Agenda item

This report presents an update on the council’s key performance indicators as at the end of quarter 1 (June 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 setting out the first quarter update on the Council’s key performance indicators and other performance measures. 

 

Environmental Services

 

The Partnerships and Performance Section Head informed Members that she had incorporated as many of the requests from the previous meeting as she could.  There was still some outstanding data from Revenues and Benefits.  She referred Members to indicator ES9, dry recyclables, which was down in trend since last year.  She explained that this was in part due to fewer people buying newspapers and glass was lighter than in the past.  The overall recycling indicator, ES3, was helped by the increase in green waste.

 

The Partnerships and Performance Section Head informed the Scrutiny Committee that measurement of the street and environmental cleanliness was a complex indicator that required officers to survey given areas of the Borough and assess them to an agreed and consistent standard. 

 

A copy of the criteria used to assess street cleanliness was circulated.  It provided photographs of the different levels of cleanliness used for assessment.

 

The Vice-Chair noted the wards which had been used for the performance measures and advised that Callowland had a great deal of problems with flyposting.

 

The Partnerships and Performance Section Head informed the Scrutiny Committee that a Town Enforcement Officer had been appointed on a year’s contract, which started in August.  Through the year the impact would be assessed.  Initially the officer would concentrate his work in the Town Centre and parks.  Once theses areas had improved it was intended to extend the service to other parts of the Borough.  The officer issued fixed penalty notices.  There was a zero tolerance approach with regard to litter, unless there were specific circumstances, such as vulnerable adults or minors.  If a fine were not paid the Council would consider prosecution, but this was only used as a last resort and following a number of reminders being issued.

 

The Chair commented that one of the main causes of litter was fast food packaging.  The various fast food premises collected the litter during mid to late evening.  Some of these premises were open until 3.00 a.m.  Residents should be encouraged to collect evidence to challenge these premises.

 

The Scrutiny Committee agreed to review the progress of this post and the work which had been achieved in six months time.

 

ACTION: Committee and Scrutiny Officer

 

Community Services

 

CS9 – New cases on Rent Deposit Scheme

 

The Partnerships and Performance Section Head advised the Scrutiny Committee that officers were struggling to get private landlords involved with the Rent Deposit Scheme.

 

The Portfolio Holder added that people unable to purchase the smaller properties on the market went into the rental sector.  This had an impact on the properties which might be available through the scheme.

 

CS10 – Households in bed and breakfast accommodation

 

The Partnerships and Performance Section Head referred Members to this indicator and advised that bed and breakfast was an expensive accommodation solution.

 

CS12 – CS15 Leisure Centre usage

 

The Partnerships and Performance Section Head informed the Scrutiny Committee that she had been unable to obtain information about total usage of the centres, for example the climbing wall and sports fields.

 

The Chair noted the significant decrease in the swims recorded at both sites.  This suggested a significant drop in revenue.

 

The Scrutiny Committee asked that the latest performance statistics were circulated as soon as they were available.

 

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

 

Human Resources

 

HR1 – Sickness absence

 

The Portfolio Holder stated that the performance measure had gradually been decreasing over time.  He said it would be difficult to try to match Three Rivers’ level.  He explained that the customer facing services at Three Rivers was less pressured than at Watford.  Those services which were part of Shared Services had realised that Watford was a different place to do business in comparison to Three Rivers.  In Watford an external provider was used to record sickness.  Officers had to explain to the advisor the reason for being off sick.  This separated Managers from having to take the initial calls.  He added that the statistic was closer to the Three Rivers performance measure.

 

Revenues and Benefits

 

The Portfolio Holder provided the Scrutiny Committee with a number of more recent statistics.  He advised that at the end of August there were 277 new claims outstanding.  144 were waiting from further information from the client and 133 were being processed.  The majority of these cases had been submitted within two months.  120 were under one month old; 123 were between one and two months old and 34 were over two months.  He explained that in one particular case it had been necessary to make 42 separate adjustments to the claim.  The overall outstanding figure was down from 480 as at 2 May.  With regard to outstanding Three Rivers cases, at the end of August there were 125 outstanding and in May the figure had been 267.

 

The Portfolio Holder informed the Scrutiny Committee of the staffing structure within the Benefits Team.  Currently this was being augmented by the staff from SERCO.  The output from SERCO had not been at the level originally promised and the Head of Revenues and Benefits had asked them to improve this level.

 

The Portfolio Holder stated that the Three Rivers and Watford Shared Services Joint Committee was monitoring the service’s performance.  The Joint Committee had made it clear that the backlog should be cleared by the end of December.  In addition to outsourcing to SERCO, officers had been offered overtime.  The office accepted no calls on Wednesdays, which it was hoped would be stopped in December.  This stopped the service being continually asked about the progress of a claim.  The Customer Service Centres took messages and Benefits officers contacted the caller the following day.  It was proposed to train the Customer Service Centres to be able to accept certain information at Watford and Three Rivers.  They would accept changes in circumstances, for example details of change of name.

 

Finally the Portfolio Holder informed the Scrutiny Committee that at the end of August the average time taken to process benefit claims was 40 days.  It was hoped the staff would reach the target by the end of quarter three.

 

A Member thanked the Portfolio Holder for the information.  He asked whether the service would continue to use SERCO.  He also enquired why there was only one visiting officer.

 

The Portfolio Holder responded that there was one designated visiting officer.  With regard to SERCO he explained that the workload was increasing.  The company had been contracted to carry out the work at a fixed price.  It was easier to employ SERCO than agency staff.

 

The Vice-Chair said that the information had been very helpful.  He asked whether it would be possible for Members to have the monthly figures made available to them.

 

The Portfolio Holder informed Members that the information was available on the Shared Services Intranet.  All performance data for Shared Services were available. 

 

The Vice-Chair asked about the capacity of the Customer Service Centre to be able to undertake some of the benefit workload.

 

The Vice-Chair explained that customers initially made contact with Customer Service staff.  The Head of Revenues and Benefits had discussed the proposal with the relevant managers.

 

The Chair asked whether the Portfolio Holder considered the targets to be realistic.

 

The Portfolio Holder replied that with a normal workload the target should be achievable.  Currently the workload was not normal.  He informed Members that there were fast track procedures for those people who were in desperate need.

 

ICT

 

The Portfolio Holder informed the Scrutiny Committee that work was progressing towards partially outsourcing the service.  A report would be presented to Shared Services and the consultant would be producing a range of options.

 

A Member referred to his Council laptop and said that if he wanted to carry out any updates on software he had to bring the machine into the ICT admin who then typed a password before it could be actioned.

 

The Portfolio Holder agreed that the ICT systems needed to move into the 21^st century.  He said that he found remote working more reliable.

 

The Chair thanked the officer for her report.

 

RESOLVED –

 

that the Scrutiny Committee’s comments be noted.