Best Value Review Performance Management

.

Best Value Review

Performance Management

December 2003 Consideration at the following Committees: Overview and Scrutiny Board 6th January 2004 Cabinet 22nd January 2004

CONTENTS

Page No.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

SCOPE OF REVIEW 7

How the Review was conducted Review Team Members

7 7

INTRODUCTION 8

Background Why is Performance Management Important? External Drivers for Developing Performance Management Underlying Reasons for Poor Performance Management

8 8 9 10

CURRENT POSITION 11

Analysis of Current Position Good Practice - Internal Good Practice - External External Challenge - Fairlight Consultancy SWOT

11 13 15 17 19

GOOD PRACTICE 22

What Makes a Good Performance Management System? Examples from other Organisations:

Canterbury City Council Telford & Wrekin District Council Chester City County Council

22 23 23 24 24

TAILORED SYSTEM FOR SEVENOAKS 25

Links with Service Planning Presenting Performance Information Monitoring the Quality of Data Reporting Performance Information Developing a range of Local Indicators and Targets

26 27 27 28 28

Page No.

TIMETABLE FOR IMPLEMENTING KEY ACTIONS 30

CONSULTING WITH STAFF AND MEMBERS 31

Results of Consultation with Members Communication Strategy Training

31 33 34

CONCLUSIONS 35

APPENDIX

1. Reporting Performance Management (Cabinet Report) 37

2. Questionnaire to Senior Officers 45

3. Key Performance Indicator Table 47

4. Fairlight Consultancy 1st Report 49

5. Fairlight Consultancy 2nd Report 55

6. Key Performance Indicator Template 59

7. How to develop LPIs and Targets 65

GLOSARY 71

S:\chiefexecs\corporate police\Policy Karl Sewell\performance management\Performance Management Report

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. Introduction 1.1 During February 2003, the Council commissioned “Pinnacle psg

(Management Consultants)” to examine the management health of the authority in the lead up to Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) in March 2004. One major recommendation arising from this was that the Council’s Best Value Programme should be revised to reflect key aspects of the CPA process and, in particular, to use Best Value to concentrate on areas of weakness. The programme was subsequently changed in April 2003 to include this review of Performance Management.

1.2 The Council’s Performance Management arrangements had been publicly

criticised by the Audit Commission in 2001 and 2002 through the Management letter, and the external audit of Performance Indicators. It was also recognised that whilst local PIs existed in some service areas of the Council, there was no corporate approach.

1.3 The Review Team consisted of:- Director Doug Williamson Manager Richard Wilson Members Karl Sewell and Ian Bailey 1.4 Others with an involvement in the Review are:- Cllr. N. Dean Cabinet Portfolio for Performance Management Cllr.. P. Fleming Cabinet Portfolio for CPA Cllr. A. Malan Chairman, Overview and Scrutiny Board Cllr. A. Clayton Vice Chairman, Overview and Scrutiny Board Peter Chowney External Consultant 2. Scope/Timescale 2.1 The scope of the Review was as follows:-

Identify a vision and set related objectives for a corporate performance management system

Develop a corporate approach to performance management; Facilitate a performance management culture across the organisation; Develop robust systems to fit the Council’s needs and requirements; Identify and translate good practice internally and externally across the

organisation; Implement consistent, usable reporting and monitoring arrangements;

and Ensure the effective linkage of a performance management system,

using key performance indicators, to reflect the priorities set out in the Community Plan, Best Value Performance Plan and Corporate Plan


2

documents and that these cascade down to service plans to individual performance via the bi-annual appraisal process.

2.2 The Review commenced in early June 2003 and held a number of meetings

until draft report stage in November 2003. The intention is to have a corporate performance management system, involving participation across the Council, in place for April 2004. A number of actions have been implemented during the review process.

3. Methods 3.1 A comprehensive review was undertaken of the current corporate position

across the Council. This was used to inform a SWOT analysis and identify areas of best practice.

3.2 A pilot scheme was introduced in Community Services during the Review and

efforts were made to roll this out to the other departments. 3.3 Members of the Council was consulted by survey with regard to:-

3.3.1 information being received; 3.3.2 what they would like to see; and 3.3.3 experience/views on principles.

3.4 The Council had already employed an external consultant, Peter Chowney, to assist Managers in developing meaningful local indicators. This was taken forward during the Review.

3.5 External Best Practice was sought through other local authorities, in

consultation with the Audit Commission, and in the private sector through a national supermarket chain.

4. Issues/Themes 4.1 The main areas arising from the Review are as follows:-

4.1.1 the need to imbed performance management as part of the culture of the organisation, winning recognition that it is part of the day-job;

4.1.2 the need for support to (and between) Managers on a corporate basis,

including the introduction of a relevant IT system; 4.1.3 the need to ensure audit trails are in place to back up the quality of the

information; 4.1.4 the need to develop PIs which cascade through the organisation and

can link the overall corporate strategy to individual officers’ jobs;


3

4.1.5 the need for robust, consistent, relevant and timely corporate reporting, at all levels of the Council structure;

4.1.6 the development of local PIs in recognition that many BVPIs are not

relevant or helpful; and 4.1.7 the essential need for communication and training across the

organisation, at all levels in order to address the other identified issues.

5. Conclusions/Actions 5.1 A scheme of actions in hand, and future actions will be developed as part of

the final (post-draft report) phase of the review.


5

Best Value Review of Performance Management – Draft Improvement Plan

Action

Timetable Responsibility Comments 1. Training of system administrators for each

Department for imputing onto software

Dec 04 K. Sewell Six Administrators trained by Dec 11.

2. Loading of all existing Best Value and Local Indicators onto software

Dec 03 K. Sewell and system administrators

Administrators to lead following final day of training on Dec 11.

3. Critical examination of all indicators provided by H.O.S.

Dec 03 – Jan 04

R. Wilson and K. Sewell with D.M.T.

All indicators need to comply fully with the requirements for an effective Performance Management Information system as detailed in the Best Value Review report.

4. Identification of where there are currently gaps in Performance Management Information and to agree Indicators to ensure all relevant Services are covered

Jan 04 R. Wilson and K. Sewell with D.M.T.

To ensure consistency and coverage across all Services. The Comment above also to apply.

5. Training for Heads of Services on Performance Management Software

by end Feb 04

K. Sewell and System Administrators

The trained Administrators will train other officers required to use the system.

6. Training for (Members on “read only” use of software

Feb 04 K. Sewell As required

7. Further examination of all indicators on software.

Feb 04 R. Wilson, K. Sewell and H.O.S.

Appropriate range of relevant Performance Indicators covering all Services.

8. Commence monthly loading of information onto the software

Feb/March 04

System administrators and H.O.S.

All information to be input onto the software for the previous month by the 15th of the following month.

9. Review first Month’s information produced from software programme

March 04 R. Wilson, K. Sewell and H.O.S,

Critically examine results to ensure system fully developed for full implementation by 1st April 2004.

10. Selection of Key Indicators for reporting to DMT’s/Management Team/ and Members on a regular basis

March 04 R. Wilson, K. Sewell and H.O.S.

Selection of Key Performance Indicators to be agreed by Management Team.


6

11. Separation of all Indicators for presentation by:- BVPI’s Local Indicators Quartile Performing using national targets

March 04 K. Sewell To allow comparisons on national and Local Indicators and also to place all National Indicators in performance quartiles against targets

12. Agree reporting arrangements for Key Performance Indicators

Feb 04 Management Team

Initially - DMT - Monthly - MT – Monthly (then down to quarterly) - Cabinet – Quarterly - Select committees – Twice yearly (or call in)

13. Commence internal audits of all National and Local Indicators

From Jan 04

T. Marshall A clear audit trail required for all Indicators to allow transparency and ability to verify information and trace performance back to source data.

14. Action plans for relevant H.O.S to be produced following audits

From Jan 04

T. Marshall All identified and agreed actions to be completed as a matter of urgency by relevant H.O.S.

15. H.O.S. to discuss Performance Indicators with relevant Portfolio Holder

From Feb 04

All H.O.S. To ensure Cabinet Members fully briefed on all areas of performance supported by good relevant information

16. Survey Members, M.T. and H.O.S. to assess progress

Sept 04 K. Sewell Report to Cabinet, Scrutiny and M.T. on progress

17. Review process From April 05

Best Value Review Team with H.O.S.

Improvement plan to be monitored to ensure achievement of all actions and where actions not fully implemented remedial action is identified and rectified immediately. Continual development of the system to ensure relevancy and accuracy and that all service areas are covered consistently.


7

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT BEST VALUE REVIEW SCOPE OF REVIEW 1. The scope of the review was agreed by Management Team at their meeting in

May was as follows. To:-

Identify a vision and set related objectives for a corporate performance management system;

Develop a corporate approach to performance management; Facilitate a performance management culture across the organisation; Develop robust systems to fit the Council’s needs and requirements; Identify and translate good practice internally across the organisation;

Implement consistent, usable reporting and monitoring arrangements;

and Ensure the effective linkage of a performance management system,

using key performance indicators, to reflect the priorities set out in the Community Plan, Best Value Performance Plan and Corporate Plan documents and that these cascade these down to service plans and to individual performance via the bi-annual appraisal process.

2. How The Review Was Conducted 2.1 The Review Team met for the first time early in June 2003, and convened for

a total of six meetings, the final meeting taking place in December 2003. Team members were allocated individual tasks throughout the course of the review and their findings contributed to delivering the final report.

2.2 The Members perspective, as agreed by Cabinet on 10th April 2003 was

fulfilled by inviting Councillor Dean (Portfolio Holder for Performance Management) and Councillor Fleming (Portfolio Holder for CPA) to a number of Review team meetings to discuss the progress of the review and future actions it has also been agreed that the draft report will be shared with the Chair and Vice Chair of Overview and Scrutiny Board. External challenge was gained through sharing our findings with an external consultant and the Audit Commission.

3. Review Team Members

Doug Williamson Review Director Richard Wilson Review Manager Karl Sewell Policy Representative Ian Bailey Service Representative


8

INTRODUCTION 1. Background 1.1 Sevenoaks District Council serves 109,305 residents across the District with a

wide variety of services, for example, refuse collection, planning, environmental health, community development, strategic housing etc. (a full list of services can be found on page 18 of the 2003/04 Best Value Performance Plan). Approximately 650 staff are employed across the District, the majority of which are based at the Council’s main offices in Sevenoaks.

1.2 Since 1992 the Audit Commission have specified and required local

authorities to publish performance indicators for specific areas of the services that they provide. Since this time all local authorities have been encouraged to support the basket of prescribed indicators with a set of local indicators which truly reflect the key ambitions of each Council. This Council, along with many other authorities, has been slow to implement and recognise the importance of continuously measuring its performance, and eleven years on our arrangements in the main remain at an embryonic stage.

1.3 The Council’s performance management arrangements have been publicly

criticised by the Audit Commission for the past two years, although they have agreed that some areas of good practice exist, however, this has culminated in strong criticism which was delivered in the Audit Commission Management Letter to the Council in December 2002; the Pinnacle Report and the recent CPA Peer Challenge from Caxton Consultancy.

1.4 The decision to undertake a Best Value Review of Performance Management

was agreed by Cabinet on 10th April 2003 following the recommendations from external consultants Pinnacle, who were engaged by the Council to examine the “health” of our arrangements prior to CPA. Following this, at a meeting of Cabinet on 5th June 2003, Members agreed a framework for implementing a corporate system for the Authority (a copy of that report can be found at Appendix 1).

1.5 During March 2003 the Government published the new Best Value guidance

for England. Despite widespread rumours that best value would cease following the introduction of Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA), the new guidance emphasised the importance of best value in achieving improvements to services.

2. Why is Performance Management Important? 2.1 Performance information indicates how well an organisation is performing

against its aims and objectives. Effective performance information helps identify what policies and processes work and why they work. Making the best use of available data and knowledge is critical to improving the performance of the Council. The development of performance information across the Authority is key to effective management, service planning, monitoring and evaluation.


9

2.2 Externally, performance information ensures accountability with members of the public and other stakeholders is transparent. It also allows for a better understanding of the issues to be reported.

3. External Drivers for Developing Performance Management 3.1 Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) - an integral element of

the CPA methodology and at the heart of the final assessment is the proven capacity of authorities to improve. The judgments made following inspection rely heavily on interpreting performance information. The Audit Commission in the first round of CPA identified that those authorities which made good use of performance measurement as a key day-to-day management activity showed the greatest improvement in the level of services that they provide.

3.2 District Auditor (now the Audit Commission) - in their management letter to

the Authority in December 2002, commented that the “Council does not have a comprehensive performance management system in place and lacks evidence of robust performance monitoring across the Council”. More recently they have recommended that the Authority set up an effective performance management system that identifies the data that Members and management need.

3.3 Members - increasingly in response to pressure from their communities

seeking improvements in the services provided by the Council, Members now expect better ways of monitoring performance and have recently stressed the need for an effective corporate performance management system to allow regular monitoring of key aspects of service provision.

3.4 Best Value - and the need for continuous improvement requires local

authorities to have strong systems in place to monitor and evaluate performance.

3.5 Attracting External Funding - local authorities are increasingly required to

find more innovative ways of attracting external funding in order to resource key areas of its services. Performance data is key in attracting funding e.g. SRB projects and PSAs. This trend is set to continue as Government encourage and legislate for authorities to measure outputs more effectively.

3.6 Increased Partnership Working - Government expect councils to develop

strong partnership arrangements to improve common aims and goals. 3.7 Increasing expectations from Communities - An improved complaints

procedure, greater communication with our customers and better response levels to customer needs have fuelled and increased the number of complaints received by the Council “Better monitoring systems have improved public access”, coupled with the increasing expectations of a largely articulate community has highlighted the Council’s need to respond effectively to concerns which are raised.


10

3.8 Community Planning - A range of “Quality of Life” indicators has been developed to help local authorities measure the effectiveness of their Community Plans. The Community Plan is also supported by a detailed action plan which sets out how objectives will be achieved jointly with our partners. Public Service Agreements have also been developed with Kent County Council and are integral to the delivery of the Plan.

4. Underlying Reasons for Poor Performance Management 4.1 The Audit Commission and IDeA have undertaken extensive reviews across

public sector organisations over the past 3 to 4 years and have identified the following points which hamper the development of performance management in the public sector, these are:-

there are too many priorities which can be confusing to staff and

Members. Organisations need to make clear which are the most important;

Members do not (in the main) show enough interest in management and improving performance and staff can sometimes feel unsupported;

there is little time to learn, and staff find learning difficult; staff do not understand that what they do has to change. The task is

about change management as well as performance management and managers must be willing to make tough decisions;

sometimes the performance management system does not help, its objectives are not necessarily clear and it may not fit the organisation; and

certain managers find that dealing with under performance from staff is highly challenging.


11

CURRENT POSITION 1. Analysis of Current Position 1.1 An information gathering exercise was undertaken in June 2003, to gauge the

Council’s arrangements to manage performance to meet objectives across all services, including measuring and monitoring performance management information, and the use of performance indicators.

1.2 A questionnaire (example at Appendix 2) was circulated to all Heads of

Service requesting information on the performance management information they regularly collect for their services.

1.3 The response rate was 100%. 1.4 12 responses indicated some monitoring of their sections performance using

Performance Indicators. One Head of Service indicated no use of Performance Indicators at all.

1.5 Each ‘yes’ response provided a brief description of their system.

Number of Respondents

Frequency of Monitoring - Monthly - Weekly, Monthly & Quarterly - Weekly & Monthly - Weekly, Quarterly & Annually - Monthly & Quarterly - Quarterly - Varying

5 1 1 1 1 1 1

Indicators - Input - Output - Outcome

7 11 10

1.6 Ten indicated their service plan included Performance information and 8

commented that indicators were linked to continuous improvement. Community Service Pilot 1.7 A scheme was introduced in June 2003 into the Community Services

Department to pilot a key performance management indicator system. The aim of the system is to track trends in performance and allow a comparison of actual and planned performance for the month and year to date. This system is a useful tool to review performance with management and staff, and as an input to performance improvement. The system enables KPI’s to be reported at Departmental Management Team meetings, to staff, and then onto Management Team.


12

1.8 This Community Services Department pilot is intended to: get Heads of Service and Managers, who are not currently regularly monitoring performance by use of indicators, used to a system; to identify a means by which key performance indicators can be communicated upwards to senior management level (DMT/MT) and to develop a method of communicating to all departmental staff how actual performance is against target.

1.9 The system is also designed to allow the introduction of a “traffic light” system

for the whole department as a means of conveying a message to all staff on how the department is performing against monitoring targets. The proposed “traffic light” system is:-

Green = 80% + to target Amber = 40 - 79% to target Red = Below 40% to target 1.10 The above is obtained from aggregating the percentages of actual

performance against target percentages for all Indicators monitored. 1.11 This is a departmental message but the same system is encouraged to be

used on a section by section basis and all indicators measured are available for staff information.

1.12 Each Head of Service in the Community Services Department were asked to

identify ‘key’ performance indicators for their service areas. These are the basket of key indicators used for reporting upwards, and to calculate the departmental ‘traffic light’ means of communication. It is fully recognised that there are a wide range of other indicators that each section is currently monitoring. Staff have been encouraged to examine all their indicators to ensure the ones reported by this pilot scheme are actually the key indicators to be included in the basket to be reported to senior management.

1.13 The monitoring report format adopted is reported at Appendix 3. 1.14 For each key performance indicator the following is measured each month, or

for Community Development indicators quarterly or half yearly as relevant. 1.15 Actual out-turn last year - The actual position achieved in the whole of the

previous financial year i.e. (2002/03). 1.16 Annual Target - Position targeted to be achieved for the whole of the

current year. For continuous improvement, it should be an improved target on what was actually achieved in the previous year.

1.17 Target to Date - The profiled position for that month to date to be on

course to achieve the annual target. 1.18 This Month - The achieved position for this month only. 1.19 Last Month - As above, but for the previous month.


13

1.20 Same Month Last Year - The actual position for the month being monitored, but for the previous year.

1.21 Year to Date Last Year - The accumulative total for the year to date for the

previous year. 1.22 Year to Date - The accumulative total for the year to date for the current year. 1.23 Percentage of Actual Against Target - A monthly measurement of how the

indicator is performing year to date against the profiled target, expressed as a % to target for each indicator.

1.24 For the traffic light system calculation, the percentage of actual against target

for each indicator is recorded in the final column (maximum 100% per indicator to avoid over achievements masking the effects of any under achievement). A percentage per section is then calculated based on the total percentages per indicator in the column, divided by the number of indicators to get a percentage to target per section per month. The Department percentage is obtained by aggregating all the percentages and dividing the number of sections. While it is recognised that the calculation of averaging percentages is not statistically/mathematically accurate, it does provide a useful and valid overview of performance.

1.25 Once a corporate system for the Council is adopted, using the commissioned

software, this will replace the Community Service pilot scheme, but the introduction of a corporate system will not prevent a traffic light system of communication to all staff being continued if it is found to be useful in achieving it’s objectives.

2. Good Practice – Internal 2.1 A review of local performance management at Sevenoaks District Council

was undertaken by Fairlight Consultancy in December 2001. Although this report was generally critical of the Council’s approach to performance monitoring, at that time, some areas of good practice were noted. A further review was conducted in December 2002 to assess progress. The reports on the outcome from these reviews is attached as Appendices 4 and 5.

2.2 Development Control - National BVPI’s exist for this service, relating to the

speed of processing planning applications. Development Control has recently been subject to a Best Value Review, and from this some local performance indicators have now been developed, as well as five year targets for the service. Results of monitoring against the existing PI’s are reported quarterly to the Development Control Committee, and every six months to the relevant scrutiny committee. Overall the officer interviewed was enthusiastic about performance management and believed it would be helpful to develop it further for the planning service.

2.3 Customer Services - Telephone monitoring, in terms of speed of answering,

is carried out electronically, and the achievement of targets regularly reported.


14

The service officer interviewed also thought that they were in a good position to monitor both the speed and quality of responses to letters for the whole authority. The officer interviewed recognised the need for further indicators and targets, and seemed keen to develop them.

2.4 Information Technology - The service level agreement (SLA) contains many

local indicators relating to outputs and users efficiency. The IT section uses performance information from the SLA indicators to help staff organise and run their work. The officer interviewed believed this to be helpful and important in maintaining an efficient service, and would like to develop performance management further within the section.

2.5 Council Tax and Benefits - There are BVPI’s for this service, both for the

collection of Council Tax and for the speed of processing benefit applications. The BVPI’s were monitored continuously and the results used regularly by staff for day to day management of the service.

2.6 Direct Services - The officer interviewed stated that all of the services had

clear aims and objectives, and a comprehensive set of indicators covering input, output, and outcomes were developed. Staff use the data derived from monitoring against the indicators to help them manage the service. If the system is comprehensive, and complete, further work is unlikely to be necessary, beyond keeping the system up to date and making sure it fits with new corporate performance management systems. It may even be possible to use performance monitoring in the DSO as a template for a Council wide system.

2.7 Fairlight Consultancy followed up the work done in December 2001 and after

a series of sessions with Heads of Services in May 2003, provided an update on the position.

2.8 The Consultant commented that there seemed a lot more enthusiasm for

developing local Performance Indicators than when he last visited in 2001. The Heads of Services and their representatives he spoke to, in most cases had already given some thought to developing local indicators, and were able to establish further indicators between the initial ‘surgeries’ and the follow up meetings.

2.9 The Direct Services section is one of the most advanced sections of the

Council who regularly use performance management Indicators to measure and manage performance. A considerable number of indicators have been developed over the years which are shared with:-

Portfolio Holder - at regular meetings Director - at 1:1 monthly meetings Managers - at monthly meetings Supervisors - at monthly meetings All employees - displayed monthly on mess room notice board


15

2.10 The indicators are recorded monthly and current performance as well as past performance is recorded to identify any trends. All indicators have targets, linked to continuous improvement measures based on actual performance the previous year.

2.11 Currently 85 indicators are monitored monthly for a range of quality,

performance, productivity and financial information across all of the Direct Services functions. Each indicator has an annual target based on achieving continuous improvement. Each indicator is measured for the current month; previous month; same month previous year; accumulative total for current year to date and total the previous year.

2.12 An example of a completed monthly return is provided at Appendix 6. 2.13 This performance management indicator information is used in the annual

Service Plan; monthly discussions on performance and as part of the individual appraisal process to link individual objectives to service plan objectives. The information is also regularly discussed with the Director of Community Services and the Portfolio Holder for Community Health and the Street Environment.

3. Good Practice - External 3.1 Chester City Council - The performance management framework for

Chester City Council:- (a) Clearly defines performance management (b) Identifies what the Council needs to do to improve their performance (c) Identifies what characteristics their performance management system

should include (d) Identifies how and where this should start (e) Identifies what the critical success factors should be (f) Identifies what the potential barriers and inhibitors could be Their framework aims to have: - A clear vision – a clear community vision with corporate objectives to

show how efforts will help realise the community’s aspirations with SMART targets for measurement.

- A focus on outcomes – required outcomes translated into corporate

priorities, a coordinated system allowing Members and managers to take action based on performance information; suitable review methods; an IT system to support these functions, and robust targets.


16

- Effective democratic and community engagement – good communication with all stakeholders; use of the Best Value Performance Plan; active support by elected Members.

- Commitment and Accountability – leadership from Members and senior

management to motivate and promote commitment; a clear understanding of how day to day work contributes to achieving objectives and clear accountability for results.

- A strategic and enabling corporate framework – corporate capacity to

support effective performance management enablement and empowerment of staff to deliver improved service whilst maintaining a corporate focus.

Chester City Council’s comprehensive performance management framework aims to ensure that: - - The community/corporate plan will impact and connect with internal

practices and processes. - Best Value thinking and action becomes integrated to the way the

Authority works. - Members and managers receive timely and appropriate information to

make informed decisions about service improvements based on facts.

3.2 J. Sainsbury Plc

In July 2003 the Community Service DMT visited the Sevenoaks Sainsbury’s Supermarket at Otford, particularly to discuss performance management methods and the use of Indicators to communicate to staff how they are doing as an individual supermarket against Sainsbury’s national targets.

Measurements are used which are set against targets for all Sainsbury’s stores, these are based on:-

Mystery Shopping – on produce; special offers out of stock products; other areas of the store; queues; customer interaction at checkouts.

Training and Development plans. ‘How well am I doing’ surveys Talkback (staff) surveys

Their results are totalled each month and displayed conspicuously for all staff to see. These results are then used to illustrate as a traffic light system with:-

Green - good performance - to and above target Amber - overall performance good - but some areas of concern Red - performance below target - areas identified for action.


