A new Quarterly Assurance Report (QAR) has been introduced for routine consideration by Cabinet as a mechanism to support good governance. The QAR is focused on the latest available position in relation to performance indicators (Q1 2023/24 or where latest data is available until August 23) and the corporate risk register. Audit and Workforce insights are also included.

 

The first QAR was considered by Cabinet on 25^th October 2023 and is now shared with the Corporate Overview & Scrutiny Panel for scrutiny to support good governance.

 

The Panel are invited to consider whether there may be areas that would benefit from further scrutiny and analysis, as part of the Panel’s forward work programme.

Stephen Evans, Chief Executive, said that a number of measures had been put in place to improve governance, performance and risk management, with the data related to Quarter 1 of the financial year which was April to July. The report would be considered by the Executive Leadership Team and Cabinet on a quarterly basis and the Panel would have the opportunity to scrutinise the report going forward. The key performance indicators and metrics were in an interim position as work was currently being done on the creation of a new Corporate Plan which would be finalised in 2024 and would include new priorities of the administration and a fresh set of goals and objectives. The government had also been strengthening local government oversight and had set up the Office for Local Government, this compared council performance on finances, waste and adult social care. These indicators would be built into the performance reporting already undertaken by the council.

 

A traffic light system was used to demonstrate performance in the Quarterly Assurance Report. Overall, performance was good with notable successes but there were some challenges. 24 indicators were green, 6 were amber and 7 were red.

 

Councillor Price noted the quality and depth which the report covered. She asked how data fed into the Citizens Portal, which was where residents could currently review the live council performance.

 

Stephen Evans said that a number of teams fed data to the performance and strategy team, who could then collate the data into the report. He would provide an answer after the meeting on the relationship with the Citizens Portal.

 

ACTION – Stephen Evans to provide an answer on the relationship of the data between the Citizens Portal and the Quarterly Assurance Report.

 

Councillor Wilson felt the report was fantastic and welcomed the report being considered by the Panel. He had been interested in exploring a topic around staffing and headcount, particularly how many roles there were across the organisation. He suggested that a headcount or a resource summary with some detail could be provided in future reports.

 

Stephen Evans said that he was concerned about some of the capacity gaps, this was being worked on through the budget process. Growth was being explored in service areas where there had been high demand. Service areas were encouraged to put their capacity gaps on the table during budget sessions so that this could be investigated.

 

Nikki Craig, Assistant Director of HR, Corporate Projects and IT, said that the data came from iTrent from was the council’s HR system. This did not include agency staff but this could gained from a different system under the finance team. Nikki Craig would explore whether this could be added in to give a more complete picture.

 

ACTION – Nikki Craig to explore if agency staff could be included in the full headcount for future Quarterly Assurance Reports.

 

Stephen Evans said that there were a number of reasons why agency staff were used across different service areas. It could be difficult to recruit permanent staff and it was a competitive market with other authorities often able to pay more for specialist roles.

 

Councillor J Tisi felt that the Quarterly Assurance Report was a positive step forward. He asked about key performance indicators on the cross-cutting performance scorecard and how these had come about.

 

Stephen Evans said that the council had statutory requirements to respond to things like Freedom of Information requests and complaints, these were included so that the Panel could see how the council was performing in these areas.

 

Elizabeth Griffiths, Executive Director of Resources, explained that the financial indicators were explored in more detail in the budget monitoring report. Financial information had been included in the Quarterly Assurance Report originally but this had been changed to have a separate report.

 

Councillor J Tisi highlighted the risks which had been considered to be key in each service area and how many high risks there were. He asked how these risks selected had been selected.

 

Stephen Evans said that each service directorate had a risk register, a detailed process had been undertaken in January 2023 to refresh which were classed as key risks and there were plans for this to take place again in early 2024. Risks were considered on the likelihood of occurring and were considered to be a significant concern to the authority.

 

Councillor J Tisi commented on the performance summary table, which showed the number of metrics which were rated as green, amber and red. He asked where each metric was listed in the report as this was unclear.

 

Stephen Evans said that these metrics were highlighted under each service directorate, the table at the start of the report provided an overall summary of performance.

 

Councillor Hunt said that she was concerned about Education Health and Care Plan assessments. There was a backlog of cases and Councillor Hunt was aware of cases where the assessment had not been completed in time. Councillor Hunt suggested that there could be more scrutiny done in this area.

 

Stephen Evans responded by underlining that this was an area of strong performance, the council was at 97.8% for processing EHCPs received within two weeks. Some cases would fall outside of this target and any specific concerns about cases could be raised with the Executive Director of Children’s Services and Education.

 

Councillor Buckley asked where the data which was provided to show performance had come from.

 

Stephen Evans explained that service areas collected their data on services that were delivered or commissioned.

 

Lin Ferguson, Executive Director of Children’s Services and Education, said that children’s services collected a significant amount of data as it was highly regulated. A monthly performance board took place where all Key Performance Indicators were examined.

