Report by the Director of Public Health / Head of Policy and Performance.

A report by the Director of Public Health/Head of the Policy Unit and the attached Appendix 1outlined the current performance of the Council (as at 31 July 2013) against the delivery of the Corporate Plan for 2013/14.

The report translated the priorities set out in the Corporate Plan into a coherent and measurable set of performance outcome measures and targets. These were used to evaluate the achievement of strategic priorities over the next year of the Plan.

The Committee was informed that the development of the Corporate Plan would be an iterative process during 2013/14 based on the feedback and requirements of Members and Portfolio Holders. The latest version of the report contained:

·  Key finance information

·  Risk management information (aligned to red RAG rated indicators)

·  Year-end forecast position

·  North West benchmarking information (the level of information will increase in line with the availability of data nationally)

Members noted that the iterative development of the report would run in parallel to the wider development of the underpinning business planning and performance management infrastructure within the Council (e.g. Performance Management Framework Policy, electronic provision of performance information to Members, transition from targets to outcomes).

The Committee noted that the Heads of Service responsible for the delivery of targets must complete an exception report and delivery plan for all indicators which were under performing (e.g. red RAG rated indicators). Appendix 2 to the report illustrates the exception reports/delivery plans for:

·  Local environmental quality (LEQ) of litter, detritus and dog fouling in main gateways and shopping areas target; and

·  Establishment reduction compared to savings assumption. 

The Director of Public Health/Head of the Policy Unit introduced her report and made reference to lines 7 – ‘To maintain local environmental quality (LEQ) of litter, detritus and dog fouling in main gateways and shopping areas’ and 17 – ‘Establishment reduction compared to savings assumption’ of Appendix 1, the Corporate Plan Performance, Finance and Risk Report, as at 31 July 2013.  She reported that each had an exception report which set out what the issue was and how it was intended to address it.

Members asked a number of questions about the layout of Appendix 1 in an attempt to gain a greater understanding of the information it contained.  It was agreed that a key should be included at the bottom of future reports to assist Members understanding of the content.

The Head of Service, Streetscene and Waste was in attendance at the meeting to explain the underperformance in respect of line 7 of Appendix 1.  He informed that he had hoped for better results and was disappointed that the standard at the end of the first quarter was not where he had wanted it to be and consequently his Service was adrift on its performance.  He had carried out some research and informed that the Service’s litter performance had missed its 93% target with a score of 92%.  The detritus score had been very poor and this had dragged the overall score down.  He was however determined to bring about improvement to get the indicator up to where it needed to be.

A Member asked if there was a tangible reason why performance had been so poor in the first quarter.  The Head of Service, Streetscene and Waste told the Committee that Biffa’s workforce had been put at risk of redundancy.  This had affected morale and performance.  However, at the end of the process Members were told it had not been necessary to make anyone compulsory redundant because Biffa and the Trade Unions had agreed to a one year’s pay freeze which had saved ten jobs and there had been some voluntary redundancies.  Changes had been made to Biffa’s contract in July 2013 and this had addressed the issues.  The Head of Service, Streetscene and Waste was working with the supervisors and had established gateway crews who were focusing on the delivery of this indicator.  He intended to continue to keep a close eye on performance standards.

The Committee accepted that the redundancy situation was an influential factor in respect of staff morale and poor performance. Members wanted to make sure that the poor performance was a blip and not something that was more permanent.  The Committee accepted that making £1m street cleansing savings had meant that supervisory levels were lower.  However, it was noted that Members of the public were not dropping as much litter and the Service would ensure that bins were emptied regularly so that there was always room for litter to be deposited in them.  The Service would look at methodologies, mindsets and mitigating factors and try to encourage members of the public not to drop litter.  Members were also aware of the current situation and work was ongoing to encourage behavioural changes.

A Member drew attention to the performance relating to the months April to June.  She used New Brighton as an example of improvement.  It had received many visitors during July and August and had a very busy summer.  Its appearance had been greatly improved as the result of a lot of hard work.  Another Member emphasised the importance of encouraging bars and restaurants to work in partnership with the Council to pick up the rubbish outside their establishments.  A Member informed that this proposal had been raised by the Constituency Committees who had been meeting informally and was being pursued.

The Head of Service, Streetscene and Waste told Members that making £1m saving was not without some risk but it had been identified that this was the best way to make these savings.  Consequently, he intended to keep a close eye on standards and monitor them on a weekly basis.  There was also a new approach to the rural areas via the new contract and Biffa had been told that the Council expected it to keep the place spotless.

The Interim Director of Resources was in attendance at the meeting to explain the underperformance in respect of line 17 of Appendix 1.  He informed that the Council’s payroll and financial systems did not link.  Work had begun to align establishment and finance records.  However, there had been a planned delay in completing staffing restructures and, therefore, it had not been possible to complete this work.  Human Resources had to undertake the comparison and alignment exercise following the current round of redundancies before reporting the indicator.  There had been some slippage and this exercise was approximately one month behind.  The Interim Director assured the Committee that the work would be completed by 31 October 2013.

A Member referred to line 6 of Appendix 1to the report – the number of interventions put in place for travel plans and transport (to improve accessibility to employment and opportunities) and queried the figures as performance was better than the target set.  She asked for an explanation. 

The Head of Commissioning, Performance and Business Intelligence was in attendance at the meeting and acknowledged the need to determine how we highlight cases of over performance.  He agreed to establish the rationale for this and inform all Members of the Committee.

A Member referred to line 21 of Appendix 1 to the report noting that Alcohol related admissions to hospital was improving but that there were no comparisons with other authorities.

The Director of Public Health/Head of the Policy Unit told the Committee that a technical specification including a description of the indicators had been made available to Members.  Sources of data alone would not be how Members determined their focus and it was necessary for the Committee to consider other sources of information in deciding what to focus on.

RESOLVED: That

(1)  the Committee will use the information contained in the report to inform its future Work Programme; and

(2)  Members’ comments, as detailed above, on the Director of Public Health/Head of the Policy Unit’s report and appendix be noted.