Agenda item

Purpose:

1. To report quarter 1 progress against the key accountable measures and activities for West Berkshire Council for 2011/12.
2. To report by exception those measures / activities not achieved / expected to be achieved and cite remedial action that is being taken.

Note: Councillor Emma Webster joined the meeting.

Jason Teal (Performance, Research and Consultation Manager) introduced agenda Item 8, Key accountable measures and activities 2011/12 – Update on progress: Q1 outturns.  The report covered data up to the end of June 2011 and was submitted to the Executive on the 8^th September 2011.   This was a new look report with new information.  The report consisted of 39 key measures or activities that had been drawn from individual service plans and focussed on those measures of particular importance / significance to the work of the Council as a whole.  Within the 39 measures, 8 were assessed at a single point in time within the year these were currently coded in blue.  Of the remaining 31 measures reported at the end of June, 28 were green, 2 amber and one had no data available as yet.

The 2 amber measures reported were:

• Children in Care – Core assessments conducted within 35 working days;
• Housing – High priority housing grants approved within 9 weeks of receipt of full grant application.

Councillor Brian Bedwell welcomed the much more sensible approach of using fewer measures than the 109 reported within the previous year.  He thought the report was much more suitable and easier for both officers to produce and Members to use.

Councillor Tony Vickers enquired who had determined which measures were to be used and how had the targets been derived or justified. Some of the RAG judgements made in Q1 performance report he had caused to doubt the validity of their assessment.  For example – Planning – The adoption of the Local Development Framework’s Core Strategy by March 2012 and Planning applications determined within Government guidelines appeared to be well below target.  Similarly Planning appeals upheld at 40% achievement was failing against the national average target of 35%. He was of the opinion that all of these targets should carry an amber or possibly a red assessment. 

Jason Teal explained that the RAG assessment was based on the projected year end performance at 31 March 2012.  Some measures had profiled targets for each quarter and the RAG assessment was based on the Q1 achievement against the profiled target for Q1.

Councillor Tony Vickers referred to the definition of amber on page 18 of the report: ‘Amber means we are behind schedule, but still expect to achieve or complete the measure / activity by year end’

Jason Teal commented that the measures that Councillor Vickers was referring to were assessed green as the Q1 profiled target had been met.

Councillor Anthony Stansfeld (portfolio holder for performance) shared Councillor Vicker’s concern and commented that some measures were not linear. A performance plan had been profiled for such measures and the Q1 assessment was based on the performance against the profiled target for that quarter.

Councillor Dominic Boeck commented that shadow portfolio holders had access to the detailed information behind the measures being reported and were given the opportunity to questions heads of service on the performance measures that officers had reported.

Councillor Brian Bedwell agreed with Councillor Vickers that it would be appropriate to call Planning Officers to attend the next OSMC meeting to enable more detailed scrutiny of the Planning performance to take place.

Councillor Alan Macro commented on Planning – determining minor applications – 25% within 8 weeks and an achievement of just 2% in Q1 looked suspect even against a very low profiled target.

Councillor David Rendel agreed that profiled targets needed to be questioned and highlighted the following measures:

• Page 21: Supporting schools and young people – young people 16-19 who are NEET;
• Page 22: Planning – The proportion of planning appeals which are upheld compared to the national average;
• Page 23: Customer Focus – proportion of customers rating Contact Centre customer care as ‘good’ or ‘excellent’

All of these measures Councillor Rendel regarded as Amber not green.

Councillor Dominic Boeck commented that it was important for Members to understand that the targets set for the performance measures were demanding and were intended to stretch achievement over time.

Councillor Marcus Franks referred Members to Page 23 Culture – Number of visits to cultural venues supported by WBC, this measure was reported with a Q1 performance of 399,742 against a year end target of 1,500,000 visits.  This was assessed correctly as green but with the very recent closure of the museum the year end target may now be in doubt and he asked that officers should provide more explanation in the supporting commentary.

Councillor Brian Bedwell confirmed that Members would like to see more use made of the supporting commentary and asked Jason Teal to take that request away as an action.

Councillor Alan Macro looked at two measures under Page 20: Children in Care – ‘Core assessments conducted within 35 working days’ and ‘The level of commissioned early intervention services in CYP Directorate’, he thought that they both needed an aggressive action plan and a written supporting commentary.

Councillor David Rendel challenged the definition of amber as written on page 18.  It needed revision and a clearer definition.  He agreed with Councillor Boeck that targets should be stretching performance but questioned why 13 of the measures set for 2011/12 had easier targets than in 2010/11.  He understood why the performance measures had been taken from service plans as there was no Council Plan available.  He questioned why the OSMC had had no voice or opportunity in scrutinising the selection of service plan measures and the setting of targets. He was of the opinion that the Executive and Officers action to reduce the number of measures from 109 to 39 was far too drastic. 

For example, there was significant public concern over crime in West Berkshire but the number of measures had been reduced from 7 to 1.  The measure chosen was the ‘number of young people entering the Youth Justice System’.

Public concern regarded the number of house burglaries to be too high and to be much more important to West Berkshire residents. He questioned why only 3 of the 28 red measures in 2010/11 had been carried over into 2011/12.  This seemed a low proportion if the objective was to use challenging targets.

Finally, Page 20: Housing – Peoplepresenting as homeless who are prevented from being homeless an achievement of 85% appeared to be a suspicious figure.

Councillor Anthony Stansfeld responded to Councillor Rendel concern over crime measures.  The Safer Communities Partnership group review all the crime measures in detail.  The number of house burglaries that had been reported in West Berkshire had fallen in 2011/12 and was within target. He encouraged all shadow portfolio holders to look at performance data in more detail and discuss any concerns with heads of service.

Councillor Emma Webster commented it was important to select targets that the Council had direct control over.  Crime targets were heavily dependent upon the performance of the police and crime targets continued to be measured and reported in partnership through the Safer Communities Partnership group. It was important that the Council performance measures based on the service delivery plans were selected and set with stretching targets.  It was realistic however, for some measures, to set lower targets for example where resources had been reduced or the measure was based on a smaller sample size or pool of activity.  Councillor Webster supported the action to bring Planning Officers to the next meeting of OSMC.

Several Members added their comments that the definition of amber on page 18 of the report need reworking and Jason Teal was asked to produce a clearer definition in his next report.

Councillors Vickers and Rendel re-iterated the need for OSMC to have the opportunity to scrutinise and influence both the selection of performance measures / activities and the setting of targets in the future.

Councillor Anthony Stansfeld reminded shadow portfolio holders that should they have any concerns on performance data that they did have access to more detailed performance information and they should ask heads of service to provide better commentaries where they thought it was necessary.  He reminded all Members that with regard to the selection and setting of performance measures this process always took place each year in the April / May time period. 

Councillor Brian Bedwell drew the debate to a close and thanked both Councillor Anthony Stansfeld and Jason Teal for their efforts. He requested that a meeting be set up between the chair and vice chair of the OSMC and the Council’s performance portfolio holder and performance officer to follow up on the recommendations and concerns raised by OSMC.

RESOLVED that:

1. Jason Teal was requested to produce a clearer definition of the amber status in his next performance report that addressed the issues raised by OSMC;
2. Heads of Service and performance officers were encouraged to make greater use of the supporting commentary;
3. Planning Officers to be called to the next meeting of the OSMC on Tuesday 1^st November to be questioned on planning performance;
4. A meeting to be scheduled between Jason Teal, Councillor Anthony Stansfeld with Councillors Brian Bedwell and Jeff Brooks to take place before the next OSMC meeting on 1^st November 2011.