Councillors and committees

Issue - meetings

QUARTERLY PERFORMANCE REPORT (Q4 2018/19)

Meeting: 16/12/2019 - Resources and Performance Select Committee (Item 24)

24 QUARTERLY PERFORMANCE REPORT (Q2 2019/20) pdf icon PDF 68 KB

Purpose of the report: To invite the Select Committee’s comments and suggestions in respect of the Q2 Performance Report 2019/20, regarding the format and nature of the presentation of the information, as well as any of the indicators and/or measures reported.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Witnesses:

 

Dr Zully Grant-Duff, Cabinet Member for Corporate Support

Michael Coughlin, Executive Director of Transformation, Partnerships and Prosperity

 

Key points raised during the discussion:

1. The Cabinet Member for Corporate Support highlighted the particular indicators RS 01 and RS 02 (‘satisfaction with the way the council runs things’ and ‘satisfaction that the council offers good value for money’ respectively), which had been given a target following the previous meeting. These targets were developed in comparison with other local authorities.

2. The Committee thanked the Cabinet Member for adding the targets, and queried how the surveys collecting the data operated. It was concerning that while most targets were aspirational, RS 01 and RS 02 had low or static targets. The Executive Director of Transformation, Partnerships and Prosperity explained that data was gathered using both online and telephone surveys, the latter being collected by a market research company.

3. A Member asked where approximately the council stood on customer satisfaction and value for money in comparison to other local authorities. The Cabinet Member detailed some previous figures for satisfaction from other authorities, which ranged from about 58-60% (compared with Surrey County Council’s latest result of 53%). With regards to value for money, the Cabinet Member quoted figures of around 40-44% (compared with Surrey County Council’s latest result of 35%). However, these figures were for borough councils, not county councils, so they were not directly comparable. Issues with RS 01 and RS 02 and how the data was collected could be investigated by the Customer Services Task Group.

5. A Member expressed concern about CFL 08 (‘LAC pathway plans at 16.3 years’), whose latest result was 45%, compared to a target of 95%. The current result had not changed from the previous result.

6. A Member highlighted the indicator CTE 06 (‘delivery of SFRS Safe and Well visit programme’), where the latest result was approximately double the previous result, and yet there was a cross indicating that the latest result was worse than the previous result, even though an increase in numbers for this indicator should represent positive progress.

7. A Member noted that HROD 04 (‘sickness’) might always be in flux due to the effect of seasonal changes on sickness rates. A 12-month rolling picture was suggested as an alternative measure for HROD 04.

9. A Member queried how staff would be retained during and following the relocation to Woking. The Executive Director replied that a number of staff listening and engagement events were being held, and that each service would be examined separately to find out how many staff might be leaving.

10. A Member questioned how the council’s sickness target compared to the private sector. The Executive Director responded that while he did not have comparable figures, private sector sickness rates tended to be lower than in the public sector. This information would be provided to the Select Committee.

11. The Committee highlighted that the quarterly performance reports provided to the Select Committee always seemed to be running about a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24


Meeting: 18/10/2019 - Resources and Performance Select Committee (Item 13)

13 QUARTERLY PERFORMANCE REPORT (Q1 2019/20) pdf icon PDF 115 KB

Purpose of the report: To invite the Select Committee’s comments and suggestions in respect of the Q1 Performance Report 2019/20, regarding the format and nature of the presentation of the information, as well as any of the indicators and/or measures reported.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

Witnesses:

 

Anna D’Alessandro, Director of Corporate Finance

Mr Mel Few, Cabinet Member for Finance

Dr Zully Grant-Duff, Cabinet Member for Corporate Support

Nicola Kilvington, Director of Intelligence, Analytics and Insight

 

Key points raised during the discussion:

 

