Agenda item

John Mansergh, Performance Management Officer, gave a powerpoint presentation on the Performance Management Framework as follows:-

Performance is reality

-              Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) should show what we are getting from our money

-              Should reflect reality

-              KPIs are only a ‘can opener’ – insight into the quality of service

-              Use alongside other tools e.g. budget reports, inspection assessments and customer satisfaction ratings

Target Setting – Why?

-              Legal duty to continuously improve

-              Helps to prioritise

-              Focuses efforts (Service Plan) and resources (Medium Term Financial Strategy) on achieving a target

-              Aims for better performance each year and to achieve levels of the very best

Performance Report

-                    Current Performance

o                   Identifies performance within the year against the set target (green is on target – red off target)

o                   Good performance is identified as a higher figure is better/or lower

-                    Baseline

o                   Outturn performance figure from the previous year

-                    Results

o                   Identifies the cumulative performance within the year at a given point in time

-                    This time last year

o                   Enables a trend analysis comparing the same reporting periods year on year

-                    D.o.T. (Direction of Travel)

o                   Identifies performance when comparing the same reporting period from the previous year (green is better/red is worse)

-                    Target

o                   We will include quarterly targets as recommended at last Panel

-                    Outcome Framework

o                   Identifies the linkage of the KPI to the Outcomes Framework

Making Performance Management Work

-                    Strong leadership and commitment

-                    Clear roles and responsibilities

-                    Setting clear, challenging but realistic objectives for improvement

-                    Robust performance information

-                    Balanced, open and honest reporting

-                    Taking quick and decisive action

-                    Integration with financial management

-                    Ensuring user focus and meeting all needs

-                    Creating a performance improvement culture

John presented the performance report for the first quarter of 2009/10 which outlined the Key Performance Indicator results and efficiency projections.

At the end of the quarter, 12 (86%) Key Performance Indicators were currently on track to achieve their year end targets, this compared to 75% at the end of last year. There were 2 Indicators that were rated ‘off’ target, and were shown as a red triangle alert in Appendix A. Of the Indicators solely owned by the Directorate, 100% were on target.  For 2010 Rotherham Ltd., 7 (78%) Key Performance Indicators were on track to achieve their year end targets which compared to 50% at the end of last year.  The Indicators off target at the end of the 1^st quarter were:-

2010 Rotherham Ltd.

-              BV211a Programmed/Responsive Repairs

-              LPI185 Repairs Appointments Made and Kept

2010 Rotherham was identifying rent lost for 2009/10 as a result of voids at the end of June of £288,000.

Discussion ensued on the report with the following issues highlighted/clarified:-

-              What was 2010 predicting as rent loss for the end of the year?

-              Ward Members had drawn attention to some practices of 2010 that officers had not been aware of.  A review was currently underway into those practices together with the predicted rent loss as at the end of the financial year.  It was expected that that piece of work would be completed shortly

-              Once completed, the findings of the review would be presented to Members as well at the 2010 Board

-              PSA7 (number of vulnerable households no longer living in decent accommodation in the private sector) was a national Indicator

-              Decent Homes did not mean that every property received a new central heating system, kitchen etc. so responsive repairs were still required

-              What help was there for those who had bought their property under the Right to Buy and was not subject to Decent Homes?  This was an area that required significant investment nationally.  Rotherham had made inroads into improving performance in the private sector which had been recognised in the Housing CPA rating but there was more work needed.  The Housing Strategy was being revised to take into consideration some of the strategic housing issues

-              The funding available for HAL had been committed.  Further work was being undertaken with private landlords to address non-decency issues.  Future reports were planned on this issue

-              The Council was preparing for Single Conversation with the new Homes and Communities Agency which would pull together all the funding streams for housing

Resolved:-  (1)  That the report and the remedial action in place to improve performance be noted.

(2)  That a report on long term empty properties be submitted to the next Panel meeting.

(3)  That the Audit Commission document “Is there something I should know” be circulated to Members of the Panel.