To consider the report.

The Strategy and Performance Manager, Anna Robinson, introduced the Q1 2018/19 Performance Report.

The Panel were informed that in July 2017 the council adopted its new council plan with six strategic priorities detailed in paragraph 2.1 of the report.  In November 2017 Cabinet approved a new Performance Management Framework to reflect the revised plan and agreed to monitor 25 key performance measures bi-annually.

Cabinet also agreed that O&S panels would review the measures that were relevant to that panel on a quarterly basis in addition to further performance metrics.

In 2017/18 the Corporate Services O&S Panel had 15 measures in the report under their remit. Seven met or exceeded the target, four were just short of target (within tolerance) and three were below target. Details of these were in Appendix B and Table 2 of the report.

Details about the targets for 2018/19 were also detailed in Appendix A which reflected some alterations based on benchmarking and intelligence as part of a robust performance management approach. 

Of the 15 2018/19 measures due to be reported to the Panel. At the end of Q1, ten of them were on or above target, one was below target but within tolerance. Two were only reported biannually and two would not have data available until the results of the residents’ survey was reported. Details of these were in Appendix A and Table 1 of the report.

Commentary for any measures that were or continued to be off target was provided in the appendixes, as well as detail on the target setting for 18/19 where changes had been made between this year and last year as part of a robust.

The performance of calls answered in 60s was the only measure currently off target. This was reporting at 73% against a target of 80% (unchanged from last year). Whilst this was still off target the Panel were informed that this was still a significantly increased from performance of 36% at the same time last year.

Cllr Brimacombe asked if the increased performance had been down to a decrease in call volume, the nature of calls received, system improvements or improved performance.  The Panel were informed that here had been improvements to the system and performance with a change in shift patterns to help meet call volume.  There had also been a small fall in the number of calls. There was also an improvement in the number of calls resolved at first point of contact due to increased expertise moved into the service. 

Cllr Brimacombe also asked if there was also a higher percentage of agency staff in the call centre and was informed that it was the nature of call centre work that there was a higher percentage of agency staff. 

Cllr Sharma asked about staff turnover and volatility.  The Panel were informed that the turnover target had been increased from 12% to 14% after the benchmarking exercise.  Turnover was currently at 15% but was expected to be on target by year end.  At the start of the year  the headcount was 630 and at Q1 it was 621.  The authority would always have an issues with its location to London where authorities could afford to offer better pay to officers such as planners.

Cllr Quick referred to Table 2 where she said she was surprised to see residents indicating that they felt that they were not informed about the Council especially as we have the Around the Royal Borough and use of social media.  The Panel was informed that last year’s data for this was from a survey on the RBWM website as there was only 79 who took part it was not very representative.  The LGA had also informed that there was a national drop in this indicator. 

Cllr Clark asked how many measures were national indicators and how many were bespoke.  The Panel were informed that national indicators remained mainly in children’s and Adult Services whilst corporate had more bespoke indicators. 

Cllr Clark also mentioned that there were different sets of data operational data for managers and data sets that the public would be interested in regarding deliverables.

Cllr Brimacombe said that seven years ago the performance report had not been fit for purpose and it has been a long journey getting to a concise report that was accessible to the public and members.  He mentioned that local government had different reporting requirements to the private sector and that just because an indicator was ‘Red’ did not mean there was a failure but it could be that there were challenging targets. 

Cllr Brimacombe also mentioned that if a target had been met it was not always prudent to continue putting in resources to exceed the target beyond its original intention.  Putting in additional resources to exceed a target was over engineering and a waste of public resources unless there was a strategic objective to do so.

Resolved unanimously:  the Corporate Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel notes the report and:

·         Endorses the performance summarised in table 1 and appendix A.

·         Requests relevant Lead Members and Heads of Service focus effort to improve performance in the area just short of target and maintain performance in the measures meeting or exceeding target.