 

Kevin McDaniel, Executive Director of Adult Social Care and Health, said that a lot of data came through the case management system. Survey responses were also used and the healthcare system called Connected Care.

 

Andrew Durrant, Executive Director of Place, added that a lot of the data in his directorate was from contractors and partners. It was important to ensure that data was quality tested.

 

Elizabeth Griffiths, Executive Director of Resources, said that from her perspective data was system driven and statistical in nature.

 

Councillor Buckley suggested that data should be tested at all times to make sure it was robust and accurate, particularly as this would form a basis for the new Corporate Plan.

 

Stephen Evans said that residents would flag to officers where things were not going well, as would Councillors. This data on service quality could then be triangulated and investigated.

 

Councillor Buckley asked if there was a system in place to make reports to the council if there were concerns about delivery and performance.

 

Andrew Durrant said that the ‘report it’ tool was the main way in which residents could report issues to the council. Work was being done to improve the system and its functionality.

 

Kevin McDaniel said that there were a number of front door services in adults social care, these teams would be able to receive feedback and escalate issues if necessary.

 

Councillor Reeves passed on his appreciation to the officers present at the meeting and their teams who had worked hard on producing the report for the Panel. He noted that there were four performance indicators in adult social care which had been highlighted as red but there were only three medium risk indicators.

 

Kevin McDaniel said that the Public Health team were looking into some of these indicators with the provider to understand if it was the delivery of the service or the engagement of users of the service. The number of permanent staff being at 72% was off target and was deemed to be a medium risk, as agency staff were being recruited. The final red target was the number of residents aged 65+ who were still at home 91 days after being discharged from hospital. The model of the service had changed and therefore this group was much smaller, Kevin McDaniel had expected this to rise. In future reports, the new service data would be included to provide an accurate picture.

 

Councillor Reeves asked how the council were attracting and retaining permanent staff. He asked if things like training programmes would be explored to make staff feel valued and that there was a provision of social housing for staff to live.

 

Kevin McDaniel explained that adult social care was delivered on behalf of the council through Optalis. Plans were being explored on whether staff could be brought back on the local government pension scheme but this would impact on budget. Optalis worked hard on culture and training but there was a significant local issue on attracting permanent staff. An individual living in the borough had the choice of nine local authorities within a 40 minute drive.

 

Stephen Evans said that the culture of the organisation was crucial and new organisational values had been brought through at RBWM. Flexible working, an employee benefits platform, apprenticeship schemes and training were all offered as part of the package of working for the council.

 

Councillor Reeves commented on the risk of a lack of permanent staff was being offset with agency staff. In his view, this was a high risk due to the increased cost, particularly with the financial situation of the council and its impact on non-essential services. He asked for this to be taken into consideration. On the number of residents aged 65 and over data which was currently red, Councillor Reeves asked if officers thought that tallying the data with the new delivery model would make this indicator turn green for future reports.

 

Kevin McDaniel was unable to be certain currently but the indications from Home First had been positive.

 

Councillor Reeves noted a line in the report on risks, where some risks were deemed to be so low that they would not be referenced. He asked if these risks were categorised as low or if they did not even appear in the report.

 

Stephen Evans explained that some risks were time limited, for example planning for an election. The risk register was a live document and risks could be added and removed each year.

 

Councillor Reeves moved on to consider the rate of recycling and that data could not be provided due to staff shortages. He questioned how this goal could be monitored effectively and regarded as on target without the latest data.

 

Andrew Durrant said that there had been difficulties in preparing the data for this report. RBWM had usually been ahead of target on recycling and there had been a spike when the move had been made to the current collection cycle. Further information had been provided by contractors for the waste service.

 

Alysse Strachan, Assistant Director of Neighbourhood Services, added that the contractor had a good feel for the service and so assurance could be given on targets without the data being inputted into the system.

 

Councillor Reeves noted the promotional campaign on recycling but this had not been rolled out due to staff shortages.

 

Alysse Strachan said that the resourcing was being used effectively and gaps in the service area would be part of the budget discussion. Talks had taken place with partners and a financial contribution had been agreed on a food waste campaign.

 

Councillor Reeves suggested that this should be included in the next Quarterly Assurance Report.

 

Councillor Price commented on the staff turnover, which was regarded as on target but turnover was higher than the target set. On residential care packages, Councillor Price suggested that a long term contract could bring the price down. Households in temporary accommodation were mentioned in the report but there was nothing on rough sleepers. Those in temporary accommodation also needed to be near their support services and more detail would be useful in this area to supplement the data. Councillor Price said that Councillors would be informed of risks where they were the risk owner but she did not understand what this meant. A review of the risk register had taken place by officers in January 2023, but Councillor Price did not believe that this fed into the budget which was approved in February 2023.

 

Stephen Evans commented on the staff turnover and said the target was 12.9% and the current figure was 6.4% so this was within the target.

 

Kevin McDaniel said that there was an increased number of residents who would put themselves in a care home, being unable to pay for the care and then asking for help from the council.

