Hampshire Fire and Rescue Authority

Performance Review & Scrutiny Committee Item 6

4 September 2009

Annual Summary - Performance Management Audit Report 2008/09

Report of the Chief Officer

Contact: Andy Kettle Tel : 02380 644000 ext 3223 Mob : 07918 888073

Email : [email protected]

1

Summary

1.1

The report summarises progress made since the introduction of the Service Delivery (SD) performance management audit in April 2008. It also looks at the emerging issues from the audits, including plans to address them. The report considers the development of the audit team and the plans that are being put in place to consolidate it in the future. The report also sets out any changes that are necessary to improve the audit process and concludes with a list of topics that are key to Service Delivery and which will be incorporated into the 2009/10 audit programme.

2

RecommendationError! Bookmark not defined.

2.1

That the Committee notes the report including the main findings from the audits and the proposed course of action to address the issues identified in section 4 of this report.

3

Introduction Error! Bookmark not defined.and Background

3.1

The audit process was introduced in April 2008 following publication of the Service Delivery policy on performance management. The policy was produced following the development of a system which received support from Audit Services at Hampshire County Council. The system ensures that all Service Delivery policy, procedures and activities applicable to fire stations are audited over the course of a three year period.

3.2

A small team of 12 volunteers were given initial training and allocated four or five stations to audit over the course of the subsequent 12 months. The auditors now hold six monthly standardisation meetings to review progress, refine the audit process and standardise their own performance.

3.3

Audits were scheduled to take place on a quarterly basis with Wholetime Duty System (WDS) stations being carried out in the first quarter and Retained Duty System (RDS) stations in the subsequent quarters.

3.4

Plans are now in place to deliver audits during 2009/10 and additional auditors have joined the original team from Service Delivery administration and from the Human Resources Business Partners team.

4

Findings from the 2008/9 Audits

4.1

The 2008/9 Station Performance Management Audits contained the following previously agreed topics :-

- Appliance Inventories

- Home Fire Safety Visits

- Fairness and Dignity

- Sickness Absence Management

- Personal Protective Equipment

- Vehicle Cleaning Routines

- Energy Consumption and Recycling

- Station Administration Tasks

- Completion of e-Diaries

- Uniform and Personal Issue Equipment (PPE)

- Premises Information Folders

- Personal Development Review System

4.2

A review of the audit findings identified the following issues as recurring areas of non-compliance :-

- Training for managers - many managers, and particularly RDS, have not received any formal training on sickness absence management or Fairness and Dignity. Whilst many were familiar with and able to apply the policy, they lacked any detailed understanding. It is understood that HR are moving away from providing any centrally based stand alone training programmes for these topics so careful consideration needs to be given to how levels of knowledge can be increased.

- Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) log books - in general RDS stations performed better than WDS. Common issues found included log books not being inspected, individual records not being updated with significant events, new PPE not being marked and added to the log book, old PPE not being recorded when disposed of at end of life. Group and Station Managers need to ensure they embed the best practice contained within the policy into day to day working.

- Premises Information Cards (PIC's) and Operational Plans - Auditors identified that difficulties were being experienced in updating over the border PIC's. Some standby folders were not being maintained to a satisfactory standard. Some premises are not being re-inspected and cards are not always being reviewed following visits. The majority of these issues are now being resolved following the introduction of the Site Specific Risk Information project.

- Personal Development Review System (PDRS) - generally the annual PDRS has become embedded and is being undertaken. However, many staff still view this as a means for highlighting training needs and not setting performance targets. Intermediate meetings to review progress are seldom carried out, Continual Professional Development (CPD) records are not being kept, with annual CPD payments seen as a right. Also few people are aware of who the monitoring manager is. These issues need to feedback into the PDRS review group for consideration.

- Team forum feedback sheets - there is still wide scale lack of understanding about the purpose of this form and the Marketing and Communications team need to consider if they are still required. If there is a need to retain their use then the system needs to be overhauled and refreshed.

- Inventories - poor equipment marking is a recurring issue. The Service Delivery Community Response Support Manager is trialling a potential solution and this trial needs to be progressed in order to provide something tangible that will enable effective asset management in future.

- Vehicles - 6 monthly polishing occurs infrequently and is not recorded in log books; also on some occasions vehicle cleanliness was poor. This needs to be highlighted to all staff via a service delivery bulletin.

- Fairness and Dignity - the managers charter was often missing and consideration should be given to refreshing/updating it along with other products from the `count me in' initiative in order to reflect the Corporate Identity.

These issues have been fed back to relevant departments for improvement planning.

4.3

It has also become apparent that some Station Managers/Officers in Charge and Group Managers have been slow to address the audit findings. A general prompt has been circulated and plans are in place to take action on an individual level where this issue persists.

5

Planned Content & Approach for the 2009/10 Audits

5.1

The agreed audit strategy includes all medium risk rated topics for inclusion in year 2 (2009/10). Additionally, the topics have been supplemented with emerging new risks, along with a small number of topics covered in year 1 that auditors felt warranted further scrutiny by the team.

The agreed list of topics that will be audited in 2009/10 are :-

- Employee Relations

- Leave

- Capability support

- Discipline and grievance

- Information and records management

- Premises Information Folders

- VIEWS commentaries

- Smoke free environments

- Station Plans

- Station defects

- Vehicle accidents

- Standard tests

- Member engagement

- Incident Recording System

5.2

Audit Services at Hampshire County Council were consulted during the initial preparation of the performance management audit and they will be auditing the operation of the process at some point during 2010/11. The outcomes of this audit, along with any actions, will be fed back into the six monthly auditors meeting and reported to the Service Delivery Performance Management group .

6

Contribution to the Corporate Aims

6.1

The audits are driving improvements in station performance by highlighting issues of non-compliance with HFRS policy and procedures and ensuing plans are put in place to address identified issues.

6.2

Additionally, introduction of the audit process satisfies item 2.3 of the HFRS improvement planning register.

7

Risk Analysis

7.1

There are no specific areas identified through the audit process that would expose Service Delivery or the Service to an increased level of corporate risk.

7.2

Addressing the findings from 2008/9 audits will improvement to internal control and result in a relatively small reduction in health and safety/operational risks to the Service.

8

Resource Implications

8.1

Human Resources

The audits require ongoing commitment from managers in the audit team and this is being accounted for in managing their overall work capacity.

8.2

Physical Resources

No additional physical resources are required.

8.3

Information and Communications Technology Resources (ICT)

No additional ICT resources are required.

8.4

Financial Implications (3 Year Financial Plan)

Small additional travel costs will be absorbed within existing travel budgets.

9

People Impact Assessment

9.1

A People Impact Assessment (PIA) has been completed as part of the Service Order production process. There are no significant issues arising from it to draw to the attention of the Committee.

9.3

The proposals within this report are considered compatible with the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Human Rights Act 1998, and the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000.

10

Consultation

10.1

Consultation on the audit process was carried out with Audit Services at Hampshire County Council and all Representative Bodies under the Service Order consultation process. There were no new issues identified as a result of feedback from this process.

11

Conclusion

11.1

The Service Delivery performance management process has been in operation for in excess of 12 months and following early refinement it is working well. The process will be tested further during 2010/11 by Audit Services.

11.2

The growing Audit team are committed to the process and focussed on their role in driving improvement within Service Delivery through compliance with policy, procedures and best practice.

11.3

Feedback from Station Managers and Officers in Charge about their audit experience has been positive and supportive, with people commenting about how the process has focussed their attention on some important areas that they had previously overlooked.

11.4

The 2009/10 audits will continue to build on the excellent progress already made and ensure that compliance and performance continue to improve.