Not just whether they are powerful. Not just whether they are free. Whether the relationship between institutions and citizens is functional, legitimate — and durable. TrustGap measures it across three dimensions, 90 countries, and down to UK council level.
90
Countries across 10 groups
3
Tiers: Trust · Power · Resilience
318
English councils in the UK pilot
14+
Primary international sources
The Framework
Three tiers. One picture.
Most indices measure one dimension at a time. TrustGap combines internal legitimacy, external strategic position, and a synthesised resilience classification into a single diagnostic framework — the only instrument that does all three.
Tier 1 · Published
Trust Health
How well institutions function, and how much citizens trust them. Produces a Structural Score, Relational Score, Trust Gap, and Quadrant classification for each country.
→ 8 sub-indicators per country
→ Quadrant classification
→ Migration risk flag
→ ACP for authoritarian states
Tier 2 · Published
Strategic Position
How much power a state projects versus absorbs. Power Score against Exposure Score, producing a Net Strategic Position that contextualises the Trust Health picture.
→ Military, economic, soft power
→ Trade, energy, supply chain risk
→ Geopolitical exposure index
→ Sources: IMF, SIPRI, Lowy, IEA
Tier 3 · Published
Resilience Band
The synthesis output. Tiers 1 and 2 combined into a single Resilience Band classification — from High Resilience to Systemically Vulnerable — for each of 90 countries.
→ Six Resilience Bands
→ High Resilience → Systemically Vulnerable
→ Decision-support output
→ Available in custom briefings
The Core Idea
What is the Trust Gap?
Headline finding — Lithuania (EU dataset)
Structural Score 77.8
Relational Score 46.4
↕
Trust Gap: +31.4 points. Largest gap in the combined 90-country dataset. Strong institutions, very low trust. Migration risk flag active.
UK +21.9 — Efficient But Distant, migration risk active. WGI Political Stability at all-time low.
India −14.0 — largest negative gap. Citizens trust institutions more than their performance warrants.
Two scores, one gap
Every country receives a Structural Score — how well institutions function — and a Relational Score — how much citizens trust them. The Trust Gap is the distance between the two. Most indices measure one dimension. We measure both, and the space between them.
Why the gap matters more than either score
A country with strong institutions and low public trust is unstable in a specific, predictable way. The institutions may be capable — but they lack legitimacy. That combination has historically preceded democratic backsliding and political volatility. The gap is the signal that other indices miss.
A migration risk, not just a number
Any country with a Trust Gap exceeding 20 points is flagged for quadrant migration risk — the risk of moving to a more precarious classification. 26 of 90 countries currently carry the flag, including Germany, Japan, South Korea, and the United Kingdom.
Selected scores
🇬🇧
United Kingdom
Efficient But Distant ⚠
73.0
Structural
51.1
Relational
🇱🇹
Lithuania
Efficient But Distant ⚠
77.8
Structural
46.4
Relational
🇦🇪
UAE
Efficient But Distant ⚠
76.0
Structural
31.4
Relational
🇫🇮
Finland
Stable Democracy
86.2
Structural
68.2
Relational
🇺🇸
United States
Polarised Democracy
61.7
Structural
46.3
Relational
Sub-national · UK Pilot
The Trust Gap at council level
The same framework that measures trust and legitimacy for 90 countries has been applied to 318 English local authorities — measuring financial governance, service delivery, planning performance, and ombudsman compliance.
This is the Local Council Monitor: a proof-of-concept sub-national layer, and an invitation. The methodology is portable. If you want to apply it in another country, we'd like to hear from you.
Sample council scores · May 2026
Birmingham
52Weak
Westminster
79Strong
Thurrock
18Fragile
Manchester
71Strong
318 English councils scored · May 2026 baseline
Classification
Four quadrants
Every country is assigned to one of four quadrants based on where its Structural and Relational scores fall. Higher structural scores sit to the right; higher relational scores sit toward the top.