17

4. External Challenge by Fairlight Consultancy 4.1 Over the last two years, the Council has made big improvements in the way it

measures the performance of its services, and in developing a coherent performance management framework. Two years ago, performance management was not a high priority for senior managers – now, the value of good performance information is recognised and significant efforts have been made to develop local indicators that provide managers with the information they need to manage their services effectively.

4.2 The Council’s performance management framework demonstrates a clear

‘cascade’, whereby overriding Council priorities, and community priorities as expressed in the community plan, are devolved through the local performance plan and corporate plan to service plan objectives and targets attributable to named officers. This process is consistent across all services, and matches good practice as outlined by the Audit Commission in various recent publications on performance management, as well as recognised good practice in other sectors (for example, in the private, academic and health sectors).

4.3 Perhaps the biggest challenge for the Council now is to draw the performance

management framework together more tightly, into a clearer and better defined structure. As the framework grows, there is a danger that conflicts will arise between different elements of the framework. These elements could become too large and unwieldy to be readily understood by councillors and more junior staff, who need to be able to make sense of the framework and to get the information they need. For example, the local performance plan is already becoming very long and complicated. It also overlaps to some extent with the corporate plan, and the separate purposes of these two documents are not immediately clear to the ‘non-expert’ reader.

4.4 The performance management framework should help staff to understand

how they fit into the Council’s overall priorities, and how they can help to achieve these priorities. It should be well structured and transparent to the Council’s staff, members and other stakeholders – this could be lost if simplicity is not maintained.

4.5 Introducing performance management software, as proposed, could help to

make better sense of the performance management framework and help staff and members to navigate through it. However, the Council needs to make sure that the system under consideration provides all stakeholders with the access and information they need – access to the system through licensed users rather than a general interactive window on the internet or intranet could prove to be expensive as more and more users start to demand access licences. In the Council’s survey carried out for this review, over two-thirds of Council members said that they wanted better performance information. The Council needs to be sure that this software will allow members (and others) to ‘drill down’ into areas of particular interest and concern, rather than just giving them passive performance reports.


18

4.6 The Council’s service plans now provide the ‘sharp end’; of the performance management framework, showing how service objectives are translated into targets for managers and ultimately individual staff through the performance appraisal system. While a common template has been produced for these service plans, there is still some inconsistency in the way this template is applied. Furthermore, while consistent terminology is used to describe different elements of the plans (for example, ‘objectives’, ‘aims’, ‘targets’, ‘milestones’, ‘actions’), these terms are not defined and are used differently in different service plans. In some plans, this has led to a lack of clarity about how objectives will be achieved, because the ‘milestones’ and ‘targets’ in place do not adequately measure the achievement of the stated service objectives. And while many new performance indicators have been introduced, there is a lack of outcome measures across most services, making it difficult to use performance monitoring to judge whether overall aims and objectives for a service have been achieved. The Council needs to consider producing a balanced set of measures for all objectives across all services.

4.7 The way in which performance information is used in different services also

varies. In the best departments (Direct Services, for example), performance information is used regularly and actively at team meetings to motivate and involve staff, and to consider future targets for the service. However, this process is not consistent across all departments. Direct Services have long been recognised as an example of good practice in performance management within the Council. Their example should be used to develop performance management in other areas.

4.8 There are also some significant areas of national policy focus that are not well

addressed in the performance management framework, particularly at the service plan level. Issues such as equality of access to services, and environmental sustainability in service delivery, have been singled out for special attention in recent CPA assessments of district councils, with otherwise high-performing councils criticised for their lack of attention to these issues. The Council needs to examine the extent to which these and other national policy priorities are addressed in its performance framework and service priorities.

4.9 In conclusion, the Council has made huge improvements to its performance

management framework and has developed performance indicators for most of its services. But at a service level, the framework lacks consistency and ‘tails off’ into a matrix of measures, targets, objectives, aims, milestones and actions that make it difficult to assess whether service priorities, and consequently cascaded corporate priorities, have been achieved. Historically, this may have been difficult to address because of corporate governance problems and the inability of the corporate centre to impose sufficiently strict planning and management disciplines on service areas. However, the Council has now decided to strengthen the performance and policy functions at the centre of the Council, which should significantly enhance its ability to develop further a comprehensive and effective performance management framework.


19

5. S.W.O.T. 5.1 A strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (S.W.O.T) analysis has

been undertaken of the performance management systems in place across the Council as at June 2003.

5.2 This revealed the following:-

Strengths

- 12 out of 13 Heads of Service regularly monitor some performance - 7 monitor input indicators - 11 monitor output indicators - 10 monitor outcomes - 10 have performance indicators in their services plans - 8 have indicators linked to continuous improvement - BVPI’s and some local indicators are established - A range of quantity, quality and financial indicators are monitored. - Some indicators are monitored against targets, and trends in

performance are identified from previous months, previous years etc - Some indicators are effectively used to manage resources - Some use the information to brief staff and also to update their

Director/Portfolio Holder - Regular monitoring – most on at least a monthly basis

Weaknesses

- No corporate lead – no consistency over performance management - One Head of Service not monitoring performance at all - Lack of consistency over range, type and quality of indicators

monitored - Level of monitoring across all sections, to say the least, ‘patchy’ with

many indicators purely input basis (i.e. volumes) but not linked to effect (output and outcome)

- Some confusion over what is meant by input, output and outcome indicators

- In only a few sections are indicators being fully used for management of resources, staff briefing, reporting up etc

- Only a few sections demonstrate a use of targets, monitoring of trends etc

- Lack of Member involvement

Opportunities The objective would be to use illustrations of existing ‘best practice’ available, and to develop a performance management system using measurable indicators, to have a consistent approach across the Council. Each sections performance management system, measuring indicators on a regular basis, should have the following elements:-


20

- Each section’s system should have the BVPI’s and a range of local indicators that tell, the Head of Service, their staff, and their Directors, how their business is performing.

- The indicators should explicitly reflect the service objectives. - All indicators to be relevant, measurable, understandable, and record

inputs, and outputs and allows measurement/view of outcomes.

- Indicator to be recorded on at least a monthly. This easily allows quarterly and annual returns to be made.

- Each indicator should have a target, aimed at securing continuous

improvement. Targets to be specific, realistic and achievable. Indicators to be measured against targets.

- The system should allow measurement of trends by comparing this

month with last month, this month with same month last year, allow cumulative totals for the year, and compare with position the previous year.

- Indicators should be used in service plans and allow key indicators to

be ‘picked out’ to channel upwards to DMT, MT, Members. Also indicators should be used to cascade down to individuals objectives via the appraisal process.

- An understanding and use of input (measures, volumes, numbers,

occurrences etc); output (result of inputs) and outcomes (the overall effect of input and outputs) indicators.

For example Street Cleaning Input - No of regular cleaning schedules achieved Output - No of complaints regarding street cleaning Outcome - percentage of random inspections achieving an ‘A’ standard For example CCTV Input - No of cameras/times/locations monitored Output - No of ‘incidents’ recorded on tape Outcome - Reduction in fear of crime expressed by population

- Indicators should allow effective use and assist with management,

tackling problem areas, allocating resources etc. - Indicators should be ‘shared’ with staff, i.e. to let them know how they

are doing. They can be used as a motivational tool or, as necessary, to identify poor performance.


21

- All indicators should tell you something useful, if not, why measure them.

Threats

- The Council has been criticised in the past for ‘patchy’ or ‘poor’ performance management. We do not want the same criticism levelled again.

- A robust performance management system forms an integral part of

the corporate governance agenda and will be considered as part of the CPA process. We need to have something in place before the CPA assessment in March 2004.

- A lack of reliable, up to date measurable information will seriously

hinder sound performance management.

- Not having indicators measurable against targets will prevent any measurement of continuous improvement.

- It is difficult to communicate to staff, Members, Management Team, the

media, the community etc how we are performing, without something to be measured by.

Examples of best practice of thorough use of performance indicators do already exist within the Council (good examples are Direct Services and Development control) and are currently being developed and extended in the Community Service department pilot scheme.

The system to be developed as a corporate performance management system should meet, as a minimum, the criteria outlined in the opportunities section of the S.W.O.T analysis.


22

GOOD PRACTICE 1. What Makes a Good Performance Management System? 1.1 The Government jointly with the National Audit Office, Audit Commission

Office for National Statistics and H.M. Treasury have developed a checklist to assist local authorities develop and design appropriate corporate performance management systems.

1.2 The six criteria developed jointly with Government are that the system should

be:-

Focused - on the organisation’s aims and objectives; Appropriate - to, and useful for, the stakeholders who are likely to use it; Balanced - giving a picture of what the organisation is doing, covering all significant areas of work; Robust - in order to withstand organisational changes or individuals leaving; Integrated - into the organisation, being part of the business planning and management process; and Cost Effective - balancing the benefits of the information against the costs.

1.3 Components of an effective Corporate Performance Management Information

System

A corporate IT software system in place for collecting, monitoring and forecasting all data for BVPI’s and local indicators, and linking these to objectives and targets.

Clear definition of indicators measured so as to avoid any confusion on

what is being measured and the method of measurement/calculation.

A clear audit trail for all Indicators to allow transparency and ability to verify information and trace performance figures back to source data.

A clear understanding of input, output and outcome indicators.

Use of performance indicators to support service plans and individual

objectives through the appraisal process, and to publicise results to all staff.

Use of targets for indicators to demonstrate ambition to achieve

continuous improvement, challenging, but realistic targets, driven by actual performance in the previous year.

Establishment of a clear ‘cascade’ of information from high level

organisational objectives (Community Plan; Corporate Plan; BVPP) to


23

service level objectives (service plans) to targets for individual teams and individual staff members.

Use of performance information to involve and motivate staff; manage

resources; support a strategic or tactical objective; and assist in managing service, team and individual performance.

Targets to demonstrate ambition to deliver continuous improvement, but

must be shared by those responsible for delivering them; should reflect the expectations of service users; be realistic; challenging to stretch the organisation, but not unachievable.

Use of in-house audit team to validate national and local indicators

information published. Involvement of staff and Members in setting targets, and to ensure

objectives set for services reflect the Council’s priorities. Measurement and comparison with indicators recorded from past

performance to allow direct comparison, identification of trends etc. Use last month; same month previous year; accumulative actual to date previous year; total last year.

Use of ‘profiling’ of indicators to measure actual position to date against

position should be at to achieve annual target.

Allow the selection of a ‘basket’ of key performance indicators to report upwards to DMT’s; MT and Members on a regular basis.

All indicators should be useful and measurable. Any system needs to be flexible enough to allow any necessary changes

to indicators, targets etc to be easily achieved. A system to be developed to require regular reports of key performance

indicators to Cabinet and to Select Scrutiny Committees, highlighting variances between actual performance to target, trends and other variations, and providing explanations for any variations or trends.

2. Examples from other Organisations 2.1 Canterbury City Council - As part of Canterbury’s performance management

arrangements, the Overview Committee considers quarterly monitoring reports on BVPIs and KLPIs. Overview Committee is required to keep a broad perspective on the overall performance of the Council and refer any areas of concern to the relevant scrutiny committee to investigate in detail.


24

2.2 Around forty KPLIs have been identified which cover areas of local concern not covered by the national suite of indicators. Performance against the KLPIs is subject to the same monitoring arrangements as BVPIs. As it is not possible or meaningful to record quarterly performance information for all of the BVPIs and KLPIs, around half of the indicators are monitored on a quarterly basis.

The indicators are presented using a “traffic light” monitoring system.

Red indicators - show where performance is not meeting the agreed target and is not improving.

Amber indicators - show where performance is improving but is not meeting

the agreed target and is not improving. Green indicators - show where performance is meeting or exceeding the

agreed target. Where performance is not improving and is not up to target, Heads of Service

are required to provide an explanation, and where appropriate, say what action will be taken to improve performance.

2.2 Telford & Wrekin District Council - The Telford and Wrekin approach to

performance management involves four key levels:-

Corporate Plan Portfolio Plans (Policy area documents) Business Plans; and Personal Plans

Through these levels, corporate objectives are developed and linked to service-level objectives, which are measured using local and national performance indicators. Targets are attributable to named managers and devolved to individual staff through their personal development and action plans. The system is based around extensive and detailed documentation and summary documents. The purpose of this is to bring together and co-ordinate all of the Council’s statutory and financial planning process.

2.3 Chester City Council - In Chester, each performance indicator has a named

accountable officer and Portfolio Holder. A checklist has been developed which is used to monitor and evaluate the general health of their performance management framework over time. Another major influence on the arrangements is the Council’s own political management structure, which is supported by these measures and provides members with the appropriate information to carry out their executive and scrutiny roles of developing policy and monitoring performance.


