Agenda item

Consideration was given to a report presented by the Leader of the Council detailing performance against the targets and priorities within the Corporate Plan 2017-18 for the first quarter of the year from 1^st April to 30^th June, 2017.

 

The Performance Report and Performance Scorecard, set out in Appendices A and B to the report, provided an analysis of the Council’s current performance against 14 key delivery outcomes and 72 measures. The report was based on the current position of available data, along with an overview of progress on key projects and activities which also contributed towards the delivery of the Corporate Plan.

 

It was noted that, at the end of the first quarter (April – June 2017), 27 measures had either met or had exceeded the target set in the Corporate Plan. Although this represented only 37.5% of the total number of measures in the Plan, it equated to 47.4% of the total number of indicators where data was available or where targets had been set. A total of 16 (27.6% of those measured in the quarter) performance measures had not hit their target for the year (22.2% overall). 

 

The Leader made reference to the mixed performance headlines which were set out clearly as part of the report and appendices.

 

Members took the opportunity to review the performance report, narrative and data and identified a number of areas for questioning, which included:-

 

·                There appeared to be no marked improvement with progress remaining steadfastly below 50%.  What was the Strategic Leadership Team’s view of the progress of performance indicators, was this being taken seriously and why was the Council settling for a “mixed bag” for progress.

 

It was explained the Council was at that point of its improvement journey.  Easier targets could have been set, but measures had been identified across a range of Council measures.  The Strategic Leadership Team and Cabinet Members met and discussed performance on a regular basis with a decision made, based on the end of year report, that a forensic piece of work would be undertaken with Strategic and Assistant Directors of each measure that was off track establishing interventions/additional support required etc.  There was no complacency.

 

·                Why was Early Help Service not impacting on the numbers of Looked After Children, Children in Need and Children on Child Protection? 

 

It was noted there was some impact being seen; as of yesterday the Children In Need numbers, where you would expect to see the biggest impact of Early Help, had reduced to 1400, a decrease of approximately 300.  Early Help co-worked in a number of Social Care cases.  There were a range of different projects that would impact on the Edge of Care on care numbers.  The investments put in place were starting to impact but not sufficiently to register in the first quarter figures.

 

There was a new process in place in which cases were stepped up or down between Early Help and Social Care and would see an impact in a more positive way so that Social Care was only working with families that would benefit from Social Work Service and were legally required to provide Social Care Service.  It would also be expected to impact upon the repeat Child Protection referral figures.

 

·                Was there any evidence to suggest that there was a link between Fixed Term Exclusions and the length of time for EHCPs to be completed?   

 

There was no obvious link, but this would be investigated further.

 

With an ever increasing number of Academies it became more difficult for the Authority to become involved in their performance unless it was a school of concern, however, the majority were quite happy to work with the service.  Where the Authority had the right to intervene the service was making a difference.

 

·                1.C1 Smoking – what work was being done to move the framing of this term of reference to nicotine consumption rather than smoking? 

 

There was a myth that e-cigarettes were a safe alternative, however, they were still a health risk.  Consideration had not yet been given to changing the definition, but this would be discussed with the Strategic Director.  Work was taking place in chunks to make it manageable to encourage people to stop smoking and particularly to stop smoking in pregnancy. 

 

From a Public Health point of view the first thing was to address any measures to tackle tobacco use including illicit tobacco.  There were around 4,000 chemicals in tobacco many of which were harmful to health.  This was a challenging target.  The use of nicotine replacement was part of this as was working with people to become free of nicotine addiction.

 

·                Was there anything that could be done to tackle the increasing number of young people smoking? 

 

The whole thrust of Adult Social Care, Public Health, and the CCG was prevention.  The figure went down to 12.1% last year.  One of the reasons why this was so challenging was budget pressures. The service had been reduced as much as it could be and discussions had taken place with the team looking to see if savings could be made elsewhere. 

 

To prevent more people taking up smoking action needed to be targeted at more deprived areas.  Young people were more likely to start smoking if others smoked in the household.  Consistent work was needed in schools alongside retailers to prevent any underage sales and counterfeits.

 

·                How far behind local comparators were Rotherham in terms of reductions in drug and alcohol treatment in opiate and non-opiate drug therapies and how was that exacerbating the problem? 

 

For the full year Rotherham was “red” on opiate users due to people having been through treatment and not re-entered treatment for at least six months.  There was no local target and the aim was that people that been addicted to opiates and been through the whole treatment process and not re-entered the service for six months.  This had been successful, but had since decreased.  There was increased performance monitoring and a great deal more work with GP shared care and monitoring of vulnerable substance users on supervised consumption of methadone etc.

 

·                What were the key risks to 2.B3 (number of people provided with information and advice at first point of contact) being off target?

 

Overall the performance for Adult Social Care was good, but continued to face demanding pressures.  Response had been positive, but had created a backlog of unallocated work, which was being addressed to progress this forward.

 

Positive actions in the Improvement Plan included reviewing the Single Point of Access team.  Changes had already been in place including additional social care and occupational staff in order to provide an improved and speedy response.

 

·                Increase of the living wage and the potential for increased costs for home care.

 

The Government’s Living Wage initiative put additional pressure on care homes and the need for additional funding.

 

Domiciliary care workers were paid hourly rates and changes had been made to sleeping arrangements for 24 hour supported living.  Where previously staff were paid a flat rate, the national minimum wage now applied.

 

·                What other activities were the Council undertaking to bring different communities together to make one big strong community?

