Agenda item

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.

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 operational duties. As a result, they were unable to complete as many as they wanted. However, there had been a change in the quality assurance process, which required the visits to be audited before being marked as complete, and an additional 711 visits were submitted during Q1 but were not yet counted as being complete due to that auditing process.
7. Referring to indicator CTE 04 and the latest result available at Q1 (1.87km), a Member of the Committee questioned why the RAG rating was only amber when the latest figures were so far behind both the latest target and result this time last year. The Member also spoke about indicator PH 01 and questioned the use of percentages as results, as it was difficult for the Select Committee to properly understand what those specific percentages were relating to and whether they were good or bad.
8. A Member of the Committee asked for more information to be provided for indicator PH 02 and was informed by the Director of Insight, Analytics and Intelligence that this would be provided by Public Health.
9. Returning to indicators CTE 03 and CTE 04, and related annual programmes, a Member suggested that these and related programmes that were working towards annual targets could instead show a rolling 12 months so that the performance could be viewed relative to a full-year target, or for seasonal targets to be created so that there was greater clarity.
10. Discussing the HROD indicators and the diversity of the Council’s workforce, the Director of Insight, Analytics and Intelligence explained that the Executive Director for Children, Lifelong Learning and Culture had recently taken on the CLT lead for diversity and inclusion and a lot of work was being done to help increase the diversity of the workforce and connect with a diverse range of communities. She also spoke about the Young Employee Network that had been set up in 2018 and that members of the Network had been to CLT to talk about the issue. Work was also taking place to increase the number of apprenticeships being offered.
11. The Chairman questioned why indicators Customer 01, Customer 04, RS 01 and RS 02 did not have targets. In response, the Director of Insight, Analytics and Intelligence informed the Committee that she did not think Customer 01 had a target set for Q2 but that this would be confirmed with the service. Regarding Customer 04, this was a new measure and work was being done to look at the target around that, while traditionally targets had not been set for indicators such as RS 01 and RS 02, as these were viewed as indicators that provided useful information but could be heavily influenced by factors outside of the Council’s control, making it difficult to set reliable targets. A Member of the Committee agreed that it would be difficult to set a useful target but expressed his disappointment that the latest result for RS 02 was so low.
12. The Committee heard from the Cabinet Member for Corporate Support, who explained that indicator Customer 01 concerned a piece of work that the customer services team had just started, working in partnership with the adult social care department. They often found that it was better to wait a few months to see how things were working out before setting a realistic target.
13. Returning to indicators RS 01 and RS 02, the Vice-Chairman asked for targets to be provided as these could be compared with results from previous years. He also asked for the RAG rating for indicator Customer 01 to be made grey rather than green as there was no specific target being worked towards. The Vice-Chairman also suggested that information was provided on an annual basis that showed how Surrey County Council’s performance figures compared to similar councils.
14. A Member of the Committee suggested that indicators RS 01 and RS 02 could be combined as they both dealt with similar issues. The Director of Insight, Analytics and Intelligence informed the Committee that all of the suggestions made would be considered.
15. The Committee turned its attention to the transformation financial figures on page 31 of the report, with the Vice-Chairman questioning how confident the Cabinet Member for Finance was that he would be able to achieve the target over the next six months, and whether there were any other areas of the budget where further savings could be made. In response, the Cabinet Member explained that the shortfall was now £7.8m, and he went on to say that the report scheduled to go to Cabinet showed that the level of achievement in blue and green savings had risen on a monthly basis and that reds and blacks had decreased slightly. The pressure was coming from children’s services – particularly regarding SEND – and the flattening out of spend in adult social care.
16. Responding to a question about why the overall Fire and Rescue Service rating on page 34 was showing as green when the schedule, benefits, costs and resources ratings were either amber or red, the Director of Insight, Analytics and Intelligence explained that these were being revised for the Q2 performance report so they would better reflect the nature of where the programme was.

Actions/further information to be provided:

1.    The Director of Insight, Analytics and Intelligence is to provide benchmarking information relating to indicator ASC 07.

2.    An officer from Public Health is to provide more information on indicator PH 02.

Recommendations:

1.    The Committee is to receive further information on questions raised regarding the Q1 2019/20 performance report (highlighted in paragraphs 7, 8 and 11 of these minutes).

2.    Issues relating to the delivery of the SFRS Safe and Well visit programme are to be raised with the Service and the relevant Select Committee.

3.    Officers are to explore whether targets can be created for RS 01, RS 02 and Customer 01 for inclusion in the next 2019/20 performance report.

4.    The Committee is to receive on an annual basis information on how Surrey County Council’s performance compares with other councils.