25

TAILORED SYSTEM FOR SEVENOAKS The hierarchy of plans and strategies at Sevenoaks is set out in the chart below. During 2004/05 the Council aims to rationalise its plans and strategies in line with recommendations from Government. Further information will be made available once the details of this approach has been agreed.

Community Plan

strategic priorities

Best Value Performance Plan

more detailed aims and objectives

Corporate Plan internal plans and performance

measures/standards

Service Plans detailed plans linked to performance and targets which

are owned by Service Heads

Individual Staff Appraisals


26

1. Links with Service Planning 1.1 One of the key purposes of service planning is to translate high level

objectives into management action which is clearly linked to performance measures in key aspects of the service. Service planning currently takes place throughout the organisation and cascades down to individuals responsibilities. However, just as service planning cascades through the Authority, performance information should also be collected and used at all levels.

1.2 Results of the SWOT analysis and the results from the questionnaire

circulated to Heads of Service have confirmed that the arrangements across the Authority are weak in some areas and not co-ordinated.

1.3 Strong performance information will help to inform management and Member

decisions as well as indicating whether the required level of performance has been achieved. It should also help in deciding how to allocate resources. Effective service plans are inherently supported by strong and relevant performance information. The Council’s service planning arrangements will now need to include relevant performance information to support key objectives. The current service planning framework is already designed to incorporate this information and Heads of Service will be further supported to ensure that this fundamental aspect of service plans is not overlooked.

1.4 Service plans are written predominantly for a Member/officer audience. They

act as a management tool for the organisation to plan its business and set out its service priorities. It is also a vehicle to describe the key thrust of the service and show how the Council’s priorities/aspirations are translated into reality.

1.5 For the first time during the summer of 2003, all services developed advanced

plans for 2004/05. This was well received by the Peer Challenge Team. The next step for the Council is to involve relevant Portfolio Holders in finalising these as part of the budget setting process. These will then form the backbone of ensuring that key priorities are debated and delivered. The Council are also planning to develop longer term plans linked to budgets. Cabinet will consider these proposals in January 2004.

1.6 Our service plans as an absolute minimum need to:-

Set out objectives for the service within the context of agreed strategic and organisational priorities;

Set out how we can improve performance against those objectives; Show how those objectives will be delivered, achieved and resourced

(both in terms of capital and revenue); Provide an accountability framework for monitoring and evaluating

progress; Communicate the actions and targets within the organisation.


27

1.7 Future plans will include an action plan and accountability framework and related budget and performance information. In addition, future plans will act as an audit trail for senior officers and Members when agreeing budgets and performance targets.

2. Presenting Performance Information 2.1 Over the past months the Council has investigated the use of appropriate

software to support its performance management arrangements. Demonstrations have been organised from three potential providers. Trials of each of the demonstrated software packages were undertaken on the Council’s Citrix Metaframe environment (IT server) to test their compatibility with our system. One product emerged from this process as being able to meet all the system requirements and as importantly, offer the range of facilities and flexibility within the software to satisfy our needs.

2.2 The system (which is expected to be in place by December 2003), will be

centrally administered by the Corporate Policy Team with individual administrators in each department. In addition, a further 25 officers, mainly Heads of Service, will have limited input access and full read facility. Licences have also been initially procured for five Members to have read only access. Once up and running the public and all staff will have access to the information through the Council’s website. This is a significant investment for the Council and a budget of £30,000 has been identified to implement this element of our performance management arrangements.

2.3 Performance information needs to be presented in a way that is accessible to

the audience that will be using it. The software package will allow us to present graphs or charts to make the main message from the data (trends) more readily identifiable. It will allow for movements in performance to be quickly picked up by the audience and help Members and management make sense of the data presented.

2.4 Outputs from the system will need to be evaluated periodically to ensure they

are still measuring what needs to be measured, and providing value for money in the way the measurement takes place and the way the information is used.

3. Monitoring the Quality of Data 3.1 The effective use of performance measurement depends on indicators that

are accurate. BVPIs for example are expected to have a high degree of accuracy and are subject to external audit from the Audit Commission each year. The quality of performance information is increasingly becoming an issue as authorities agree local public service agreements (PSAs) and as CPA is rolled out to all authorities.

3.2 A recent audit of the Council’s BVPIs for 2002/03 identified a number of

indicators which were inaccurate (some 50% of those collected). Nationally


28

this figure is around 8%. A prior examination of the Council’s local indicators also revealed a number of inaccuracies.

3.3 The quality of the information will depend on the systems used to compile the

data. To ensure that this is achieved, Management Team agreed that the Council’s Internal Audit Section undertake regular audits of the processes used to collect local indicators across the Authority. These arrangements are scheduled to commence from April 2004.

4. Reporting Performance Information 4.1 As set out in the report agreed by Cabinet on 5th June 2003, (see Appendix

1), the approach for Sevenoaks should include the following:-

reports should present information in an accessible way using charts where practical rather than tables (this will be facilitated by the performance management software);

we should avoid information overload limiting the number of indicators in any one report;

reports should highlight indicators where performance is causing concern and offer commentary, for example by using “traffic lights”;

reports should set out what actions will be taken to bring performance back on track;

report what is meaningful and clearly linked to the main aims of the work of the Committee;

project management indicators should be included to ensure that new developments (e.g. Leisure Trust, Document Management System, Customer Relationship Module and Edenbridge Relief Road), are achieved as planned;

reports should ensure that the three levels of indicators are reported to the appropriate audience:-

national indicators - public, stakeholders, Government, politicians and senior managers;

local indicators - public, stakeholders, local politicians and senior managers;

management information indicators - managers and staff

information that is presented more frequently than quarterly cycles should be used primarily for managers of the service rather than being reported to Members.

5. Developing a range of Local Indicators and Targets 5.1 There are many types of indicators which are used for different audiences and

varying purposes. Some will be needed for good management, but others


29

should be used to inform local people and show how well/poorly we are doing. Local indicators should be integrated into key strategies and plans and have clear links to special objectives.

5.2 When devising performance indicators and performance review systems we

need to consider:-

Who is the information for? Government; Elected Members; Citizens, residents, tax payers; Service managers; Staff

How often should performance information be reported? How and where should it be reported/ What are the key objectives of the service?

5.3 Having considered these points, officers should then begin to develop an

appropriate set of local performance indicators. Details of how to do this are set out in Appendix 7.

5.4 Having devised local performance indicators, we then need to think about

which indicators we need to set targets for, and at what levels these targets should be set. While it is possible to set targets for all good indicators, it is not necessary to set targets for them all. To do so could be confusing and blur the focus of effort on areas that are most important.

5.5 The level to set targets at may be difficult to judge. Staff should be involved in

this process and targets should stretch the organisation without demotivating staff by setting unachievable goals. Councillors, service users and the wider public should also be consulted with where these targets directly affect them.

5.6 The IDeA and the Audit Commission are giving practical help to authorities by

jointly developing a library of local performance indicators to provide “off-the-shelf” indicators with detailed and consistent definitions. These help authorities use indicators more effectively for comparisons and benchmarking. The Commission has also developed a suite of Quality of Life indicators for local authorities to help measure the effectiveness of Community Strategies.


30

TIMETABLE FOR IMPLEMENTING KEY ACTIONS Actions Start by End by Responsible

Officer(s) and Portfolio Holder

1. MT and Cabinet agree to undertake a Best Value Review of Performance Management. Review Team identified

10/4/03 - K. Sewell

(Cllr. Dean)

2. Develop and seek agreement for a performance management framework for the Council

5/6/03 - K. Sewell

(Cllr. Dean)

3. Review commences 13/6/03 Dec R. Wilson

4. Purchase software to support framework November 2003

- K. Sewell

(Cllr. Dean)

5. External input (Fairlight Consultancy) November 2003

Dec Review Team

6. Implement performance management software

November 2003

- K. Sewell

(Cllr. Dean)

7. Roll out a training programme for staff using the software

December 2003

- K. Sewell

8. Finalise draft report for MT December 2003

- Review Team

9. Draft report circulated to Cllrs. Dean, Malan and Clayton

1/12/03 D. Williamson

10. Draft report to Cabinet briefing 4/12/03 - D. Williamson

12. Prepare draft Improvement Plan December 2003

R. Wilson

12. Report to Overview and Scrutiny Board 6/1/04 - D. Williamson

13. Report to Cabinet January 2004

- D. Williamson

14. Implement Improvement Plan February 2004

- R. Wilson

15. System in place 1/4/04 - Review Team

16. Review progress April 2004 - Review Team


31

CONSULTING WITH STAFF AND MEMBERS 1. Results of Consultation with Members 1.1 The Review Team undertook a consultation exercise with Members to assess

their views about the Council’s performance management arrangements. A questionnaire was circulated to all 54 Members which set out a number of issues to be considered. The response rate to the questionnaire was 35% with 19 Councillors returning their responses.

1.2 The key findings of the survey are as follows:-

Members were asked if they receive performance information on a regular basis. Only a third (37%) said this was currently the case with the remainder of Members receiving information occasionally or not at all..

37% of those who received performance information were given this on a monthly, 16% on a quarterly basis and 16% every six months.

58% of respondents felt that the information they received was easy to understand.

Members had mixed views on how information should be presented with 21% favouring graphs, 26% tables, 10% text and 63% preferring a mixture of all of these.

Members felt strongly (68%) that better information would help them in their role as a councillor.

1.3 When asked how the current arrangements could be improved the following

comments were received:

Use of the Communications Team to improve presentation of the Performance Management Reports

Make it relevant to the subject discussed and have an effective

monitoring system. Ensure that the base data is on a consistent basis for all activities. For

example, do not compare PIs calculated on expenditure minus overheads and capital charges with PIs calculated on expenditure including overheads and capital charges.

Include expected benefits from proposed strategies for improvement(s)

and how they will be delivered. Regular performance reports against targets with variances over a rolling

twelve month period. By first thinking what information is relevant and important.


32

Need to review the PIs for each area, how they are to be reported and how frequently.

The indicators used should be those that are important to Central

Government, as they will influence our success as a progressive Council. Also those that officers within the Council consider to be important. It may be that elected Members will add occasionally to this list.

1.4 Members were also asked what type of information they would like to receive

and a number of their responses are set out below:-

Impact studies on effect of proposed or actual changes in Council policy on local communities and local economies/businesses.

Details on all major services. Performance on local and national indicators - the local ones are usually

more valuable. On front line service delivery, support service delivery, all other net

expenditure. Ensure that no item of income/expenditure escapes from being PI’d.

Public transport enhancement schemes.

Affordable housing schemes. Improved targets for clean air strategies. Outcomes of legal action enforcement e.g. anti-social behaviour, noise, pollution etc. Staff job satisfaction

Relevant information that shows trends

Spending against budget profile. Efficiency of departments against

agreed targets i.e. processing of applications/benefits etc. Too much information is as bad as too little.

1.5 Other comments received:-

The use of PIs should be pressed forward as a matter of urgency. The Council is compared by using national PIs, so it is essential to ensure that all local PIs reconcile back to the appropriate national PI.

Information to include the likely effect on communities/residents of

performance management. I think we are doing well insofar as waste collection data is concerned. All our staff work very hard and we need to tell them so from time to time.


33

This questionnaire does not give an opportunity for Members to comment in the way they would wish. There is a dearth of information which seems to be deliberately suppressed.

Check the information to ensure that it is correct before it is presented to

Members and made public. 2. Communication Strategy 2.1 The Council acknowledges that it will be important to communicate the

purpose and outcomes of the Performance Management Best Value Review to all staff in advance of the implementation timetable of 1st April 2004. The Council already has an established hierarchy of staff briefings and meetings, which can facilitate this process.

2.2 Team meetings are held regularly, which enable the exchange of information

from departmental team meetings (DMT) and Management Team. Currently Strategic Services and Community Services have regular DMTs, while Corporate Services have a partial arrangement led by the Chief Financial Officer. It is anticipated to widen this group to represent the whole department, subject to the recommendations of the Organisational Design Review. Performance management and local performance indicators are discussed regularly at DMTs.

2.3 In addition, the notes of the discussion at team meetings are considered by

DMTs. To supplement this exchange of information there are also regular team leaders meetings, a Council-wide “Sounding Board” and staff briefings on relevant items. For example, the Community Services Department arranged a series of three briefings for staff on performance management in September 2003 and all staff have been briefed on the Council’s preparations for Comprehensive Performance Assessment.