Relational Score↑ Higher trust
High trust · Low capacity
Trustful But Fragile
Trust outpacing delivery
Structural <65 · Relational ≥65
Citizens trust institutions more than objective performance warrants — often driven by cultural deference, information gaps, or political identity. Fragile because trust can collapse rapidly when expectations are unmet. No country in the current 90-country dataset occupies this position.
High trust · High capacity
Stable Democracy
Functioning and trusted
Structural ≥65 · Relational ≥65
Institutions work and citizens trust them. The most durable classification — internal legitimacy is high on both dimensions. Only Denmark, Finland, Norway, Switzerland, Iceland, Luxembourg, Singapore, and New Zealand hold this classification across 90 countries.
Low trust · Low capacity
Polarised Democracy
Pressure on both axes
Structural <65 · Relational <65
Both institutional performance and public trust are under strain. Political volatility is elevated and reform requires addressing both dimensions simultaneously. Where Structural falls below 50 AND Relational below 50, the country is additionally classified as a Fragile State.
Low trust · High capacity
Efficient But Distant
Capacity without consent
Structural ≥65 · Relational <65
Institutions outperform the trust placed in them. The most common classification — the majority of western democracies including the UK, Germany, Japan, and Australia sit here. The gap between structural capacity and relational legitimacy is the core risk signal.
Relational 65
Structural 65
Higher capacity →Structural Score
Data is free. Services are not.
What we offer
All TrustGap index data is freely available. The analysis, interpretation, and application of that data is where we work with partners, policymakers, journalists, and institutions.
Briefings
Country or thematic reports with full sub-indicator analysis, peer comparison, key signals, and scored recommendations.
Tier 2+3
Full three-tier analysis: Trust Health + Strategic Position + Resilience Band. Designed for institutional, investment, and policy audiences.
Custom
Custom assessment runs, data licensing, consulting, and methodology partnerships for research institutions and governments.
From the index · V2.1 · May 2026
Five findings that will not surprise you — and one that will.
Only 8 of 90 countries qualify as Stable Democracies — where institutions work and citizens trust them.
26 countries carry a migration risk flag — a Trust Gap exceeding 20 points. Most are western democracies.
The average Trust Gap across all 90 countries is +15.3 points. The median is +16.4.
20 countries have triggered the Authoritarian Context Protocol, with relational scores adjusted for state suppression of trust signals.
The surprise: India has a negative Trust Gap of −14.0. Citizens trust their institutions considerably more than their objective performance warrants — a pattern that history suggests is brittle.
Datasets
90 countries · 10 groups
Each group is a named, dated scoring run applied to a defined cohort. All use the same methodology and primary sources. Click any group to explore its countries.
Reports, comparison data, and briefings available on request
G8 · May 2026
G8
8 countries · Trust Health — Tier 1
The Group of Seven plus Russia. The founding cohort of the Trust Gap framework and the reference point against which all other groups are calibrated.
View dataset →
G20 · May 2026
G20
19 countries · Trust Health — Tier 1
All 19 G20 members — spanning Asia-Pacific, Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa. Includes some of the world's largest economies and most significant political actors.
View dataset →
European Union · May 2026
European Union
27 countries · Trust Health — Tier 1
All 27 EU member states. The most institutionally integrated grouping in the dataset, with a correspondingly wide spread of outcomes — from the Nordic Stable Democracies to the Balkan Fragile States.
View dataset →
Council of Europe · May 2026
Council of Europe
43 countries · Trust Health — Tier 1
Non-EU European states and observers, including the Western Balkans, the South Caucasus, and Ukraine. A group at widely varying stages of institutional development and under significant external pressure.
View dataset →
Gulf Cooperation Council · May 2026
Gulf Cooperation Council
6 countries · Trust Health — Tier 1
The five GCC members outside the G20. High structural scores driven by state capacity and resource wealth, but consistently very low relational scores and widespread ACP designation.
