Level 1: Getting Organised - Internal Assessment

The use of performance review and evaluation systems has grown over the past decade. The focus is on measuring performance and value for money, often in terms of costs, volume of service, utilisation rates, time targets and productivity. Indicators of service quality, customer satisfaction and achievement of goals have been harder to produce and, as a result, are less well developed. Quantitative data has been typically privileged over qualitative data. Learning cities need to avoid the flaws of many performance/evaluation systems and seek to replicate the best practice.

The first step to achieving this is to develop explicit performance review systems which allow learning cities to evaluate what they are achieving in relation to their expressed purposes. The first step towards this is the development of a system of local performance measures which reflect local priorities.

Ideas for Action

Performance indicators should follow the partnership's priorities.

Individual projects should have tightly defined outcome measures and be thoroughly reviewed.

Priorities should be based on needs: assessment backed up with baseline data.

Local data collection should be for early discussion so that the partnership can influence individual data collection, e.g. local TEC surveys.

Institutions will be collecting information for their funders. Careful attention needs to be given to how such information can be accessed to serve local needs and be shared between partners. Some information will be market sensitive.

Cross-sector targets, e.g. measuring progress in literacy in schools, FE and, where possible, the voluntary sector and levels within the community are possible at local level.

Targets should reflect the local economy and local circumstances.

All targets indicators should be SMART.

Local targets can be related to matters outside education and training and as initiatives develop they should be. Levels of inward investment, numbers of voluntary groups, neighbourhood watch schemes etc. could all feature as the initiative grows.

Performance indicators should be few but significant to the partnership and attractive to the media.

Pitfalls and Perils

Learning city groups must always rely on individual organisations within the partnerships to produce data. Any target-setting will need the backing of the whole partnership. It will fail if it is seen as an imposition of a further external judgement on institutional performance.

Essential

A cycle which includes review of baseline data, realistic targets with appropriate timescales, and a process for review and report timed to feed future action planning.

Performance indicators which measure participation, achievements, awareness and attitudes.

Assessing Progress in Level One

Have local indicators reflecting priorities been set?

Is adequate localised baseline data in place or being secured?

Are there indicators relating to the whole lifecycle, i.e. pre-school, school-based and post- school?

Is there an indicator that relates to learning at work, e.g. Investors in People, NVQ successes?

Is there an indicator which relates to informal learning, e.g. participation in Adult Education, number of library books issued?

Are there indicators covering the key areas of awareness and attitude, participation and achievement?

Facts and Figures

National Data, e.g. National Education and Training Targets, schools league tables and the Labour Force Survey can be used to define local baselines.

Data collected locally, e.g. the TEC household and employer surveys can be influenced and can include questions which are both relevant to their institution and to the learning city Partnership.

Measures such as attendance at meetings, voting behaviour, and numbers of events and organisations in the community all give indicators of community health.