To report the Council’s performance for the first six months of 2008-09 against the Corporate Plan 2008-11 and national performance indicators used externally to measure the Council’s performance, taking account of the separate but complementary financial performance report, risk and progress against the action plans produced following the Crookall review.

The Committee considered the Council’s performance for the first six months of 2008-09 against the Corporate Plan 2008-11 and national performance indicators used externally to measure the Council’s performance, taking account of the separate but complementary financial performance report, risk and progress against the action plans produced following the Crookall review.

The Corporate Policy and Research Manager (CPRM) presented the report, first explaining the changes that had been made to the report’s content and format in response to comments made by the Committee in October.

In terms of overall performance he reported that 92 indicators (up from 77 in the last report) were now rated green (on course to achieve target (or establish baseline)), 46 of the indicators in the Corporate Plan were now rated green (up from 32); 55 indicators (up from 46) were rated red (not on target/no activity reported) with 26 of the indicators in the Corporate Plan rated red (up from 21).  The proportion of amber indicators (some progress but data not available to determine whether the target will be achieved) was reducing, as was to be expected as the year progressed and the picture of performance became clearer.

He highlighted the following points:

·         There was a mixed picture in Children’s Services.  However, as indicated in the Director’s commentary, performance in children’s’ social care in relation to the timeliness of assessments and percentage of referrals going on to initial assessment was expected to improve as a result of recruitment campaigns, creating a significant increase in the social worker establishment by January 2009, and the implementation of the new integrated social care system.

There were positive improvements in respect of a number of indicators including NI 67 (child protection cases which were reviewed within required timescales).

All the latest provisional examination results had been marked amber because of the problems that had arisen over the national marking system.

In relation to the corporate risk register, the CPRM drew attention to the four Council risks within the risk assurance frameworkhaving a residual score of 15 or more after mitigating action had been takeninto account.

In relation to the action plans put in place in response to the Crookall review a further 7 actions had been completed.  None of the remainder was red-flagged.

In the course of discussion the following principal points were made (numbering cross-refers to pages in the agenda papers and indicators):

·         That whilst overall performance against the Corporate Plan indicators had slightly improved since the last report, the overall direction of travel position (i.e. those indicators currently used by the Audit Commission to assess performance this year compared with last year) had worsened.

·         That a number of baselines had yet to be set.  In reply, the CPRM said that the Place Survey would help to establish a number of these by March 2009.  The Director of Environment and Culture’s commentary acknowledged that in relation to national indicators 182-184 there was a significant risk that thedata required to set the baselines would not be available at the year end.  However, remedial action was underway.

·         It was noted that in relation to a number of newly red-rated indicators under the corporate priority of reshaped health and social care, set out at page 10 of the report, the necessary discussions between the Primary Care Trust (PCT) and the Council to get them on track had still nottaken place.  In reply, it was explainedthat the PCT had been heavily committed to preparing for the world class commissioning assessments.

·         It was believed that a report to Cabinet on affordable housing was still outstanding, making it difficult for the Committee to comment fullyon the adequacy of the measures being taken to deliver this corporate priority.

·         Members noted the efforts being made to recruit social workers, commenting that this was known to be a nationwide problem.  Some concern was expressed that the position might be made worse by the adverse national publicity directed at social workers in the case of the high-profile child protection issue in Haringey.

·         The usefulness of Best Value Performance Indicator 100 (p42) was questioned.  The CPRM said that the definition was nationally determined.  He would ask the Director of Environment and Culture to provide clarification. 

·         Information was requested on whether all the Council’s social workers were qualified, the level of experience post-qualification and the rate of staff turnover.

·         Concern was expressed that one of the four risks in the risk assurance framework was, “lack of planning by other parts of the organisation is having significant impact on the ability of ICT to deliver to customer’s timescales.”  The Interim Deputy Chief Executive said that the position was beginning to improve as new, integrated ICT systems were put in placeand would be pursued further as part of the current service planning round.

·         A question was asked about how the revised travel and subsistence policy had been considered and approved.  The Director of Resources replied that the Joint Management Team had approved the revised policy and that Internal Audit Services had been consulted on it.

RESOLVED:  That the Committee’s observations on the Integrated Corporate Performance report be noted.