 

Andrew Durrant agreed that there was a difference between quantitative and qualitive data for housing, behind each case there was a family story and context. There were limitations on housing stock and this meant it was challenging for families to be housed in their preferred location. There was also pressure on providing support for asylum seekers. This piece of work was being considered to understand how it needed to be taken forward.

 

Councillor Price questioned whether a different metric needed to be used, rather than just the number of people in temporary accommodation.

 

Andrew Durrant said that the team looked at a wide range of data when making strategic decisions. It could be something for the Place Overview and Scrutiny Panel to look at in further detail.

 

Stephen Evans said that more asylum seeker applications were being processed by the government and the council had seen more asylum seekers requesting support. This had been included as a key risk and would be a challenge for all local authorities.

 

ACTION – Answer to Councillor Price’s question on Councillors being informed of risks where they were the risk owner would be shared with the Panel after the meeting.

 

Elizabeth Griffiths said that the officers that were involved in considering risks to service areas and improving performance were the same officers that were feeding into the budget process.

 

Councillor Howard asked if more emphasis could be given on the qualitative data to improve outcomes. He asked where and how the key performance indicators were set.

 

Stephen Evans said that some targets were outdated, for example the amount of time it took to answer calls. It could be more useful to judge the number of repeat calls which would evidence improvement.

 

Kevin McDaniel added that there was a quality assurance framework which was built on internal auditing. The targets were set based on benchmarking with external providers and partners.

 

Lin Ferguson said that managers regularly took part in case auditing, managers took part in practise weeks, learning plans were drafted, a performance board met monthly and benchmarking took place against south east local authorities.

 

Councillor Howard wanted to see a quality outcome at the end and that these were celebrated when they were achieved, so it was clear where the council had been exceeding expectations.

 

Councillor Sharpe noted that the measures had been picked by council officers rather than the new Office for Local Government, only 18 of the metrics matched up. He wanted to ensure that the metrics could be relatable to residents, for example did a green performance rating mean that residents felt they were getting a quality service. Councillor Sharpe asked if officers felt the council was in a good position or a poor position.

 

Stephen Evans said that the Office for Local Government was relatively new and he felt that the government did have a right to scrutinise local government. The council was reporting against a wider side of priorities and the local government sector needed to work with the Office for Local Government. These metrics were being captured in the council’s performance reporting. It was useful to discuss the Quarterly Assurance Report with the Panel.

 

Councillor Sharpe said it was useful to understand how RBWM compared to other local authorities and that the metrics used could be easily compared.

 

Stephen Evans explained that a number of metrics were based on statutory targets and the timescales were set in law. The council needed to produce the latest performance data to ensure that both officers and Councillors were satisfied with the performance overall. Stephen Evans added that across the 10 indicators, on 8 of them RBWM was performing better than the national median. The financial indicators showed RBWM being lower on most of the indicators. The local government sector was under severe financial pressure and more councils were on the brink of failure, this needed action from both national and local government.

 

Lin Ferguson said that all children’s services produced impact reports and a ‘distance travelled’ tool could be used to show positive outcomes for children in care. The qualitative angle was important and additional measures could be explored to further show this.

 

Councillor Wilson had read that nationally the target set on recycling was 65% by 2035 and 55% by 2025. He asked if this could be added into the RBWM target in this area. Councillor Wilson asked if there was a metric measuring the performance of grounds maintenance contractors.

 

Alysse Strachan said that there were metrics that were part of the Tivoli contract but these had not been included in the Quarterly Assurance Report. This could be shared with the Panel and added to future reports if appropriate.

 

ACTION – Alysse Strachan to share key performance metrics on Tivoli with the Panel.

 

Councillor J Tisi suggested that when exploring the costs for certain service areas, for example adult social care, whether key performance indicators could be considered.

 

Kevin McDaniel said that there was an extensive set of data which could be used, he was happy to share this.

 

ACTION – Kevin McDaniel to share data on how costs in adult social care informed key performance indicators.

 

Councillor Reeves asked if the Homelessness and Rough Sleeper Strategy was for 18-23 year olds or whether was from 2018 to 2023. Mitigations were put in place but there were no timeframes put on these. Planning strategy should address social housing and ensured that there was enough stock for those on the rough sleeper pathway. Private landowners were a higher cost and Councillor Reeves challenged this as a mitigation for providing housing which the council did not have the capacity to do.

 

Andrew Durrant said that it was a 2018 – 2023 strategy. The team were aware that this would need to be brought forward as a new refreshed strategy. He would take the points made by Councillor Reeves away from the meeting and discuss it with the Housing team.

 

The Chair summarised the discussion and some of the key points made by the Panel. He passed on his thanks to the strategy and performance team for their work in producing the report.

 

AGREED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Panel noted the report and:

 

i)             Undertook scrutiny of the Quarterly Assurance Report and considered potential implications for the Panel’s forward work programme.