*PART 1 – PUBLIC DOCUMENT
AGENDA ITEM No.
11
TITLE OF REPORT: DATA QUALITY IMPLEMENTATION UPDATE
REPORT OF THE HEAD OF FINANCE, PERFORMANCE AND ASSET MANAGEMENT
1.
SUMMARY
1.1
To provide the Committee with an update on the implementation of the Performance
Combined Data Quality Improvement Plan.
2.
FORWARD PLAN
2.1
This report does not contain a recommendation on a key decision and has not been
referred to in the Forward Plan.
3.
BACKGROUND
3.1
The former Audit and Risk Sub Committee received reports on the implementation of a
Data Quality Improvement Plan. This was a number of actions arising from both
Internal and External audits on Performance Indicators.
3.2
The last Internal Audit specifically on performance indicators was finalised in August
2009 and the finding was a “substantial” level of assurance (compared to “moderate” in
the previous audit completed in November 2008). This latest audit coincided with the
first full year of reporting under the new system of National Indicators and with the
introduction of the Covalent performance management system.
3.3
The launch of Covalent as the Council’s performance and risk software, has introduced
checks on the accuracy of data by the processes that are followed before the data
becomes “live” on the system.
3.4
The most recent report on the implementation of this improvement plan was submitted
to the Audit and Risk Sub Committee on 24th February 2010. At this meeting it was
agreed that the action plan would be entered onto Covalent to improve the layout and
facilitate the monitoring of the delivery of this plan. However, on reviewing the
outstanding actions it was found that these were all complete and to enter them onto
Covalent would not be of benefit.
3.5
Data Quality and Information formed a Key line of Enquiry in the Use of Resources
assessment that was conducted by our external auditors.
AUDIT AND RISK (15.9.10)
4.
UPDATE ON OUTSTANDING ACTIONS
4.1
The last update report to the Audit & Risk Sub Committee, contained six outstanding
improvement entries. Each entry referred to one or more internal audit
recommendation. Five were categorised as being ‘on target’ and one was categorised
as being ‘behind schedule’.
4.2
Rather than update the old action plan and attach this as an appendix, the original
audit recommendations have been reviewed and progress on delivery of each of these
is reported below. The Committee should note that the summary relating to information
management addresses two related improvements. This report, therefore, details five
summaries in total.
4.3
Information Management
4.3.1
One entry relating to the synergies between data quality and data protection / freedom
of information, consisting of three internal audit recommendations, was ‘behind
schedule’ at the time of the last update report. The three original audit
recommendations were:

Consideration be given to combining all areas involving data and information
assurance to enable these issues to be given a greater prominence and priority
throughout the authority;

The Data Quality Forum and Information Assurance Group be combined;

Consideration be given to combining all information related functions within the
authority so that data quality, data protection and freedom of information,
record storage and retention are encompassed within one section so that full
use is made of the synergies and interconnections between them.
4.3.2
The Head of Information Technology & Customer Services has responsibility for
information sharing, data protection, freedom of information, land and property data,
GIS information and web content. He also works with the Head of Finance,
Performance & Asset Management on the aspects of the retention schedule that have
data protection implications. The Head of Information Technology & Customer Services
has drafted an Information Management Strategy to show the links between these
different aspects and how these areas may develop in the future.
4.3.3
The Head of Information Technology & Customer Services has circulated the draft
Information Management Strategy to key staff and has received feedback on the
content. He is now in the process of reviewing this feedback and producing a final
version of the strategy for consideration by CMT. In summary, the Information
Management Strategy addresses a number of issues including knowledge
management, information management, data quality, data security and information
assurance. For each of these, the strategy shows a position statement for the Council,
along with a proposed way forward. These proposals form an action plan as an
appendix to the strategy.
AUDIT AND RISK (15.9.10)
4.3.4
The newly created Information Management Group will own the Information
Management Strategy. This group provides an overview of information management
and has membership from across the authority. It is the result of combining the Data
Quality Forum and Information Assurance Group and has new terms of reference. The
Information Management Group first met in May 2010 and the next meeting is planned
for September. The proposal is that the group will meet on a quarterly basis and focus
on elements of the Information Management Strategy to develop and manage the flow
of information relating to information management within the Council.
4.3.5
Another factor is that as well as chairing the Information Management Group, the Head
of Information Technology & Customer Services also chairs the Information
Technology Transformation Board (ITTB). Aspects of information management that
have technology requirements / impacts or vice versa are therefore now managed by
one Head of Service.
4.3.6
In summary, the Head of Information Technology & Customer Services believes that
the internal audit recommendations have been implemented.
4.3.7
The process of combining the Data Quality Forum and Information Assurance Group to
form the new Information Management Group, has also addressed one further entry
that was ‘on target’ at the time of the last update report. This internal audit
recommendation was – ‘The effectiveness of the Data Quality Forum or the new
merged group in championing data quality issues should be evaluated and the
outcomes reported to CMT.’
4.4
Data Quality Checks
4.4.1
One audit recommendation relating to the periodic checking of data was ‘on target’ at
the time of the last update report. This recommendation was – ‘A series of checks
should be performed periodically on the Covalent system. Internal Audit will assist the
Performance Team in determining an appropriate set of checks if required.’
4.4.2
The Performance & Risk Team developed a monthly procedure and checklist to
address this recommendation and introduced it at the beginning of 2010/11. This
involves checking that officers have published data on Covalent in a timely manner and
in line with corporate guidance.
4.4.3
Each month, the Performance & Risk Team check whether Data Input Officers have
entered corporate performance data onto Covalent and Data Activators have approved
it, by the 28th of the following month. For example, officers were expected to have
published July performance data on Covalent, by the 28th of August. The Performance
& Risk Team report the results of these checks via two new management indicators:
MI PT001 - The % of PI data added to Covalent on time
MI PT002 - The % of PI data activated on Covalent on time
4.4.4
The monthly procedure also consists of further checks to ensure that officers have
updated each performance indicator in line with corporate guidance. The full checklist
consists of the following nine questions:
1. Has the data been loaded on time (28th)?
2. Has the data been loaded correctly?
3. Has the evidence been loaded or a filepath specified?
AUDIT AND RISK (15.9.10)
4. Does the evidence support the data?
5. Does the evidence comply with Data Quality?
6. Is the evidence named correctly?
7. Is the evidence linked correctly?
8. Has the data been activated (28th)?
9. Have suitable notes been added when activated, if required?
4.4.5
The Performance & Risk Team record the results for each relevant performance
indicator on the checklist for the month in question. Completion of the checklist
produces a summary score for each performance indicator, which indicates how
effectively officers have updated the information.
4.4.6
The Performance & Risk Team contact relevant officers regarding any issues identified
during the monthly checks, in order to improve the quality of published data. The
Performance & Risk Team also use the monthly checklists to identify common and
persistent problems and escalate these issues to senior management if they remain
unresolved.
4.5
Performance Indicator Procedure Notes
4.5.1
The Performance & Risk Team also had responsibility for one further entry that was ‘on
target’ at the time of the last update report. This internal audit recommendation related
to departmental procedure and guidance notes for performance indicators that the
Council reports corporately – ‘A programme for the completion of procedure and
guidance notes should be agreed and implemented. Notes should be reviewed
annually or after significant change.’
4.5.2
During early 2010, the Performance & Risk Team coordinated an organisation wide
exercise to ensure that individual service areas produced procedure notes for all of
their corporately reported performance indicators. This included providing service
areas with partly completed templates and guidance notes relating to their full
completion.
4.5.3
Following this exercise, individual service areas completed procedure notes for all
relevant performance indicators.
4.5.4
The Performance & Risk Team continue to encourage and support service managers
with the production and revision of procedure notes, although ultimately, it is the
responsibility of individual service managers to ensure that procedure notes relating to
their service area remain accurate and up to date.