View dataset →
BRICS+ · May 2026
BRICS+
7 countries · Trust Health — Tier 1
All 7 BRICS+ members — Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, and Ethiopia. Iran has observer status. The group spans G20 powers and fragile states across Africa and the Middle East.
View dataset →
ASEAN · May 2026
ASEAN
10 countries · Trust Health — Tier 1
All 10 ASEAN members including Indonesia (G20). A highly varied group ranging from Singapore's Stable Democracy to Myanmar's deeply fragile authoritarian classification.
View dataset →
Latin America · May 2026
Latin America
9 countries · Trust Health — Tier 1
Nine Latin American countries including G20 members Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico, alongside Chile, Colombia, Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Venezuela.
View dataset →
Africa · May 2026
Africa
9 countries · Trust Health — Tier 1
Nine African countries including G20 member South Africa and BRICS+ members Egypt and Ethiopia, alongside Nigeria, Kenya, Ghana, Morocco, Tunisia, and Zimbabwe.
View dataset →
Asia-Pacific · May 2026
Asia-Pacific
4 countries · Trust Health — Tier 1
Four Asia-Pacific countries outside the G20 and ASEAN datasets. New Zealand is the standout Stable Democracy; Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Kazakhstan all carry ACP designation.
View dataset →
Sub-national
Local Council Monitor · England · May 2026
Local Government
318 English councils · Financial · Services · LGO
The Trust Gap framework applied to English local authorities. Financial governance, service delivery, and LGO ombudsman signal scored against statutory sources. May 2026 baseline — 56 changed administrations including 11 Reform UK gains.
View scorecard →
Trust Health — Tier 1 · May 2026
All Countries
90 countries across 10 groups · 90 countries shown
Reports, comparison data, and briefings available on request
A formula-driven framework. Every score is traceable to a named primary source, a specific metric, and an explicit calculation. No black boxes.
Reports, comparison data, and briefings available on request
Overview
Structural Pillar
Relational Pillar
Classification
Data
Architecture
The index measures the internal legitimacy of a state across two equally weighted pillars: Structural (how institutions function) and Relational (how much citizens trust them). Each pillar is 50% of the overall score.
Each pillar contains four sub-indicators, weighted equally at 25% within the pillar. Each sub-indicator is built from three metrics, equally weighted and normalised to a 0–100 scale. The headline output is the Trust Gap — the difference between the two pillar scores — not a single composite number.
Score labels
Exceptional
80–100
Strong
70–79
Moderate
60–69
Weak
50–59
Critical
40–49
Fragile
Below 40
Structural Pillar
Four sub-indicators measuring how well institutions function, independent of how citizens feel about them.
Structural · Sub-1
Governance Effectiveness
World Bank WGI Government Effectiveness + Regulatory Quality percentile ranks, averaged.
Structural · Sub-2
Political Stability
World Bank WGI Political Stability and Absence of Violence. A recency adjustment of −5 to −10 applies where documented instability is not yet reflected in WGI data (maximum −10, must be cited).
Structural · Sub-3
Rule of Law / Corruption
WJP Rule of Law Index (×100) averaged with TI Corruption Perceptions Index. CPI used exactly as published — no rounding. Year-on-year CPI decline is flagged as a diagnostic signal.
Structural · Sub-4
Economic Mobility
WEF Social Mobility Index (with −7 outcome adjustment applied universally) + World Bank Gini coefficient (inverted) + OECD Education Access. All three averaged.
Relational Pillar
Four sub-indicators measuring how much citizens trust the state and one another, independent of how well institutions actually perform.
Relational · Sub-5
Trust in Government
Edelman Trust Barometer government trust score, exact figure. Where Edelman is unavailable, a defined fallback hierarchy applies: independent diaspora surveys → independent national surveys → WVS Wave data → state-conducted surveys.
Relational · Sub-6
Social Cohesion & Belonging
Bertelsmann Social Cohesion Radar + WVS Interpersonal Trust + V-Dem Polarisation Index (inverted). All three averaged.
