To comment on the Cabinet report.

The Head of Governance, Partnerships, Performance & Policy (Monitoring Officer) introduced the Cabinet report that recommended that Cabinet note the progress of Q1 2016 key performance indicators. 

The Panel were informed that there would be further refinement to the report and thus it should look different by Q2 reporting.  Paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2 highlighted how Portfolio Members and officers were looking to improving the Council’s performance management framework.

Of the 24 key performance indicators 42% were on target 29% were just short and 29% were off target.  With regards to the secondary targets 70% were on target or just short.  Full details were contained with appendix A and B of the report with remedial action being shown where required.

Cllr McWilliams reported that he would be taking the report to Cabinet and that he had been working with the new Strategy and Performance Manager on making the IPMR more accessible to Members and the public to see how the Council is performing.

Cllr Jones asked for it to be noted that she did not believe that Members who had a Cabinet role should be on Scrutiny Panels. Before the Panel voted on the item the clerk informed that although Cabinet Members could not be on scrutiny panels the Deputy Members and Principle Members could but it was advisable that they did not vote on items under their remit.  

Cllr Burbage raised concern about the spend on agency staff, sickness levels and the level of staff turnover.  The Panel requested that they be given more detail on staff turnover with the figure of leavers, additional explanations on these adverse trends and additional analysis split by directorate in Q1 showing how long the leavers had been employed by RBWM and that the Head of HR present at the next Panel meeting. 

Cllr Dr Evans was concerned that the table one Summary of Performance was not truly comparative over the quarters as the number and type of KPIs had changed and thus we were not comparing like for like and we did not know if the performance indicators that had been dropped had been good or poor performers.  The table for the secondary indicator was also comparing different reporting quarters and thus not a true comparison.  Cllr Dr Evans also felt that there should be less but more focused KPIs. It was requested that a revised table to prepared that analysed the same 24 PIs for both quarters. This was considered to be much more meaningful.

Cllr Quick made reference to  indicator CS78 – Number of families supported through Troubled Families.  There was concerned that the indicator was off target and that it did not show the outcomes of the support given and it was recommended that the number of families completing the programme should be added.  Cllr Burbage mentioned that there had been national concern in this area and how it should be measured. 

Cllr Quick also mentioned that the permanent exclusion from school was reporting ‘amber’ when given 19 pupils had been excluded it should report ‘red’ it was questioned why there was no commentary as to why this was not so.

The Chairman raised concern as to why None was the comment on the Intervention Required for SG40 (Child Sexual Exploitation). The Panel were informed that all those young people on the tracker were subject to personalised intervention plans, the Chairman was very concerned and felt that more needed to be done to support these highly vulnerable young people in our community.

Cllr Jones mentioned that with regards to indicator PD12 Enforcement Cases that it  was mentioned that there was a need for additional resources yet only a few months ago she had been informed that there was sufficient resources.  There was also no mention of what the case load was for the team.  The Chairman raised concern that there was an ongoing issue with Planning and officers informing residents that there was a resource issue; poor planning PIs had been reported for a number of quarters

The Chairman raised concern and was very disappointed about  KPI LE8 Grounds Maintenance Contract Performance.  Concern was raised that the contract had been awarded to the existing supplier but performance had significantly dropped,  The Panel were informed that although it was the same contractor the new contract had increased performance levels and this had been difficult for them to achieve; officers were working closely with the contractors  and performance was very slowly improving.  It was not expected that this target would be met by year end due to the poor Q1 results. Members asked officers to report on what penalties, if any, had been imposed.  It was suggested that the public or Ward Members could provide more feedback on none delivery in their local area.

Cllr Burbage raised concern about the drop of income from parking (SAMA04) and did not feel that this was all down to Windsor Coach Park as the report mentioned there had been a drop of income by 25% in one month against the target.  Simon Fletcher agreed that it was suspect that one car park would have such an impact and he would look into that quarter’s performance.

It was questioned if the installation programme for new parking payment equipment being delayed had effected Parking income and as it was perceived that on street enforcement was down was income being lost from car parks especially in Windsor in the evenings.  The mayor had made complaints concerning the lack of enforcement on the Guildhall island in the evenings.

The issue of car park cleaning was also raised and Cllr Cox replied that he had been informed today of this issue and had tasked officers to investigate.

With regards to Planning the Chairman raised concern with other Borough Panel Members regarding the poor performance of the department delivering the Local Plan on time and that it was still reporting ‘amber’. Concern was also raised that reasons given on some indicators still mentioned lack of resource and that this had been an ongoing issue for a number of years. 

For PD12 Enforcement Cases it was questioned what type of cases were delayed and how did that compare to the same period last year. Panel Members mentioned that the public were claiming to Ward Members that it was taking too long for enforcement officers to respond to reported breaches.

Cllr Dr Evans mentioned that the explanation given for LA14, library and museum income was not helpful. The Panel supported that had there been better profiling of the target it may not be shown as such an issue.

The percentage of care leavers in education, employment or training (EET) it was questioned if the data given was correct as it was showing the percentage not EET rather than the percentage who were EET. 

It was also noted that there was no comments provided for Delayed Transfers.

Resolved unanimously: that the Corporate Services O&S Panel considered the report and fully endorsed the recommendations to Cabinet (Cllr McWilliams refrained from voting due to his role as Deputy Portfolio Member).     The Panel thanked Members and officers for producing the report but Members were concerned about the indicators reporting ‘red’; particular concern was raised about:

·         CS78 – Number of families supported through Troubled Families.  The Panel were concerned that the indicator was off target and that it did not show the outcomes of the support given and it was recommended that the number of families completing the programme should be added.

·         SG40 Child Sexual Exploitation.  Although the indicator reported it was on target for Q1 there had been an increase of the number of young people on the tracker and thus concern was raised that the report showed no action being required.

·         Planning.  Concern was raised that reasons given on some indicators still mentioned lack of resource and that this had been an ongoing issue for a number of quarters.  There was also concern that the Borough Local Plan was still reporting ‘amber’.

·         LE8 Grounds Maintenance Contract Performance.  Concern was raised that the contract had been awarded to the existing supplier but performance had significantly dropped.

The Panel also discussed and raised concern about the drop of income from parking (SAMA04) and did not feel that this was all down to Windsor Coach Park, permanent exclusion from school was reporting ‘amber’ when given 19 pupils had been excluded it should report ‘red’ and percentage of care leavers in education, employment or training (EET) it was questioned is the data given was correct as it was showing the percentage not EET rather than the percentage who were EET.  It was also noted that there was no comments provided for Delayed Transfers. Members would like to have a comparison of the types and numbers of enforcement cases currently open compared to the same period last year.

The Panel also recommended that Table 2 KPIs off target should have a column added showing the initials of the Portfolio Holders and Strategic Directors responsible for the reported indicators and that the Panel would expect the Portfolio Holder and Strategic Directors to attend future Panel meetings if  performance had not improved. 

With regards to Table 3: Options, the Panel endorsed option 2 and 3 subject to seeing the new look IPMR at a future meeting.

The Chairman thanked Cllr Cox for attending the meeting to answer questions concerning his Cabinet portfolio. The Chairman was disappointed that no one from planning or the cabinet member for planning had attend the meeting to answer questions concerning their poor performance.