Little correlation between unitary councils’ size and service quality, official data reveals

NOTE: This statement has been updated to reflect most recent data.

Thank you to those who pointed out that our original press release did not use the most recent data in some places. We have now updated our figures accordingly. The feedback we received also suggested it would be better to show the absolute number of councils receiving each rating rather than presenting the numbers as a percentage of all councils in each quartile.

DCN made an error in the way we presented CQC data. The data we described as being for councils with ‘outstanding’ ratings was in fact for councils with ‘good’ ratings. We apologise for this and have corrected it below.

Updated analysis confirms the lack of any link between councils’ size and performance, undermining the Government’s case to impose mega councils across England.

The Government plans to reorganise local government by merging county councils and district councils into mega councils, each covering a population of half a million people or more. It has previously admitted that it has no independent evidence justifying councils of this size.

Analysis of official statistics shows little correlation between the population size of unitary authorities and their performance in areas including children’s services, social care and tenant satisfaction.

The figures were collated by Uttlesford District Council for the District Councils’ Network (DCN). The snapshot in time compared the performance of existing unitary councils from Council of the Isles of Scilly, with little more than 2,000 inhabitants, to Birmingham City Council, with 1.157 million residents. Councils were divided into four quartiles based on their population size and their performance was compared using publicly available data from Ofsted, the Care Quality Commission (CQC) and the Regulator of Social Housing (RSH).

On children’s services, almost twice as many councils with the smallest populations obtained the CQC’s highest ‘outstanding’ rating than councils with the largest populations.

When it came to adult social care, councils with the smallest populations were equally likely to get the two highest ratings – of ‘outstanding’ or ‘good’ – as those with the largest populations. Councils with the largest populations got the same number of the lowest rating ‘requires improvement’ as those with the smallest populations.

Councils with below-average populations were more likely to get the highest ratings when it came to tenant satisfaction ratings for their area. Councils with above-average populations were more likely to get lower ratings.

In detail: Council performance by population

Number of councils per population quartile getting each ranking

In response to the data, Cllr Sam Chapman-Allen, Chair of the District Councils’ Network, said:

“When there’s no relationship between the size of unitary councils and their performance, it’s baffling that the Government continues to pursue mega councils each covering half a million people or more.

“Mega councils are by their very definition further from their communities – the danger is that they’re remote organisations that are unresponsive to the very localised needs of our communities.

“The Government is currently rushing through local government reorganisation without pausing to consider whether mega councils really will benefit local people. We know mega councils don’t necessarily offer better services or are more financially sustainable than the rest of local government, so why force them upon our areas?

“Reorganisation requires painstaking organisational upheaval which will inevitably occupy local leaders who would far rather prioritise the more important business of delivering for our communities – building homes, creating jobs and supporting vulnerable people.

“I fully support any reorganisation that keeps the ‘local’ in local government, is bottom-up, integrally involves our communities in the design of new councils and builds services around the needs of the everyone in our community. The danger is that by rushing ahead to impose mega councils with no evidence that they work our communities will endure all the pain of upheaval without any gain.”

DCN represents all 164 district councils. Under the Government’s plans, all would be merged with county councils into new unitary councils, each covering 500,000 people or more. District councils, which are the closest principal authorities to communities, run services including housing, economic development, waste collection and leisure centres. County councils run services including social care, children’s services and highways.

Peter Holt, Chief Executive of Uttlesford District Council, which undertook the analysis, said:

“We entered into the local government reorganisation process in Essex with an open mind to the size of new authorities and wanted evidence to help us make a decision about what’s best for our community.

“Having sifted through real-world evidence drawn from MHCLG, Ofsted, the Care Quality Commission and Regulator of Social Housing, we can see that there’s absolutely no correlation between population size and the performance or financial stability of unitary councils.

“It’s not being super-sized that makes a council high performing or financially stable – it’s years of hard work by dedicated public servants, supported by strong political and officer leadership.”