Relational · Sub-7
Media Trust & Information Health
Reuters Institute Digital News Report (% trust most news) + RSF Press Freedom Index (converted: 100 − RSF note score) + Edelman Media Trust score. All three averaged.
Relational · Sub-8
Civic Participation & Democracy
International IDEA Voter Turnout + OECD/Gallup Democracy Satisfaction + V-Dem Civil Society score. All three averaged.
Authoritarian Context Protocol
Where a country's V-Dem Liberal Democracy Index score falls below 0.30 AND its RSF Press Freedom rank is 130/180 or worse, the Authoritarian Context Protocol is triggered. Both conditions must be confirmed. The protocol applies downward adjustments to the relational sub-indicators — ranging from −10 (Constrained) to −20 (Totalitarian) — to correct for state suppression of trust signals. In the current dataset, ACP was triggered for four G20 members: Russia and China (Totalitarian), Saudi Arabia (Totalitarian), and Türkiye (Constrained). No EU member states triggered the protocol.
Quadrant classification
Every country is assigned to one of four quadrants based on its final Structural and Relational scores.
Stable Democracy
Structural ≥65 AND Relational ≥65. Both dimensions functioning. Denmark and Finland are the only two countries in the combined 43-country dataset to hold this classification.
Efficient But Distant
Structural ≥65 AND Relational <65. The dominant classification across both datasets — 24 of 43 countries. Institutional capacity exceeds public trust.
Polarised Democracy
Structural <65 AND Relational <65. Both dimensions under pressure. Nine countries across both datasets — including France, USA, Italy, and four EU members.
Fragile State
Structural <50 AND Relational <50. Critical failure across both pillars. Eight countries across the combined dataset — seven G20 members and Bulgaria.
Migration risk flag: Any country with a Trust Gap exceeding 20 points is flagged regardless of current quadrant. In the combined dataset, 17 of 43 countries carry the flag — including Lithuania at +31.4, the largest gap across both cohorts.
Primary data sources
Source
Used for
Pillar
World Bank — Worldwide Governance Indicators
Government Effectiveness, Regulatory Quality, Political Stability
Structural
Transparency International — CPI
Rule of Law / Corruption sub-indicator
Structural
World Justice Project — Rule of Law Index
Rule of Law / Corruption sub-indicator
Structural
WEF Global Social Mobility Index
Economic Mobility (−7 outcome adjustment applied)
Structural
World Bank — World Development Indicators
Gini coefficient (inverted)
Structural
OECD Education at a Glance
Education access in Economic Mobility
Structural
Edelman Trust Barometer
Government trust and Media trust (exact figures)
Relational
Bertelsmann Stiftung — Social Cohesion Radar
Social Cohesion sub-indicator
Relational
World Values Survey
Interpersonal trust in Social Cohesion
Relational
V-Dem — Varieties of Democracy
Polarisation index, Liberal Democracy Index, Civil Society score
Relational
Reuters Institute Digital News Report
News trust (% trust most news)
Relational
RSF — Press Freedom Index
Press freedom (converted: 100 − note score)
Relational
International IDEA — Voter Turnout Database
Voter turnout in Civic Participation
Relational
OECD / Gallup — Democracy Satisfaction
Democracy satisfaction in Civic Participation
Relational
About
Why the Trust Gap?
Most national indices measure either institutions or sentiment. We measure both — and the distance between them. That distance is the signal.
Reports, comparison data, and briefings available on request
The problem we're solving
Nations can have highly functional institutions and deeply mistrustful citizens. Standard indices capture one dimension at a time — governance scores, democracy rankings, press freedom indices. None cross-reference institutional capacity with public legitimacy to produce a single diagnostic picture.
The Trust Gap was designed to fill that space. The headline finding is never just a score — it is the distance between what a state can do and what its citizens believe it will do. That distance is where fragility lives, and where the most important policy questions sit.
