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 2 (September 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 second quarter update on the Council’s key performance indicators and other performance measures. 

 

The Partnerships and Performance Section Head outlined the key points in the report.

 

Community Services

 

The Partnerships and Performance Section Head informed the Scrutiny Committee that SLM had been contacted regarding the decline in swimming statistics.  The company had advised that this appeared to be a national trend.  A loyalty scheme would be introduced to try to improve figures.  The company had provided the overall quarter 2 throughput figures for both centres.  Watford Central Leisure Centre had 103,068 through the premises and there had been 195,617 through Watford Woodside Leisure Centre.  These figures would include parents accompanying children to classes, children’s’ parties, the use of the crèche and at Central the use of the climbing wall. 

 

The Partnerships and Performance Section Head advised that the Council’s Contract Monitoring Officer had been provided with access to SLM’s data.  Following training she would be able to access the information direct.

 

The Chair asked whether the income the Council received from the centres was based on attendance figures.  The Partnerships and Performance Section Head advised that she was not aware of the arrangements but would ask for information which would be circulated to the Scrutiny Committee.

 

Revenues and Benefits

 

The Vice-Chair referred to the benefits statistics.  He said that the service did not seem to be improving.  The Shared Services Joint Committee had recently met and agreed to put more resources into it.  He stated that the problem had continued for too long.  At Audit Committee it had been agreed to ask Overview and Scrutiny Committee to investigate.

 

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Shared Services explained that two weeks ago both councils’ Portfolio Holders had met the Corporate Directors for an update.  At best the backlog of new claims was steady.  The backlog for changes in circumstances had increased.  The Portfolio Holders had asked officers to apply additional resources.  He had also spoken to the Managing Director about the issue and requested immediate action.

 

The Portfolio Holder advised that there were 30 people in the Benefits Team.  Both Portfolio Holders had questioned whether this was the right number of staff for the team.  The answer, given current workloads, was clearly ‘no’.  It was estimated that the level of work or caseload had increased by 25%.  Officers had been asked to investigate whether there were more complex cases.  The staff from Three Rivers had noticed the huge difference between Three Rivers’ complex cases and those received from Watford residents.

 

The Portfolio Holder informed the Scrutiny Committee that the Shared Services Committee had met on 21 November and agreed further action to resolve the backlog and SERCO had been contracted for a further eight weeks.  The Shared Services Joint Committee had agreed to a further expenditure of £25,000 to cover the cost.  By the end of January the backlog should be cleared to a reasonable degree.  He advised that sickness levels had increased in the service due to stress caused by the attitude of the public to the staff.  There was constant contact from the public regarding claims and staff were unable to carry out their work. 

 

The Portfolio Holder reported that there were 350 outstanding cases.  About 12 of these were over three months old.  The oldest outstanding claim dated back to May.  Officers were unable to close a claim until requested by the client.  Easy applications were completed quickly.  The more complicated claims were being allocated to senior officers.  It was necessary to consider whether this level of workload would continue in the future.  If it were to continue it would be necessary to add more permanent resources.  He stated that he did not want to see the same problem recurring next year. 

 

The Portfolio Holder commented that there were various changes happening to benefits, for example the Universal Credit.  He did not want to see benefit staff leaving voluntarily due to their concerns about the loss of their jobs in the future. 

 

The Portfolio Holder advised that he would ask officers to ensure that the information on the Shared Services website was up to date.  He urged Members not to scrutinise the service at the present time as this would require officer involvement at an important time.  He asked that Members delay consideration until the end of January.

 

A Member said that the Head of Revenues and Benefits had attended the Overview and Scrutiny Committee in July.  At the time he had said that it was hoped that staff would be ‘on top’ of the backlog by December.  This was one of the most important risk factors which affected the Council.  The Members said that the situation had got worse since that meeting.  He understood the Portfolio Holder had met the Managing Director about the problem.  He hoped that more resources would be put into the service.  He suggested that the Head of Revenues and Benefits should be invited back to speak to the Scrutiny Committee. 

 

The Portfolio Holder responded that the current position was not worse than July.  When the Head of Revenues and Benefits had spoken to the Scrutiny Committee there were over 400 new claims outstanding.  He had anticipated the backlog would be clear.  The Portfolio Holder said that in mid November he had been advised that the backlog had not been cleared and this had been the reason he had seen the Managing Director.  The non-executive members of the Shared Services Joint Committee had made their views clear.

 

The Vice-Chair said that he respected the comment that if the service was scrutinised it would take officers away from dealing with the backlog but this problem affected a lot of people.  For many this was possibly the first time they had had to apply for help.  Homes were at risk and people were frustrated.

