heads of communications survey 2015

0

Heads of Communications Survey 2015

1

Foreword The results of this survey indicate that councils are continuing to strive for efficiencies and ways of generating income – with communications teams playing their part – but there is scope for greater co-operation across the public sector. More council communications teams (53 per cent) are planning to generate income in 2015/16 as a way of coping with decreased funding than those seeking efficiency savings (41 per cent). This could be because the scope for further efficiencies following a 40 per cent reduction in local government funding is limited, but also reflects a growing commercial mindset in the sector. The LGA will hold seminars for local authorities seeking to generate income to allow them to channel that resource into communicating with residents about frontline services. With budgets continuing to shrink at a time when demands on communicators show no sign of diminishing, ensuring teams are more integrated and properly aligned to the authority’s corporate priorities has never been more important. Although many councils have moved towards a centralised communications structure in recent years, 58 per cent of respondents to the survey had staff working in communications elsewhere in their authority. A third of heads of communications (33 per cent) said they sat on their council’s corporate or senior management team. Almost one in five councils share or pool communications staff with other councils and different parts of the public sector, and a similar proportion plan to in 2015/16. The LGA will be assisting councils looking to engage in similar shared service arrangements through the sharing of case studies and the production of a best practice guide. Good communications is based on strong evidence, and regular resident surveys have been an important provider of this for local authorities over the last decade. But spending pressures have largely contributed in a drop in the number of councils who carry out a survey. Just over half of respondents (53 per cent) currently conduct one. Whilst there are understandable reservations about the costs associated with using independent polling companies, many authorities are finding more cost effective ways of establishing the views of their residents. Forty three per cent of councils carry out research in-house, using a variety of different techniques, including online and face-to-face. Citizens panels are also becoming increasingly popular, with 35 per cent of respondents now operating them. To help councils understand the variety of different research options available for gauging resident opinion, which should underpin their communications strategies, the LGA will be producing a best practice guide. A very high number of respondents (83 per cent) were aware of the LGA’s offer of communication support to its member authorities. Events and seminars were considered to be the most benefit communicators can receive, and the LGA will work with LG Communications, other professional bodies and the private sector to provide more of these over the course of 2015/16. Case studies are a popular form of support with council communicators. In addition to the weekly Commsnet bulletin, which shares best practice in the sector, the LGA will be establishing a communications hub on its website to expand this service. The LGA has conducted several communications peer reviews at the request of member authorities. These range from one-day health checks to more in-depth, strategic two to three day examinations – all tailored to each authority’s needs. A significant number of respondents expressed an interest in a communications review, and this offer will continue to be promoted to communicators, senior officers and members across the sector.

2

Almost three quarters of respondents (74 per cent) said they were willing to be part of a pool of communications professionals as part of the LGA’s support offer to councils. To allow people to find out more about the role, the LGA will host a series of peer development days. These are challenging times for local government communicators. The LGA will carry out this survey annually to help inform the support we offer to our members, and we would welcome feedback about how it can be improved in future. In response to this survey, the LGA will over 2015/16:

Assist councils looking to share services with other councils and other parts of the public sector through the sharing of best practice.

Help local authorities seeking to generate income so they can channel that resource into communicating with residents about frontline services.

Produce a best practice guide for councils seeking to establish the views of their residents.

Work with LG Communications, other professional bodies and the private sector to provide a programme of events and seminars.

Establish a communications hub to share case studies within the sector.

Offer communications peer challenges – ranging from one day health checks to three day strategic reviews.

Host a series of peer development days for people willing to be part of a pool of communications professionals to support councils.

Hold a follow up survey of heads of communications.

