The Committee were presented with an update against the Performance Management Framework, as introduced within the Council’s Corporate Plan, for Quarter Three 2023-24 (October to December 2023).

The Interim Assistant Director (Corporate Services) advised the report was for information only and highlighted key points in relation to the Performance Indicators set:

• Members were referred to PI 60, where the average processing time for new housing Benefit Claims stood at 15 days in Quarter 3.  It was noted that the latest available figure nationally was for Quarter 2 at 20 days, whereas Gravesham achieved 16.7 days at the end of that quarter. It was observed that there had been a decrease of the number of Housing Benefit claims, as most new claims need to be submitted to the Department of Works and Pensions (DWP) as a claim for Universal Credit.  Consequently, Housing Benefit claims processed were predominately made to cover those at pensionable age or living in supported accommodation or temporary accommodation.
• Member’s attention was drawn to PI 61, which outlined the average processing time for change of circumstances in relation to Housing Benefit claims.  At the end of Quarter 3, Gravesham’s processing time was 3.5 days, however it was noted that performance was currently 3.2 days.  Nationally at the end of Quarter 2, turnaround time stood at 9 days, whereas Gravesham ended Quarter 2 at 4.1 days and so were performing above average.
• In regard to PI 62 it was noted that the amount of Council Tax Reduction Claims had increased to 6661 an increase of 379 live cases since the start of the financial year.  Performance to process claims currently stood at 15.9 days.  Although this figure was not measured nationally the target was to complete applications under 20 days.      
• PI 54 had been included, to measure the percentage of Corporate Improvement Team savings targets delivered.  The Interim Assistant Director (Corporate Services) highlighted that since this measure was initially set it had proven hard to measure due to the introduction of an additional initiative undertaken by all heads of service to identify potential budget savings and/or additional income streams.  There is a question of treatment of retrospective adjustments given that general savings and corporate improvement targets (CIT) could change over time and how this can be reflected in the outcomes. CIT has unearthed process and efficiency enhancements, better customer experience and wider benefits that all could be seen as positive changes. There can also be future cost avoidance which would not necessarily show any savings in existing budgets. It was noted that in the future budget savings would be made, becoming easier to monitor and therefore more transparent.       
• Head of Internal Audit & Counter Fraud Shared Service updated Members on PI 68 in regard to the percentage of agreed internal audit actions implemented.  Members were informed that there had been 42 actions agreed with 32 implemented.  New actions were expected at the end of March.  The internal audit programme was currently 79% complete.  Members received an update in relation to fraud investigation activity during Q3.  The Committee were advised that savings had been identified along with 2 council properties recovered and a fraudulent right to buy stopped. 
• The Information Governance Manager updated Members on PI 69 explaining that 90.3% of information requests in Q3 were completed within the statutory deadline.  This met the ICO target of 90%.  Members were informed that 100% of Subject Access requests were delivered on time. There had however been a slight delay with Freedom of Information due to an email system failure causing a delay.    

Members of the Committee were invited to ask questions or make comment on the report:

• Members noted that figured within the performance indicators were performing well.  However, concern was raised regarding the lack of information regarding progress made with Corporate Improvement Team savings in PI 54.  It was felt this was an important measure, in order to achieve a balanced budget moving forward.  It was observed that reporting on the continuous improvement programme had not been presented to the Committee and there was a need for Member transparency. 

The Interim Assistant Director (Corporate Services) reassured Members that the programme was underway and part of officer’s everyday work.  There had been issues finding figures, to map against the performance indicator due to rising costs, which in turn lead to reviews of what needed to be saved.  The Interim Assistant Director (Corporate Services) agreed that a better indicator was required and would take comments on board.

            The chair appreciated that with changing costs, monitoring of this PI was   difficult to monitor. 

• Members queried the percentage of 90.3% in relation to PI 69 and sought clarification as to what happened with the remaining 9.7% of requests and what this shortfall converted to, in terms of cases.  The Information Governance Manager explained that the shortfall Q3 related to a delay of email delivery, due to a server issue, plus other unavoidable information delays relating to external contractors.  It was noted that there had been no FOI requests rejected in Q3.  In terms of the overall number of cases in the 9.7%, the Information Governance did not have the figure at hand but would look to include this in future reporting.
• Clarification was sought to who sat on the Information Governance & Security Group (IGSG) and when the outcomes would be reported.  Members were informed that the group consisted of the Director (Corporate Services), Head of Digital & IT, the Information Governance Manager, members of the ICT team and HR.  The data protection policy which required Member approval had been updated in January 2023 and would be reviewed again in 2025.

The Committee noted the report.