Agenda item

To consider the Chief Executive’s Corporate Performance Overview Report for quarter two (July to September) of the 2008/09 financial year.

The Director of Corporate Services reported that, 272 out of 292 of the detailed actions were on track or complete which equated to a 92% success rate. Actions that were not performing well had been highlighted in the report. These included the development and construction of the town centre due to the economic climate. However the Secretary of State had now confirmed the compulsory purchase order, which meant that legal difficulties had now been overcome. Housing targets would also be difficult to meet due to the current economic climate.

Schools in the Borough had seen a number of improvements which meant they were well above the national average, i.e. at Key Stage 4 there was a 3% improvement in pupils achieving five or more grades A-C which included both English and Mathematics.

Crime had fallen in general terms according to the statistics, although there had been an increase in burglaries recently. The Commission noted that there was a need to monitor this. The figure for the number of most serious crimes (P.130 of the agenda papers) needed to be clarified, work was needed to re-assess the statistics as it was acknowledged that some required further validation.

The Commission noted that there was a new indicator under the Comprehensive Area Assessment on traffic congestion (P.62 of the agenda papers) but as this was an annual indicator there was no information present on this yet.

The Director of Corporate Services reported that the targets were carefully negotiated with the Government Office for the South East. Some members stated that they liked the new format of the report and that it would be useful to see the trends carried through to the second year and to compare the figures of both years. 

Members noted that a number of indicators were blank and queried whether it would be more effective to pull the information together in the fourth quarter to offer a more complete picture.

The Head of Overview and Scrutiny explained some of the reasons for the blanks in information; there were a large number of new indicators which were subtlety different from the old Best Value indicators and as a result trends could not be effectively compared, and in some cases the government had yet to issue technical definitions for the indicators. A vast number of indicators were not collected by the local authority, but by other bodies and partners for example, Sport England. This meant that officers were reliant on these bodies to provide this information. In addition, a large number of indictors were based on citizens perceptions. Officers had not yet received results from the CLG on the first Place Survey and so could not set baselines until this information was received.

The Commission queried why the employee sickness absence rate in the Social Care and Learning department was higher than that of the other Directorates. It was noted that this had already been reviewed by the Overview and Scrutiny Panel concerned. As staff in Social Care and Learning worked with children and the elderly, they were more likely to be exposed to viruses. It was also noted that it was important that these employees did not then pass on viruses to children or the elderly. Overall, the sickness absence rate in the Council was good and well below the national average.

The Commission noted that there had been a delay in the production of a ‘Data Quality Strategy and Policy, and roll out with staff training’ (P.157 of the agenda papers) and external resources were being sought. The Commission asked if this was a justifiable expense. The Head of Overview and Scrutiny reported that the Council’s performance had been criticised in this area by the Audit Commission on at least two occasions. There had been capacity pressures in the Chief Executive’s Office and a decision had been made to seek external resources. Councillor McLean asked for further details on this contract.