4.6
National Indicator 35
4.6.1
One entry relating to National Indicator 35 (Building resilience to violent extremism),
consisting of two internal audit recommendations, was ‘on target’ at the time of the last
update report. The initial reasons behind the recommendations were that the Council
received only one completed response from LSP members in 2008/09 and that
subsequently the Council had not based its returns for NI35 on a representative
sample of partner organisations. The Head of Policy, Partnerships & Community
Development addressed these two recommendations for the 2009/10 returns, but this
was in light of a changing approach to and an enhanced understanding of the indicator.
AUDIT AND RISK (15.9.10)
4.6.2
The two audit recommendations are set out below, along with the Head of Policy,
Partnerships & Community Development’s explanation of the changes implemented to
address each one.
4.6.3. The internal audit recommended that the required templates should be issued sooner in
the process (annually to tie in with the January/February LSP meeting) to allow
partners more time to prepare their returns.
4.6.4 For 2009/10, the Council did not circulate the required templates to the whole LSP, as
it had recently received confirmation from Special Branch, which monitors community
and other tensions that North Hertfordshire remains a very low risk area. It is, therefore,
important for the Council to equally manage the 'risk' of building fear of terrorism, and
so the 2009/10 template was completed with information provided by the Hertfordshire
Constabulary, NHDC Policy Team and our community partners who attended the
December 2009 workshop. The template therefore represented a single, but
partnership return, made with the assistance of faith and community groups regarding
the local position, which was proportionate to local risk.
4.6.5 The second internal audit recommendation was that the engagement of LSP members
should be actively sought during the year (within quarterly action plan reviews with the
LSP and CDRP) in order to raise the profile and significance of this indicator, leading to
an increased response rate for 2009/10.
4.6.6 The Council has included the 'prevent' initiative within the LSP work programme and
has had several in-year presentations/reports recorded in the minutes for that
partnership. This has raised the awareness of our partners, but it is also important that
due to the reduced, very low risk of terrorism and alongside that managing the 'fear'
that initial 'targeting' of specific community groups could have had in marginalising local
communities, it has in place actions which conserve the current high levels of
community cohesion. 86.5% of the local population feel this is an area in which people
from different communities get on well together (1st place in Hertfordshire), so partners
have agreed that a working group be established, to meet first in September 2010, not
specifically to manage anti-terrorism, but to provide a continuing dialogue with all
communities and retain that cohesion.
4.6.7 The Committee should be reassured that community 'tensions' continue to be
monitored through community safety partnership work and that it is intended that a
review of progress with the working group and NI35 itself, will form part of the work of
the Partnership Scrutiny Sub Committee in the future.
4.6.8 The Head of Policy, Partnerships & Community Development deems that the NI35
entry is complete for the purpose of the improvement plan.
4.7
National Indicator 181
4.7.1
One improvement entry relating to National Indicator 181 (Average time taken to
process HB/CTB new claims and change events), consisting of a single internal audit
recommendation, was ‘on target’ at the time of the last update report. The
recommendation was – ‘Data should be reported through Covalent when available.’
AUDIT AND RISK (15.9.10)
4.7.2
Since the last update report, the Department for Works and Pensions (DWP) has finally
published performance data for this indicator. However, due to the difficulties
previously experienced by the DWP in producing accurate data, the first year of data
relates to the financial year 2009/10.
4.7.3
Data relating to the first three quarters of 2009/10 is now available on the Data
Interchange Hub and the Performance & Risk Team has updated Covalent
accordingly. The team has informed the Systems & Technical Manager of the update,
in order that the published processing times can be compared with local management
information, although NHDC is not able to replicate fully the DWP calculations.
01/04/09 – 30/06/09 12 calendar days
01/07/09 – 30/09/09 10 calendar days
01/10/09 – 31/12/09 4 calendar days
4.7.4
As previously reported to the Audit & Risk Sub Committee, the DWP is responsible for
calculating and publishing data returns for NI181. Officers, therefore, can only update
Covalent when the DWP makes data available.
4.7.5
However, Members should note that NHDC continues to submit the required data
extracts to the DWP in a timely manner and is not contributing to any delays in
publishing data.
4.7.6
Again, as previously reported, officers are still able to monitor the current processing
times of new claims and change events without up to date NI181 data. Officers
calculate this local management information using reports previously used to calculate
best value performance indicators BV78a (speed of processing - new HB/CTB claims)
and BV78b (speed of processing - changes of circumstances for HB/CTB claims).
4.7.7
The Performance & Risk Team will continue to monitor the publication of further NI181
performance data.
5.
ISSUES RAISED AT THE AUDIT & RISK SUB-COMMITTEE MEETING ON 24TH
FEBRUARY
5.1
Member Training
5.1.1
The Sub Committee requested that officers should consider the training needs of
Members in relation to data quality and that an allowance should be made for this via e
learning.
5.1.2
The initial training provided to officers concentrated on the production of performance
data and the requirements of the NHDC Data Quality Policy. The Performance & Risk
Team also provided further training to officers with specific responsibilities for entering
and approving performance data on Covalent.
5.1.3
As Members are not actively involved in the production of performance data, the
existing training is not specifically suited to Members.
5.1.4
However, Members use performance data to monitor service provision and to inform
decision-making and therefore need to ensure that the data produced by officers is
accurate and sufficient for its intended purpose.
AUDIT AND RISK (15.9.10)
5.1.5
To assist, the Performance & Risk Team has produced a flowchart, which gives an
overview of the submission process for corporate performance data and explains how
officers apply their training in a working environment. The flowchart, is included as
Appendix A to this report, and sets out the different stages and responsibilities
throughout the process from start to finish. The Performance & Risk Team developed
this process to identify problems and inaccuracies at the earliest opportunity and to
ensure that performance data published on Covalent is always accurate and of the
highest quality.
5.1.6
If the Committee feel that further training is still required, feedback on the specific
requirements would be helpful to ensure that the appropriate training is made available.
5.2
Empty Properties Data
5.2.1
The last update report detailed a ‘completed’ improvement relating to the submission of
empty properties data, as part of the HIP (Housing Investment Programme) HSSA
(Housing Strategy Statistical Appendix) return to central government.
5.2.2
The Sub Committee requested confirmation that the improvement detailed in the report
actually achieved the desired outcome of an accurate and timely submission of data.
5.2.3
The Housing Strategy & Renewals Manager worked closely with the Systems &
Technical Manager to ensure that the 2009/10 data was in accordance with the HSSA
guidance. Officers completed quality checks during June and early July and submitted
the 2009/10 HIP HSSA return before the deadline date of the 23rd July 2010.
6.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
6.1
There are no specific legal implications arising from this report.
7.
FINANCIAL AND RISK IMPLICATIONS
7.1
There were no additional cost implications in completing the internal audit
recommendations that formed the data quality improvement plan other than Officer
time.
7.2
If data quality is not maintained then there is a risk that incorrect performance
information is used by the Council which could lead to inappropriate actions /decisions
being implemented. The actions taken by implementing this action plan will mitigate
the risk of this occurring.
8.
HUMAN RESOURCE AND EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS
8.1
there are no direct human resource or equalities implications arising from this report.
9.
CONSULTATION WITH EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS AND WARD MEMBERS
9.1
Not applicable.
AUDIT AND RISK (15.9.10)
10.
RECOMMENDATIONS
10.1
That the Audit and Risk Committee note the completion of the actions that formed the
Combined Data Quality Improvement Plan that was previously reported to the Audit &
Risk Sub Committee.
11.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
11.1
The internal and external audit recommendations that fed into the production of this
Improvement Plan are now complete.
12.
APPENDICES
12.1
Appendix A – overview of NHDC’s PI Data Submission Process
13.
CONTACT OFFICERS
13.1
Fiona Timms
Performance & Risk Manager
13.2
Tim Everitt
Performance Improvement Officer
13.3
Andy Cavanagh
Head of Finance, Performance & Asset Management
13.4
Tim Cowland
Head of IT and Customer Services
13.5
Liz Green
Head of Policy, Partnerships and Community Development
13.6
Mark Scanes
Systems & Technical Manager
14.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
14.1
Internal Audit reports on performance indicators
14.2
Combined Data Quality Improvement Plan
AUDIT AND RISK (15.9.10)