David Holdstock Director of Communications Local Government Association

3

REPORT OF THE

HEADS OF COMMUNICATIONS SURVEY 2015

INTRODUCTION

The Heads of Communications Survey 2015 was conducted by the Local Government Association’s Research and Information team in February - March 2015 in order to help the LGA provide benchmarking information for councils – e.g. the size and structure of communications teams, budgets, and future strategies - and to gain an insight into the state of local government communications in 2015. The survey was sent to all the head of communications, or nearest equivalent, in each of the 351 local authorities in England in membership of the LGA on 11th February 2015 and by the close (11th March), 139 authorities (40 per cent) had responded, broken down by type of authority as follows:

Table 1: response by type

Number Per cent

Counties 9 33%

London boroughs 9 28%

Metropolitan districts 16 46%

Unitaries 22 39%

All above (counties and single tier) 56 37%

Shire districts 83 41%

Total 139 40%

General notes 1. Given the overall response rate, the results should be taken to be reasonably representative of the

views of authorities as a whole, although it should be borne in mind that response varied by type of authority and by region (the latter between 27 per cent and 57 per cent). However, because of the actual number of respondents, results are not broken down by each type of authority or region.

2. Further to note 1, not all users answered, or were required to answer, every question, so the response to individual questions varies. In each table, the ‘Total’ row indicates the total number of respondents to the question, but note that this includes those who answered ‘don’t know’.

4

SUMMARY The main findings were as follows:

Heads of communications in respondent authorities had, on average, worked in local government communications for ten years;

On average, 5.0 full-time equivalent staff were working in corporate communications teams in respondent authorities (14.0 in counties and single-tier authorities and 3.5 in shire districts);

58 per cent of respondents had staff working in communications elsewhere in their authority; on average, 2.0 FTEs.

63 per cent of respondent heads of communications reported to a service head or director;

33 per cent of respondent heads of communications sat on their authority’s corporate or senior management team;

Non-staffing budgets for core communications averaged £60,000 in 2014/15, varying between £50,000 in shire districts and £230,000 in other types of authority;

96 per cent of corporate communications teams covered media relations, 90 per cent covered reputation management, 90 per cent covered internal communications, 87 per cent covered campaigns and marketing, and 84 per cent covered web/digital communications;

39 per cent of respondent authorities reported that their non-staffing budget was being cut in 2015/16, much higher among counties and shire districts (67 per cent) than shire districts (18 per cent);

71 per cent of respondent authorities were planning measures to make savings or generate income in 2015/16. Fifty-three per cent were planning to generate more income, while 41 per cent were planning efficiency savings;

18 per cent of respondent authorities currently shared or pooled staff with other organisations;

53 per cent of respondent authorities currently conducted a residents’ or reputational survey; they were generally either conducted by an independent polling company (53 per cent) or in-house (41 per cent); they were most often online (42 per cent), postal (38 per cent) and/or citizens’ juries/panels (35 per cent);

Those authorities not currently conducting a residents’ survey mainly cited the expense (41 per cent) as the reason;

68 per cent of respondent authorities indicated that council reputation was among their two main communications priorities, 41 per cent indicated economic development, and 38 per cent communications and budget reductions;

83 per cent of respondent authorities were aware of the LGA’s offer of communications support to its member councils;

The most useful types of communications support were considered by respondents to be events/seminars (51 per cent), case studies (39 per cent), and one-day health checks of council communications (35 per cent).

5

SURVEY FINDINGS The survey was sent to the head of communications, or nearest equivalent, in each local authority, who was asked to state how long he/she had worked in local government communications. The average (median) was ten years, which varied little by type of authority (Table 2). Fifteen per cent had worked for less than five years, 40 per cent for 5-10 years, 21 per cent for 11-15 years, 11 per cent for 16-20 years, and 13 per cent had worked in local government communications for more than 20 years.

Table 2: years worked by heads of communications in local government communications

Average (median)

years

Counties and single-tier authorities 10

Shire districts 10

Total 10

Base: 136 authorities.

Respondents were asked to indicate the full-time equivalent number of staff working in the authority’s corporate communications team performing core functions at 1st February 2015. Core functions were defined as:

media relations;

campaigns and marketing;

reputation management;

internal communications;

print/design; and

web/digital communications.

