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.
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 quarter behind, leading to figures being slightly out-of-date which was problematic.
Actions/further information to be provided:
1. For the Customer Services Task Group to examine issues around RS 01 and RS 02;
2. For the Executive Director of Transformation, Partnerships and Prosperity to provide comparative statistics on sickness rates in the private sector.