Agenda item

Report of the Director of Policy, Performance & Communications

6.1       The committee received a year-end report that presented detailed performance results for the year April 2016 to March 2017 against the 2016/17 business plans.  The report provided explanations and commentary in respect of outstanding, good and poor performance, including achievement of targets and details of remedial actions being taken.

6.2       With reference to the overall performance of the City Council, the committee questioned whether the results of the City Survey 2016 could be relied upon given the limited size of the sample base.  Graeme Gordon, Programme Director, Evaluation and Performance Team, advised that a sample base of 1000 people was the industry standard for surveys and polls. If appropriately weighted the sample base should produce fairly accurate results.  He advised that the survey could be augmented by gathering community insight through other forms such as qualitative interviews, customer feedback and using complaints data to provide a more representative picture of residents’ perception of Council services.

6.3       The committee then considered performance results at year end by service directorate.  The committee submitted questions to individual members of the Executive Management Team on performance within their directorates.  This included queries about key performance indicators that had regularly been “off track” over the last 2-3 years.

6.4       In exploring why certain targets were missed the Committee questioned how targets are set and whether there is a problem of setting sensible, robust targets and setting ranges around these targets that are plausible.  The committee also expressed concern at the Council’s ability to measure properly performance of some key policies. The absence of data on the number of people helped into work by the Westminster Employment Service beyond six months was cited as an example. 

6.5       The Committee suggested that complaints information should be integrated as part of the performance reporting and aligned to the City Survey results where possible and that the underlying reasons for why these complaints have been made should be assessed.  Siobhan Coldwell, Chief of Staff, informed members that the Council was implementing a new, more comprehensive complaints monitoring system which would include details of the reasons for complaints.  This would be incorporated in the Annual Corporate Complaints report which was due to be submitted to the committee in November.

            Adult Services and Public Health

6.6       The Committee asked how the move from a Tri-Borough to Bi-borough arrangement could impact on service delivery.  Members also asked why the key performance indicator - percentage of known carers who have received an assessment or review - had fallen short of its target for the last 3 years.  Officers were also asked for more information around the performance of the Community Independence Service and outcomes achieved for those using it.

6.7       Stella Baillie, Tri-Borough Director for Integrated Care, stated that the move from a Tri-Borough to Bi-borough partnership arrangement should not have a particular impact on service performance.  She explained that the teams delivering services are sovereign to each authority and will continue to be so.  With regards to the KPI of providing an assessment to known carers, she explained that the target had been lowered from 95% in 2015/16 to 90% in 2016/17 as it was considered to be unachievable. She considered an outturn of 85% upwards to be a strong performance position. A 2% decline in performance from the previous year is minimal and therefore she considered that performance was steady.  The Council will continue to set challenging stretch targets for this local indicator to maintain focus on this priority area and ensure that the excellent progress that has been made is sustained.

6.8       The Community Independence Service is a fully integrated service across social and health services to support people to remain/return to their own homes as effectively as possible. Stella Baillie stated that the service was gradually taking shape under the new provider, Central North West London NHS (CNWL) Trust.  They had introduced a number of improvements since taking over the services from Central London Community Healthcare (CLCH).  Whilst performance had improved she believed that the targets, which had been set by the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG), will always be challenging to meet.  She considered that there is a need to discuss the targets with the CCG with a possible view to revise them to incorporate a trajectory.

            Children’s Services

6.9       The committee asked for an explanation about the ‘off-tack’ target for recruiting foster carers over the last 3 years.  Melissa Caslake, Director of Family Services, explained that following the recruitment of only 9 Foster Carers against a target of 20 in 2014/15 the Council entered into a delivery partnership with Cornerstone in order to target and enhance the recruitment of foster carers.  The outcome was an increase in the number of foster carers recruited in 2015/16, 17 against a target of 20.  Whilst the challenging target of 25 for 2016/17 has not been met a total of 18 foster carers have been recruited which compares favourably on previous years.

6.10    Members also asked about the delay in establishing the Young Westminster Foundation and for details about the sustained improvement/outcome associated with the Troubled Families Service.  Melissa Caslake explained that the delay in establishing the Young Westminster Foundation was principally due to the time it had taken to appoint a chief executive.  Unfortunately two rounds of interviews had to be undertaken before a suitable person was found.  Given the small size of the team it was not felt appropriate to recruit other posts until this key appointment had been made. Melissa Caslake undertook to provide the committee with a copy of a report on the outcomes achieved by the Troubled Families Service that was submitted to the Children, Environment and Leisure Policy and Scrutiny Committee.  Indicators had reduced. She explained that the Council could reclaim money spent on the programme from the government subject to demonstrating that it had delivered sustained outcomes.  This was defined by government as 6 months. The committee considered that the true measure of sustained outcome should be greater than 6 months.

            Corporate Services

6.11    The committee asked for an update on the performance of the Managed Services Programme.  John Quinn, Bi-Borough Director of Corporate Services, advised that BT is continuing to improve its performance. Day-to-day operational performance is generally good.  Payroll accuracy is at 99%.  There are still some historic issues around payroll and pensions that are outstanding.  He advised that the required software update would take place before Christmas and that testing in relation to this was underway.  In response to questions regarding the re-procurement of managed services he advised that the Council was working with Deloittes to find a new provider.  The Council had identified three potential delivery models and was working to narrow these down to one preferred solution, the detail of these would be presented to Cabinet in September.