The average (median) number of staff across all respondents was 5.0 FTEs, but this varied widely between counties and single-tier authorities (14.0 FTEs) and shire districts (3.5 FTEs) (Table 3). It should be borne in mind that not all teams deliver all the core functions referred to above, and that core functions may not encompass exactly the same activities in all authorities. As a guide, the overall ratio of staff to total population stood at 0.45 FTEs per ten thousand population, varying between 0.35 for shire districts and 0.49 for other types of authority.

Table 3: numbers of staff employed in authorities’ corporate communications teams performing core functions at 1

st February 2015

Average (median)

FTE staff

Counties and single-tier authorities 14.0

Shire districts 3.5

Total 5.0

Base: 137 authorities (55 CST, 82 SD).

Eighty respondents (58 per cent) indicated that core communications functions were carried out by staff outside the corporate communications team (Table 4). Fifth-seven of these eighty were able to quantify the numbers of such staff, giving an overall average (median) of 2.0 FTEs (3.0 in counties and single-tier authorities). Staff were located in a wide variety of teams, most commonly the web team; others included leisure/tourism, customer services, adoption and fostering, economic development, and housing.

6

Table 4: whether staff in other parts of authorities perform core communications functions

All respondents Counties and

single-tier authorities Shire districts

Number Per cent Number Per cent Number Per cent

Yes 80 58% 31 56% 49 60%

No 56 41% 24 44% 32 39%

Don't know 1 1% 0 0% 1 1%

Total 137 100% 55 100% 82 100%

Around two-thirds (63 per cent) of respondent heads of communications reported to a service head or director, with just over a quarter (28 per cent) reporting to the chief executive or equivalent (Table 5). The latter was more common in shire districts (36 per cent) than other types of authority (17 per cent), almost certainly a reflection of their respective sizes.

Table 5: heads of communications’ line managers

All respondents

Counties and single-tier authorities Shire districts


Service head/ director

83 63% 39 72% 44 56%

Chief executive (or equivalent)

37 28% 9 17% 28 36%

Other 12 9% 6 11% 6 8%

Total 132 100% 54 100% 78 100%

Heads of commications sat on the corporate or senior management team or equivalent in a third of respondent authorities (33 per cent) (Table 6). Table 6: whether heads of communications sit on councils’ corporate/senior management teams or equivalent

All respondents



Yes 43 33% 18 33% 25 32%

No 89 67% 36 67% 53 68%

Total 132 100% 54 100% 78 100%

Respondents were asked to indicate the authority’s total non-staffing budget for corporate communications in 2014/15. This covered core functions, defined as:

media relations;

campaigns and marketing;

reputation management;

internal communications;

print/design; and

web/digital communications. The average (median) non-staffing budget in 2014/15 was £60,000, varying between £50,000 in shire districts and £230,000 in other types of authority (Table 7). It should be borne in mind that not all teams deliver all the core functions referred to above, and that core functions may not encompass exactly the same activities in all authorities.

7

Table 7: authorities’ total non-staffing budget for corporate communications in 2014/15

Average (median)

non-staffing budget

Counties and single-tier authorities £230,000

Shire districts £50,000

Total £60,000

Base: 85 authorities (32 CST, 53 SD).

Almost all corporate communications teams in respondent authorities covered media relations (96 per cent), reputation management (90 per cent) and internal communications (90 per cent), while the proportion was slightly lower for campaign and marketing (87 per cent) and web/digital communications (84 per cent), and was lowest for print/design (66 per cent) (Table 8). Excepting the latter (73 per cent), each of these proportions was above 90 per cent in counties and single-tier authorities.

