Agenda item

To present the Corporate Scorecard for Quarter 1 2017/18.

The Committee considered the information presented with regard to performance at the end of Quarter 1 of the new 2017/18 financial year and it made the following points –

•           The Committee noted that one new indicator within the Housing Service – PAM/015: the average number of calendar days taken to deliver a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) is showing as Red on the scorecard for Q1 having performed at 221.7 days against a target of 200. The Committee sought an explanation for the underperformance; it queried whether the target of 200 days was realistic and whether it was locally or nationally derived and it sought clarification of the Service’s performance compared with that of other local authorities in this area.

The Housing Officers said that the Disabled Facilities Grant application and delivery process can be complex involving as it does input by a number of other parties which can cause delay in the time taken from the initial contact with the Council until such time as the work has been signed off as complete. Both Housing and Social Services acknowledge that the DFG process requires review with the aim of reducing the time taken to deliver the grant. There is no single common factor in the application process that explains the delays; rather it is a combination of factors which has at its root the complexity of the process. The position with regard to other local authorities’ performance will become clear once the national data is published.

•           The Committee noted that there had been a marked decline in the percentage of Return to Work interviews held within timescale in Quarter 1 (67% against a target of 80%) and that the total RTW interviews held was low at 85% compared to a target of 95%. The Committee sought assurance that the underperformance represents a temporary reversal and does not signify the start of a downward trend.

The Chief Executive said that the performance with regard to RTW interviews at Quarter 1 was disappointing and could not be satisfactorily explained. This performance will be challenged by the Senior Leadership Team and by the performance challenge panels to ensure improvement by Quarter 2. However, whilst the downturn in the performance of RTW interviews is concerning, conversely the significant improvement in performance with regard to Attendance Review Meetings (ARM) – up from 57% in Quarter 4 2016/17 to 78% in Quarter 1 2017/18 as well as in the quality of the ARMs conducted by services – is reassuring given that Attendance Review Meetings are a significant component of the sickness absence management process.

•           The Committee noted with regard to financial management for Quarter 1 that whilst the budget was £33m, the forecasted actual expenditure was £34m with a forecasted variance of minus 29.64% at this stage. The Committee sought clarification of whether any measures were being considered to bring the position back into line.

The Head of Function (Resources) and Section 151 Officer said that the actual forecast variance is an overspend 3.47% at this stage .The profiled budget is the Service’s assessment of how the budget is likely to be spent during the year and income collected. Whilst the profiled budget works well in relation to fixed costs such as salaries for example as these can be accurately predicted, it can be skewed by some larger payments and by grants and their timing. In terms of budget monitoring, the significant outcome figure is that for the year end; the Scorecard shows that for a budget of £126m, the forecasted end of year revenue outturn is for an overspend of £2.16m or 1.71% of the net budget. Whilst the first quarter figures can provide an early indication of the possible direction of travel, the timing differences make the comparison less than perfect. The quarter 1 position represents 3 months of actual expenditure and 9 months of projected expenditure in which time many things can happen. Projections tend to be conservative; greater clarity will come with the Quarter 2 results when some projections will be strengthened by certainty. Additionally there are seasonal factors to consider with the winter months more likely to have an impact on costs particularly in relation to Highway and Social Care services and these feed into projections. The overspend is an outcome that is predicted in a context where there is no longer any safety net within individual service budgets following years of budget reductions. The issue is especially pertinent in demand led budgets such as Children’s, Education and Adults’ services where the financial pressures can be acute.

•           The Committee sought clarification of how much reliance is placed on the sale of assets in meeting the budget. The Head of Function (Resources) and Section 151 Officer said that capital receipts from the sale of assets do not feed into the revenue budget; rather they are used to fund capital projects and are factored into the capital programme or to generate cash balances which enable the Council to reduce its borrowing commitments and/or indebtedness.

•           The Committee sought clarification of how the 2017/18 Quarter 1 financial position compared with the same period for 2016/17 as a potential indicator of the scale of the financial challenge facing the Council in the current financial year. The Head of Function (Resources) and Section 151 Officer said that the 2016/17 Quarter 1 position showed an overspend of £560k against the profiled budget and the projected year end overspend was less than that for the current year. In the event, the projected overspend became an actual underspend at the end of 2016/17 due to the emergence in the year of certain one-off saving items. The current position therefore is less favourable than at the same time last year.

The Committee, having noted the general picture of the Council’s performance  against its operational objectives for Quarter 1 2017/18 as portrayed by the Q1 Corporate Scorecard, and having noted also the underperforming areas identified and the mitigating actions proposed,

RESOLVED to –

•           Note and to support the areas which the Senior Leadership Team is managing to secure improvements into the future as conveyed in paragraphs 1.3.1. to 1.3.4 of the report.

•           Note and to accept the mitigation measures outlined in relation to the areas set out in the aforementioned paragraphs.

NO ADDITIONAL ACTION WAS PROPOSED