The framework is built on primary international data, explicit formulas, and full audit trails. Every number is traceable. Every adjustment is documented. Across 90 countries now scored, only two hold Stable Democracy classification, and the average Trust Gap across the combined dataset exceeds 17 points.
Design principles
📐
Formula-first
Every score derives from an explicit, published formula. No black boxes, no analyst discretion outside defined parameters.
🔍
Source-pinned
Every metric is tied to a named primary source, a specific indicator, and a data year. Reproducible by design.
⚖️
Transparent adjustments
Where adjustments are applied, every one is documented with its rationale, magnitude, and source citation.
🔄
Version-controlled
Framework changes are tracked by version. Historical scores remain valid under the version that produced them.
The three tiers
The framework is designed in three tiers. Version 2.1 publishes Tier 1. Tiers 2 and 3 are in development.
Tier 1 — Published
Trust Health
Measures the internal legitimacy of a state. How well do institutions function, and how much do citizens trust them? Produces a Structural Score, Relational Score, Trust Gap, and Quadrant classification. Covers all 90 countries in the current dataset.
Tier 2 — Published
Strategic Position
Measures a state's relationship with the external world. How much influence does it project versus absorb? Produces a Power Score, Exposure Score, and Net Strategic Position. Covers military capability, economic scale, soft power, diplomatic reach, trade dependence, and geopolitical vulnerability. Available in custom briefings.
Tier 3 — Published
Resilience Band
Synthesises Tier 1 and Tier 2 into a single diagnostic output. How durable is this country when external pressure meets internal stress? Produces one of six Resilience Band classifications — from High Resilience to Systemically Vulnerable. Available in custom briefings.
Version history
V2.1
May 2026 — first published version. G20 and EU Trust Health datasets released. 90 countries scored. V2.1 covers Tier 1 only — Tier 2 (Strategic Position) and Tier 3 (Resilience Band) are in development and will be published in a future release.
V2.0
March 2026 — internal development. Trust Gap established as the headline output. Authoritarian Context Protocol codified. Tier 2 and Tier 3 methodology developed but not published. UK used as a full worked example across all three tiers.
V1.0
2025 — internal development. Framework architecture built and tested. Trust Health methodology established across eight sub-indicators and 24 metrics. G8 countries used as the calibration cohort. No public release.
Who it's for
The Trust Health index speaks to domestic policymakers, civil society organisations, reform advocates, researchers, and anyone who needs to understand the internal legitimacy of a state over time.
Tier 2 (Strategic Position) and Tier 3 (Resilience Band) are in development and will extend the framework to cover foreign policy analysis, strategic investment, and long-term institutional planning.
Local Council Monitor · England · May 2026
Local Council Monitor · England · May 2026 Baseline
What councils deliver. Whether residents trust them.
A structured, repeatable framework measuring the governance performance of English local authorities — scored against confirmed statutory data, attributed to the controlling administration, and built to track change over time.
Council reports, regional briefings, and political comparison data available on request
Previous administration record · All 318 councils
Council Scorecard
Region:
Show:
Type:
⚲
318 councils shown
Yellow = changed administration · Blue = county (Sub-1+Sub-6 only)
Council
Type
Outgoing party
Incoming party
Financial
Services
LGO
Composite
Detail
All scores attributed to the outgoing controlling party — this is their governance record.
Composite = average of Sub-1 (Financial), Sub-2 (Services), Sub-6 (LGO Ombudsman).
22 county councils: Sub-1 + Sub-6 only — Sub-2 county methodology in development.
13 metrics from statutory sources. Zero estimates.
Primary performance comparison: October 2027 (Month 18 post-election).
Sources: DLUHC Revenue Outturn 2024-25 · PSAA March 2026 · DLUHC Waste 2024-25 ·
PINS Q3 2025 · DLUHC HDT 2023 · LGO Annual Review 2024-25.
