Council and democracy

Agenda item

Mid-Year Corporate Progress and Performance Report 2015/16

Minutes:

The Strategy and Performance Officer introduced the report which set out the performance against the corporate scorecard with progress against the related deliverables as outlined in the Corporate Priority Activity Plan 2015/16. This was used to monitor the performance of key priorities of the Council and enables Members, Directors and other leaders to form an opinion as to the delivery of these priorities.

 

The Committee was informed that 82% of indicators were currently meeting their targets or close to them and 96% of deliverables are progressing in line with projected timelines or within tolerance. It was added that although many of the Children’s Services indicators were red, they had actually set very high standards which, in turn, had improved performance. For the future the service would continue to stretch targets to hopefully compete with some of the best performing services in the country. 

 

Councillor Snell questioned who determined the acceptable tolerance and asked for clarity as to how performance was measured against it.

 

The Committee were informed that Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s) were given a ‘Red’, ‘Amber’ or ‘Green’ status and that ‘Amber’ KPI’s were better than the previous year but did not hit the set target, however the measurement of key deliverables was more subjective and determined internally by service area.

 

The Chair of the Committee felt that if a KPI was above the target but stretching towards a target set to enhance further improvement it should be marked as green as it had hit the target and was above the national average. The Committee asked the Performance Officer to note the difference between a target and stretched target in future reports. The Chair of the Committee also felt that ‘Amber’ KPI’S on an upwards trend shouldn’t be discussed in detail, and that the Committee should concentrate on KPI’s in the ‘Red’.

 

The Committee examined the Red Key Performance Indicators and the following comments were made regarding each measure.

 

The Committee discussed the percentage of primary schools judged ‘good’ or better. The Director of Children’s Services informed the Committee that Ofsted did not make any visits in the current term and that reinspections were expected to take place in the next term. Members were enlightened that a complaint was made to Ofsted from the Director of Children’s Services due to previous Ofsted inspections being poor. Councillor Hebb requested that a gentle reminder was given to Ofsted to carry out these inspections in the next term.

 

The Director of Children’s Services explained that there was a small cohort of children eligible to take GCSE’s when looking at the Looked after Children KS4 Attainment – 5+A*-C (including English and Maths) – It was explained that a number of looked after children were unaccompanied asylum seekers at an early age of learning English and therefore not yet able to take GCSE's. The Committee were informed that Thurrock secondary schools senior teams had agreed to focus on ‘narrowing the gap ‘for disadvantaged groups, including those in the care of the local authority which was also prioritised in the new 2015/16 School Development Plans.

 

The Director of Children’s Services explained that a deliberate high target of 70% was set to enable 19-21 year old care leavers in education employment or training in Thurrock to outperform the rest of the country.Since this data was submitted, the level of education employment or training has increased to 54.5%. This was above the national average for 2014/15 (47.8%) and would therefore be re-graded as “Amber” due to the significant improvements. The Chair of Committee Councillor Hebb requested a graph to provide the share of education employment and training in the 54.5% of 19- 21 year olds.

 

Members of the Committee discussed the percentage of house waste reused recycled and composed, the Head of Housing explained that the recycling performance this year continued to lag behind target with the current projected outturn being circa 39%. It was explained that in Thurrock, the levels of recycling were lower in many areas due to the high proportion of flats (30% of all properties) with communal bins, and that residents use their blue bins to dispose of general waste rather than recyclable materials. This had led to an increase in the contamination level of recycling and as a result many loads have been rejected from the recycling processing plant and have had to be disposed of as residual waste. It was added that a communication and engagement project was underway within the department to tackle the levels of contamination with detailed information of the materials that can be recycled provided to every household.

 

Councillor Liddiard questioned if three waste collection bins were scheduled into the planning policy, the Head of Housing was unaware but agreed to investigate.

 

Councillor Snell also suggested a waste collection scheme which would enable members of the public to return used bottles and items of waste in return for money, the Head of Housing also agreed to look into this and feedback to the Committee.

 

The Chair of the Committee discussed that an element of trust was required in the quality of the service and between the local authority and residents; it was felt that missed bin collections and bins being misplaced after collections generated apathy. It was added that residents would be more respectful about recycling requirements if the service appeared to be of a higher standard. The Chair of the Committee felt that the Councils service had the potential to be platinum standard.

 

The Committee discussed the Percentage of municipal waste sent to landfill, it was explained that since the beginning of September 2015 the Council had been working under a renewed disposal contract. The impact of this was that all waste collected from households would now be diverted to energy recovery and therefore not landfilled. Therefore the level of waste being landfilled had fallen to 11% in September and was likely to continue at that rate for the foreseeable future, the Head of Housing explained that this indicator is well within target by the end of the year.

 

RESOLVED:

 

1.            That Corporate Overview & Scrutiny Committee members commented on and noted the performance at this mid-year stage, and raised concern that the data provided for the data provided for the “red flag” report showed KPI’s which were not meeting internal stretch targets and did not focus on KPI’s with a declining performance trend / not meeting the mandatory targets. Moving forward Committee will expect to review KPI’s which show these trends/results.

 

2.            That Corporate Overview & Scrutiny Committee members request an update on the proposed changes of measurement of KPI’s, as insitigated in Committee on 17 September 2015.

 

3.            That the Corporate Overview & Scrutiny Committee are content to share the report to other relevant Overview & Scrutiny Committee Chairs.

 

Supporting documents: