Contact: Sue Sylvester, ext 7493

e-mail: [email protected]

1 Summary

1.1 The following decisions are sought:

· That Cabinet notes performance in relation to the Best Value Performance Indicators for 2002/03.

· That the Corporate Performance Team continue to develop performance reporting, to improve the coordination of results and to monitor progress against corporate objectives.

1 Reasons

· This report supports Aim 5 of the Corporate Strategy, improving performance by ensuring that performance results are available to support decision makers.

2 Other options considered and rejected

None

3 Conflicts of interest declared by the decision maker, or member or officer consulted

None

4 Dispensation granted by the Standards Committee

Not applicable

5 Reason for matter being dealt with, if urgent

Not applicable

Approved by: Date:

6 Background

6.1 At its meeting on 27 May 2003, the Cabinet received a report on `National Performance Indicators - Results and Targets'. This report, containing both actual and estimated outturn figures and targets, provided an early indication of best value performance indicator results for 2002/03.

6.2 Over the summer period, the performance indicator results were finalised and actual outturn results were published in the web based `Performance Plan' in June. The local external auditors have subsequently audited the performance indicator results - and final audited figures were agreed with the audit commission in October.

8 Results for 2002/03

8.1 A full set of final results for the 2002/03 Best Value Performance Indicators (BVPIs) is now available in the Performance Plan, published on the Hampshire County Council website. The indicators can be viewed under their relevant subject heading (corporate health, education, social services, environment, cultural services, crime & community safety and cross cutting) and are also listed by number. Where the performance indicator has existed for more than one year, trend information - displayed graphically - is now available. Each indicator is also accompanied by a commentary produced by the operational manager responsible for the performance (or for collating information in relation to it) - explaining the reasons for variation against the target for 2002/03 and explaining any significant variations from performance in 2001/02.

8.2 A core set of BV PIs were reported to Cabinet at its meeting on 27 May 2003. Indicators for this set or `basket' were selected because either they have remained stable over time or because they are relevant to key county council objectives. Many of the results reported in May were estimates - and targets for a number of indicators had not been set at this time.

8.3 Appendix 1 to this report contains the audited results for each indicator within this `basket' for 2002/03, together with performance in 2001/02 and targets for the years 2003/04, 2004/05 and 2005/06. A manual exercise has identified the % variance of the results for 2002/03 compared with 2001/02. A similar exercise has been carried out relating the 2002/03 results to the target originally set. These results have been coded to indicate improvement in performance or otherwise.

9 Reporting Performance to Departmental Management Teams and Policy Review Committees

9.1 The majority of the Best Value Performance Indicators for 2002/03 related to Education, Environmental Services and Social Services (66 out of approximately 101 Performance Indicators).

9.2 The outturn results for 2002/03, for a number of the Education BVPIs, were reported to the Education Policy Review Committee (on 2 December 2003). These results were set in the context of the 2002/03 academic year, and also contained examination results that will form the basis of a number of 2003/04 BVPIs.

9.3 Performance Assessment Framework results, including the majority of the social services BVPIs, were reported to the Social Care Policy Review Committee on 28 November 2003.

9.4 Reports on the process of reporting Best Value Performance Indicators to members were presented to the Environment Policy Review Committee on 7 May 2003 and the 29^th October 2003. Specific reports on performance in relation to groups of Best Value Performance Indicators have been reported in separate reports - for example the implications of the highway condition BVPIs were reported to members at the Environment PRC on 21 July 2003 and waste targets formed a significant element of the waste seminar for Members on 19 September 2003.

9.5 The Cultural Services Indicators were reported to the Recreation and Heritage PRC on 22 May 2003.

9.6 Reports on a number of other indicators have been presented to departmental management teams and working groups. A report will be presented to CMT on the workforce indicators, once work on improving current data collection processes is completed.

9.7 In reviewing the reports on performance, it has become evident that there is a need for a more coordinated approach to monitoring and reporting together with the need to relate the outcomes being reported to progress in achieving the corporate objectives.

10. Accuracy of the Performance Indicators

10.1 The District Auditor has reserved 8 out of the 101 best value performance indicators for 2002/03, compared with 18 reservations received last year for the 2001/02 performance indicators. Although this shows improvements have been made in collection processes, early comparisons with other south east county councils would indicate that our number of reservations remains relatively high. A list of the reserved indicators, together with the reasons for the reservations and the actions that are being taken to ensure that the indicators are not reserved in future years is attached as Appendix 2 to this report.

10.1 Discussions are presently taking place with internal audit relating to improving data collection processes in one or two areas where difficulties are being experienced. In addition, the local external auditors have agreed to repeat the review they conducted last year of data collection methods. This will feature in the Audit Plan for 2003/04.

10 Future Plans for Performance Reporting

10.1 The audited outturn figures for 2002/03 Best Value Performance Indicators, for all authorities - including quartile results - are due to be published by the Audit Commission by the end of the year. As in previous years it is intended to produce a report comparing Hampshire County Council's performance with that of other County Councils - in conjunction with the County Treasurer's Consultancy Team. This will be presented to Cabinet early in the new year.

10.2 On a longer term basis, it is intended to evaluate the scope for coordinating the existing monitoring in departments in relation to a wide range of performance targets and measures (eg local performance indicators, PSA targets, BV PIs ) into a single cohesive approach.

10.3 Manipulation of performance information (see paragraph 8.3) currently requires a manual exercise. This will become more flexible and responsive to Member requests, when an electronic system is in place.

Recommendations

· That Cabinet notes performance in relation to the Best Value Performance Indicators for 2002/03.

· That the Corporate Performance Team continue to develop performance reporting , to improve the coordination of results and to monitor progress against corporate objectives.

Section 100D - Local Government Act 1972 - background papers

The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and has been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report.

None

N.B. The list excludes:

1. Published works

2. Documents which disclose exempt or confidential information as defined in the Act.