Agenda item

6.1

James Henderson (Director of Policy, Performance and Communications) and Andi Walshaw (Performance and Research Manager) gave a presentation, a copy of which had been circulated with the agenda pack, which provided an overall summary of Council performance for 2015/16.

6.2

James Henderson commented that the purpose of the presentation was to outline the Council’s performance management framework and provide a summary of the RAG (Red, Amber, Green) ratings for 2015/16 on the Council’s 157 performance indicators, as well as on the key performance questions, to enable Members of the Committee to identify areas which they may wish to examine in more detail within the respective Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee.

6.3

Andi Walshaw gave the presentation, indicating that 2015/16 had seen the use of a new performance management framework which introduced key performance questions for the 5 priorities within the Council’s Corporate Plan.  The five priorities related to being an in-touch organisation, having a strong economy, having thriving neighbourhoods and communities, promoting better health and wellbeing, and tackling inequalities.  The progress on the key performance questions was measured by the 157 performance indicators, which had been allocated to the appropriate key performance question(s), as well as being informed by other actions (e.g. specific projects) which were being undertaken within the Council to contribute to the delivery of the Council’s priorities.

6.4

The presentation set out the key performance questions within each of the 5 priorities, outlined the RAG ratings for the 157 performance indicators in each of the quarters in 2015/16 and the trends over the year, and set out the RAG ratings in quarter 4 broken down by priority area.  The presentation also provided, for each of the 5 priorities, RAG ratings for their performance indicators in each of the quarters in 2015/16 and on their key performance questions.

6.5

Andi commented that performance updates were reported on a regular basis to the Council’s Executive Management Team (EMT) and EMT would conduct enquiries of the relevant services where they deemed this to be necessary.  He added that the presentation to the Committee contained only a summary of performance, but that further detailed information behind each of the performance indicators was available and he would circulate this to each Member of the Committee, and this should enable Members to identify specific indicators for more in-depth investigation.

6.6

Members made various comments and asked a number of questions, to which responses were provided as follows:-

·                In relation to performance on the priority relating to a strong economy, information such as economic forecasts would be used to inform the assessment of performance, and future assessments of the implications of “Brexit” would feed into those assessments in the future.

·                On the question of whether Sheffield’s performance management framework allows for comparisons to be made with neighbouring local authorities and the core cities’ performance, this was possible due to the inclusion of national performance indicators and the separate sharing of more detailed performance statistics, for example between the core cities.

·                Although the answers to the key performance questions were subjective, the data that was used to form the assessments was objective and offered a rounded picture on which to form the judgements on the performance questions.

·                In terms of ensuring consistency in sample sets, surveys were not routinely undertaken in-house but nationally gathered survey statistics would be used within the Council’s performance framework, and the agencies who conducted those surveys would be responsible for data collection and control samples.

·                Performance data was no longer collated nationally, other than on a limited number of indicators where there were statutory reporting requirements, but the Council does share data and liaise with other local authorities in relation to performance.  Although individual local authorities may phrase their performance questions differently, collaboration is undertaken, for example between the core cities, to ensure the same data sits behind the questions.

·                Not all the indicators/measures behind the key performance questions have the same weighting, but the indicators/measures do provide a mix of throughputs, outputs, outcomes etc to provide a rounded assessment of performance.

·                The further detailed information behind each of the performance indicators, which was to be circulated to each Member of the Committee, would assist Members to identify the key “red” performance issues for the Council.

·                Performance comparisons with the core cities was undertaken and there was a reasonable amount of data shared by the core cities to enable the Council to spot performance issues and target investigations.  Although the core cities were a valuable source of information, it was important to acknowledge the particular characteristics of individual core cities which may result in different performance outcomes.

·                As regards plans for data collection from the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority, the working relationships between the two authorities had been established and the performance management framework for the Combined Authority, which would clearly have an economic focus, was being developed.  The Combined Authority Scrutiny Committee would have a role in offering challenge and ensuring accountability of the Combined Authority, and it was also envisaged that constituent authorities would have a role to play in this too, and work would continue on the development of these arrangements.  It was noted that the Economic and Environmental Wellbeing Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee intended to establish a task and finish group on the topic of the economic landscape, including devolution and role of Sheffield City Region.

6.7

RESOLVED: That the Committee:-

(a) thanks James Henderson and Andi Walshaw for their contribution to the meeting;

(b) notes the information reported and responses to questions; and

(c) requests that (i) the Performance and Research Manager circulates to all Members of the Committee further detailed information behind each of the performance indicators and (ii) Members of the Committee refer any concerns on particular performance indicators to their Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee for possible investigation at a future meeting.