2.4 Council employees receive an in-house electronic magazine called In Shape

People, which has been utilised to disseminate important corporate initiatives, most recently regarding the Organisation Design Review. Shared Directories on the Council’s Outlook system also provide a useful source of information and it is anticipated that the Performance Management Best Value Review Action Plan will be included.

2.5 Heads of Service have monthly meetings where performance management is

a regular item. 2.6 Members also receive regular bulletins electronically and have access to the

shared directories on Outlook. Hard copies of relevant documents are also made available in the Member’s Room at the Council Offices in Sevenoaks. Some Portfolio Holders currently receive performance management feedback from relevant Heads of Service and the Council is considering extending this across all service areas. Member briefings and/or training will also be considered.


34

3. Training 3.1 The Council already has an annual performance appraisal system for staff,

introduced three years ago. Amendments to the procedures were introduced in summer 2003 to ensure that individual training requirements are addressed at the interim appraisal stage. This allows time for training budgets to be set in advance of the following year’s budget. It also takes account of any service plan bids for the following year.

3.2 Objective setting, if appropriate, and training for staff (for example, for any

performance management software that may be introduced) will be identified through the appraisal process. It is further proposed that the appraisal system be used to promote the ownership of Best Value Performance Indicators by individual members of staff through their personal objectives. The outcomes of the appraisal system will in turn inform future service plan bids to ensure that performance is linked to the Council’s priorities and resources.

3.3 During 2003 the Council appointed a consultant, Fairlight Consultancy, to

meet with, assess current practice and provide advice to Heads of Service in preparing local performance indicators. Heads of Service have been able to use the findings in two reports by Peter Chowney in refining their local performance indicators.


35

CONCLUSIONS 1.1 This Best Value review of Performance Management identifies and

recommends a corporate approach to Performance Management for Sevenoaks District Council by developing a robust system to fit the Council’s needs and requirements.

1.2 The system development aims to be:-

Focused – on the organisations aims and objectives Appropriate – to, and useful for, the stakeholders who will use it Balanced – to provide a picture of how the organisation is performing Robust – flexible enough to withstand essential change Integrated – part of business planning and management culture Cost effective – benefits against costs

1.3 The tailored system proposed for Sevenoaks District Council aims to translate

high level objectives into Service planning and Management actions linked to sound performance measures in key aspects of service delivery. Good Performance Management Information should be used to link the Council’s hierarchy of plans and strategies from the Community Plan at the Corporate level, cascading down to individual staff appraisals and measurement of performance.

1.4 Good performance information will help inform Management and Members

indicating whether performance targets are being met; assisting in allocating resources; Support Service planning and identifying key priorities.

1.5 Reporting performance information will be key to keeping Members, Senior

Management, the Public and all Staff informed, as well as supporting preparation of national indicators. Relevant local indicators will also be established across all Services to support a comprehensive system of performance management.

1.6 It is recognised that there are already existing examples of good practices on

performance management within the Council. However there are many areas where systems need to be introduced and fully developed to support the Council’s aims and objectives. Effective consultation and training for many Members and Staff will be essential to achieve the key milestone of having a effective system in place by April 2004.

1.7 The Improvement Plan indicates key actions necessary to achieve the

milestones necessary to have an effective system in place by April 2004 and all identified stakeholders commitment is necessary to fully achieve this.

1.8 Making Performance Management arrangements work effectively is critical for

Sevenoaks District Council if it is to deliver the range and quality of services expected by Members; Central Government; external assessors and most important, the residents of the District.


36

1.9 The performance management framework will ensure that:-

- The Community Plan and other Corporate Strategies will impact and connect with internal practices and processes

- Best Value thinking and action becomes integral to the way the Authority works

- Members and Managers receive timely and appropriate information to make informed decisions about service improvement, based on facts.

1.10 By improving our services, we improve the quality of life for all in the District.

By demonstrating our performance to our Partners, we gain their trust and cooperation that will generate further improvement through Partnership working. By demonstrating our performance to external assessors we can gain greater freedom and flexibilities to improve our Services further.


37

Appendix 1 CABINET

5TH JUNE 2003

REPORTING PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

ITEM FOR DECISION

The Council is striving to develop an effective performance management system, which meets the needs of the organisation. Key to any adopted system will be appropriate monitoring and reporting mechanisms at management and Member level. This paper sets out the key tasks and issues which should be considered before a comprehensive system of reporting is adopted by the whole organisation to ensure that it is robust. RECOMMENDATION

Members are asked to consider the contents of this report and offer comments as appropriate.

Background (1) The District Audit, in its Management Letter to the Authority in December 2002, commented that the “Council does not have a comprehensive performance management system in place and lacks evidence of robust performance monitoring across the Council.” More recently they have recommended that the authority set up an effective performance management system that identifies the data that management needs. (2) Performance management assists authorities to run and improve services. “If you don’t know how good or bad you are you can’t identify the scope for improvements.” Authorities which make good use of performance measurement as a key day-to-day management activity have shown a marked improvement in the level of services that they provide. The Audit Commission in the first round of the Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) has used the experiences of high performing and good authorities as a bench mark which other authorities should learn from. (Case studies are available should Members wish to refer to them: please contact Karl Sewell for details.) Authorities which are unable to demonstrate effective performance management are unlikely to receive a favourable assessment.

(3) Weaknesses identified by District Audit, Best Value Inspectors and early indicators from Pinnacle psg, coupled with the forthcoming Comprehensive Performance Assessment in March 2004, underline the importance for the organisation to adopt an appropriate system as a matter of urgency.

(4) The CPA will test ten corporate themes. The Commission, in developing the methodology, has recognised that performance management is one of ten CPA


38

areas for investigation, however, without this it is difficult to see how an organisation would measure its successes or weaknesses. The ten corporate themes which the District will be tested on are:

Ambition Prioritisation Focus Capacity Performance Management Achievement in Quality or Service Achievement or Improvement Investment Learning Future Plans

(5) Despite the performance management arrangements in the authority being patchy, some services (e.g. waste and Development Control), are areas of good practice which other services could easily learn from. These Service Heads currently report performance issues to their Directors on a regular basis, and report progress to Members more regularly than is seen from other services. This is in addition to using the information to manage and improve the performance of the services.

Underlying Reasons for Poor Performance Management in Local Government (6) The Audit Commission and IDeA have undertaken extensive reviews across public sector organisations over the past 3-4 years and have identified the following points which hamper the development of performance management in the public sector; these are:-

there are too many priorities which can be confusing to staff and Members. The Organisation needs to make clear which are the most important;

Members do not (in the main) show enough interest in management and improving performance, and staff can sometimes feel unsupported;

there is little time to learn, and staff find learning difficult;

people do not understand that what they do has to change. The task is about change management as well as performance management, and managers must be willing to make tough decisions;

sometimes the performance management system does not help, its objectives are not necessarily clear, and it may not fit the organisation; and

some people do not perform and managers find that dealing with under performance is highly challenging.


39

Key issues to Consider when Developing a Framework (7) In developing a performance management-reporting framework the Council should consider the following key issues:

make it clear that performance matters; learn from good practice internally and outside; concentrate on the things that matter; make national agendas work for the organisation; sign up the staff; develop our own approach; measure what matters and decide on the audience; and help staff to perform well.

Show Staff that Performance Matters (8) When new initiatives are introduced into the organisation careful planning must be put in place to ensure that the support of senior managers is ensured. Leaders and “champions” will be needed at all levels in the authority. It will be important that management constantly reinforce the message to staff that performance matters but more importantly, they must show this by the actions they take.

Join Up Our Thinking (9) It is important to ensure that staff are continuously informed whether decisions or changes they have made have actually improved things as past experience has shown if this is not achieved staff continue to collect data in areas where it is no longer necessary to do so, resulting in a waste of management and staff time. To make sure Members and managers know what is really working, we can:-

timetable regular sessions where Management Team can assess progress corporately;

obtain feedback from Members and staff on what they feel is working and what can be improved;

use good performance information, which reflects not only the current situation, but also reflects key decisions made by Members;

decide on what we need to do differently as an organisation;

share this with the organisation;

encourage staff to experiment and try new ways of doing things; and

accept that not everything will work but make sure we learn from our mistakes.


40

Take Action on Priorities (10) Because of the diverse and complex set of demands managers have to manage, it can sometimes be easy to loose sight of what is most important. We should therefore focus on what the organisation is about by revisiting key plans such as Community Plan, Best Value Performance Plan, Strategic Framework and the Corporate Plan and make judgements on what priorities should be translated into performance data. We need to decide on our priorities and put resources behind them.

Make the National Agendas Work for Us (11) It is important to translate national frameworks or agendas into something that is meaningful to the organisation instead of seeing them as a burden to work around. So far we have been successful in achieving this through our waste recycling targets where additional resources have been allocated to the service. This being a key objective for the organisation, has allowed the service to develop and meet Government targets effectively and meet the expectations of our increasingly demanding communities.

(12) Recently, we have agreed “stretching” performance targets with Government in partnership with Kent CC under the Public Service Agreements. In return (if achieved), we will receive additional funding and freedoms. The lessons learnt from these initiatives should be further rolled out across the organisation.

Sign Up Our Staff (13) Every attention should be paid to ensuring that systems to manage performance are not developed in isolation of staff. The authority should ensure that staff are brought on side, or the process is likely to stall, and staff will become demotivated. Staff will perform better if they feel responsible for something, even if it is only a small piece of the jigsaw.

(14) We can do this by:

consulting with staff on how best to improve services;

allocate accountabilities;

use plan English (avoid jargon);

communicate the message well; and

give middle managers support and incentives (not just linked to appraisals but recognition when progress is shown and training where it is needed).

Develop Our Approach

(15) An approach for managing performance can help to ensure that staff understand where the organisation is going. Every organisation will have different strategic goals so it is important that the approach for Sevenoaks fits the priorities


41

and aspirations set out in the Council’s strategies and plans and is tailor made for the organisation. The authority should move towards developing a simple and flexible approach linked to corporate systems (e.g. the proposed corporate software referred to in paragraph (17).

Measure Only What Matters (16) Pockets of the organisation continue to collect what is collectable, or just what the Government has specified nationally (in some cases this remains inadequate). Performance measures should reflect what is most important and include measures that mirror the organisations key objectives. For example, it is easier to measure the number of telephone calls answered within a specified time, but it would be more useful to measure how satisfied the customer was with the call. We should consider what matters to encourage effort around what is most important, reducing the potential for a plethora of information being reported unnecessarily to the targeted audience.

Corporate Performance Management Software (17) Following demonstrations from potential providers for this software, trials are currently being carried out on a software package by a preferred provider. Once implemented, the corporate system will be capable of providing performance reports on prescribed and local indicators in an attractive format for officers and Members alike, instantly.

An Approach for Sevenoaks (18) A local framework for Sevenoaks should provide the right information to the right audience at the right time, and reflect their different roles and responsibilities.

(19) Manchester City Council, for example, reports 23 core indicators to its senior management team on a quarterly basis. Cambridgeshire now reports about 30 indicators each quarter to its Senior Management Team and Cabinet, based on their local Pubic Service Agreement and on key objectives. Bedfordshire uses about 30 key performance indicators selected mainly from the best value suite of indicators. Guildford Borough Council uses a mix of best value and former Audit Commission performance indicators, with some key local indicators. These are reported on a bi-monthly basis to the management team and quarterly to Members. The report is split into three schedules:

Schedule 1 - meeting or beating targets;

Schedule 2 - close to target;

Schedule 3 - not going to achieve target. (20) The approach for Sevenoaks should therefore include the following:

reports should present information in an accessible way, using charts rather than tables;


42

we should avoid information overload, limiting the number of indicators in any one report;

reports should highlight indicators where performance is causing concern and offer commentary, for example by using “traffic lights”.

reports should set out what actions will be taken to bring performance back on track;

report what is meaningful and clearly linked to the main aims of the work of the Committee;

project management indicators should be included to ensure that new developments (e.g. Leisure Trust, Document Management System, Customer Relation Module and Edenbridge Relief Road), are achieved as planned;

reports should ensure that the three levels of indicators are reported to the appropriate audience:-

o National indicators - public, stakeholders, Government, politicians and senior managers;

o Local indicators - public, stakeholders, local politicians and senior managers;

o Management information indicators - managers and staff.

Information that is presented more frequently than quarterly should be used primarily for managers of the service, rather than being reported to Members.

(21) We should also be aware when developing local indicators that a library of local indicators has been developed by the IDeA and the Audit Commission to provide an “off the shelf” set of indicators for local authorities which can be used for comparative purposes.


