Agenda item

The Scrutiny Committee is asked to review the Council’s performance indicators.

The Scrutiny Committee received a report of the Partnerships and Performance Section Head setting out the outturn performance of the Council’s key performance indicators for 2010/11.

The Partnerships and Performance Section Head explained the background to presenting performance reports to scrutiny.  The report included the 13 key performance indicators that had been agreed by Council and which Call-In and Performance Scrutiny Committee had been monitoring throughout 2010/11.  With the new scrutiny arrangements in place, the Chair had suggested additional performance information be included in reports to Overview and Scrutiny in order to provide a fuller picture of council performance.  This would not include finance performance information as this was already reported to Budget Panel. The Council complied with all the requirements of the national performance framework but the coalition government was keen to reduce the ‘burden’ on local authorities in terms of the amount of performance information it required them to collect and report.  This had meant the deletion of the set of national indicators and greater freedom for Watford Borough Council to decide what performance information it felt was important and supported decision-making.

One Member suggested that further information needed to be included in the report which explained what would happen once the performance information was known.

The Vice-Chair explained the format the Call-in and Performance Scrutiny Committee had followed when the performance report was reviewed.

One Member referred to the information supplied to the Shared Services Joint Committee and considered the details presented to this meeting to be too ‘light’.  He suggested that there should be some comparison to Three Rivers District Council and the necessity to look behind the figures.  The Chair commented that Members would not appreciate detailed reports on all the performance indicators.  Where the Partnerships and Performance Section Head could see areas of concern then this level of additional information added to the report would be appreciated.

Prior to the meeting the Chair and Vice-Chair had forwarded a number of questions to the Partnerships and Performance Section Head.  The Partnerships and Performance Section Head responded to each of the questions and the responses.  The additional information has been attached as an appendix to the minutes.

Reviewing the performance of ES10 and ES9 on recycling, a Member asked for details of the impact the closure of Wiggenhall Recycling Centre had on the fly tipping and waste figures.  The Partnerships and Performance Section Head advised that she would arrange for feedback from Environmental Services and circulate this data.

The Chair also asked whether it was possible to find out if there had been a noticeable increase in fly tipping and the geographical locations of such incidents following the closure of the recycling centre.

Following a Member’s question, the Partnerships and Performance Section Head said that she would ask whether communal recycling facilities in flats were incorporated into the residual household waste statistics and the extent of communal recycling within the borough.  The Chair asked her to enquire whether the new green bins with locked lids and narrow slits, being used in flats, had had a negative impact on the level of green recycling.

With regard to the performance of dry recycling, the Chair asked the Section Head to investigate whether the differential Town Centre recycling bins had had a positive effect and had proved worthwhile.

The officer advised she would obtain this information for Members. 

With regard to the information about CS5, the number of households living in temporary accommodation, a Member suggested that details about the length of time in the temporary accommodation would be useful.

The Partnerships and Performance Section Head explained that, as from April 2011, the statistics would include those in bed and breakfast accommodation and length of stay. 

With regard to the planning statistics PL1 to PL3, the Chair suggested that it would be useful if the number of applications received were included in the information. 

The Chair asked for a written response from the Head of Human Resources regarding the poor performance of indicator HR1, sickness absence.

The Chair invited the Head of Revenues and Benefits to speak about the developments in his service.

The Head of Revenues and Benefits informed the Scrutiny Committee of the steps which had been put in place to address the performance problems.  The progress of the service was monitored both by the Leadership Team and the Three Rivers and Watford Shared Services Joint Committee.  He outlined the difficulties which had led to the increased backlog of applications.  He explained how the statistics were calculated and how applicants had to be allowed 28 days to supply additional supporting evidence.  He added that the Audit Committee would be receiving a report at its next meeting regarding the Revenues and Benefits Service. 

The Head of Revenues and Benefits reported that the Shared Services Joint Committee had permitted a short-term solution to be put in place.  The service had been authorised to spend up to £25,000 on administrative support from SERCO.  The company would only be used as and when it was required.  The company would currently work to reduce the backlog and then only be used when needed.  A further report had to be presented to the next Shared Services Joint Committee.  Everything would be implemented by the end of December.  The aim would be to process applications within three days if the client had provided all the necessary information. A Member asked that this be included as a measure in the performance report.

The Committee and Scrutiny Officer advised that all Members of the Council should have received a copy of the relevant report by email.  It was agreed that a paper copy would also be circulated to the Scrutiny Committee. 

The Chair said that he was concerned about the accuracy of assessments.  He asked whether this was monitored on an ongoing basis or only when audited.

The Head of Revenues and Benefits responded that accuracy was measured on a daily basis by a dedicated team.  The accuracy of information and the length of time taken to complete assessments affected the subsidy the Council received.  The penalties were set on a tiered basis.

The Chair questioned whether this was included in the performance report to which the Head of Revenues and Benefits advised that it was not.  It was only included as part of the subsidy return to the Department for Works and Pensions.  The Chair suggested that this data might be included in the future.

Members were concerned that the delays in assessments affected the most vulnerable residents in the community.

The Head of Revenues and Benefits explained that the service worked with the Housing Associations.  If an officer became aware of arrears or identified there was cause for concern, they would ensure the application was fast-tracked.  If a private tenant fell into rent arrears and officers were made aware, it was possible to make direct payments to the landlord.

With regard to the inclusion of ICT statistics, the Chair said that it was important to record the ‘downtime’.  Members agreed that service availability data was crucial.

Members also requested that usage figures for SLM Ltd be included in future performance reports.

A Member advised that the Shared Services performance statistics were available online. 

RESOLVED –

that the Scrutiny Committee comments be noted and actioned.

ACTION: Partnerships and Performance Section Head and Committee and Scrutiny Officer