Agenda item

Councillor Andy Hull, Executive Member Finance, Performance and Community Safety was present for discussion of this item, and was accompanied by Roger Dunlop, Director of Strategy and Change, and Annette Hobart, Strategy and Change

During consideration of the presentation (copy interleaved), the following main points were made –

·         Members noted examples as to how other Local Authorities consider performance information

·         Members were informed that pre-decision scrutiny could include aligning this function to the Council’s priorities, outcomes and policy framework, early involvement in future decisions or policy changes, and not necessarily just reviewing the final report going to the Executive. Pre decision scrutiny can also act as a sounding board for policy changes and implications, representing the voice of communities

·         How to choose scrutiny topic – this could include reviewing the Forward Plan, key corporate plan commitments, upcoming consultations, intelligence from performance reporting framework

·         Centre for Public Scrutiny – this supports local authorities and other public bodies to effectively scrutinise their organisation, and to hold Executives to account on behalf of the Public

·         Good scrutiny guide 2019 refers to the importance of maintaining a watching brief on the local area, and how local people experience, and influence, the services delivered to them by public bodies and others. The guidance makes specific reference to member’s ability to access a digest of information about the area. Using evidence and gaining expertise is essential to enable scrutiny to make informed judgements on what it should be looking at

·         Key information for scrutiny committees – Centre for Public Scrutiny guide lists a range of information as key to enabling scrutiny to perform its role – the Council plan, Partnership Plans and strategies, the Council’s overall budget and policy framework, and the medium term financial strategy, quarterly performance reports, quarterly finance figures, risk registers, complaints digests/information, external improvement plans and activities. The Council’s own research and insight, information from benchmarking clubs, including CIPFA, and the LGA, and information from Ombudsman investigations can be utilised

·         The model adopted by PPS for the Universal Credit scrutiny proved very effective in hearing from partners, staff and residents, getting out into the community, and visiting services to see how things worked first hand. Scrutiny could also adopt a similar approach, where there are concerns about performance or lack of progress. Scrutiny could also look to move beyond the formal scrutiny structure and consider holding meetings in different venues, hearing from staff or residents about specific services etc.

·         Should be core standards for performance reporting to scrutiny – reports should be clear, concise and avoid jargon, information should be based not just on data but context. Benchmarking data should be used, where and when this is available, customer complaints and satisfaction data should also be referred to where this is available. In addition, where performance is off track the report should address the key questions, and relevant senior officers from key services should attend to respond to queries, and take away any issues. Issues should also be followed up in a timely manner, with a full and helpful response

·         What else should be considered – best practice examples from Centre for Public Scrutiny, and examples from other Council’s indicates the scope for better ‘triangulation’ of data. Consideration could be given to introducing a digest of information, easily accessible to scrutiny and the public, bringing together a wider set of information on key priorities, including performance, financial data and risk. There should be better use of charts and diagrams, though telling the ‘story’ is important, closer working with Executive Members, and Senior Officers, to inform pre decision scrutiny. In addition, ways of working could be looked at to make scrutiny feel more important

·         Reference was made to the possibility of an interactive dashboard which would enable the organisation to be managed more effectively by officers and offer better scrutiny to the Committee

·         It was stated that culture change was important to improving performance

·         The view was expressed that reports needed to have figures for previous years in order that comparisons on achieving targets can be made

·         It was stated that with regard to Childrens Services Committee there may be a need to have variations to reflect those indicators where the Council could not have a direct impact. Another example is the crime statistics where the Council can only have a small impact on performance

·         Reference was also made to the need in the sickness indicators there needed to be data on the numbers of employees per department so that effective comparisons can be made between departments

·         Discussion took place as to the sickness levels in E&R and that future reports should make clear the issues where targets that are not being met, and an explanation of these and strategy for improvement

RESOLVED:

(a)  That the report be noted and that the Committee discuss further at a future meeting the presentation of performance indicators to future meetings, with a view to making recommendations for change

(b)  That in future reports detailing sickness levels, particularly in E&R, where there are targets not being met, an explanation be given as to the reasons why, and the strategy in place for improvement

The Chair thanked Councillor Hull, Roger Dunlop and Annette Hobart for attending