43

Key Components of a Performance Culture

Conclusions (22) Performance measurement is a vital component in the drive to improve services. The authority cannot truly improve without a clear picture of its overall performance. Systems alone will not provide effective performance measurement, these have to be introduced hand-in-hand with changes in organisational culture that make this a part of everyday management activity. It is therefore essential that the authority considers the steps set out under the proposed approach in paragraphs (13 and (14), and develop a tailored approach to suit the needs of the organisation in the lead up to CPA.

Sources of Information Audit Commission - Acting on facts Contact Officer: Karl Sewell - Corporate Policy Manager

ext 7152

JEAN MORGAN Acting Head of Paid Service

Service Objectives

Collect Report

Act

Results Indicators

Choose Define

Targets

Set Plan

Verify Priorities

What works to improve services

P E RF O RMA N C E C U L T U R E

Determine Communicate


44


45

Appendix 2 Performance Management Review

SECTION: DEPARTMENT: NAME OF H.O.S: Do you currently monitor your sections performance using Performance Indicators: Yes/No If yes - briefly explain your system:

How often do you record your indicators: ____________________________________ Are your indicators: Input Yes/No Output Yes/No Outcome Yes/No Do your indicators have annual targets linked to continuous improvement: Yes/No Does your Service Plan have indicators: Yes / No / N/A Thank you for completing this. Please return to Richard Wilson by email no later than Friday 13th June 2003.


46


47

Appendix 3 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Month: Sept KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR MONITORING Year: 2003 Service Area and Indicator Actual Out-

turn Last Year Annual Target Target to Date This Month Last Month Same Month

Last Year Year to Date

Last Year Year to Date % of actual

against target

1. Housing 84% Percentage of homeless applications processed within 33 working days

88.00% 86% 86% 83% 88.70% 100.00% 89.00% 84.00% 98%

Percentage of homeless housed through Housing register

NK 35% 35% 42% 43.00% nk nk 41.00% 100%

Percentage of DFG budget spent against monthly profile

£184,191 100% £99,996 £25,307 £5,147 £16,227 £66,840 £66,532 67%

Percentage of total budget spent against monthly profile

£703,022 100% £248,580 £28,662 £17,490 £25,416 £317,281 £178,178 72%

2. Leisure * 100% Total Usage 1,266,495 1,263,700 634,200 96,920 105,855 98,962 634,008 649,410 100% Total income (excluding budget error SLC) £

£1,313,043 £4,642,430 £2,510,132 £374,570 £435,222 not available not available £2,522,839 100%

Trading account position (this year includes "client accounts")

not available -£2,600,000 -£1,403,993 not available not available not available -£21,586 -£1,423,570 99%

3. Environmental Health 97% % routine cases open for longer than 6 months

N/A <20% 20% 11% 10% 13.00% 15.00% 15.00% 100%

% urgent cases closed within 2 days N/A 100% 100% 100% 100% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100%

% routine cases responded within 10 working days

N/A 80% 80% 100% 100% 100.00% 85.00% 100.00% 100%

No of high risk inspections due in the month and not done

not available <36 <18 7 3 7 13 15 100%

No of un-rated premises not available <50 <25 497 430 Data Data 497 0% No of provisional rated premises N/A 0 ** 754 623 1139 unreliable unreliable 623 100% % of total open cases on waiting list (unallocated)

N/A <10% <10% 29% 22% N/A N/A 12.00% 80%

No of strays taken to kennels 60 <150 <75 14 14 7 95 67 100%

Appendix 3


48

Service Area and Indicator Actual Out-

turn Last Year Annual Target Target to Date This Month Last Month Same Month

Last Year Year to Date

Last Year Year to Date % of actual

against target

4. Direct Services 78% No of missed collections / 100,000 11.1 11 11 10.8 17.3 20.4 15 13.7 76% % of highways to 'A' standard 64.30% 65.00% 65.00% 82.00% 93.00% 61.00% 69.00% 85.00% 100% Average time taken to remove fly tipping

- 3 days 3 days 2.3 days 2.3 days not available not available 2.4 days 100%

Average time taken to remove abandoned vehicles

7.1 days 7 days 7 days 3.7 days 5.4 days 10 days 5.1 days 4.2 days 100%

% of household waste recycled/composted

15.58% 26.00% 21.00% not available 21% 15.70% 13.20% not available

Total additional income generated £ £1,022,889 £1,229,197 £614,598 £89,198 £98,158 £127,569 £514,413 £569,863 93% Trading account position £ £31,470 0 -£8,481 -£22,938 -£4,032 £96,606 £85,011 -£31,267 0% 5. Community Development 100% Community safety partnership actions achieved

87% 80% 40.00% 2nd Q due Nov 85% 1st Q 86% 1st Q 86.00% 85% 1st Q 100%

External funding local indicator achieved (funding claims)

100% 100% 100.00% 2nd Q due Oct 100% 1st Q 100% 1st Q 100.00% 100% 1st Q 100%

Sustainable development actions achieved

92% 80% 40.00% Half yr due Nov

Half yr due Nov

N/A N/A Half yr due Nov

Due Nov

% young peoples' actions achieved 75% 70% 35.00% Half yr due Nov

Half yr due Nov

N/A N/A Half yr due Nov

Due Nov

Achieved agreed indicators on voluntary sector grants

N/A 90% 45.00% Report due Oct Report due Oct

N/A N/A Half yr due Oct Due Oct

6. Customer Services 99% Telephone calls answered within 20 seconds (14 secs for last year)

87.00% 80.00% 80.00% 87.80% 87.40% 90.75% 89.70% 87.80% 100.00%

% of calls abandoned not collected <5% <5% 1.4 1.10% not collected not collected 1.40% 100.00% % questions answered at first point of contact ***

Procurement savings achieved £ not collected £45,000 £22,500 £31,505 not collected not collected £31,505 100.00% % undisputed invoices paid within 30 days

not collected 90.00% 90.00% 89.00% 86.00% not collected not collected 85.08% 94.53%

* Leisure figures calculated in such a way that these figures are not available - ** by December 2004 - ***not available until CRM is introduced

Appendix 3


49

Appendix 4 Fairlight Consultancy Services (1st Report) Local Performance Management in Sevenoaks District Council: A Short Report Introduction This report is based on a series of ‘surgery’ interviews conducted with officers from different Sevenoaks Council services, during November 2001. The interviews were designed to help these officers develop aims, objectives and performance indicators, and to assess how well they were shaping their services within a framework of corporate performance management. Each of the surgery sessions lasted around an hour. The interviews followed a half-day seminar on performance management, which some of the officers at the surgery sessions had attended. Process During the surgery sessions, I spoke to officers from the following services:

Development control Community development Customer services (central support services) Information technology Customer Services (Planning & Engineering) Housing Council Tax & benefits Personnel DSO

In each session, we discussed the development of objectives, indicators and targets for the service. It should be noted that some significant areas of the council’s activities were not covered in the sessions, including:

environmental health; building control local plans; leisure & recreation.

In the following sections, I have given a brief overview of each session, outlining the issues that were discussed and the apparent state of development of aims, objectives, indicators and targets.


50

Council-Wide Issues From the interviews, several points emerged that were common to all services. These were:

most officers interviewed thought they needed more corporate or political guidance to help them develop aims for their services. They wanted to be clearer about what the council thought their service was for (see, for example, benefits and community development);

virtually all services had no, or very few, unit cost indicators. This makes it difficult to judge their cost effectiveness, or to demonstrate the two percent ‘efficiency improvements’ required under best value;

most of those attending had carried out, or wanted to carry out, surveys of the general public to judge public satisfaction with their services, and consequently develop outcome indicators based on this. Setting up a corporate ‘citizens’ panel’ would be a cost effective way of carrying out general service satisfaction surveys;

there seemed to be no clear corporate system for reporting performance data to committees or portfolio holders – practices appeared to differ between departments;

although a staff appraisal system is in place, there was not always a link between staff appraisal and performance targets for the relevant service – so service targets were not necessarily devolved to individual staff.

Development Control Some national BVPIs exist for this service, relating to the speed of processing planning applications. Development control has recently been subjected to a best value review, and from this some local performance indicators have now been developed, as well as five-year targets for the service. However, the service has no clear aims or objectives, and performance indicators do not cover some areas – for example, there are no PIs on planning advice. Possible objectives and additional indicators were discussed, along with the possibility of developing outcome indicators based on a satisfaction survey of service users. Results of monitoring against the existing PIs are reported quarterly to the planning committee, and every six months to the relevant scrutiny committee. At the moment, performance information is not really used by staff in the section – this is something they hope to do in the future, as better performance indicators and a set of objectives are developed. Overall, the officer interviewed was enthusiastic about performance management and believed it would be helpful to develop it further for the planning service. Community Development There is one BVPI for community development, relating to crime and burglary. However, the data is unavailable for this indicator, as Kent Police do not report crime statistics at a district level.


51

The service at present has no other indicators, nor does it have clear aims and objectives. The officer interviewed believed that developing indicators, particularly outcome indicators, for the service was difficult. While there is a range of different plans (some statutory) relating to community development, there were at present no clear ways to measure whether the implementation of these plans had any effect on the community. The solution appeared to be to measure the success of individual projects – for example, a project to reduce truancy in a school had proved successful, and had shown a measurable improvement in truancy rates. By setting targets within these project plans, and by making the intended outcome of the project clearer, it should be possible to assess the effectiveness of individual projects, and consequently the effectiveness of community development overall. Customer Services (Central Support Services) Customer services provides the council’s central telephone switchboard, corporate purchasing, and administrative support. There are no relevant BVPIs, but there are local indicators and targets relating to the speed of answering telephones. There are no clear aims or objectives for the service. Telephone monitoring, in terms of speed of answering (both at the main switchboard and at the extension) is carried out electronically, and the achievement of targets regularly reported. However, there is no monitoring of the quality of telephone responses – the possibility of using ‘mystery shopper’ callers to assess response quality was discussed. The service officer interviewed also thought that they were in a good position to monitor both the speed and quality of responses to letters for the whole authority. There is currently a corporate target for answering letters, but she did not believe this was effectively monitored. Indicators are also needed for the purchasing and administrative support functions, relating perhaps to the cost effectiveness of current purchasing arrangements, and to efficiency in responding to requests for administrative support. The officer interviewed recognised the need for further indicators and targets, and seemed keen to develop them. Information Technology There are no information technology BVPIs, but the service level agreement contains many local performance indicators relating to the outputs and efficiency. Some of these can be benchmarked against other authorities. The service has a set of aims and objectives, although these may need further clarification. The officer interviewed was however concerned that he could not monitor the quality of the service he provided. This could perhaps be achieved by using surveys of IT users. He also expressed some frustration at the way other departments ordered new IT equipment. He believed that he needed to monitor the cost benefit of new IT systems. This required departments to specify what they wanted from a new IT


52

system, and for IT to then advise them how much it would cost to achieve this. They could then monitor whether the purchased new equipment met the department’s specifications. However, in practice, this did not happen. All departments need to be persuaded to co-operate, so that cost benefits can be measured. The IT department uses performance information from the SLA indicators to help staff organise and run their work. The officer interviewed believed this to be helpful and important in maintaining an efficient service, and would like to develop performance management further within the department. Customer Services (Planning & Engineering) This department offers a front line reception service for planning and engineering, and provides administrative support. There is a set of objectives contained within a SLA, but no way of measuring whether they have been achieved. Targets are set too, but they are not monitored. The possibility of developing performance indicators, to measure both the efficiency and quality of the service. However, the officer interviewed did not think these would be very helpful. He did, however, say that he would consider developing indicators to measure whether targets were met, but was concerned about the time taken to record and process the performance information. Housing As Sevenoaks has transferred its housing to RSLs, the housing service covers areas such as homelessness, housing advice, and private housing grants. There is one BVPI relating to homelessness. There are some objectives and local indicators, but the officer interviewed did not think these were particularly useful. The aims, objectives and targets for the service were also confused and unclear. There are no outcome indicators. Potential aims and objectives were discussed, and the possibility of monitoring the effectiveness of housing services provided by local RSLs. Some elements of the service, it was felt, were difficult to measure because the aims were unclear – was the homelessness service there to house statutorily homeless people in an emergency, or does it have a wider aim to prevent homelessness and help all homeless people find homes? These are essentially political questions that need to be addressed by the authority at a member level, so that clearer aims can be developed. The officer interviewed was keen to develop better indicators, once the purpose of the service was more clearly defined. She thought that this would be an important part of the forthcoming best value review. Council Tax and Benefits There are BVPIs for this service, both for the collection of council tax and for the speed of processing benefit applications. However, there are no local indicators for council tax or benefit processing, and the aims and objectives are unclear. The


