Agenda item

To consider the Performance Monitoring Report for the first Quarter of 2022/23 (April to June).

The Committee considered a report, set out at Agenda pages 19 to 52, which set out details of corporate performance for Quarter 1 of 2022/23 (April to June 2022).

Sarah Kerr (Executive Member for Climate Emergency and Resident Services), Emily Higson (Head of Insight, Strategy and Inclusion) and Will Roper (Customer Insight Analyst and Performance Manager) attended the meeting to present the report and answer Member questions.

The report stated that Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) demonstrated that good performance had continued in Quarter 1 in the face of significant challenges. The challenges included the cost of living crisis, which was driving increased demand for services, high levels of inflation, the ongoing impact of the Covid-19 pandemic and the impact of the Ukraine crisis.

Despite these challenges, the majority of KPIs (18) were Green, with 11 Amber and 5 Red. Services were continuing to take proactive steps to drive strong performance and to manage demand as effectively as possible. There was also a strong focus on assessing risk and ensuring that that the Council’s stable financial position was maintained.

The five Red KPIs in Quarter 1 were:

·           AS1 – Percentage of safeguarding concerns, leading to an enquiry, completed within two working days;

·           AS2 – Social work assessments allocated to commence within 28 days of the requests (counted at the point of allocation);

·           CEX8 – Early resolution versus Stage 1 customer complaints;

·           CS4 – Percentage of Education, Health and Care Plan (ECHP) Assessments completed within 20 weeks of referral;

·           RA3 – Usage of Wokingham Borough leisure centres.

The report gave details of the relevant background for each of the Red indicators and the steps being taken to bring the KPIs back on track.

In the ensuing discussion, Members raised the following questions and comments:

On Page 19 of the Agenda there is a reference to the Great Resignation (post-Covid) and later in the report re CEX5 there is a voluntary staff turnover figure of 242. What actions are being taken to improve people retention rates? It was confirmed that the retention of engaged employees, who are able to deliver against the Councils’ priorities and corporate objectives are taken seriously by the Corporate Leadership Team (CLT). To ensure that corporate messages are disseminated throughout the business there is a programme of communication which includes weekly Senior Management Team meetings, monthly Extended CLT workshops and Teams briefings to all employees from CEO or Deputy CEO in addition to a monthly newsletter. Furthermore, annual staff engagement surveys along with regular 121’s and formal annual appraisals are undertaken, which provide the opportunity for managers and employees to discuss their achievements, objectives and to address any concerns the individuals may have.

CEX5 – Voluntary staff turnover - supplementary questions – Please provide examples of specific programmes aimed at tackling issues relating to staff turnover and/or sickness. Also – Do the staff turnover figures include volunteers who were taken on to support the Council’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic? Also – can the response to the questions above include a view from the Trade Unions re the Council as an employer? It was confirmed that a written response would be provided on these points.

The report states (Page 19) that the Place and Growth directorate is reviewing priorities and challenges with the new administration. We are 3 months into the new administration what update do we have on these priorities and challenges? It was confirmed that this was an on-going/live process which was the right approach with the current economic uncertainty due to the cost of living crisis and inflation. Financial sustainability of the Council was the main focus and ensuring the Council does all it can to protect the most vulnerable in our communities. This was a major challenge as there was increased demand without the additional funding to support that demand. In simple terms if there was no additional funding to support the increased demand, then prioritising the limited resources in a targeted approach would be the inevitable outcome. This would need to be a corporate approach, an approach that was not limited to Place and Growth.

On Page refers to ongoing impact of Ukraine Crisis, what are the figures of this ongoing impact? It was confirmed that the medium to long-term impact of the Ukrainian refugee programme was still unknown. To date, any additional financial pressures were being met through central Government funding allocations associated with the scheme. Officers have worked admirably supporting both the Ukrainian families and those generously agreeing to act as hosts. It was unclear at this stage what demands may be asked of the Council going forward but officers would keep Members updated as the situation developed.

Supplementary questions on the Ukraine Crisis – Please provide information on the Government’s longer term support and funding proposals (if known) to support Ukrainian refugees living in the Borough, following the Homes for Ukraine Scheme. What are the potential longer term impacts and risks for the Borough and what are the potential impacts on Council services? It was confirmed that a written response would be provided on these points.

CEX4 – Proportion of WBC staff who have self-declared their ethnicity and disability information via BWO – Q1 data indicated that 70% of staff had self-declared - what actions were being proposed to improve this percentage? It was confirmed that there was ongoing communication activity to encourage staff to update their ethnicity and disability information on BWO. This was part of the wider BWO improvement project.

PG4 – Percentage of “standard” works orders completed within 28 days – this KPI was showing a downward trend - what actions are being proposed? It was confirmed that the drop-off in performance had been addressed with the contractor who had been told that it needed to improve. Financial penalties have been raised for substandard performance and will continue to be issued until service standards are corrected in line with the KPI’s required within the contract.

RA5 – Number of FOI requests handled within statutory timeframes was showing performance of 83.5% in Q1 against a target of 90%. What was the actual number of FOI requests received and what was the trend? It was confirmed that 278 FOI requests had been received in Q1 of 2022/23.