 

The Chair commented that the service was trying to work beyond its capacity.  If the service were scrutinised the result of the review needed to make a difference.  He did not want to divert people from reducing the backlog.  He felt it was appropriate for Members to voice their concerns and for the Head of Revenues and Benefits to be invited back to Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

 

The Portfolio Holder said that he acknowledged there was scrutiny which could be carried out once the section had reduced the backlog.  The Shared Services Joint Committee had agreed to additional funding until the end of January.  He felt that this would be the appropriate time to commence a scrutiny of the workload and the wider issues for the section.  An update had been circulated at the Shared Services Joint Committee which had set out the latest number of outstanding claims.  The Portfolio Holder said that he could not provide any guarantees about the service.  He did not see the service every day but as soon as he was aware there was a problem he would ensure the appropriate action was taken.  It was possible that Members could scrutinise how the backlog was handled.

 

A Member agreed with the Portfolio Holder’s comments.  The Shared Services Joint Committee had taken the matter seriously.  Overview and Scrutiny Committee would be duplicating the work of the Joint Committee.

 

A Member, who was not a member of the Scrutiny Committee, advised that he was a member of the Shared Services Joint Committee and Audit Committee.  The problems had been noted at both committees.  Residents should be able to expect a service from the Council.  He questioned whether the Council was providing a value for money service.  He encouraged the Scrutiny Committee to ask the service questions.

 

A Member advised that the national figures from the Department for Works and Pensions had shown a significant increase in claims.  New claims added to the pressures in the section.  He cautioned that in January the temporary Christmas jobs would be at an end and there were likely to be more claims.  It was important that resources were directed where appropriate.  He suggested reviewing the position late January.

 

The Vice-Chair reminded Members that it was possible to call-in Shared Services Joint Committee’s decision.  He questioned what had happened during July and November that had meant the backlog was not decreasing.  He asked what the Portfolio Holder had done.  He acknowledged the suggestion for some strategic scrutiny.  He requested that he was included in any information between this meeting and the next.

 

The Portfolio Holder advised that Members’ connection to the service was through the Shared Services’ website. 

 

The Vice-Chair asked what would happen if the work was not carried out despite the additional funding and who would address the problem.

 

The Portfolio Holder responded that the Scrutiny Committee’s responsibility was to scrutinise the Council and not to follow an individual.  Officers had been tasked to look at the level of workload versus the current resources.  The cost of processing needed to be considered.  At Shared Services Joint Committee an Opposition Councillor had suggested outsourcing the service.  It would be useful to look at other local authorities and how they work.

 

The Portfolio Holder agreed that there were questions to be investigated, for example what had happened during this period.  If people were in and out of work this could be affecting the workload.  The Scrutiny Committee could look at the level of resources compared to the workload. 

 

The Chair commented that the Scrutiny Committee would determine its own priorities.  He acknowledged the Portfolio Holder had outlined a possible review and to compare with other authorities.  He asked the Portfolio Holder when the information would be presented to him.

 

The Portfolio Holder replied that he had some information but it was incomplete.  It was likely that the comparative data would be available within the next two or three weeks.

 

A Member commented that he considered it acceptable that the Vice-Chair should ask for a briefing.  He added that the Scrutiny Committee should be given the data.

 

The Chair said that he hoped the Portfolio Holder would provide the information once it was available.  He stated that the Head of Revenues and Benefits would be invited to the next meeting.  Unless there had been a material change in circumstances the Overview and Scrutiny Committee would undertake a review of the service.  He did not want the review to take place at the present time and contribute to the problems the service was experiencing.

 

The Portfolio Holder advised that a report had been tabled at the Shared Services Joint Committee which provided details of the benefit backlog.  This could be circulated to the Scrutiny Committee.  He said that in fairness to the Head of Service the Revenues section was working well.  It was only the benefits section which was causing concern.  The performance of the benefit staff was very good.  The point had been made at Shared Services Joint Committee that enough promises had been made and it was necessary to get on top of the situation. 

 

Corporate Services

 

The Vice-Chair asked for details of the number of complaints received by the Council.

 

The Partnerships and Performance Section Head advised that she did not have this information but would circulate the details.  She understood that generally the number of complaints were low.

 

Human Resources

 

HR1 – Sickness absence

 

The Portfolio Holder stated that there had been an increase to the sickness statistics and that this could be related to the benefit section.  The number of stress-related days sick was substantial.  He advised that he had asked for more details.  This was a further reason that the service’s problems needed to be resolved.  If the benefit figures were removed the performance figure would be roughly on target.  The Committee requested that this information be made available.

 

General comments

 

A Member noted that there were more indicators below their target than on target or above.  He asked whether there would be improvements in quarter 3.

 

The Partnerships and Performance Section Head informed the Scrutiny Committee that Leadership Team received the performance information and monitored performance on a regular basis.  Some of the indicators could be related to the economic downturn and it would be difficult to see them improving whilst the economic situation was difficult, for example the homelessness indicators.  The aim was to maintain those which had improved.

 

The Chair thanked the officer for her report.

 

RESOLVED –

 

1.         that the Scrutiny Committee’s comments be noted.

 

2.         that the Head of Revenues and Benefits be invited to the next meeting to advise on the progress of the Benefit service.