Agenda item

(Senior Performance Improvement Officer) To consider the attached report (FPM-013-2016/17).

The Director of Resources presented a report on the Quarter 2, Key Performance Indicators 2016/17.

The Director of Resources reported that the Council was required to make arrangements to secure continuous improvement in the way in which its functions and services were exercised, whilst having regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. As part of the duty to secure continuous improvement, a range of Key Performance Indicators (KPI) relevant to the Council’s service priorities and key objectives were adopted each year and performance against all of the KPIs were reviewed on a quarterly basis.

A set of thirty-seven KPIs had been adopted for 2016/17 in March 2016, which had been increased by one with regards to the waste recycled and waste composted KPI being split into two separate indicators to better monitor the performance.

The KPIs were important to the improvement of the Council’s services and comprise a combination of former statutory indicators and locally determined performance measures. The aim of the KPIs were to direct improvement effort towards services and the national priorities and local challenges arising from the social, economic and environmental context of the district.

Progress in respect to all of the KPIs was reviewed by Management Board and Overview and Scrutiny at the conclusion of each quarter, along with service directors reviewing the KPI performance with the relevant portfolio holder(s) on an on-going basis throughout the year. Furthermore, the four Select Committees were each responsible for the review of quarterly performance against specific KPIs within their areas of responsibility as well.

The position with regard to the achievement of target performance for the KPIs at the end of quarter 2 (30 September 2016), was as follows:

(a)                       28 (76%) indicators had achieved target;

(b)                       9 (24%) indicators had not achieve target, although 2 (22%) of these indicators had performed within the agreed tolerance for the indicator; and

(c)                       31 (84%) of indicators were currently anticipated to achieve year-end target with a further 4 (11%) that were uncertain whether they would achieve year-end target.

The Director of Resources advised that he was confident the 3 KPIs within Resources that were amber and red would achieve their year-end target. The Committee was asked to note the second quarter in relation to the KPIs for 2016/17.

Councillor W Breare-Hall advised that there had been a real effort within the Neighbourhoods Directorate to improve and achieve the targets. He advised that KPI - NEI001 (Non-recycled waste) and KPI- NEI013 (Waste recycled) were not likely to achieve their year-end target and these KPI were being revised to better reflect the results.

Councillor A Lion stated that it appeared fly tipping within the District had recently increased and that it could be possible the closure of DYI and construction waste to residents at the Recycle Centres within the District was already having an impact. Councillor W Breare-Hall advised that Essex County Council’s decision was being monitored by both the Council and themselves with the decision being reviewed in 3 months time.

Resolved:

(1)        That the Quarter 2 Performance for Key Performance Indicators adopted for 2016/17 be noted; and

(2)        That there were no Key Performance Indicators for 2016/17 identified that required in-depth scrutiny or further reporting on performance.

Reasons for Decision:

The KPIs provide an opportunity for the Council to focus attention on how specific areas for improvement would be addressed, and how opportunities would be exploited and better outcomes delivered. It was important that relevant performance management processes were in place to review and monitor performance against the key objectives, to ensure their continued achievability and relevance, and to identify proposals for appropriate corrective action in areas of slippage or under performance.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

No other options were appropriate in this respect. Failure to review and monitor performance could mean that opportunities for improvement were lost and might have negative implications for judgements made about the progress of the Council.