  1. The Committee heard from the Director of Insight, Analytics and Intelligence, who explained that the report represented a snapshot in time and that officers were currently in the process of collecting information for Q2 but were not yet in a position to share that.
  2. Members examined in detail the service delivery measures as outlined in the Q1 performance report. Discussing indicator ASC 05, the Director of Insight, Analytics and Intelligence explained that this was a primary focus of the adult social care transformation programme. The Director of Corporate Finance added that adult social care was travelling under the trajectory of a balanced budget and there was currently no underspend being identified in the budget. Responding to a question from the Chairman about the identification of alternative ways of reaching the budget, the Director of Corporate Finance explained that all services were focusing on the transformation plan and the £82m of transformational savings that had been identified in the last budget. Each service was striving to deliver on the red risk savings. From a financial perspective, adult social care were not overspending and were focusing on the delivery of the savings they had been allocated as part of the budget.
  3. Moving to indicator ASC 07, the Director of Insight, Analytics and Intelligence explained that recently compiled data indicated that the risk would be shown as amber in the Q2 performance report. The service had undertaken a diagnostic of their direct payment performance and practice and had been putting improvements in place.
  4. The Vice-Chairman spoke about the difficulty of understanding the seriousness of issues without benchmarking figures that indicated the actual financial cost associated. In response, the Director of Insight, Analytics and Intelligence said that benchmarking information could be provided for indicator ASC 07 but that the aim was to try and keep the quarterly performance reports as concise as possible. It was agreed that the Select Committee would request information on specific indicators as and when they felt necessary.
  5. Responding to a question about the gaps in RAG ratings relating to children’s services indicators and whether ratings would be provided in the Q2 performance report, the Director of Insight, Analytics and Intelligence told the Committee that that was the intention but that they might end up being presented only in Q3 due to complications with the data.
  6. The Chairman highlighted indicator CTE 06, ‘Delivery of SFRS Safe and Well visit programme’, and the related red RAG rating, and it was agreed that he would raise the issue with the Chairman of the relevant select committee. The Director of Insight, Analytics and Intelligence informed the Committee that the Surrey Fire and Rescue Service had explained that Q1 tended to be much busier operationally than Q4 and the Safe and Well visits were completed on top of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13

Meeting: 11/07/2019 - Resources and Performance Select Committee (Item 5)

5 QUARTERLY PERFORMANCE REPORT (Q4 2018/19) pdf icon PDF 70 KB

Purpose of the item: To invite the Select Committee’s comments and suggestions in respect of the Q4 Performance Report 2018/19, regarding the format and nature of the presentation of the information, as well as any of the indicators and/or measures reported.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Declarations of interest:

None

 

Witnesses:

Dr Zully Grant-Duff, Cabinet Member for Corporate Support

Mr Mel Few, Cabinet Member for Finance

Leigh Whitehouse, Executive Director of Resources

Nicola Kilvington, Director of Intelligence, Analytics & Insight

Una McCarthy, Interim Assistant Director for Intelligence, Data, Analytics & Insight

 

Key points raised during the discussion:

  1. The item was introduced by the Cabinet Member for Finance who stated that the report was a great start for performance reporting as the council had not previously had this type of detailed information. He stated that there were a few issues around no trends being displayed in the report and would be asking each Cabinet Member to look through the report focusing on five key drivers and then trying to understand how the report contributes to the delivery of the £82m saving required. The Director of Intelligence, Analytics & Insight explained that this was a new approach to corporate performance reporting which is complimentary to existing performance reporting taking place across the council. An eight lenses approach had been taken with the aim of keeping the report brief to highlight interdependencies. This is a work in progress and will be tailored to comments from members.

 

Graham Knight, Vice-Chairman arrived at 10:45 

 

  1. The Vice-Chairman queried with the Cabinet Member for Finance the items marked red in the current year budget. It was explained that the council was forecasting a £10.3m shortfall for the year which was driven by SEND.
  2. A Member expressed their support for the scorecard approach to performance reporting asking how this performance report would interlink with various other performance reporting taking place across the organisation. The Director of Intelligence, Analytics & Insight explained that directorate reporting was robust but not standardised across the council and explained that indicators with the Q4 report are taken from directorate based reports.
  3. It was queried how targets for service delivery measures were agreed and how this translated to a RAG status. The Director of Intelligence, Analytics & Insight said that she would need to go back to services to discuss individual indicators. As some indicators were new, targets had not been set but the service did want to get into a position where targets were set for all indicators. The Member was of the view that a RAG status should not be set if there was no target in place.
  4. Another Member expressed their support for the report and the direction performance reporting was moving in.
  5. On the Strategic Risks (April 2019) contained within the Q4 report a Member queried which of the risks numbered between 3-8 would have the biggest payback for the council. The Executive Director of Resources stated that he believed the biggest risk area which would have an adverse impact on the council was SEND. The Member commented that he had knowledge of SEND and that transport in this area was very costly for the council.
  6. Concern was raised around people and customer measures included within the Q4 report. The Cabinet Member for Corporate Support explained that indicators were being worked  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5