53

BVPIs were monitored continuously (in the case of benefits processing) and the results used regularly by staff for day-to-day management of the service. For council tax collection, the aims and objectives are fairly clear. And the BVPI measures the outcome of the service. However, the officer interviewed felt that indicators could also be developed for the speed and quality of response to enquiry letters, the effectiveness of enforcement action, and for payment methods. For the benefits service, the aims and objectives are less clear, and the officer interviewed was uncertain about what the council’s overall aim for the benefits service was – was it simply to pay benefits, or was it a broader aim, relating to combating poverty and social exclusion? The only indicators in place relate to the process of paying benefits, rather than the outcomes. Surveys of benefit claimants could be used to develop outcome and quality indicators. Indicators were also needed for fraud investigation, and for the welfare advice service. Overall, the officer interviewed believed that corporate guidance was needed on the overall aims of the service, but was enthusiastic about developing performance management further. Personnel The service currently monitors some corporate BVPIs, on equal opportunities and staff sickness. However, the officer who came to the surgery was a recent appointment and was relatively junior, so knew little about the service. She was unsure whether there was a service plan, but there were no aims, objectives, indicators or targets. The possible objectives of the personnel service were discussed, along with possible areas (for example, recruitment, training, grievance and disciplinary procedures, and advertising jobs) that could be monitored. Potential output efficiency indicators, and outcome indicators for all these areas were discussed. Two types of indicator are needed: corporate personnel indicators, monitored by the personnel service on behalf of the council; and departmental indicators, to measure the effectiveness of the personnel service itself. It seems likely that more work will be needed to develop a useful set of objectives, indicators and targets for this service. Sevenoaks DSO This covers a wide range of services, including refuse collection, street cleaning, public conveniences, vehicle maintenance, construction and parking. There are BVPIs only for refuse collection and recycling. The officer interviewed stated that all of the services had clear aims and objectives, and a comprehensive set of indicators covering inputs, outputs and outcomes. However, no evidence was produced of these, so it was not possible to see whether these aims, objectives and indicators really were so comprehensive. Staff use data derived from monitoring against the indicators to help them manage the services.


54

It may be worth checking whether performance management really is so comprehensive and complete in the DSO. If it is, then further work is unlikely to be necessary, beyond keeping the system up-to-date and making sure it fits with new corporate performance management systems. It may even be possible to use performance monitoring in the DSO as a template for a council-wide system. Peter Chowney Fairlight Consultancy Services December 2001


55

Appendix 5

Wednesday, 13 April 2005

Karl Sewell Sevenoaks District Council Council Offices Argyle Road Sevenoaks Kent TN13 1HG Dear Karl Following the recent sessions I did with heads of service at the Council, and the presentation I did to the management team, I agreed to write to you with some comments following these sessions. Overall, there seemed to be a lot more enthusiasm for developing local performance indicators than there was when I last visited, in 2001. The heads of service and their representatives to whom I spoke had in most cases already given some thought to developing local indicators, and were able to establish further indicators between the initial ‘surgeries’ and the follow-up meetings. There are, however, a number of specific points I would like to make: While most heads of service seemed to have systems in place for collecting

data for their relevant BVPIs, you should emphasise the need to provide external auditors with a full audit trail for each of the indicators. External auditors may want to trace performance figures back to source data. It is important, too, to check that precisely the right definition has been used,

www.fairlight-consultancy.co.uk

fcsfcsFairlight Consultancy Services- 2nd Report

www.fairlight-consultancy.co.uk


56

taking into account ‘clarifications’ issued by the Audit Commission/ODPM during the year. If in doubt, check with the Audit Commission’s definition helpline.

Heads of service seemed to be confused about what is meant by an

‘objective’. So in most service plans, there were one-off tasks listed as ‘objectives’, but not clear statements of ‘continuous intent’ for a service. These ‘continuous’ objectives are important, as they form the basis for assessing how well a service is performing, by using local performance indicators to measure the extent to which they have been achieved.

Most heads of service now understand the importance of outcome measures,

and the concept of ‘outcomes’. Where there are no clear direct outcome measures, most proposed to use service user surveys or the citizens’ panel to assess satisfaction with services as a ‘proxy’ outcome measure. While this is positive, it may create demands on central resources for conducting surveys, and could overload the citizens’ panel.

When I first spoke to heads of service, they were unclear about the hierarchy

of different plans and strategy documents (the community strategy, the corporate plan, the BVPP and the strategic framework). While much of this confusion now seems to have been sorted out, it is still important to establish a clear ‘cascade’ from high-level organisational objectives to service level objectives and targets for teams of staff and individual staff members.

You need to make sure that performance information is used to motivate and

involve staff in a supportive way, without making them feel unduly pressured. In both the service teams I spoke to, some staff were suspicious of performance monitoring and whether it would help them in their day-to-day work. Some in-house training might be useful, within service departments, to involve staff in the development of performance indicators, targets and performance management systems throughout the organisation.

I did not discuss targets specifically with most heads of service, but any true

indicator of performance, particularly outcome indicators, should be subject to a target. These targets should reflect, where possible, the expectations of service users. But they should also be realistic, and developed in consultation with service staff. Targets should stretch the organisation, but not be unachievable.

While it’s important that local performance indicators are used to measure

the achievement of locally agreed objectives, there may be other authorities with similar objectives that have already developed useful indicators. Use the Audit Commission/IDeA library to find these, as well as benchmarking groups and service-specific professional bodies.

Although there may be a problem with stretching resources too thinly, the

Council should consider using the in-house audit team to audit data for the BVPIs, as well as corporate performance management systems and performance management within specific service areas. Involvement of internal audit in these tasks could save a lot of time with external auditors.


57

The role of council members in developing the Council’s performance

management system needs to be considered. Members should be involved in setting targets for services and making sure that the objectives set for services reflect their priorities. And of course, members need to receive performance data generated by the local performance indicators. You should also think about the division of responsibilities for these tasks between scrutiny members and executive members, and how, perhaps, you can develop a ‘creative tension’ between these two groups.

I hope all this is helpful! Best wishes Yours sincerely

Peter Chowney


58


59

Appendix 6

KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR MONITORING

MONTH AUGUST YEAR 2003

Service Area & Indicator Annual Target

This Month

Last Month

Same Month

Last Year

Total for Year

Total Last Year

1. Waste Collection

No. of missed collections

260 40 29 35 145 266

No. of missed collections / 100,000

11.0 17.3 15.7 19.0 14.3 11.1

No. put right by next working day

234 39 28 25 142 230

% put right by next working day

90% 97% 96% 71% 98% 86.5%

No. of missed sack deliveries

200 34 43 41 165 229

Tonnes of household waste collected for disposal

34,000 2,363 2,949 2,639 13,576 33,490

No. of Paid Bulky Collections

3,500 280 322 365 1,478 3,444

2. Street Cleaning

No. of Complaints 115 12 13 12 73 173 % of Highways to A Standard 65% 52.3% 49.6% 63.45% 45.3% 64.3% % of Highways to B+ Standard 5% 40.6% 42.8% - 40.4% - % of Highways to B Standard 20% 5.5% 6.7% 35.7% 10.4% 29.9 % of Highways to B/C Standard 5% 0 0.9% - 2.3% - % of Highways to C Standard 5% 1.6% 0 0.89% 1.6% 5.8

DIRECT SERVICES

Appendix 6


60


This Month

Last Month

Same Month

Last Year

Total for Year

Total Last Year

% of Highways to C- Standard

0% 0 0 - 0 -

% of Highways to D Standard

0% 0 0 0 0 0

Tonnes of Street Cleaning Arisings

5,500 363 506 346 2,047 5,644 % of Routine Cleaning Schedules Achieved

80% 79% 90% 83.4% -

No. of Fly Tipping Incidents Reported

500 50 77 72 280 576

No. of Fly Tipping Incident Removed

450 33 75 72 261 576

Average time taken to remove fly tips – from report to removal

3 Days 2.3 Days 2.4 Days - 2.5 Days -

Average time taken to remove fly tips – from instruction to removal

2 Days 1.9 Days 1.9 Days 1.7 Days 2 Days 2 Days

No. of Abandoned Vehicles reported

1,100 111 138 63 597 1,112

No. of Abandoned Vehicles removed

500 39 51 32 206 489

Average time taken to remove Abandoned Vehicles

7 Days 5.45 Days 5.1 Days 6.3 Days 4.5 Days 7.1 Days

No of Voluntary Surrendered Vehicles

500 45 59 46 234 559

No. of Vehicles removed (Operation Cubit)

