Agenda item

- report of Andrew Balchin, Head of Neighbourhood Development

The Head of Neighbourhood Development submitted a report proposing the model for performance monitoring and reporting arrangements to the Council by 2010 Rotherham Ltd.

A thorough benchmarking exercise had been undertaken involving a number of rounds 1 and 2 ALMOs whose performance reporting arrangements had matured over time and were considered by the Audit Commission to be effective.

The most recent ALMO Audit Commission Inspection Reports had been reviewed to ascertain current Housing Inspectorate thinking.  The inspection methodology had changed since the first 3 rounds of ALMO inspections and had seen the launch of Key Lines of Enquiry .  A detailed review of recent inspection reports had been undertaking including Sheffield Homes, Barnet Homes, Golden Gates – Warrington and Gateshead Housing Company. 

Following benchmarking, 3 reporting models had been drawn up as follows:-

Model 1

(a)        The ALMO reports performance to the ALMO Board and Area Boards

(b)        Cabinet Member is involved in decision making by scrutinising the ALMO’s performance at quarterly Cabinet Member meetings through reports from the ALMO’s Chief Executive

(c)        Scrutiny Panel scrutinise decisions made by the ALMO Board and Council Officers (including Cabinet Member).  Potentially overriding decisions already made by the ALMO Board.

Model 2

(a)        The ALMO reports performance to the ALMO Board and Area Boards.

(b)        Cabinet Member scrutinises performance of the ALMO at quarterly Cabinet meetings

(c)        Scrutiny not involved within the process and receives the performance report for information only.  Neighbourhood’s Audit Commission Relationship Manager suggests that there was a Scrutiny role as the ALMO was set up to deliver the Council’s housing objectives – the approach needed to be seamless in that it should follow on from the ALMO Board’s role in managing performance.

Model 3

(a)        The ALMO reports performance to the ALMO Board and Area Boards.]

(b)        Head of Neighbourhood Development and Cabinet Member are involved in assessing the performance of the ALMO, issuing written notices to the ALMO for compliance.  This is to be done through quarterly performance and financial reports from the ALMO’s Chief Executive.

(c)        Scrutiny Panel scrutinises Council Officers (including Cabinet Member) over the performance of the ALMO (CPA issues only) and other retained housing functions.  Scrutiny recommend actions to the ALMO  - Council Officers were accountable for improving performance overall.

Model 3 combined the best aspects of both reporting models and was similar to the model used in Sheffield (3 Stars) and Gateshead (excellent CPA rating for performance management).  Following discussion with other ALMOs, it had been identified as the preferred Model as it demonstrated arms-length.  There was clearly defined and structured accountability with the ALMO Board in charge of performance and the Council’s Scrutiny Panel adding value to the process by making recommendations for improvement.  This Model also appeared to fit the Council’s shared neighbourhood objectives thus ensuring that the ALMO was accountable to the Council through its contribution to the neighbourhood agenda.  The Model would have a positive impact on both Council and ALMO inspection ratings.

Discussion ensued on the 3 models.  The following points were raised/clarified:-

§                     Quarterly reports would be submitted to the Cabinet Member the minutes of which would be submitted to the Scrutiny Panel.

§                     Rotherham 2010 would be an independent organisation that would report twice yearly to the Scrutiny Panel.

§                     Rotherham 2010 would deliver functions on behalf of the Council, which were clearly set out in the Delegation Arrangements, and in accordance with the Delivery Plan.  It would deliver its services over a period of 12 months.  Scrutiny and Elected Members had an opportunity to see the Delivery Plan before it was agreed with the Company.  If it decided to deviate from that Plan, it had to secure agreement from the Council.

§                     The balance had to be struck between allowing Rotherham 2010 to proceed and deliver the services but not make any major changes in the way it delivered services with reference back to the Council.

§                     It had to be demonstrated to the Audit Commission that it was allowed to get on with the management and that the Council had explained what it wanted from it.

§                     Rotherham 2010 Ltd. was a company limited by guarantee.  The Members of the Board, including 5 Elected Members, 5 independent and 5 tenant representatives, were effectively directors of the Company.  There was no personal liability although they were responsible for overseeing the activities of the ALMO. 

§                     If Rotherham 2010 achieved a surplus, in the Management Arrangement it stated that it could use it for any purpose which had been agreed with the Council in the Delivery Plan.  If it was not in the Delivery Plan a proposal had to be submitted to the Council.  The Management Arrangements would ensure that there were no losses but if there was, it was the Council that made the loss as it owned the Company. 

§                     The ALMO was being created out of existing services and utilising existing service mechanisms.  There would be a detailed legal contract, clear Management Agreement, financial management arrangements agreed with the Head of Corporate Finance and Performance Management Framework  A team of officers would monitor the day-to-day performance together with close and effective monitoring of the Service Level Agreements to ensure both parties were achieving value for money.

§                     The Area Boards, made up of Elected Members and tenant representatives, would be responsible for overseeing performance and service delivery in their area.

Resolved:-  That, subject to any legal advice necessary, it be noted that the Scrutiny Panel supports Model 3 as the model by which 2010 Rotherham Ltd. will report to the Council.