Proposed change to Menu structure
Introduction
1. The Menu of Local Outcome Indicators has been in place since 2009 and
provides Community Planning Partnerships (CPPs) with access to robust
and relevant indicators for measuring progress on local outcomes.
2. Regular updates to the Menu are made in line with the agreed policy of
continuous refinement and improvement. This includes updates to
address known gaps and metadata refinements to existing indicators to
improve user understanding. Most recently, several changes have been
made to the Menu following the Scottish Government’s refresh of the
National Performance Framework (NPF). These recent changes are
reflected in Menu version 6 and help improve the alignment between the
national indicators in the NPF and local outcome indicators in the Menu.
3. The ILOIP Project Board met on 10 February 2012 to discuss the future
direction of the project. The general consensus was that expansion into
co-ordinating all indicator related work was likely to be the most suitable
option. This has implications for the current Menu as to date, ILOIP has
focused only on high level outcome indicators that are suitable for use in
Single Outcome Agreements (SOA). However additional levels of
indicators, commonly referred to as ‘below the waterline’ for SOA
purposes, are now being widely used across the public sector to support
the outcomes based approach. The Scottish Government have also
commissioned work recently to develop Contributory Outcomes which are
more focused outcomes on which progress can be measured in the short
to medium term to help understand the key steps that need to be
achieved to realise the broader National Outcomes in the NPF.
4. The Board agreed that a final decision on the future of ILOIP would be
made at a future meeting once the findings of
‘performance’ workstream were available. In the
provides an initial outline of how the Menu
restructured to support the wider coordination of
work.
the CP/SOA Review
meantime, this paper
could potentially be
SOA indicator related
Current Menu structure
5. As at the end of March 2012, Menu version 6 includes a total of 65
indicators. The current Menu provides a covering sheet with latest news
of the project and Menu, and then lists the indicators in an Index. Links
are then provided for each indicator to detailed metadata.
Proposed change to Menu structure
6. In order to support the expansion of the project into coordinating other
indicator related work relating to SOAs, the Menu could potentially be
adapted and take a tiered approach along the lines of:
Level 1 – Outcome Level
Generally these would be the high-level outcome indicators included in
SOAs, so similar to the current Menu indicators.
Level 2 – Contributory Level
These would be indicators that help show progress towards the outcomes
in level 1 and give us a more detailed understanding of performance in the
short to medium term. Some indicators at this level may also be suitable
for inclusion in SOAs.
This would make use of existing frameworks already developed to
underpin and support the NPF and SOAs, such as the Community Care
Outcomes Framework and the Environmental Framework. It would also
draw on the evidence and work of the SG to develop Contributory
Outcomes. A key part of this work is engagement and collaboration with
delivery partners including Local Government and other Public Bodies to
help improve performance, partnership, and alignment and identify actions
which move us towards delivery of the National Outcomes and, ultimately,
the Purpose. On 14 December 2011 the Cabinet Secretary for Finance,
Employment and Sustainable Growth wrote to stakeholders advising that
colleagues in SG would work with them on the development of
Contributory Outcomes. Implementation of Contributory Outcomes, and
therefore developments of the Menu at this level, will be a staged process
involving wider external engagement and the timing may vary as the work
for different outcome areas is at different stages of evolution.
Level 3 – Targeted Level
For measuring progress for specific groups of people such as equality
groups or for measuring progress for specific neighbourhoods such as
deprived areas. This will highlight the available evidence to support the
increasing focus upon reducing outcome gaps within populations and
between areas.
This would draw on the evidence from the Improving Local Equality Data
Project, the Equalities Measurement Framework and the SG Equalities
website. At this level, a more flexible approach would be adopted to the
criteria used to assess whether indicators are suitable for inclusion in the
Menu. For example, one of the criteria is ensuring indicators are timely
and accessible. For some equalities indicators we may have to make use
of pooled datasets over several years therefore reducing the timeliness
and ability to monitor change over regular time periods. Issues such as
this and details of the criteria relaxed will be fully explained in the
metadata.
7. As well as developing the Menu to provide a hierarchical framework of
performance indicators, the Board are also keen for the project to support
SOA evaluation by including links to research and evaluation evidence in
the Menu, particularly in relation to which interventions work best. In
some areas, this may involve referencing evidence already available but
in other areas will require new work to be progressed. The Board
suggested work starts in a few thematic areas of priority such as youth
employability and early years to ensure the work is kept manageable.
8. Figure 1 provides an illustration of this proposed tiered approach to the
Menu. Please note, the content in figure 1 is provided for illustrative
purposes only. The contributory outcomes are provided as an example so
may change, and the indicators and evaluation evidence are not
necessarily comprehensive. Some points worth noting:

In order to facilitate this structure, the Menu would need to be
structured by outcome themes (e.g. Early Years, Economy, Education
& Skills, Environment and so on… ). To agree these themes, it would
be helpful to investigate the range of theme-based working groups
operating in CPPs.

Due to the fact that many outcome areas are inter-related, some
indicators will appear in more than one theme.

As with the current Menu structure, a covering sheet introducing the
Menu and highlighting any important news would be retained. A
contents sheet would be needed to structure the Menu by the new
themes. This would then link to the Menu for that particular theme (i.e.
Figure 1 would be the Early Years Menu). An index could be used to
allow users to search all indicators and quickly identify which outcome
theme they contribute towards.

The metadata for indicators at level 3 would be improved. Currently
the metadata simply states whether an indicator can be meaningfully
disaggregated at LA level for each of the equality strands. Separate
metadata should be provided for indicators at this level given a more
flexible approach may be needed when assessing whether the
indicator is suitable for inclusion in the Menu. Separate metadata will
provide users with more detailed information and any necessary
caveats about using the indicator.
Next Steps
9. The ILOIP task group are asked to comment on the proposed Menu
structure as outlined in Figure 1. Suggestions for alternative structures are
welcomed too.
Figure 1: Proposed Menu Structure for EARLY YEARS theme