Agenda item

Council Plan Quarter 4 (January to March 2019) and 2018-2019 Annual Performance Report

Cabinet Portfolio:                 Corporate Services and Finance

Strategic Directorate:           Assistant Chief Executive

 

Minutes:

Consideration was given to the report presented by Councillor Read, Leader of the Council, which set out the headline priorities, outcomes and measures demonstrating delivery of the vision.

 

This fourth quarter report indicated that 58% of the total number of measures had been met when compared to the 44% met this time last year.  This was the highest percentage of performance measures that the Council had hit for a number of years and represented a significant improvement in performance over previous quarters, as only 47%, 45% and 42% of measures hit their targets in quarters one, two and three respectively. The priority area with the highest proportion of targets met was Priority 4 (extending opportunity, prosperity and planning for the future) where 75% of measures were marked as on target.

 

The Leader set out in detail the direction of travel which was positive for 32 (51%) of the measures calculated in this quarter. This was a deterioration compared to the 58% figure for last quarter and suggests that, although there had been an increase in the number of targets marked as “hit”, there were an increasing number of measures where performance was stable or worsening.

 

An outline summary was provided of all the targets and a snapshot of the current progress against the thirteen delivery outcomes which underpinned the Council’s priorities and the seventy headline performance measures that Directorates had identified to demonstrate progress in achieving the outcomes.  Reference was also made to the performance status broken down by priority with Priority 1 having seven on target, two satisfactory and six off target; Priority 2 having six on target, none satisfactory and three off target; Priority 3 seven on target, two satisfactory and seven off target; Priority 4 six on target, one satisfactory and one off target and Priority 5 eight on target, two satisfactory and one off target (these were all set out in detail as part of the report).

 

There were a number of measures that did not have information available due to these being annual, termly or six monthly.

 

The Board asked the Cabinet Member and lead officer for each priority to comment further drawing any attention to specific areas.

 

Priority 1:-

 

Jon Stonehouse, Strategic Director, expressed cautious optimism at the progress with looked after children numbers which appeared to be plateauing in their reduction and were in line with budget expectations.  The trend was also positive around child in need and child protection numbers and demand indicators.

 

The Board sought clarification on the number of looked after children and the projections and whether this was done by linear extrapolation from the trend or if the numbers were first estimates.

 

The Directorate had tried to illustrate the projected position as comprehensively as possible based on a range of variables, including population size and demographics.

 

A further question was asked by the Board as to why a funding commitment was required from secondary schools to support the appointment of three lead practitioners for English, Maths and Science.

 

Again the Directorate were looking to develop different approaches to supporting skills and through the Rotherham Education Strategic Partnership decisions were being made in a collaborative way with multi academy trusts to identify improvements and better performance.

 

In response to the comment above the Board asked further what measures were being proposed or if there was anything specific that required three these three appointments.

 

The Directorate responded by confirming this decision was building on good practice within the school communities, sharing information and using funding to support school leaders who had already been successful in those areas. 

 

The Board sought further clarification on the increase of the proportion of families already in receipt of Early Help whether the service was good or excellent.  This raised the question that this was only being asked of families who had engaged and where the intervention had been successful rather than where families may have been stepped up to Social Care and had not engaged earlier.

 

The Directorate acknowledged the comment and would take the content on board.

 

Priority 2:-

 

Councillor Roche, Cabinet Member, was pleased to report the direction of travel was good for Priority 2 with room for improvement.  It was noted that the smoking status at time of delivery had exceeded its target. 

 

The proportion of people subject to a safeguarding enquiry who felt that personal outcomes were met over the full year had achieved its target.  However, this decreased from Quarter 3 to Quarter 4 and was subject to further investigation.

 

The Board made reference to the Enablement Service and whether this was properly resourced to cope with winter planning or a flu epidemic. It was advised that a situation like a flu epidemic not only affect the Enablement Services, but also Intermediate Care for cases when people were discharged from hospital.  Discussions were ongoing between the CCG and the Council to ensure sufficient capacity was in place as the last few winters had not been particularly harsh. 

The Board also referred to the effect on the completion of carers' assessments and what had been learnt to date to assist with moving onto the next assessment priority, Addison Road.

 

The Cabinet Member pointed out that the direction of travel in this area was good, but it still had not met its target.  This had only slightly been missed partly due to a capacity issue.

