Agenda item

To consider the report (attached).

For information: the previous regular performance reports covering the annual Corporate Plan Key Action Plan, Key Performance Indicators and Transformation Highlight Report have now been superseded by this single integrated performance report.

The Corporate Plan 2018-2023 was the authority’s key strategic planning document. A corporate specification (previously called the Key Action Plan) for each year was being delivered through operational objectives, which in turn were linked to annual Service business plans. The previous regular performance reports that had covered the annual Corporate Plan Key Action Plan, Key Performance Indicators and Transformation Highlight Report had now been superseded by this single integrated performance report.

The success of the Corporate Plan was being assessed through the achievement of a set of benefits, each measured through one or more performance indicators. This provided the Council with the opportunity to focus on what could be achieved for its customers – on how specific improvements would be addressed, opportunities exploited and better outcomes delivered. The Corporate Plan when viewed as a set of benefits maps had one map for each of the ten corporate aims. A benefit was a measurable improvement from an outcome that was perceived as an advantage, and contributed to an organisational objective(s). All benefits from individual corporate objectives connected back to four key benefits, which were:

•      K1 Improved customer value – recognising what customers’ value about our services and placing them as the heart of everything we do;

•      K2 Increased efficiency – focussing on our speed of delivery and getting things right first time;

•      K3 Increased agility – reducing red tape, simplifying how we work through joined up services; and

•      K4 Increased savings and income – delivery of resource savings and income generation, to keep Council Tax low.

The Chairman, Councillor A Patel, was concerned that data given in the Performance Report did not make sense, and/or was unclear. He asked the Committee for its feedback so that the Transformation Team could be apprised of the difficulties members had encountered in understanding this report.

P Maddock explained that under aim 2, Adults and children were supported in times of need, operational objective 2.1.3, Ensure applicant compliance, that this objective was to ensure people were receiving the right housing benefit. The onus was on the claimant to inform the Council of any change. Now officers were systematically checking individual claimants to ensure that their claims were correct.

Councillor G Mohindra asked if artificial intelligence (AI) was being used by officers. Some people did make honest errors when filling out forms. Councillor I Hadley added that AI was useful in profiling. P Maginnis replied that there was software that looked at duplicate invoices and information was checked to meet the National Fraud initiatives. However, she would ask ICT about the use of AI, and if this could provide a quicker and cheaper option to current work practices.

Councillor G Mohindra queried the interim benchmark of 50%, was this good or bad, and where was this figure now. Councillor A Patel said that the figure given was for the end of September 2018. However, if this Committee’s meetings were brought forward to October in the meeting cycle for the overview and scrutiny committees, this would help. P Maddock agreed that members were always looking at financial data that was almost two months out of date. All new claims would be subject to operational objective 2.1.2, Transition of new claims to Universal Credit. This action would be replaced by a new action, which would not be known until March 2019.

Councillor A Patel said more description and how the data was captured was needed on 2.1.3, Ensure applicant compliance. Councillor J H Whitehouse added that the description was all about the process, rather than on what was being monitored. What wasn’t working? What had been changed on a practical basis? P Maddock agreed that more work would be required on this, and that the faster benefit claims could be processed, the better for the claimant.

Councillor A Patel sought clarification of performance indicator M2.2, Number of days to process benefits claims. P Maddock replied that this was to make sure that there were sufficient resources in the right areas.

Councillor G Mohindra commented that M2.2 quarter 1 performance had not been on target because of long term sickness absences and hoped the situation had improved. Councillor I Hadley agreed other staff would be needed to keep the process going. P Maddock reported that problems with processes in quarter 2 had meant that performance had deteriorated. However, the changes implemented had brought performance closer to the target. Under ‘corrective action’ not enough detail had been given, and it was noted that it would have been useful for members to know what actions had been taken to mitigate this situation and why this had happened.

Under performance indicator M2.3, Number of compliance checks on Housing Benefit and Council Tax Support Benefit, Councillor A Patel asked about the target to achieve checks on between 20% and 30% of the caseload during the year, and if the target should be increased to 30%. Councillor G Mohindra advised that this was left to the end of the municipal year as it was reviewed annually. Councillor A Lion asked about the number of compliance checks and was the delivery the right result, to which P Maddock replied 20%, i.e. a fifth of cases. It was noted that this only measured the process, but not the reality of what a meaningful measure might be.

Under aim 6, An environment where new and existing businesses thrive, the operational objective 6.2.1 Deliver Council apprenticeships scheme, had only achieved progress of 50% at the end of quarter 2. This related to the performance indicator M6.4, Number of apprenticeships within the organisation. Councillor A Patel asked about the target shown as 15 and how this had been set. P Maginnis replied that the apprenticeship percentage was a statutory figure, i.e. 2.2% of the workforce, which had meant 15 apprentices for the Council. Councillor A Patel asked what was being done for other businesses within the District and how the information was being captured, but not just for the Council. Councillor G Mohindra commented that this information might only be held by the Essex Employment and Skills Board. P Maginnis explained that an internal workstream had been needed as the Council did not have control over the numbers of apprentices in the District. It was not within the Council’s scope to help businesses take on apprentices, therefore, a target on this would not help. It could observe but not influence businesses and the Council was also not ready to extend the programme. On apprenticeships, the main cohort had been taken on annually with some higher apprentices appointed on an ad hoc basis.

