Agenda item

To present the Corporate Scorecard for Quarter 3 2016/17.

The report of the Head of Transformation incorporating the Corporate Scorecard which set out the Council’s position against its operational objectives as outlined and agreed collaboratively between the Senior Leadership Team/Executive and Shadow Executive at the end of Quarter 3 2016/17 was presented for the Committee's consideration.

The Programme, Business Planning and Performance Manager reported on the following matters –

•           That with regard to Performance Management, a great deal of work had been done in Quarter 3 with regard to mitigation activity and this is reflected in an improved position with the majority of indicators showing to be performing well against their targets. However, 5 indicators are underperforming as Amber or Red against their annual targets; three of these are within Adults’ Services and are outlined in section 2.1.3 of the report; one indicator in Children’s Services continues to show an underperformance from Quarter 2 details of which are given in section 2.14, and one new indicator which is now showing as Amber is from Regulation and Economic Development and is outlined in section 2.1.5. The Senior Leadership Team (SLT) recognises that these areas are underperforming and is ensuring that appropriate measures are put in place to mitigate against risks arising and to improve performance.

•           That with regard to People Management, the performance of the Council’s sickness rates at the end of Quarter 3 shows a significant improvement (7.21 days sick per FTE) when compared with last year (8.4 days sick per FTE). This indicates that the projected end of year sickness level if the past two years’ trend of higher sickness results in Qtrs.3 and 4 as opposed to Qtrs. 1 and 2 was to continue, would equate to 10.5 days per FTE. However, if the strong performance in Quarter 3 is sustained into Quarter 4, then it is likely that the target of 10 days per FTE will be met. The Authority will seek further guidance from the Wales Audit Office with regard to good practices it has identified in relation to the management of sickness levels.

•           Children’s Services have been the subject of an inspection by CSSIW and the implementation of the resulting Improvement Plan to address the recommendations made will be overseen by the Senior Leadership Team and the Children’s Panel.

•           It is proposed that the processes of collating Education/Learning indicators are evaluated in Quarter 4 and into the new financial year. Additional support to enable this to be undertaken has been provided.

The Committee considered the information presented and made the following points –

•           The Committee noted the missed targets with regard to three indicators within Adults’ Services and it questioned whether staff capacity was a factor in the underperformance. The Programme, Business Planning and Performance Manager said that the mitigating measures do not indicate that capacity is considered an issue apart from in relation to PM19 – The rate of delayed transfers of care for social care reasons per 1,000 population aged 75 or over – where a lack of capacity in the domiciliary care sector as a whole has had a negative impact on the PI. The Interim Scrutiny Manager said that she had been advised by the Head of Adults’ Services as follows –

•           Ll/118b – The percentage of carers of adults who requested an assessment or review that had an assessment or review in their own right during the year. The Service has improved the performance of this PI in Quarter 3 and is confident that the target will be met in Quarter 4. The 30 or more clients identified as requiring an assessment or review will have those completed before the end of Quarter 4.

•           PM18 – The percentage of adult protection enquiries completed within statutory timescales. This is a new indicator for 2016/17 and the target could be seen as ambitious. The Service has identified that partner agencies investigation timings are having an impact on the timescales and performance of this indicator. This matter is and will continue to be raised in the strategic group meetings between Gwynedd and Anglesey and while the target for the year is unlikely to be met, every effort will be made to get as close as possible by the end of Q4.

•           PM19 – The rate of delayed transfers of care for social care reasons per 1,000 population aged 75 or over. This is also a new indicator and an ambitious one. A transformational plan is underway to secure more domiciliary care capacity in 2017.

•           The Committee noted that the increase in demand and therefore the pressure on services is not likely to subside any time soon suggesting that it will become ever more difficult to meet challenging performance targets.

•           The Committee noted that it is recommended that underperformance by way of red or amber indicators is recognised and appropriate measures put in place for improvement to be presented on a monthly basis to the relevant portfolio holder and management board. The Committee noted a lack of clarity with regard to the proposed performance management reporting arrangements especially with regard to defining the respective roles of Scrutiny and the management boards as well as a lack of reference to Scrutiny’s input and role in securing continuous improvement. The Interim Scrutiny Manager said that following the Committee’s last meeting a discussion between Scrutiny and the Transformation Team has been instigated with a view to better aligning the work of the Transformation/Management Boards and Scrutiny. The output of this work will be reported in the new scrutiny arrangements to be implemented for the new administration in May, 2017.

•           The Committee noted with regard to Financial Management that there is overspending within individual services. The Committee further noted that there is no mechanism by way of targets for Scrutiny to monitor expenditure within individual services.

•           The Committee noted that no targets are specified for a number of performance indicators meaning there are gaps in information on the Scorecard. The Programme, Business Planning and Performance Manager said that where a PI is new, there is unlikely to be a target since there is no historical performance upon which to base a target. Also, some activities e.g. the Mystery Shopper exercise occurs at a certain time during the year i.e. in Quarter 4. However, efforts will be made to populate the Scorecard more fully by the next quarter.

•           The Committee questioned whether the targets with regard to some indicators e.g. PI 30 – the number of attendances (young people) at sports development/outreach activity programmes – are set at too low a level. The Programme, Business Planning and Performance Manager said that the target for the quarter is based on the previous year’s performance. Services are challenged to ensure that targets are realistic and achievable. In the case of PI 30 the target has been revised downwards to reflect a reduction in provision.

•           The Committee noted with regard to PI LCS/002b showing as Amber – the number of visits to local authority sport and leisure centres during the year where the visitor will be participating in physical activity – that the inability of the system to record all service users e.g. Direct Debit customers may mean that the participation figures are inaccurate leading subsequently to potentially misleading performance data. The Programme, Business Planning and Performance Manager said that the shortcoming is being addressed in the mitigation measure as set out in paragraph 2.2.5 of the report.

•           The Committee sought clarification of the Authority’s performance with regard to Council Tax collection rates relative to that of other authorities. The Head of Function (Resources) and Section 151 Officer said that the difference between the best and the poorest performing authorities with regard to in year collection rates is not great with Anglesey close to the average although its performance on older debts is lower than the average. However, the Authority could improve its sundry debtor collection rates and processes have been reviewed to that end. The collection of some debts e.g. payments for residential care placements can be delayed pending the sale of the client’s property thereby impacting on performance data.

•           The Committee noted that since the introduction of the Corporate Scorecard as a performance monitoring and evaluation tool, performance has on the whole improved. The Committee in particular welcomed the improvement in sickness absence levels and it acknowledged the commitment with which the SLT and Human Resources supported by the efforts of services have set out to address this issue. The Programme, Business Planning and Performance Manager said that PIs and associated targets are the subject of challenge by the SLT, the Executive and the Shadow Executive; this has led to a better understanding of the performance of services and a consequent emphasis on achieving targets. However, more work needs to be done in evaluating performance more holistically so if sickness levels are high or services are overspending, Members need to be able to drive down to the reasons which underlie the data.

It was resolved –

•           Subject to clarifying the respective roles of Scrutiny and the management boards (as referred to in paragraph 1.3.1 of the report) in monitoring performance and securing continuous improvement, to note and accept the areas in which the Senior Leadership Team is managing to secure improvements as set out in paragraphs 1.3.1 to 1.3.5 of the report.

•           To accept and to note the mitigation measures outlined both within the report and orally in relation to areas identified as underperforming.

ACTION ARISING: Interim Scrutiny Manager to clarify with the Programme, Business Planning and Performance Manager the respective roles of the Management Boards and Scrutiny Committee with regard to performance monitoring and continuous improvement.