 

Information shared recently indicated that assessments for carers would take place across a whole age range and whilst it was acknowledged the pace had not been the best, this was now being addressed and for this to feed into the remodelling.  From the 21st October, 2019 there would be strategic lead for carers who would discuss with all the relevant stakeholders about how to improve the carer’s offer.

 

Priority 3:-

 

Paul Woodcock, Strategic Director, wished to highlight that the percentage of the non-principal road network in need of report had reduced to 4% in need of repair against a target of 6% thus repairing and resurfacing over 700 kilometres of highways and roads.  In addition, the number of engagements with the Council’s culture and leisure facilities had exceeded their target and visits to libraries had reversed the trend with more visits in the last year.

 

From a tourism angle, the Waleswood Camping and Caravan Site was now open and Gulliver’s had reported they were on target for their opening in 2020.

 

The Board again sought clarification on public perception of anti-social behaviour and the percentage of the public who regarded the issues as big or fairly big problems and how this might be addressed.  

 

The Board were advised that an in-depth analysis had been undertaken to understand what lay behind this headline figure in terms of specific concerns or locations.  Anti-social behaviour was a wide-ranging term and covered a range of activities.  In terms of the “Your Voice Counts” survey littering was also included as anti-social behaviour.  In counting terms this appeared elsewhere within performance monitoring.  Three areas stood out as the areas that people were concerned about – littering, drugs and off-road motorbikes.  Officers have been tasked with looking specifically at those areas and consideration would then be given as how this was communicated to residents.

 

The Board also asked how much of an overlap there was with community cohesion and the perceptions of anti-social behaviour. 

 

The service was drawing up plans with the level of detail and this was heavily linked to not only personal resilience of individuals but wider resilience within communities.  Members would be aware that over the past eighteen months work had taken place to co-locate community safety services with the intention of bringing those services closer to the communities that they served to allow them to develop stronger relationships and support the range of positive activities.

 

Under the Safer Rotherham Partnership it was a priority to build confident and cohesive communities and recognise the intrinsic links.  Various activities were supported to engage with communities, to raise the level of confidence within services and it was hoped this would have some impact moving forward.  One of the real challenges with perception was the national and international influences through the media and a significant amount of work had been undertaken to try and raise the service’s profile and share positive messages online.

 

The Board reiterated its support for the range of cultural activities taking place in the town, but expressed some concern about the positive outcomes for reported hate crime with an increased number of the LGBT community being targeted. Whilst it was noted there was to be increased awareness and restorative justice in this area, how was this to be promoted.

 

The service was aware that positive outcomes had dipped, but these measures were going in the right direction.  It was important that the public received a positive outcome and community resolutions were being used to try and sort a change in behaviour for both the perpetrator and the victim.

 

The Police could perhaps elaborate more on how they intended to improve the outcomes and this would be fed back.  It was positive to work with partners such as REMA, the Rainbow Project and Speak Up who had been real advocates and on speaking up against hate crime as this would facilitate the sort of resolution outcomes rather than just recording crimes and prosecutions. Outcomes victims had indicated they would like to see were restorative solutions as this had a greater capacity or potential to change those behaviours.  Elected Members were key to raising awareness within communities.

 

The service had worked hard to establish, reinforce and strengthen the independent Hate Crime Scrutiny Panel which many of those organisations attended.  There were active challenges in terms of improving the situation around hate crime, but equally supportive of working together to develop a campaign to reinforce to the wider public about both the impact of hate and the potential consequences of those who commit those types of offences.

 

The Board asked if incidents of hate crime were recorded in terms of race, religion, sexual orientation, disability etc..

 

Race and religion were by far the biggest areas of recorded hate crime, however there was increase reporting across all areas.  Part of the issue was some crimes were under-reported (for example hate crimes against disabled people and trans-people) and it was for the Partnership to reinforce and strengthen engagement. 

 

 

The focus would continue to be on working with communities and organisations about how the public could be upstanding against hate whilst creating an atmosphere of zero tolerance.  In terms of reporting Rotherham had seen a steady increase in reporting of hate crime and showed the public were taking an active role in standing up against it.

 

The Board also expressed some concern about the reported incidents of fly tipping and were advised that this was a priority area.  Action was being taken against some of the organised elements of fly tipping and the range of activities to prosecute.

 

Of particular concern was the number of adverts of contractors willing to dispose of rubbish for the public only to find it had been fly tipped.  The public were then unwittingly contributing to the problem.  There were reputable companies who would willingly produce their waste transfer licence which was required.

 

In terms of investigative methods the Council was exploiting all available opportunities such as CCTV in hotspots and were undertaking a significant piece of work internally to reorganise the way that some services worked and operated. 

 

The Council would continue to strengthen those investigative routes and enforcement processes and raise awareness about the responsibility on the public to dispose of their waste properly.

 

The Board asked if the Council could provide a respected contractors list for those who held the appropriate licenses and advertise this accordingly to the public on the website.  The service agreed this would be considered alongside a wider campaign.

 

The Board also suggested that a piece of work be considered by the service looking specifically at a wider policy of encouraging the public to visit their local recycling site and for further consideration to be given to the materials and commercial waste that could be disposed of. 

 

Whilst it was acknowledged that the public were responsible for their own rubbish material there were other options to dispose of large items like the Bulky Waste Collection Service.

 

It was also pointed out that the General Enforcement Policy was currently out to public consultation so the public and Members had the opportunity to share their views.

 

Priority 4:-

 

Paul Woodcock, Strategic Director, referred to the excellent performance in the number of planning applications that were being processed (100%) against a target of 95% and in the percentage of the privately rented properties complaint with Selective Licensing.

 

One of the measures that did not quite hit its target was the number of new business starts with help from the Council the target being sixty which was missed by two at fifty-eight.

 

The Board referred to the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) initiative and prize winning work undertaken by pupils at Swinton Academy. It also asked whether the Council monitored the gender pay gap in Rotherham and if action was being taken to address it locally.

 

Citing the recent STEM event at Magna, the Directorate referred to some excellent work that was already taking place with local employers and across the Council to promote this initiative and encourage women and girls in particular into STEM related activities to address their under-representation in these fields. .

 

In terms of the gender pay gap, as with most other economic indicators, these are based on national statistics and was not something the Council collected locally.

Priority 5:-

 

Councillor Alam, Cabinet Member, highlighted some of the positive performance headlines with the percentage of PDR completions hitting at 96% against a target of 95%, agency costs reductions in line with agreed plans and actions from the Equalities Peer Review having been completed in line with plans.  The only area which had missed its target was the days lost per FTE for sickness absence.  Work was being done with managers and trades unions looking at some early interventions.

 

The Board sought clarification on the actions to reduce sickness and were advised that a working group was looking at areas for improvement with a focus on responsibility, policy, processes and support available.

 

The Board cited a recent report of a foodbank being set up for civil service staff in London and asked if any staff in the Council were experiencing food poverty as this could be a factor in the days lost to sickness.

 

The Directorate were mindful that staff had their own individual circumstances, but were not aware of a particular kind of pattern or behaviour.  There were some families who were vulnerable to economic shocks and without any kind of resilience could be in trouble.  However, there had been some good work with the food banks in Rotherham and the feedback in general was more around welfare reform. 

 

One of the main areas of sickness was stress-related sickness and clearly stress was not always work related.   People's personal circumstances could have an impact on stress, but this would be picked up as part of the support and counselling that could be provided as part of the process.

 

The Board also sought information on whether there was specific themes emerging in relation to sickness for different Directorates and it was suggested that once some analysis had been done this was fed back.

 

The Directorate were happy to feed back any relevant information.

 

The Board also sought clarification on whether complaints and casework were logged formally and were advised that the two areas were separately recorded.  As the new casework system became embedded this would increasingly provide useful information about what issues were coming through to Members and provide a strong basis for putting resources in the right place.

 

In closing the debate, Councillor Read, Leader of the Council, in addition to concerns highlighted in relation to hate crime, that the continuing transformation of social care remained a challenge to the Council.

 

The Board took account of the concerns raised in relation to hate crime and would look to build this in the work programme to be considered by a small working group, alongside fly-tipping, work related sickness and steps to address the gender pay gap.

 

The Leader referred the Board to the actions outlined in the Employment and Skills Strategy which included information on the gender pay gap within Rotherham, with BME communities experiencing greater disparity.

 

The Board again thanked authors for the format of the Council Plan and how it was much easier to read and follow.

 

Resolved:-  (1)  That the overall position and direction of travel in relation to performance be noted

 

(2)  That consideration be given to measures which have not achieved their target and the actions required to improve performance, including future performance clinics

 

(3)  That the performance reporting timetable for 2019-2020 be noted.

 

(4)  That the achievements for 2018-2019 be noted.

 

(5)  That consideration be given to the inclusion in the work programme for the following performance outcomes; hate crimes, fly-tipping, work related sickness and a further report be provided on the gender pay gap.

Supporting documents: