Agenda item
Performance and Finance Report
Minutes:
Mark Fairchild, Team Leader Performance, introduced the Performance and Finance Review of Quarter 2, explaining that they were about to enter Quarter 3. He explained that 37% of the Council’s overall performance was on target or just below target and that 27% was below target and classified as red. He then outlined each area of the Council, starting with Adult Social Care. Members were informed that Adult Social Care were not currently meeting the 86% target for completion of Mental Health assessments within four weeks and that this was being addressed through phase one of a two-stage project. In regards to Children and Families, it was explained that 12 out of the 15 secondary schools in Brent had been judged by Ofsted to be good or outstanding and that in Quarter 2, the number of primary schools deemed to be inadequate had now improved from three to two. It was added that there were action plans in place to ensure that the remaining two schools continued to were improve. Members were also informed that as the Council had more in house Foster Carers they were using less independent foster carers that cost the council more money. Currently 87 children were placed with independent foster carers which was less than the target of 97.
The highlights for Environment and Neighbourhoods were that sport visits were 10% over target and there had been a marked increase in the number of flytipping inspections and investigations. It was noted that Brent were in top 25% of London Boroughs for household recycling and for the number of kilograms of waste recycled. It was hoped that once the new Public Realm contract came into place that they would introduce a number of measures to improve recycling. The highlights identified for Regeneration and Growth were that 98% of repairs were completed on the first visit which exceeded the target of 95%. Also the number of people being placed in temporary accommodation was less than anticipated but it was noted that the full impact of welfare reform had not been established yet. It was added that Council Tax collection was on target for Quarter 2 and Quarter 3. Members were then informed that planning applications were taking, on average, longer than 8 weeks but there were a number of factors that were contributing to this including officer hand over to BIBS and the move to the Civic Centre. It was also taking longer than hoped to process new benefit claims as they were still managing a backlog of claims created in Quarter 1.
The forecast was that there would be an under spend in Quarter 2 of 0.1 million but there had been an overspend of 0.7 million in Quarter 1. However this was offset by higher than anticipated level of grant money.
In response to questions raised Mark Fairchild informed members that he would find out who set the 86% target for mental health assessments. He also undertook to provide a briefing note from Children and Families regarding how they planned to help the schools in the borough that were deemed inadequate by Ofsted and how Brent’s schools compared with the rest of London in this area. Members also asked for clarification as to why violence had risen in the Borough and where this had happened as they were under the belief that violence was decreasing in Brent. Members also expressed that it was not helpful to set unrealistic targets in terms of recycling nor was it helpful to compare Brent to other London Boroughs in this instance. Members asked for information regarding whether the number of compliant premises supplying food were registered to sell food or not as they believed that unlicensed premises were a major problem in the Borough.
Margaret Read informed members that the Planning Team were currently undergoing restructuring and that some of administrative work, of a more technical nature, was moving from BIBS back into the planning team. Therefore they were working hard to ensure that the number of applications processed in Quarter 3 and 4 was increasing.
Members questioned whether the Council tax support scheme would negatively impact upon the council tax collection rate. Margaret Read stated they had worked hard with the people that new scheme effected to ensure that they would be able to pay. As a result the collection rate was forecast to be only 0.3% lower than 2012/13 with a forecast collection rate of 95.5% for 31 March 2014. This was higher than the anticipated collection rate of 93.8%. The feedback was that Brent was also doing better than other boroughs who had introduced a similar scheme. It was added that there had been an relatively small increase in the number of summonses issued. It was agreed that members would be provided with a breakdown of summonses issued to those on the Council Tax Support Scheme. Margaret Read added that they also recently had modified the way they verified single person discount and were now using companies that could provide details of the number of adults living in properties.
Members concluded their questioning by enquiring about the time taken to process new benefit claims which was indicated as being red. Margaret stated that in February they had averaged 8.28 days and they were hoping that it would remain at this rate. Cumulatively average processing times remained over target but they were improving. She added that they had been improving since October and that Brent’s performance was still in the upper quartile for London. Work was underway to try to achieve the annual target of 8.5 but it may not be achieved. In regards to whether the type of tenancy could delay the claim, it was explained that BHP claims could processed quicker than private tenants as they did not have to validate rental liability for BHP tenants.
RESOLVED:
(i) Members noted the report.
Supporting documents: