org.uk


Too high, 34.1%

Slightly above average,

12.2%

About average,

31.7%

Slightly below average,

14.6%

Very low, 7.3%

Are staff absence levels at an acceptable level?


8.1%

8.1%

13.5%

16.2%

29.7%

32.4%

37.8%

40.5%

40.5%

45.9%

54.1%

54.1%

59.5%

0% 20% 40% 60%

Provision of specialist street cleansing works to other public…

Increased incidents of graffiti

Sustainable mechanical sweepers e.g. electric vehicles

Provision of specialist street cleansing works to the private…

Mechanical sweeping of industrial units/supermarket car parks

Tackling dog fouling

Increased incidents of fly-tipping

On street litter and recycling bins

Education and prevention initiatives

Enforcement

Income generation and selling services

Community engagement and community based projects

Use of volunteers and community payback

Where do you see growth for the service over the next 12 months?


6.1%

9.1%

12.1%

18.2%

21.2%

21.2%

21.2%

27.3%

30.3%

30.3%

36.4%

39.4%

63.6%

0% 50% 100%

Gully emptying

Private street cleansing work

Transfers of work to community groups,parish councils, etc

Number of operational hours

The number of SLA's within the authority

Street cleansing barrows

Mechanised sweeping

Section 106 funded work

Litter picking

Late shifts or overtime to deal with the night time economy

Reduction in ability to provide assistance/advice to community…

Levels of cleanliness

Frequency of cleansing rural roads

Where do you see future decreases in work for the service?


14.8%

22.2%

22.2%

29.6%

33.3%

37.0%

44.4%

48.1%

55.6%

77.8%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Primary / main retail and commercial

High obstruction housing

Main roads

Industry and warehousing

Medium obstruction housing

Recreation areas

Other highways

Secondary / other retail and commercial

Low obstruction housing

Rural roads

If you are anticipating future reductions in sweeping and litter picking work, which areas of land do you think this will relate to?


39.4%

57.6%

66.7%

69.7%

72.7%

75.8%

87.9%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Using systems thinking techniques

Use of technology (e.g. handheld)

Utilisation of machinery/transport

Review of working time/rota's

Review of productivity/work study

Service re-design

Route optimisation

Will this service review involve any of the following:

Efficiency• Changing shift patterns/working days, overtime and staff reductions• Review of mobile teams and a reduction in barrow staff• Review of mechanical sweeping• More reactive working• Scheduling service based on need rather than frequency• Reduction in frequency• Review of cleansing routes/ route optimisation• Review of plant, vehicles and equipment • Alternative service delivery models and shared services/merging services e.g. with

grounds maintenance • Systems thinking and lean working• Stopping certain services e.g. graffiti removal, cleanliness inspections

www.apse.org.uk


Conclusions

• Budgets continuing to drop between now and 2020• Sector response been good in terms of cost reduction and productivity improvements

• Whilst continuing to focus on efficiency its only taking us so far• Reducing demand through campaigns and enforcement• Innovating in design and delivery• Seeking out income generation opportunities to offset budget cuts

www.apse.org.uk

www.apse.org.uk

Contact details

Paul O’Brien

Chief Executive

Email: po’[email protected]

Twitter: @apsetweetsAssociation for Public Service Excellence

2nd floor Washbrook House, Lancastrian Office Centre, Talbot Road, Old Trafford, Manchester M32 0FP.

telephone: 0161 772 1810fax: 0161 772 1811

web:www.apse.org.uk

Documents

State of the Market in Street Cleansing 2016 O'Brien - Session 2...Paul O’Brien Chief Executive Email: po’[email protected] Twitter: @apsetweets Association for Public Service