250 0 0 0 80 82

3. Recycling

Total tonnage of household waste produced

42,000 3,141.55 3,969.04 3,158 17,763.77 41,782

Tonnes of waste recycled

9,660 591.72 663.54 412.06 2,974.11 5,850.38

% of Household Waste recycled

23% 18.83% 16.72% 13.05% 16.74% 14.00%

Tonnes of Waste composted

1,260 55.96 79.22 74.87 368.47 660.31

Appendix 6


61


This Month

Last Month

Same Month

Last Year

Total for Year

Total Last Year

% of Household Waste Composted

3% 1.78% 1.99% 2.3% 2.07% 1.58%

% Household Participation in Clear Sack Scheme

75% 75.53% 81.0% - 77.25% -

No. of complaints re missed Paper Collection

100 0 4 10 69 166

No. of complaints re missed Green Waste Collection

100 8 19 30 99 195

4. Cesspool Emptying

Total No. of Customers

1,000 904 903 856 904 892

No. of New Customers

108 + 1 - 1 - + 12 38

Gallonage emptied

3,500,000 266,000 313,600 262,000 1,462,600 3,205,000

Income: Staff cost ratio

70:30 49:51 53:47 - 43:57 56:44

No. of reported complaints

5 1 1 0 3 1

Average time taken between reporting & emptying

6 Days 5.2 Days 5.46 Days - 5.5 Days -

5. Vehicle Maintenance

No. of M.O.T’s

720 73 81 82 420 743

6. Trade Waste

Total No. of Customers

600 537 534 450 537 519

No. of New Customers

114 5 11 - 10 27 83

No. of Customers Lost

10 3 2 - 10 -

Appendix 6


62


This Month

Last Month

Same Month

Last Year

Total for Year

Total Last Year

Income – Sacks - £

30,000 2,859 2,613 3,581 11,801 34,914

Income – Bins - £

135,000 10,198 16,682 22,204 61,057 111,944

7. General

No. of days lost to sickness

2,000 242 204 284 1,180 2,821

% Sickness Level

6% 6.8% 5.7% - 6.9% -

No. of hours overtime worked

16,500 1,272.5 1,310.0 1,162.5 6,727 16,337

No. of Flexitime Hours Owed

200 172 187 116 172 251

No. of Accidents

30 0 6 3 14 41

No. of Days lost through accidents

100 Days 0 5 Days 36 Days 186 Days 203 Days

Service Area & Indicator

Annual Target

This

Month

Last

Month

Same Month

Last Year

Total for

Year

Variation

from Profile

Total

Last Year

8. Income Generation

Paid Bulkies

45,000 3,157 6,004 7,529 22,252 + 3,502 50,390

Gully Emptying

60,000 7,283 11,154 9,343 29,152 + 4,152 55,654

Other Street Cleaning Work

75,000 4,316 6,584 4,753 24,008 - 7,242 60,291

Trade Waste

165,000 13,057 19,295 25,785 72,858 + 4,108 146,859

MOT Test

20,000 2,346 3,009 3,772 13,020 + 4,687 26,174

Appendix 6


63


Annual Target

This

Month

Last

Month

Same Month

Last Year

Total for

Year

Variation

from Profile

Total

Last Year

Taxi Testing

28,000 466 722 1,072 4,294 - 1,123 10,136

Green Waste Sales

48,970 5,341 7,986 4,737 34,931 + 14,527 36,811

Construction Services

512,861 32,656 35,866 19,902 156,973 - 35,886 432,117

Convenience Cleaning – Other

35,000 4,748 4,336 0 19,902 + 5,339 4,283

Cesspool Emptying

200,000 14,074 15,444 16,154 75,896 - 7,434 172,517

Minibus – Other

38,866 10,469 2,725 792 24,198 + 8,004 21,160

Depot – Other

500 245 846 647 3,181 + 2,973 6,497

Total

1,229,197 98,158 113,971 94,486 480,665 - 31,500 1,022,889

9. Trading Account Position

Refuse

- 21,509 - 10,108 - 6,106 + 26,106 - 10,864 - 1,902 + 4,425

Street Cleaning – Sevenoaks

- 53,986 + 1,913 + 283 - 11,204 - 13,219 + 9,256 + 1,990 Transport Workshop

+ 29,656 + 2,203 + 2,957 + 14,202 + 11,252 - 1,108 + 12,529

Construction Services

0 - 2,421 - 4,031 - 4,579 - 22,260 - 1,434 - 62,223 Public Conveniences

+ 13,164 - 1,417 - 992 - 483 - 7,642 - 13,137 + 9,146 Cesspool Emptying

+ 16,258 - 458 + 791 + 7,544 + 2,907 - 3,878 + 7,496 Mini Buses

0 + 6,670 - 4,227 + 3,813 - 1,577 - 1,577 + 6,230

Paper Collection

- 7,053 - 862 - 1,782 + 2,003 - 1,541 + 942 + 9,744 Trade Waste

+ 22,844 + 4,130 + 10,687 + 6,125 + 23,692 + 14,169 + 41,297 Green Waste

0 - 664 + 1,167 + 5,009 + 12,923 - 953 + 4,913

Appendix 6


64


Annual Target

This

Month

Last

Month

Same Month

Last Year

Total for

Year

Variation

from Profile

Total

Last Year

Depot

0 - 1,765 - 1,584 + 3,443 - 3,423 - 1,892 - 11,988 Fleet

0 - 2,257 + 4,214 - 2,004 - 2,024 - 2,024 + 1,325 Emergency

+ 626 + 219 + 1,893 + 1,304 + 3,201 + 2,931 + 6,586 TOTAL 0 - 4,032 + 3,270 - 1,721 - 8,575 - 637 + 31,470

10. ‘Client’ Budget Position

Refuse & Recycling

1,615,870 146,315 148,231 55,484 699,153 + 1,565 1,317,919

Streets & Cleaner District

1,126 660 93,099 94,221 92,551 466,555 - 7,826 1,116,730

Public Conveniences

167,600 11,438 16,874 12,791 75,266 - 1,266 190,872

Minibus Services

358,320 29,863 29,863 - 149,295 + 20 -

CCTV

560,000 40,833 36,946 - 250,903 - 5,043 -

Edenbridge Community Warden

20,097 - 4,823 1,623 - 8,829 + 735

-

Appendix 6


65

Appendix 7 How to develop local performance indicators and targets: a practical guide What you do: A worked example:

Food premises inspections

Step 1: Constructing Aims

Start by thinking of a simple statement that describes what the service is for, what it is supposed to achieve, and what should happen as a result of the service. This is the aim of the services. It should NOT be a description of what the service does, but what the effect of the service is on the local community. One way to think of this is to consider what would be different if the service did not exist! Aims are important because they provide a starting point for performance measurement - if you cannot describe what the service is supposed to achieve, it is difficult to measure whether you are achieving it! Questions to address Do the aims fully describe what the service is

supposed to achieve? Are they really descriptions of what ultimately

happens because of the service, rather that what is produced?

Aim: Preventing food poisoning in the local community.

Step 2: Deriving Objectives

Now think about what you do to achieve this overall aim. Statements of the different things your service does to achieve its aims are the objectives of the service. Because these statements are descriptions of actions, it usually makes sense to start them with an infinitive verb. For more complex services, it may be necessary to divide objectives into two sets: a “headline” set of broad, strategic objectives, and a more specific, focused set of operational objectives. Make sure your objectives describe everything your service does to achieve its aims Some service managers like to include an objective relating to need to maximise cost effectiveness and/or quality in services. Such objectives can help to make sure that inputs are measured when devising a set of indicators for the service. Questions to address: Do the objectives full describe everything we

do to achieve our aim? Is there anything else we could or should be

doing to achieve our aim?

Strategic Objectives: To ensure as far as possible that food

premises are maintained in a way that minimises the risk of food poisoning.

To ensure that the public understand how to handle and prepare food safely.

Operational Objectives: To inspect food retail outlets in accordance

with statutory schedules. To inspect restaurant, café, take-away, mobile

and similar commercial catering premises in accordance with statutory schedules.

To make sure problems in inspected premises are put right as quickly as possible.

To ensure risk categories for all food premises are kept under regular review.

To investigate complaints and respond to requests for information promptly.

To conduct a problem of public education on good practice in handling food.

To visit schools to promote good practice in food handling.

To maximise the cost effectiveness and quality of the service.


66

What you do: A worked example: Food premises inspections

Step 3: Developing Performance Indicators

Think about how you will measure whether your objectives have been achieved. You will need to devise performance indicators that tell you this. These indicators need to cover inputs, outputs and outcomes of the service.

Input indicators: These measure what goes into a service. On their own, input measures are not really indicators of “performance”. But, coupled with indicators of efficiency and effectiveness, they can help you judge cost effectiveness and value for money. They may include:- Unit cost measures (revenue and capital) Staffing full time equivalents (fte) Staff training per fte Use of premises For many services, unit costs may adequately summarise all the inputs to the service. For others, more input measures may be needed. It may also be necessary to represent unit costs in a range of different ways.

Input indicators:- Number of staff full time equivalents Training days per fte Cost per food premises subject to inspection Cost per inspection Cost per school visit Cost per public information event

Output Indictors: These measure what happens within the service, the way it does things to produce a particular result. There are two principal ways of measuring the outputs of a service:- measuring the efficiency of the output; measuring the quality of the output In practice, indicators of both these are necessary. In some cases, the difference between indicators of outputs and indicators of outcomes may be difficult to distinguish, particularly for indicators of quality of output. Do not get too caught up in the semantics! The important thing is that both outputs and outcomes are represented.

Output Indicators: Percentage of food premises that should have

been inspected that were inspected. Percentage of inspections that met level 4 on

the Council’s quality inspections programme. percentage of food premises where risk was

re-assessed. Percentage of urgent complaints about food

premises investigated within 24 hours. Number of people visiting public education

exhibitions. Number of school children attending schools

presentations. Percentage of non-urgent complaints about

food premises investigated within 3 days. Percentage of queries and requests for

information responded to within 2 days. Outcome Indicators: These measure what happens as a result of the service. Ultimately, they should measure how well the overall aim of the service is being achieved. But, they can also measure outcomes that lead to the overall aim being achieved.

Outcome indicators:- Number of food poisoning cases reported by

GPs. Number of food poisoning cases (from Council

survey). Percentage of enforcement actions that were

successful. Percentage of local people aware of good

practice in food handling. Percentage of school children aware of good

practice in food handling


67

Outcome Indicators (Cont). Think about the “ripple effect” described under “measuring outcomes” in Part 1. What is the outermost ripple for the service? What other outcomes could be measure to assess the effectiveness of the service (the “penultimate ripples”)? For many services the only way to measure outcomes may be to ask people who receive the service whether they think the outcome has been met.

Outcome Indicators (Cont). Satisfaction of local people with local food

premises (average satisfaction index).

To begin, develop as many performance indicators as you can think of, making sure you have taken into account all aspects and facets of your service, and all the potential monitoring systems you can establish. Then hone down this set using the following criteria:- how well the indicator measures the

achievement of an objective; whether the information is readily available; where it is not, how easy it would be to collect. You should end with a set of indicators that is the minimum number you need to measure the achievement of all your objectives, taking into account the inputs, outputs and outcomes involved. Questions to address: Do my indicators measure the achievement of

all my objectives? Do they take into account inputs, outputs and

outcomes? Can I demonstrate that I am achieving my

overall aims? Can the information I need be collected

without excess work or expense?

Step 4: Establishing Definitions

Once you have established a suitable set of indicators, you need to think carefully about how each of the indicators should be defined. Clear definitions are important because they help you make sure that data is collected, in exactly the same way by all staff, and that results are comparable between different monitoring periods. They also help you express indicators as simple summaries of the underlying definition.

Definitions (Sample): Cost per food premises subject to inspection.

Defined as the cost of staff time allocation to activity codes z, f, g and x, plus internal recharges for premises and central services allocated as a proportion of staff time spent on food premises inspections.

Good definitions need to take account of all the potential variable factors in what you are trying to measure. They also need to take into account different working practices of different staff. Think these through carefully - this is especially important for unit cost indicators where the way you calculate costs needs to be precisely defined.

Percentage of urgent complaints about food premises investigated within 24 hours. ”Urgent” means a complaint that, in the opinion of the EHO, relates to conditions that could cause food poisoning in members of the public if not rectified. “24hrs” refers to the time when the complaint was logged at the switchboard to the time when the EHO attended the premises.


68

Questions to address: Are all my indicators clearly defined? Are all relevant staff aware of these

definitions, and do they understand them? Is the wording of the indictor a true summary

of the whole definition?

Percentage of local people aware of good

practice in food handling. Defined as the percentage who in random surveys were able to give correct responses to all the questions asked against the department’s standard food safety questionnaire.

Step 5: Setting Targets

Now you need to set targets for your indicators. You may not want to set targets for input indicators, although this may sometimes be useful where costs need to be reduced. The Audit Commission and the DETR have laid down criteria for what makes a good target. There are two types of targets you should consider:- Failsafe targets; Variable targets. The first type is set at 100% - suitable for measuring the achievement of standards that must always be met. The second is set at a lower percentage, allowing you to increase it year-on-year, demonstrating continuous improvement. Failsafe targets are most useful for expressing a public “promise” to achieve a particular level of service. Variable targets are more useful for internal monitoring of services. Questions to address: Have I set targets that relate to all my

objectives Are the targets realistic? Do they allow me to demonstrate continuous

improvement against my objectives? Are my staff committed to achieving the

targets? Have I consulted service users about targets?

Targets (sample): Percentage of food premises that should have

been inspected that were inspected. Target = 100%

Percentage of inspections that met level 4 on the Council’s quality inspections programme. Target = 70%

Number of people visiting public education exhibitions. Target = 5,000

Percentage of queries and requests for information responded to within 2 days 80%

Number of food poisoning cases reported by GPs Target = 5% reduction

Satisfaction of local people with local food premises (average satisfaction index) Target = 4.8

Step 6: Setting Up Monitoring Systems

For each of the indicators you are intending to use, you need to think about how you will collect the data. In many cases, the data you need may be generated automatically from software systems you are already using. Or you may be able to use simple spreadsheet software to record data and calculate the indicators you need. In some cases however, there may be no suitable computer systems in place. In this case, you need to think carefully about how your staff will collect the data in a way that minimises effort and time required. This may mean looking in detail at the ways staff organise their day-to-day workload, and integrating regular recording of information on a day-to-day basis.

Monitoring Systems (sample): Percentage of food premises that should have

been inspected that were inspected. From standard software data recording systems; staff to enter data on computer daily.

Percentage of inspections which met level 4 on the Council’s quality inspections programme. EHOs to assess each inspection against quality checklist at time of inspections. Note which level was achieved in central register.

Percentage of urgent complaints about food premises investigated within 24 hours. Urgent complaint to be noted in central register when complaint is received; time taken to complete entered into register at end of the day when investigation took place.

Number of people visiting public education


69

For some indicators, you may need to construct a sample that represents the overall population. Make sure this sample is well defined, and adequately represents the overall population. What you should avoid at all costs is the need to spend many hours or days at the end of the monitoring period going back through past records, trying to gather data which should have been recorded throughout the monitoring period. Proper day-to-day data recording can avoid this retrospective sampling of records, and make data more accurate. Questions to answer: Have you set up monitoring systems for all

performance indicators? Are all staff aware of these systems and do

they understand them? Have you checked that all relevant staff are

using them? Have you defined any samples you need, and

decided when sampling should take place?

exhibitions. During exhibitions, staff present should note the numbers of people looking at the exhibition using a click-counter. Figures to be entered into central register each day.

Satisfaction of local people with local food premises (average satisfaction index). Telephone survey to be carried out using a random sample of 200 local people (20 from each ward), in May and November.


70


71

GLOSSARY

BVPI Best Value Performance Indicator KLPI Key Local Performance Indicator KPI Key Performance Indicator CPA Comprehensive Performance Assessment SWOT Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats IT Information Technology PI Performance Indicator HOS Heads of Service DMT Departmental Management Team MT Management Team SRB Single Regeneration Bid PSA Public Service Agreement SLA Service Level Agreement DSO Direct Services Organisation CCTV Closed Circuit Television BVPP Best Value Performance Plan Kent CC Kent County Council

Best Value Review Performance Management

Business

Transcript of Best Value Review Performance Management