Confirmed · 296 councils
Sub-1 Financial: S114 status · budget variance · reserves · audit opinion — DLUHC Revenue Outturn 2024-25, PSAA March 2026.
Sub-1 Financial & Sub-6 LGO confirmed for all 22 county councils using the same statutory sources.
Sub-2 Services not yet scored for county councils. Their core functions (adult social care, children's services, highways) require a different methodology. In development.
No composite score until Sub-2 is resolved.
Further analysis
The scorecard is the start
The public data shows what councils deliver against confirmed statutory sources. For councils, researchers, journalists, and organisations that need to go deeper, further analysis is available on request.
Council reports
Governance analysis for specific councils. What the scores reveal indicator by indicator, how the council compares to its peer group, and the precise baseline the current administration has inherited.
Political comparison
How incoming administrations compare to the governance record they inherited. Reform UK's baseline across 11 councils. Green and Lib Dem gains in context. Trend analysis from October 2027.
Regional briefings
All councils in a region compared and ranked. Peer group benchmarking. Finance officer and monitoring officer-ready briefings for councils wanting to understand where they stand relative to comparable authorities.
Request a report or briefing
Tell us which council, region, or question you need answered. We'll confirm what's available and the turnaround.
Local Council Monitor · England · May 2026
Framework
The scoring methodology
Local Council Monitor uses a structured, repeatable framework scored entirely against statutory and independently published sources. No surveys. No estimates. No adjustments for context.
Council reports, regional briefings, and political comparison data available on request
Two pillars. One gap.
Every council receives a Structural Score measuring what it delivers — financial governance, service performance, and accountability — and a Relational Score measuring how residents experience it. The Trust Gap is the distance between the two. In V1.0, only the structural pillar is scored from confirmed statutory sources.
Sub-indicator 1
Financial Governance
Four equally weighted metrics. Financial failure is the clearest leading indicator of council collapse and is measurable before it becomes a crisis.
1.1 Section 114 status — Formal declaration the council cannot balance its budget. Scored 0–100. Source: DLUHC
1.2 In-year budget variance — Overspend or underspend as % of net revenue budget. Source: DLUHC Revenue Outturn 2024-25
1.3 General fund reserves — Usable reserves as % of net revenue budget. Ring-fenced funds excluded. Source: DLUHC Revenue Outturn
Scored for London boroughs, metropolitan boroughs, unitary authorities, and district councils. County councils — whose service functions differ — are scored separately when methodology is confirmed.
2.1 Waste & recycling — Recycling rate and missed bin collection rate. Source: DLUHC Waste Statistics 2024-25
2.2 Planning performance — Major applications within 13 weeks and appeal overturn rate. Source: DLUHC Planning Stats, PINS Q3 2025
2.3 Housing delivery — Housing Delivery Test result: homes delivered vs local plan requirement. Source: DLUHC HDT 2023
Sub-indicator 6
LGO Ombudsman Signal
The most independently verified sub-indicator. LGO decisions represent external adjudication that councils cannot influence. Source: LGO Annual Review Letters 2024-25.
6.1 Upheld complaint rate — % of investigated complaints upheld. National average ~57%. Below 40% = full marks
6.2 Remedy compliance — % of upheld complaints where council complied with LGO remedy. Non-compliance is a critical signal
6.3 Complaint volume — Complaints reaching LGO per 100,000 population with year-on-year trend adjustment
Score labels
What the numbers mean
All scores are absolute — benchmarked against fixed thresholds, not relative to other councils. A score of 75 means the same thing whether 10 or 300 councils are being scored.
Range
Label
80–100
Exceptional
70–79
Strong
60–69
Moderate
50–59
Weak
40–49
Critical
Below 40
Fragile
Binding rules
Non-publication penalty
Where a council fails to publish data it is required or expected to publish, the absence is scored at the lowest band. Non-publication is a transparency failure, not a data gap.
