Agenda item

Councillor Clarence Barrett, Cabinet member for Financial Management, introduced the report

Cabinet was reminded that the Corporate Performance Report provided an overview of the Council’s performance for each of the strategic goals (Clean, Safe and Proud).  The report highlighted areas of strong performance and potential areas for improvement.

Where performance was more than the ‘target tolerance’ off the annual target and the RAG rating was ‘Red’, ‘Corrective Action’ was included in the report.  This highlighted what action the Council would take to address poor performance.

Members were informed that the report before them was for the year 2015/16 and that it contained 83 quarterly and annual Corporate Performance Indicators which had been measured.  All of the 83 indicators had been given a “RAG” status. In summary:

·                64 (77%) had a RAG status of Green.

·                19 (23%) had a RAG status of Red or Amber.

This represented slightly improved performance compared with Quarter 3, when 70% of PIs were RAG rated Green and 30% were rated Red or Amber.

Cabinet was reminded that it had approved changes to future performance reporting arrangements when it received the Quarter 2 CPR.  From the new financial year onwards the quarterly and annual Corporate Performance Reports would be considered first by the individual overview and scrutiny sub-committees, then the Overview and Scrutiny Board and finally the Cabinet.  This would allow the OSC Board to maintain oversight of the value the individual committees were adding in monitoring and influencing performance and would also allow the Cabinet reports to reflect any actions the OSC committees might be taking to improve performance in highlighted areas.  It was anticipated that the time taken to complete the entire reporting cycle would, as a consequence, be shortened.

Members were also informed that also being introduced was a process for measuring customer satisfaction.  Whilst the PIs currently included in the Corporate Performance report provided both Members and officers with vital performance information that could be used to improve services, there were few PIs that focused on customer satisfaction. There were various options to address this and, in order that the Council might fully understand the options available and what the benefits and resource implications of each option might be, the Communications Service was currently seeking views from an external consultant to gain expert advice on how the Council could gauge residents’ satisfaction in the most meaningful way.  This would inform any new performance indicators which were likely to be included in the Corporate Performance Report during 2016/17.

Reasons for the decision:

To provide Cabinet Members with an update on the Council’s performance for each of the strategic goals (Clean, Safe and Proud).

Other options considered:  N/A

Cabinet:

1.            Reviewed the levels of performance set out in Appendix 1 to the report and the corrective action that was being taken, and

2.            Noted the content of the Demand Pressures Dashboard attached as Appendix 2 to the report.

Councillor Clarence Barrett, Cabinet member for Financial Management, introduced the report

Cabinet was reminded that the Corporate Performance Report provided an overview of the Council’s performance for each of the strategic goals (Clean, Safe and Proud).  The report highlighted areas of strong performance and potential areas for improvement.

Where performance was more than the ‘target tolerance’ off the annual target and the RAG rating was ‘Red’, ‘Corrective Action’ was included in the report.  This highlighted what action the Council would take to address poor performance.

Members were informed that the report before them was for the year 2015/16 and that it contained 83 quarterly and annual Corporate Performance Indicators which had been measured.  All of the 83 indicators had been given a “RAG” status. In summary:

·            64 (77%) had a RAG status of Green.

·            19 (23%) had a RAG status of Red or Amber.

This represented slightly improved performance compared with Quarter 3, when 70% of PIs were RAG rated Green and 30% were rated Red or Amber.

Cabinet was reminded that it had approved changes to future performance reporting arrangements when it received the Quarter 2 CPR.  From the new financial year onwards the quarterly and annual Corporate Performance Reports would be considered first by the individual overview and scrutiny sub-committees, then the Overview and Scrutiny Board and finally the Cabinet.  This would allow the OSC Board to maintain oversight of the value the individual committees were adding in monitoring and influencing performance and would also allow the Cabinet reports to reflect any actions the OSC committees might be taking to improve performance in highlighted areas.  It was anticipated that the time taken to complete the entire reporting cycle would, as a consequence, be shortened.

Members were also informed that also being introduced was a process for measuring customer satisfaction.  Whilst the PIs currently included in the Corporate Performance report provided both Members and officers with vital performance information that could be used to improve services, there were few PIs that focused on customer satisfaction. There were various options to address this and, in order that the Council might fully understand the options available and what the benefits and resource implications of each option might be, the Communications Service was currently seeking views from an external consultant to gain expert advice on how the Council could gauge residents’ satisfaction in the most meaningful way.  This would inform any new performance indicators which were likely to be included in the Corporate Performance Report during 2016/17.

Reasons for the decision:

To provide Cabinet Members with an update on the Council’s performance for each of the strategic goals (Clean, Safe and Proud).

Other options considered:  N/A

Cabinet:

1.            Reviewed the levels of performance set out in Appendix 1 to the report and the corrective action that was being taken, and

2.            Noted the content of the Demand Pressures Dashboard attached as Appendix 2 to the report.