Agenda item

This report sets out the Quarter 4 / Year End Council Plan performance management report. 

Discussion:

The Assistant Director, Communications, Performance and Partnerships introduced the report advising that it set out the quarter four and full year results for 2011/2012. She added that this committee performed a role in taking an overview of performance across the council and, as appropriate, making recommendations to the other committees on areas for scrutiny and follow up. 

The committee was informed that a number of changes and improvements had been implemented to the reporting of performance including the addition of Appendix 1, which summarised the status of each Key Measure of Success. There had also been graphs added to Appendix 2, as Members had expressed an interest in these. These would in future be presented in A3 format to aid ease of reading and interpretation. Unfortunately, comparative data with other Local Authorities remained difficult to obtain due to the abolition of national indicators but officers were working towards acquiring the relevant information from other Local Authorities. The committee complimented the new style report and appendices with a better presentation of the information.

A Member asked about the total number of looked after children (paragraph 3.14 on page 88 of the agenda) and whether it was known if they were all born in Medway or whether other Local Authorities had placed them in Medway. Officers responded that the 446 children were Medway’s looked after children and the responsibility of the council with approximately 25% of those living outside Medway, as placements could not be found for them locally, or their foster parents had moved out of the area. The Chairman of the Children and Young People Overview and Scrutiny Committee advised that there was another set of children who were placed in Medway by other Local Authorities. There were approximately 316 children from 44 different Local Authorities of which 26 were from different London Borough Councils. He advised that many of these children would be placed by independent fostering agencies and although the fostering costs were borne by the originating Local Authority, the cost of schooling, health care and any anti-social behaviour problems were Medway’s responsibility.

A Member highlighted the successful bids of EU funding for the Developing Neighbourhood Action project (paragraph 3.6 on page 86 of the agenda) advising that this programme had expanded rapidly and would involve local people being involved and deciding what the money would be spent on, referred to as participatory budgeting. He advised that it would be extremely helpful if the council could explore, together with the voluntary sector, the possibility of holding seminars for residents to assist them with understanding and becoming involved with participatory budgeting for future community projects.

The committee raised concerns with the Love Medway campaign and the Love Medway App and requested that the facility to allow residents to report potholes in the road was reinstated. Members also advised that the public did not understand the current marketing campaign and asked that officers’ take this into consideration when arranging the marketing campaign for 2012/2013 to promote the use of the App.

The committee requested that the indicator for satisfaction with the work of the Community Officers was re-instated into the monitoring reports for 2012/2013. Members also asked that careful consideration be given when talking with partner organisations to set the target levels to tackle domestic abuse and that this included community support groups.

Following discussion of the indicators for Looked After Children (LAC) and cases being reviewed within the relevant timescales, Members requested that officers consider adding an indicator which tracked the completion of actions agreed at conferences to ensure there was no drift on cases.

The committee raised concern with indicators where targets for 2012/2103 were proposed to be set below current performance levels and asked if the council was stating that it expected the performance in these areas to be worse than at current levels? Officers advised that the committee could refer these targets to the relevant Overview and scrutiny Committees to investigate further.

A Member asked why trains were not included in the performance indicator for ‘Everyone travelling easily around Medway’ as train users were a major component for this indicator. Officers responded that the council had focused on areas where it could make direct intervention although the council could lobby the train companies, the council had no direct control over the train services in Medway.

With regard to the council’s priority ‘Children and young people in Medway have the best start in life’, Members commented on the indicators that showed the average time young people were absent from school and asked if truancy patrols were still carried out and if so, how many children with their parents were stopped during school time? They also asked if officers talked to parents about this issue and made it clear that it was an offence for their children to be out of school? Officers undertook to take this back to the relevant section within the council.

A Member also asked about the walking bus scheme (paragraph 3.9 on page 86 of the agenda) and the 12 schools that had registered an interest in setting up a new scheme. As Ward Councillor, he had been approached to help fund a walking bus scheme for a local school from his ward fund, because they had been asked to pay an administration fee of £125. He asked officers why the council charged a setup fee and suggested that it did not encourage other schools to join the scheme. Officers undertook to investigate this and inform Members of the outcome.

A Member advised that they would like the indicator for the number of people visiting Medway to be included in the monitoring reports, together with information on the results of tourism marketing promotions in order that Members could oversee visitor numbers and trends as well as the outcome of tourism campaigns.

Decision:

The committee agreed to request that:

(a)         officers work to ensure that the Love Medway App allows residents the opportunity to report potholes in the road in the future;

(b)         the performance indicator for satisfaction with the work of the Community Officers is re-instated into the monitoring reports for 2012/2013;

(c)         the performance indicator for visitor numbers is re-instated into the monitoring reports for 2012/2013 and also includes the results of tourism marketing promotions;

(d)         officers give careful consideration when setting the target levels to tackle domestic abuse and that this includes discussions with community support groups;

(e)         the performance indicators for Looked After Children include outcomes and actions from case conferences;

(f)           officers explore, together with the voluntary sector, the possibility of holding seminars for residents to assist them with understanding and becoming involved with participatory budgeting for future community projects;

(g)         officers investigate whether truancy patrols are being carried out and if not, to re-instate them and that a record is kept of the number of parents and children investigated;

(h)         officers investigate the payment of an administration fee to schools for the setting up of a walking bus scheme and inform Members of the outcome;

(i)           the relevant Overview and Scrutiny Committees are requested to investigate why some targets for 2012/2103 have been set below the current performance levels.