 

A partnership programme of work had commenced “Building Stronger Communities” which stimulated opportunities for people from different backgrounds to come together.  The small grants programme supported small voluntary sector organisations and different groups in facilitating and attending events, opening doors and facilitating interaction. 

 

A bid had also been successful from the Government’s “Control Migration” Fund which would assist a number of schemes that dealt with various issues and allowed for children coming together.  Further information could be provided.

 

·                3.A5 - Rotherham survey on satisfaction levels which depicted a 66% of residents satisfied with their local area and where they lived, as opposed to 34% who were not satisfied.  Were there any national statistics to compare?

 

The survey had been funded by the LGA and whilst there had been some freedom on the questions none were potentially indicators.  The responses were split into three areas – very satisfied, quite satisfied or neutral.

 

Nationally the LGA had aggregated the figures and areas were not always fairly compared.

 

·                3.12 – How many incidents of hate crime had been reported?

 

No actual figures were to hand, but this would be followed up and confirmed.

 

·                4.A7 – Narrowing the gap on the rate of the working age population economically active in the Borough.  Was this target achievable and what action had been done to achieve this?

 

The target was set to reduce economic inactivity.  This was a challenging figure due to the vulnerable cohort as this was much wider than the Council itself and required a partnership approach.

 

Terri Roche was the lead for this work as part of a Sheffield City Region internal working group looking how to support people back into the job market.

 

Agencies and voluntary based services and the Local Implementation Board were reviewing cases on how vulnerable people could best be helped.  This was not an easy piece of work due to the different people involved and the policy changes longer term.

 

·                4.B1 – Was the number of new homes delivery during this year on target given that only 130 had been built so far?

 

The target was reliant on property developers, but site cluster proposals had been agreed committing the Council’s resources to deliver new housing across 7 sites and a further 250 homes were soon to be delivered at Waverley.

 

The Local Plan would also be on line next year when swathes of land would be released with the target increasing to 900 new homes with a 10% increase year on year. 

 

Whilst there were no national figures to compare with Rotherham on a South Yorkshire basis, the figures were similar with Doncaster being slightly ahead.

 

Rotherham was ahead of the game in terms of its Local Plan proposals and a surge of housing applications may come forward.  People working in Sheffield may seek accommodation in Rotherham which could bring value and wealth into this area.

 

In delivering housing growth there was a need to work with the developers in delivering affordable housing.

 

A development summit was also to be held on the 11^th October, 2017 at New York Stadium inviting developers to discuss the delivery of new homes, improve investor confidence and to work in partnership. 

 

Further consideration would also need to be given to land and staffing capacity and the utilisation of resources.  The Government’s own growth agenda included additional monies for shared ownership and how the housing infrastructure could further be resourced through the Housing Revenue Account.

 

Unfortunately, it was difficult to stimulate housing development as this was reliant on the land available and the viability of delivery.

 

·                4.B3 – With regards to selective licensing 223 houses had been inspected in the first quarter - how many had been done in total?

 

This figure had changed significantly and further work was now taking place on inspections.  The Selective Licensing Scheme had now been running for 2 years and was improving management standards.

 

In other areas more active enforcement had been effective.

 

·                Where did a bad tenant go?

 

Support was provided, where required, for matters related to tenant displacement.   There was no single solution for assisting or resolving matters related to dysfunctional communities.

 

·                How were complaints being dealt with and was there a need for further training?.

 

A detailed report was scheduled to be submitted to the next meeting on complaints and would deal with complaints at Stages 1, 2 and 3.

 

Additional training was provided for people dealing with complaints and responding to customers.

 

One of the areas of concern was around the percentage of complaints closed within the timescale which was not being progressed in accordance with the target set.  This was as a result of some complexities in the complaints received.  Further work was taking place on understanding the nature of the complaint and how best to address the issues.

 

·                How far off target were the completion of PDR’s?

 

Q1 was on target at 95% and the appraisals were not just a tick box exercise and concentrated more on values. This was to ensure the process was more improved.   The reasons for why the target was not 100% was due to sickness and where people had left the Authority.  Currently the figure was at 96% and on return from sick leave PDR’s were undertaken.

 

·                What steps were being taken to manage sickness given the budget pressures and changes to services?

 

A target had been set of 10.3 days lost FTE.  Currently performance was at 10.41, which was an improvement on last year’s figure of 10.97.  Progress was being made and training had been provided to managers on managing sickness and helping staff return to work.

 

·                What were other Local Authorities’ targets for sickness?

 

Rotherham benchmarked itself against CIPD around 10 days per FTE.  In the public sector the average was 10.6 FTE.  A detailed report had been presented to the Strategic Leadership Team on the current position.

 

·                5.C5 – expectation of payment of bills on line from 2018.

 

Residents would not be expected to complete all online payments alone without support.  Visitors to Riverside were assisted through the process.  A further report would be brought outlining specific areas of what was moving online and the expectations in the future.

 

Benefit claims had a different verification process to payment of bills to minimise risk.  Safeguards were in place to minimise fraud and some calls were recorded and monitored.

 

For those customers not able to fill forms out online there was still the opportunity to be supported in Riverside House or even in their own home to streamline the process.  Services were being moved more to self-service and direct debit.

 

 

 

Resolved:-  (1)  That officers be thanked for their attendance and information today and the overall position and direction of travel in relation to performance be noted.

 

(2)  That consideration be given to measures which have not progressed in accordance with the target set and the actions required to improve performance, including future performance clinics

 

(3)  That the performance repotting timetable for 2017/18 be noted.

 

(4)  That a further report on online transactions be submitted to the Board in due course.