Administration-aware scoring
Scores reflect the performance of the outgoing controlling party. Historical failures under previous administrations are captured in the benchmark record but do not affect the current score.
Absolute scaling
All metrics use fixed benchmarks. Scores are not adjusted relative to other councils. A score of 60 means the same thing regardless of dataset composition.
Honeymoon caveat
For councils that changed administration in May 2026, relational scores in the first four quarterly runs are flagged as potentially inflated. Primary performance comparison: October 2027.
There is no rigorous, independent, repeatable framework for measuring what English councils actually do once they are in control. Local Council Monitor fills that gap.
Council reports, regional briefings, and political comparison data available on request
The problem it solves
Local election analysis in the UK focuses almost entirely on vote share and seat counts. A party can gain councils on a national protest vote and govern them badly. A party can inherit a financial crisis and turn it around. Neither story is told by vote share alone.
Local Council Monitor tells both stories with evidence — scored against confirmed statutory data, attributed to the controlling administration, and built to track change over time.
May 2026 is the primary baseline date. It captures the governance record of administrations going into the local elections on 7 May 2026, and establishes the before-line for administrations taking control after them.
A Trust Gap project
Local Council Monitor is built on the same two-pillar Trust Gap architecture as the national framework at trustgap.org — a Structural Score measuring what the institution delivers, and a Relational Score measuring how people experience it.
The national Trust Gap framework measures this distance across 96 countries. Local Council Monitor applies the same methodology at sub-national level, adapted entirely for local government reality.
Design principles
Equal weighting
No sub-indicator carries more weight than another. Transparency and auditability take precedence over analytical optimisation.
Absolute scaling
Every metric scored against fixed benchmarks, not relative to other councils. A score means the same thing regardless of dataset composition.
Non-publication penalty
Where a council fails to publish data it is required to publish, the absence is scored at the lowest band. Non-publication is a transparency failure.
Politically neutral
The framework measures governance outcomes, not political choices. Its purpose is to hold councils accountable to evidence rather than electoral sentiment.
Zero estimates
Every metric comes from a confirmed statutory or independently published source. Nothing is modelled or inferred.
V1.0 · May 2026
Pilot: 33 London boroughs · Scale: 318 English councils · 13 metrics confirmed · Quarterly update cycle from Q3 2026 · Primary performance comparison window: October 2027
Sample Report · Local Council Monitor · V1.0
Tower Hamlets
London Borough · Aspire (hold) · May 2026 baseline
Sub-1 score of 90 places Tower Hamlets in the top decile for London boroughs. S114 status clear, reserves above 15%, audit opinion unqualified. Full indicator-level breakdown and peer comparison in the report.
Full analysis in report
⚠Biggest Weakness — Service Delivery 43 Points Below Financial Score
The 43-point gap between financial governance and service delivery is the largest structural divergence in the London borough dataset. Peer group analysis shows comparable deprived inner-London boroughs averaging significantly higher on Sub-2.
Full analysis in report
▲Watchpoint — LGO Ombudsman Signal Warrants Monitoring
Sub-6 score of 55 reflects above-average LGO complaint volumes relative to population. Service area concentration analysis and remedy compliance trend assessment available in full report.
Full analysis in report
Full report also includes:
Peer group comparison · Political context and inherited baseline · Indicator-level breakdown · Recommendations
Contact
Get in touch
Interested in the full dataset, a country briefing, a methodology discussion, or a custom assessment? We'd like to hear from you.
Country reports
Every assessment produces a structured report with narrative, sub-indicator breakdowns, key signals, recommendations, and a full data provenance table. Available for all 43 scored countries.
Cross-group analysis
Countries across all ten groups can be compared and analysed together. We can produce comparative briefings across G20, EU, ASEAN, GCC, BRICS+, and other groups, or thematic analysis cutting across geography and classification.
Framework methodology
The full specification — methodology, formulas, source requirements, and adjustment protocols — is available for research and institutional partners.