Agenda item

(Deputy Chief Executive) To consider the attached report (FPM-023-2012/13).

The Performance Improvement Manager presented a report on the Council’s Key Performance Indicators for 2012/13 and 2013/14.

The Performance Improvement Manager stated that, pursuant to the Local Government Act 1999, the Council was required to make arrangements to secure continuous improvement in the way in which its functions and services were exercised, having regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. As part of this duty to secure continuous improvement, a range of Key Performance Indicators (KPI) relevant to the Council’s services and key objectives were adopted each year. Performance against the KPIs were monitored on a quarterly or annual basis as appropriate, and had previously been an inspection theme in external judgements of the overall performance of the authority.

The Performance Improvement Manager reminded the Cabinet Committee that a range of 32 Key Performance Indicators for 2012/13 had been adopted in March 2012, along with a corporate target for at least 70% of the Indicators to achieve their target by the end of the year. The performance of the current Indicators at the end of the third quarter were set out in detail in Appendix 1 attached to the report and could be summarised as follows:

·                     15 (56%) achieved their accumulative target; and

·                     12 (44%) did not.

On the basis of third quarter performance, the following year-end outcomes were currently predicted:

·                     13 (48%) to achieve their year-end target;

·                     7 (26%) would not achieve their year-end target; and

·                     for 7 (26%), it was currently uncertain as whether they would achieve their year-end target.

In respect of the proposed Indicators for 2013/14, the Cabinet Committee was informed that these had been considered by Management Board recently but no significant changes had been recommended. Provisional targets for each proposed Indicator had been agreed between the relevant Service Director and Portfolio Holder, and these had been set out in detail in Appendix 2 attached to the report, although the following three changes were reported by the Performance Improvement Manager:

·                     the proposed target for KPI 35, Benefit Fraud Investigations, in 2013/14 should read 300 not 500;

·                     KPI 46, Increase in Affordable Housing within the District, to be deleted as the Director of Housing would provide the relevant information to all Members on a regular basis through alternative reporting arrangements; and

·                     A KPI to measure the percentage of benefit fraud cases investigated where fraud was proven, with a target for 2013/14 of 30%.

It was also intended that performance against all Indicators would be monitored and reported on a quarterly basis in future. There were now no Indicators where performance could only be reported on an annual basis, and quarterly targets could be profiled for each Indicator. Improvement Plans would be developed for each Indicator, and Management Board would review the targets for each Indicator when the 2012/13 outrun data became available. Any revisions would be reported to the Cabinet Committee at its meeting scheduled for 20 June 2013.

The Performance Improvement Manager advised the Cabinet Committee that it was not yet known whether the Council’s overall aim of achieving target performance for at least 70% of the Key Performance Indicators would be achieved for 2012/13. As the Council’s Key Objectives for 2013/14 sought the achievement of the targets for all Indicators, Management Board had recommended that a specific corporate performance improvement target not be set for 2013/14.

In response to questions from the Members present, the Director of Finance & ICT stated that for KPI 33, Number of days to process new Benefit Claims, although the Council would not meet its 30 day target during the first part of 2013/14, the target was still felt to be achievable if the levels of staff within the section remained at a high level. The Director added that the Council had not yet seen any evidence of people moving out to Epping Forest from inner London as rental prices within the District were still relatively high.

The Housing Portfolio Holder advised the Cabinet Committee that the Government’s Welfare Reforms were expected to have an effect on the amount of rent collected by the Council, but the full effect would not be known until next year. Therefore, it was considered prudent to reduce slightly the target for KPI 40, Percentage of Rent due from Tenants that was actually paid, from 97% in 2012/13 to 96% in 2013/14. The Director of Finance & ICT added that an allowance for a lower collection rate had been made in the latest 30-year Housing Revenue Account Financial Plan. The Housing Portfolio Holder reassured the Cabinet Committee that the Council had devieloped a Welfare Reform Mitigation Action Plan, but it was not known at the current time how residents would react to the changes.

The Performance Improvement Manager confirmed that the proposed deletion of KPI 46, Increase in Affordable Housing within the District, had been recommended by the Finance & Performance Management Scrutiny Panel as this measure was outside of the Council’s control and would be reported by other means.

Decision:

(1)        That the proposed Key Performance Indicators and individual targets for 2013/14 be agreed; and

(2)        That no specific corporate performance target for the Council’s Key Performance Indicators be set for 2013/14.

Reasons for Decision:

The Council’s Key Performance Indicators were used as performance measures to assess progress against the Council’s key objectives. It was important that relevant performance management processes were in place to review and monitor performance against the key objectives, to ensure their continued achievability and relevance, and to identify proposals for appropriate corrective action in areas of slippage or under performance.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

No other options were appropriate in this respect. Failure to identify challenging performance targets, could mean that opportunities for improvement were lost and might have negative implications for judgements made about the progress of the Council.