Table 8: services currently delivered by corporate communications teams

All respondents



Media relations 130 96% 55 100% 75 94%

Reputation management

122 90% 52 95% 70 88%

Internal communications

122 90% 54 98% 68 85%

Campaign and marketing

118 87% 53 96% 65 81%

Web/digital communications

113 84% 50 91% 63 79%

Print/design 89 66% 40 73% 49 61%

Total 135 100% 55 100% 80 100%

Around two-fifths of respondent authorities (39 per cent) indicated that their non-staffing budget was being reduced in 2015/16, but this proportion varied widely between counties and single-tier authorities (67 per cent) and shire districts (18 per cent) (Table 9). Table 9: whether authorities’ non-staffing budget for corporate communications are being reduced in 2015/16

All respondents



Yes 51 39% 37 67% 14 18%

No 66 50% 15 27% 51 66%

Don't know 15 11% 3 5% 12 16%

Total 132 100% 55 100% 77 100%

Around seven-in-ten respondents (71 per cent) were planning at least one of the measures listed to make savings or were planning to generate income in corporate communications in 2015/16 (Table 10). Just over a half (53 per cent) were planning to generate income (69 per cent of counties and single tier compared with 43 per cent of shire districts), 41 per cent were planning efficiency savings (58 per cent and 30 per cent), 22 per cent were planning staff reductions (42 per cent and 9 per cent), and 13 per cent were planning to share staff with other councils.

8

Table 10: measures planned to make savings, or to generate more income, in corporate communications in 2015/16

All respondents



Income generation

72 53% 38 69% 34 43%

Efficiency savings

56 41% 32 58% 24 30%

Staff reductions 30 22% 23 42% 7 9%

Sharing staff with other councils

18 13% 7 13% 11 14%

Sharing staff with other public bodies

7 5% 7 13% 0 0%

Other 13 10% 8 15% 5 6%

I am not planning any of these measures

39 29% 5 9% 34 43%

Total 135 100% 55 100% 80 100%

Around one in five respondents (18 per cent) indicated that their authorities currently shared or pooled staff with other organisations (Table 11). Mostly this involved other local authorities in the area, but in some cases included LEPs, police services, fire services, NHS/CCGs, and local housing associations.

Table 11: whether authorities currently share or pool staff with other organisations

All respondents



Yes 24 18% 10 18% 14 18%

No 108 82% 45 82% 63 82%

Don't know 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Total 132 100% 55 100% 77 100%

Just over a half of respondent authorities (53 per cent) currently conducted a residents’ or reputational survey (Table 12). Table 12: whether authorities currently conduct residents' or reputational surveys to determine how residents access news about councils, and residents’ satisfaction with councils

All respondents



Yes 69 53% 28 52% 41 55%

No 60 47% 26 48% 34 45%

Total 129 100% 54 100% 75 100%

Those authorities currently conducting a residents’ or reputational survey were asked to specify who carried out the survey (Table 13). Around a half (51 per cent) used an independent polling company while 43 per cent conducted it in-house.

9

Table 13: who carries out residents’ or reputational surveys

All respondents



Independent polling company

34 51% 16 62% 18 44%

Your council 29 43% 9 35% 20 49%

Other 4 6% 1 4% 3 7%

Total 67 100% 26 100% 41 100%

Base: respondents currently conducting a residents’ or reputational survey (67)

Those authorities currently conducting a residents’ or reputational survey were asked to indicate how it was carried out (Table 14). Online was the most common option overall (42 per cent), but more so among shire districts (54 per cent) than other types of authority (25 per cent). This was followed by postal surveys (38 per cent overall, 51 per cent shire districts/18 per cent other types), citizens’ juries/panels (35 per cent overall, 44 per cent/21 per cent), and face-to-face surveys (20 per cent). Most respondents using other options carried out telephone surveys (14 out of 18 respondents).

Table 14: forms of residents’ or reputational surveys

All respondents



Online 29 42% 7 25% 22 54%

Postal 26 38% 5 18% 21 51%

Citizens' jury/panel

24 35% 6 21% 18 44%

Face-to-face 14 20% 6 21% 8 20%

Other 18 26% 10 36% 8 20%

Total 69 100% 28 100% 41 100%

Base: respondents currently conducting a residents’ or reputational survey (69)

Those authorities not currently conducting a residents’ or reputational survey were asked to indicate the reasons (Table 15). The cost was the most commonly cited reason (41 per cent overall, 32 per cent shire districts/52 per cent other types). One in five (20 per cent) cited a lack of senior support within the council. Several respondents writing-in answers indicated that their authority only conducted such surveys periodically.