Councillor G Mohindra asked how long would performance indicator M6.3, Increase of Business Rates Tax Base, last. P Maddock said that any achievement to attract more businesses into the District would increase the tax base. Councillor D Dorrell commented that there were a lot of annual targets in this performance report and the target here was £97 million. P Maddock replied that he did have monthly figures, and that this currently stood at £96.3 million.

Councillor G Mohindra questioned the 50% progress reported under operational objective 9.1.1, Implement the People Strategy Programme (year 2), and where the Council was supposed to be as the descriptions were too bland and members could not benchmark any success of the project. The original business case should have stipulated the benchmark. Councillor A Lion said that clarification on whether this project was meeting objectives was required, and if not, then how would it be brought back on track. Councillor I Hadley commented that landmarks could be used to measure progress.

Furthermore, the lengthy description given for P106, People Strategy Programme, was just a lot of jargon that needed to be simplified. P Maginnis replied that this description had been lifted straight from the People Strategy project. The project measured performance indicators M9.1, Workforce operational cost savings, and M9.3, Increased flexible workforce. M9.3 was a ‘loose’ link to job descriptions, which numbered between 600 to 700 in the Council. The Council wanted to achieve more flexibility within the workforce rather than to have restrictive job descriptions for individual officers. It was noted that the Service Directors had one generic job role. The 60% target given was confusing and Councillor A Patel asked if this was a one-off measure. Councillor P Stalker referred to overtime payments for people if work needed to be done, also it would be difficult to measure over a period of time but was a snapshot. P Maginnis asked members to contact her directly if they had any further queries on this section.

Councillor A Patel asked how the measurement of relevant skills was achieved under M9.3. P Maginnis said that a recent skills audit of staff had been in relation to officers’ management capabilities, and if they were the ‘right’ skills. This was part of the work on the pay and development review so that career paths and gradings would become clearer once implemented.

It was recommended that more frequent measures be given, rather than annually, for performance indicators, M9.1, M9.2 and M9.3.

Performance indicator M9.4, Staff satisfaction survey, would go live in 2019/20 after an initial survey of data had taken place. Data being collected as a baseline for 2018/19 would be used for performance reporting from 2019/20. This would be supplied as a percentage.

It was noted that performance indicator M9.5 Employee relations cases encompassed sickness absence, conduct and disciplinary cases.

On M9.6, Delivery of Technology Strategy, Councillor I Hadley asked why 18 new projects had been added in quarter 2, which had reduced the percentage completion. More information was required because the description was meaningless in its current form.

P Maddock advised that under operational objective 10.1.1, Review the Medium Term Financial Strategy, this would be reviewed by the Finance and Performance Management Cabinet Committee in January 2019, not February as stated, and Cabinet in February 2019. This also showed an annual update, but members could have a verbal update in January/February 2019 for quarter 3, which was agreed.

It was noted that in relation to performance indicator M10.2, Annual Council Tax Collection, the Council did still collect Council Tax after the end of the year, as more people were paying over 12 months rather than 10 months.

Under performance indicator M10.2, Staff desks to head ratio, Councillor A Patel queried the reason for having an annual measure in the ‘comments’ section. P Maginnis replied that she could supply a breakdown of this data. This indicator related to project P106 Service Accommodation Programme, and that the objective was to have a desk ratio of 7:10 for office moves.

Councillor I Hadley observed that for ‘back office staff’, they might require 10 desks for 10 people. Councillor A Lion asked if there would be any point in measuring people working from home, to which P Maginnis advised that that information would not be captured, as working from home was done on an ad hoc basis.

Under performance indicator M10.4, Income form commercial leases, it was noted that this covered the existing portfolio and new lease income, e.g. from the Retail Park, were added on. Councillor A Patel recommended this was done quarterly, rather than as an annual measure, and asked for a separate breakdown of the ‘current’ and ‘new’ lease measurements going forwards, which was agreed.

Under performance indicator M10.5, Income form Service Contracts, he commented that the target would have been set by whatever was within a service contract, e.g. Leisure Management Contract, yet the aim was to maximise ‘good performance’. Councillor G Mohindra queried whether this should be measured if it could not be changed.

RESOLVED:

(i)        That the Select Committee reviewed and noted the progress of the Corporate Plan Performance Report for 2018/19, Quarters 1 and 2 (outturn position), in relation to its area of responsibility;

(ii)       That the Committee had identified actions and/or suggestions, as detailed above, in its robust scrutiny of this Performance Report; and especially,

(iii)      That Democratic Services consider moving forwards the Resources Select Committee meetings within the overview and scrutiny committees’ cycle for the next municipal year. This would facilitate the scrutiny of more recent financial report data.

(iv)      That more frequent measures be provided, rather than annually, for performance indicators, M9.1, M9.2 and M9.3.

(v)       That on 10.1.1, Review the Medium Term Financial Strategy, an update would be reported in January/February 2019 for quarter 3;

(vi)      That performance indicator M10.4, Income form commercial leases, would be monitored quarterly; and

(vii)     That also on M10.4, a separate breakdown on what the ‘current’ and ‘new’ lease measurements were would be provided in future.