6.12    The Committee asked officers about the ‘off track’ targets for reducing the number and spend on temporary agency contractors (TACs) per annum.  John Quinn advised that while the Council had reduced its reliance on TACs year on year the outturns were still above target.  He explained that TACs are a vital part of the workforce and can be used for a wide range of reasons such as to provide specialist support on a project or to provide cover until a vacant post is refilled.  The target of employing no more than 180 TACs per annum is an aspiration.  He explained that he has no direct control over the number of agency contractors employed within the Council as recruitment is undertaken by directly by each service.  However, he does particularly look at the number of TACs with a tenure of 12 months or more.

6.13    Members asked whether there was any correlation between staff turnover and the use of TACs and if so perhaps the Council should require longer notice periods.  They also asked how needs for TACs are identified and whether there were variables in requirements between departments.  The committee noted with interest that there had been an overspend on TACs at the same time that there had been an underspend against some staffing budgets.  Mr Quinn stated that staff turnover in 2016/17 was 16% against a target of 12%.  He advised that the former was broadly in line with the average staff turnover rate within English local authorities and that the current target was perhaps unrealistic.  He explained that HR business partners meet with each executive team to discuss their needs for TACs.  However, the Council has a wide number of variable projects and schemes which sometimes require a longer than anticipated use of temporary resources.

            City Management and Communities

6.14    Members asked for an update on the outcome of negotiations with the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) regarding police reforms and the proposed borough command unit merger.  Jackie Gibson, Head of Strategy & Development, advised that the impact of the proposals were still being assessed and that the Director of Public Protection and Licensing was still in discussions with MOPAC.

            Growth, Planning and Housing

6.15    Members asked whether the new focus of reconnecting rough sleepers who are from outside of the borough to their hometown is a good use of the Council’s resources.  The committee commented that many rough sleepers leave their home town for reasons such as family estrangement or concerns about their safety.  Members also commented that some rough sleepers do not want to leave the streets.  Ed Watson, Executive Director for Growth, Planning and Housing, explained that a large proportion of rough sleepers come from outside of the borough often with expectations that are not met or the perception of the services that can be provided which cannot.  The Council is trying to help these individuals to reconnect with their hometown and to address the reasons why they left in the first place.  The funding to facilitate this work was being provided by the Home Office.  Whilst he acknowledged that some rough sleepers do not want to be helped the Council’s approach is to offer every rough sleeper a personalised plan so that those who do not want to spend a second night on the street do not.

6.16    The Committee asked about the ‘off track’ target for the determination of ‘other’ planning applications within 8 weeks which had been missed for the previous three years.  Mr Watson explained that the targets are set nationally and have rarely been met because of the complexities of schemes in Westminster.  Other reasons included an increase in workload without a similar increase in resources and disruption caused by the digitalisation of development planning.  The year-end outturn had improved in 2016/17 to 75% and exceeded the target which the the government had also lowered to 70%.

City Treasurer.

6.17    Members asked in relation to Medium Term Saving Plans whether each directorate was producing individual plans.  Dave Hodgkinson confirmed that this was the case.  These are in the process of being finalised and will be available on the Council’s website shortly.

6.18    The Committee noted in relation to the Council’s general fund budget that there had been an underspend on staffing in some service areas and it questioned how this could be defended to the public given the current financial constraints.  Mr Hodgkinson explained that the Council aims to set a balanced budget. However, the City Council was a large and complex business with a budget of over £800 million per annum.  Therefore, it was not unusual given its complexities to have a 2% year end outturn against the approved budget.

            Policy, Performance and Communications

6.19    The Committee asked about the possible reputational impact to the Council of moving from a Tri-Borough to a Bi-Borough Partnership given the current criticism being faced by RBKC following the Grenfell Tower fire.  The committee also asked whether the Council was lobbying the government on the status of EU nationals following Brexit given that 15% of the workforce in Westminster are EU nationals and that there are some sectors with particular dependencies, e.g. 44% of the accommodation and food sector and 20% of caring professions.  Graeme Gordon stated in respect of the Bi-Borough partnership arrangements that there is both a potential operational and reputational risk to the Council and this will be kept under observation.  With regards to Brexit, he confirmed that the Council was lobbying the government on the economic risks to Westminster of leaving the EU.

6.20    With regards to Open Forums, the committee considered that they are too large and that local views have been diluted.  Members considered that the Council should reintroduce a more localised approach similar to the former area forums.

6.21    ACTIONS:

1.    Provide information around the performance of the Community Independence Service and the outcomes achieved for those using it.  (Action for: Stella Baillie, Tri-Borough Director for Integrated Care)

2.    The Committee would like more information around the performance of the Troubled Families Service and longer term outcomes achieved for this cohort.  Also provide a copy of the report on the service that went to the Children, Environment & Leisure Policy and Scrutiny Committee.  (Action for: Melissa Caslake, Director of Family Services)

3.    Provide details of how the targets for recruiting foster carers were determined. (Action for: Melissa Caslake, Director of Family Services)