Table 15: main reasons why authorities do not conduct residents' surveys

All respondents



Would like to but it is too expensive

24 41% 13 52% 11 32%

No senior support within the council

12 20% 3 12% 9 26%

Do not think it is a worthwhile exercise

3 5% 2 8% 1 3%

Other 20 34% 7 28% 13 38%

Total 59 100% 25 100% 34 100%

Base: respondents not currently conducting a residents’ or reputational survey (59)

10

Authorities were invited to indicate up to two main communications priorities (Table 16). Most commonly cited was the council’s reputation (68 per cent), followed by economic development (41 per cent), communications and budget reductions (38 per cent overall, 29 per cent shire districts/51 per cent other types), place-branding (21 per cent), and marketing income-generating services (12 per cent). Other items written-in included engaging with residents.

Table 16: main priorities for communications in authorities

All respondents



Council reputation

91 68% 35 64% 53 71%

Economic development

54 41% 18 33% 36 48%

Communications and budget reductions

51 38% 28 51% 22 29%

Place branding 28 21% 14 25% 14 19%

Marketing income-generating services

16 12% 3 5% 11 15%

Other 14 11% 8 15% 6 8%

Total 133 100% 55 100% 75 100%

Around four-fifths of respondents (83 per cent) were aware of the LGA’s offer of communications support to member councils (Table 17).

Table 17: awareness of the LGA’s offer of communications support to its member councils

All respondents



Yes 104 83% 44 83% 60 82%

No 22 17% 9 17% 13 18%

Total 126 100% 53 100% 73 100%

Authorities were invited to indicate up to three types of communications support they would find most useful over the next twelve months (Table 18). Almost all respondents (94 per cent) indicated a desire for support. The most popular types of support were events/ seminars (51 per cent), case studies (39 per cent), one-day health checks (35 per cent), bespoke support when required (24 per cent), contact building with other councils (22 per cent), and two- or three-day strategic communications reviews (21 per cent).

11

Table 18: types of communications support considered most useful over the next twelve months

All respondents



Events/seminars 66 51% 27 51% 39 51%

Case studies 50 39% 17 32% 33 43%

One-day health-check of council communications

45 35% 16 30% 29 38%

Bespoke email/ phone support when required

31 24% 11 21% 20 26%

Contact building with other councils

29 22% 18 34% 11 14%

2-3 day strategic review of council comms

27 21% 13 25% 14 18%

Crisis communications support

17 13% 3 6% 14 18%

Visit from a member of LGA comms team

13 10% 5 9% 8 11%

Other 4 3% 4 8% 0 0%

None of the above

8 6% 3 6% 5 7%

Total 129 100% 53 100% 76 100%

Around three-quarters of respondents (74 per cent) were willing to be involved in the LGA’s pool of communications professional to support councils, a proportion that was higher in counties and single tier respondents (89 per cent) than shire districts (63 per cent) (Table 19). Table 19: willing to be involved in the LGA’s pool of communications professionals to support councils

All respondents



Yes 92 74% 47 89% 45 63%

No 33 26% 6 11% 27 38%

Total 125 100% 53 100% 72 100%

Twenty-seven respondents wrote-in additional comments about the topics covered by the survey, most of which revolved around the difficulties posed by budget cuts – workload could be increasing, greater priority being given to communications without any corresponding increase in funding.

12

Local Government Association

Local Government House

Smith Square

London SW1P 3HZ

Telephone 020 7664 3000 Fax 020 7664 3030 Email [email protected] www.local.gov.uk

© Local Government Association, June 2015

For a copy in Braille, larger print or audio, please contact us on 020 7664 3000. We consider requests on an individual basis.

http://www.local.gov.uk/

heads of communications survey 2015

Documents