RA5 – supplementary questions – Please provide a breakdown of the type of FOI requests received, service areas included, the source of the requests (e.g. public, media, etc.) and the impact on WBC officers (e.g. time taken to provide responses). It was confirmed that a written answer would be provided.

CEX 8 – Early resolution versus Stage 1 complaints - Stated that “formal complaints often centre around problems with communication.”  What are some of the common examples and in what ways does the new training address requirements of residents with specific needs – including those with different types of disabilities and for whom English may be a foreign language? It was confirmed that examples included no regular updates after a request for service or information has been submitted, thereby leaving customers in the dark about what was happening. As a result, this leads to further frustration and failure demand as customers are then having to chase us to find out what’s happening. Another example is where officers make a decision but do not explain clearly the reasoning behind it – or we think we have, but the customer does not understand as we have not been clear in our explanation, or perhaps used jargon or the wrong language in our response.

The training we are giving is around a “3C” concept, making sure that we communicate with Care, Clarity and Confidence. This includes making sure that we choose the right communication channel for the customer, and ensure that we consider any additional needs that they may have. When customers submit a complaint, we also ask them how they wish to be communicated with.

CEX7 - Overall customer satisfaction across phone and web was RAG rated Green, with a new approach being designed to set customer service KPIs. How was this KPI currently measured, and can you share any details of how the new measurements might be different? It was confirmed that the Council currently used Gov Metric to gather customer feedback and satisfaction levels around their experience across: calls into the main Council number, face to face interactions at Shute End and in Libraries, on all web chats, on all web pages including microsites and on some team emails. Performance currently reported was the overall satisfaction level across phones and website, where we received the highest volume of feedback. Officers are looking to roll out Gov Metric further across other channels as part of the Customer Excellence Programme.

The increasing complexity of demand on many of the service areas is reported repeatedly. Are there any specific areas of ‘preventative activity’ that WBC would like to undertake but have been unable to do so or would like to prioritise going forward? Is there any empirical evidence of the cost and other impacts that this increased complexity is having on service delivery – including the quality of services, on staff, and costs? It was confirmed that this was a complex question that required further investigation.The suggestion would be that this could be on the Scrutiny forward programme for a deep dive or a task and finish group. Also, as it covered a wide range of services this would need to cut across Children’s and HOSC Committees as well as the O&S Management Committee.

RA4 – Return on investment portfolio (Property Investment Fund) - Does the return on investment portfolio include all of the Council’s commercial properties and all costs, including officer time, security and maintenance of un-let properties?  Can you please also give summary details of the profile of properties in the portfolio that are not let, such as numbers of any that have been tenanted for six months or longer; and an estimate of the number of any that might require considerable expenditure to bring them to a ‘lettable’ standard? It was confirmed that the measure related to the ten commercial property assets held in the Council’s investment portfolio in accordance with the Council’s approved investment strategy. The rate of return was measured in the conventional manner, applying the passing rent to the total acquisition cost of the asset, and was therefore a reflection of the headline yield before allowance for debt, MRP and holding costs (if any). For the five single let assets the holding costs were zero. For the five multi-let assets any holding costs varied according to whether or not any of the properties had unlet units from time to time. The running costs of multi-let properties were covered by a service charge fund contributed by the tenants so they paid their own running costs. The landlord contributed only in respect of any unlet units. Two properties were currently being considered for refurbishment to enhance the re-letting of vacant units.

RA4 – supplementary question – Was it possible that the Rate of Return could be lower than reported, depending on the types of property within the Council’s portfolio? It was confirmed that a written answer would be provided on this issue.

AS1 – Percentage of safeguarding concerns leading to an enquiry, completed within two working days and AS2 – Social work assessments allocated to commence within 28 days of the requests – What was the rationale for setting the targets relating to these two KPIs? It was confirmed that a detailed response would be circulated to Members outside the meeting. It was noted that these KPIs were reviewed by HOSC, so a response should be submitted to HOSC Members.

Resources and Assets Top Wins (Page 28) – the general upwards trend of leisure participation and the success of the move with confidence programme. Was this statement consistent with the Q1 performance data (RA3) which indicated a downturn in attendance figures for the Borough’s leisure centres? It was confirmed that the longer term trend was improving and that visitor numbers for the Carnival Hub would be included in the Q2 figures.

CEX3 – Proportion of Wokingham-resident pupils eligible for Free School Meals in Wokingham Borough schools – What criteria were used to determine the allocation of free school meals? It was confirmed that decisions were based on criteria set out on the Government website.

PG1 – All recorded crime in Wokingham Borough (excluding fraud) – It was confirmed that Q1 performance showed an improvement, so the direction of travel should be “Better”, not “Worse” as set out in the report.

Sarah Kerr confirmed that the Overview and Scrutiny Committees would be able to discuss the emerging KPIs for 2023/24 (along with the associated targets) with the relevant Executive Members and officers.

RESOLVED That:

1)     Sarah Kerr, Emily Higson and Will Roper be thanked for attending the meeting to answer Member questions on the Q1 performance report;

2)     performance relating to the KPIs within the purview of the Management Committee be noted;

3)     written responses be provided for the Member questions which could not be answered at the meeting.