Agenda item

Report of the Partnerships and Performance Section Head

This report presents an update on the council’s key performance indicators (KPIs) as at the end of quarter 3 (December 2011) as well as other performance measures identified and agreed by Committee for scrutiny during 2011/12.

The Scrutiny Committee received a report of the Partnerships and Performance Section Head including the performance of the eight key performance indicators at the end of quarter 3 (December 2011) and those measures identified by Members for scrutiny during 2011/12.

The Partnerships and Performance Section Head highlighted some of the indicators in the report, including benefits’ statistics, waste and recycling, housing and the leisure centres.  She also referred to the annual indicators reported in quarter 3, voter registration and Rough Sleepers.

KPI 1 (Benefits processing) and KPI 6 (Households in temporary accommodation)

A Member commented that seven out of the 12 key indicators were below target.  He acknowledged the improvements in the Housing Benefits statistics, but he advised that he was still concerned about them, particularly with regard to change of circumstance applications.  He added that he had noted the number of families in temporary accommodation and had recently visited a family in bed and breakfast accommodation in Hemel Hempstead and another family in a Watford hostel.  He questioned whether the administration needed to put additional funds aside to cover the cost of temporary accommodation.  He hoped to soon see an improvement. 

The Partnerships and Performance Section Head explained that some of the long term outstanding cases in benefits were gradually being completed and this had an impact on the indicator related to the length of time taken to process applications.

The Portfolio Holder further explained that as the long term cases were completed the processing indicator increased.  This was unsatisfactory as it did not show the direction of travel.  

The Portfolio Holder informed the Scrutiny Committee that as at 27 February there were 181 new cases outstanding for Watford and 72 for Three Rivers.  Over 100 cases were pending waiting for further information.  This was the lowest live figure for three years.  The outstanding change of circumstance applications were below the trigger level when SERCO would be engaged.

The Portfolio Holder added that it had been hoped that the self-serve function would be introduced this month.  Capita had produced a module for the whole country but it had crashed.

The Portfolio Holder acknowledged that the benefits processing had improved and the service was in a good position, which he hoped would continue.

Following a further question from the Member, the Portfolio Holder said that the service would be showing an improvement at the year end.  New claims were now being processed quickly.  The Department for Works and Pensions (DWP) was currently monitoring the service to check on the rate of progress.  The DWP would identify anything missing in the procedures and the service would take on board the suggestions.

In response to the comments about temporary accommodation, the Portfolio Holder said that previously the Council had used bed and breakfast accommodation for two weeks.  The service would prefer that bed and breakfast accommodation was not used.  The use of this type of accommodation was dependent on the amount of accommodation available for people to move to.  It was therefore not possible to set a nil target.  The number of people needing to be accommodated in bed and breakfast accommodation was stabilising.  The budget set aside for this accommodation was probably about right, but he would reserve judgement.  There was a need to provide resources to house people.  He added that it was important to work on preventative measures for people.

A Member commented that he had attended the Shared Services Joint Committee on Monday and it had been the most upbeat meeting he had attended.

The Joint Committee questioned officers very carefully about the Revenues and Benefits Service.  There had been concern about the closure of the South Oxhey office for one day a week.  In relation to the procedure about not taking telephone calls on Wednesdays, Members were not happy that this should become a permanent feature.  There were approximately 500 calls per week to the service and these were dealt with by two members of staff.  If the situation were to get worse the Portfolio Holders for Watford and Three Rivers would agree to revert to the five day operation.  The Shared Services Joint Committee would review the situation in June. 

KPI 4iii (ES 6) – Levels of graffiti

The Chair noted that the highest results of graffiti had been recorded in Stanborough and asked if there was a reason for this.

The Partnerships and Performance Section Head advised that often this was because a ‘tagger’ had emerged in the area.

A Member, who chaired Community Safety Partnership Task Group, advised that the Antisocial Behaviour Co-ordinator had attended a Task Group meeting.  He had explained that an increase could also be seen due to an increase in reporting incidents.  This could culminate in a spike in the statistics.  It was necessary to report cases of graffiti in order to get them removed.

The Chair commented that there was far less graffiti across the Borough since he was first elected to the Council six years ago.

Performance Indicators

The Committee and Scrutiny Officer circulated a list of all the performance indicators collected by the Council’s departments.  Members were asked to review the list and identify any areas they would want to see added.  Any suggestions would need to be sent to the Chair and Partnerships and Performance Section Head by Friday 23 March 2012.  The suggestions would then be circulated to officers to see if they were feasible.  In June the Scrutiny Committee would be able to review the list and consider which ones they wished to see in the quarterly report.

The Partnerships and Performance Section Head said that an example was if Members wanted trade waste included in the regular report.

A Member commented that it was important not to duplicate the work carried out by the Shared Services Joint Committee.

The Portfolio Holder informed Members that the Shared Services Joint Committee was a council committee.  Scrutiny had an over-arching role in monitoring the services.  Any concerns from scrutiny could then be referred to Council or the Shared Services Joint Committee.

RESOLVED –

1.         that Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s comments on the Council’s key performance indicators for 2011/12 at the end of quarter 3 be noted.

2.         that Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s comments on the performance of the additional performance measures identified for the Committee’s consideration at the end of quarter 3 be noted.

3.         that Members review the list of performance indicators to identify any areas they would want to see added.  Suggestions need to be sent to the Chair and Partnerships and Performance Section Head by Friday 23 March 2012.