Report No
Committee:
Audit Committee
Meeting Date:
30 June 2011
Lead Councillor/s:
Cllr Jane Storey
Director:
Director of Resource Management
Assistant Director Chris Bally, Assistant Director, Business Development
or Head of Service: Tel: 01473 264953
E-mail: chris.bally@suffolk.gov.uk
Author:
Lyn Baran, Group Manager, Business Development,
Tel: 01473 264547
E-mail: lyn.baran@suffolk.gov.uk
Paul Emeny, Business Development Specialist,
Tel 01473 264510
E-mail: paul.emeny@suffolk.gov.uk
Performance & Risk Report – 2010/11
Brief summary of report
1.
The following report updates the Committee on performance and risk
management monitoring as at the end of 2010/11.
Action recommended
2.
That the Committee notes the issues and concerns highlighted in this report
and satisfies itself that arrangements are in place to ensure sufficient and
effective remedial action is being taken where appropriate.
Reason for recommendation
3.
To inform the Committee of the arrangements in place to manage
performance and risk and to draw out key issues for action. The report
highlights areas of both good performance and under performance and risk
management issues where further clarification or information may be
needed to ensure these issues are being dealt with.
Alternative options
4.
Based on the information contained within this report, the Committee may
wish to request further information on specific arrangements in place to
manage performance or risk in specific Directorates or areas.
Who will be affected by this decision?
1
5.
Service users, councillors and officers responsible for specific service
areas.
Main body of report
6.
The past year has seen significant changes to the performance
management regime in local government. The new administration’s
commitment to reducing the burden of reporting through the abolition of the
national performance framework and indicator set and the publication of the
Single Data List has yet to be tested in practical terms and this report looks
back at arrangements in place for 2010/2011 and provides a commentary
on performance and risk.
7.
Performance against the corporate priorities has been varied. The fallout
continues from the recession, with little positive news for strengthening the
jobs market for example and education attainment whilst on an upward
trajectory is still predicted to fall short of national standards. Positive
improvements in supporting some of the most vulnerable in our county is
recorded through doubling the numbers of adults with learning disabilities in
paid employment, but this still represents just 7% of the known client group.
The cost of purchased placements continues to rise as more children are
taken into care or require child protection plans. There is good news on
Suffolk’s greenest county aspirations with continued success with waste
management and there are also signs that we are changing services to
meet customer needs with an increase in self-directed support.
8.
Work on risk management across the council has been progressed in the
last 6 months, supported by business development staff. With the many
changes in structures and staff the focus of work in the next 6 months is to
ensure all risks logged on the corporate risk register have an appropriate
owner and that 100% of reviews take place on time. Early improvements
are in evidence as the ease of use of the new web-based system for risk
management is demonstrated to operational colleagues.
9.
A detailed performance and risk summary is provided at Appendix 1.
10. The Annual Governance Statement records the Council’s approach to
performance and risk management as adequate. This approach includes
regular operational performance and risk reporting to Directorate
Management Teams and exception reporting to the Corporate Management
Board. Outcomes from Inspections are reported to both officers and
Members and there is an annual report which is presented to Portfolio
Holders and Corporate Management Board. The Audit Committee receives
this Annual Performance and Risk report and assurance through the Annual
Governance Statement.
11. As reported in the Annual Governance Statement, 2011/2012 will largely be
a transitional year and work is underway with directorates to establish new
performance frameworks that are relevant to the Council’s business going
forward and meet emerging statutory requirements including the new
‘Single Data List’ for Local Government.
Sources of Further Information
Performance against Corporate Priorities;
2
http://views.suffolkcc.gov.uk:8080/library.html
Detailed Corporate Risk Report;
http://colin.suffolkcc.gov.uk/SpecialistSupport/PPI/RiskReports
3
Performance & Risk Summary
2010/11 - Appendix 1
Performance: introduction
The following report summarises issues and concerns arising from performance
monitoring during 2010/11. At this stage, we are still monitoring the final
outturns for the National Indicator Set 2010/2011. We are also looking ahead to
review the measures that the Council wants to use to manage its business
going forward.
This work is ongoing but it is intended that by the outturn of quarter 1 2011/12
(end July 2011) the most appropriate measures to determine how the
organisation is performing against its priorities will be produced and monitored
on a quarterly basis. This will include reporting on finance and human
resources from the new Business Intelligence tool.
This report also includes a strategic risk management update/summary and a
summary of the current list of overdue risks at Appendix 2.
Performance Overview
This section includes a summary of performance against the corporate
priorities, as identified in the Suffolk Story and an indication of current trends
based on the most recent information available. Each measure (for each of the
corporate priorities) is colour coded to indicate the latest performance trend and
direction of travel (a key to explain specifically what the colour coding means is
provided).
A detailed breakdown of the performance measures used can be viewed online
using Colin. A link on Colin directs you to ‘SCIViews’ – the council’s
performance management system. SCIViews is themed by corporate priority
and includes commentary to add further context to the data where performance
has changed significantly. Link: http://views.suffolkcc.gov.uk:8080/library.html
Key for understanding latest performance trends.
Excellent
Caution
Good
Poor
V Poor
No update
For the purposes of this report a summary showing the latest trends is provided
which shows the current progress against each of the corporate priorities. The
colour coding used in the summary below corresponds to that used in
SCIViews.
Key - Direction of travel;
Direction of
Travel Change
since last quarter
Improved
Declined
No change
4
The direction of travel arrows show
whether performance has got better or
worse since the last quarter’s report.
Performance against Corporate Priorities
A Strong & Dynamic Jobs Market
There are eight measures currently used to determine how well the council is
performing against this corporate priority. Four are currently judged as being
‘grey’. This is because they are national indicators which are not reported until
9 months after the end of 2010/11 and as a consequence the council is waiting
for new information to be published.
Employment rate
Out of work benefit (target wards)
ESE
Employee earnings
Out of work benefit claimants
s
Affordable Homes
s
Small business growth
s
Skills gap in workforce
s
Employment in key sectors
s
Affordable Homes This key housing target which was also an LAA2 target is
unlikely to be achieved based on the latest trend information available (however
this is still to be verified). All Districts Councils in Suffolk reported a decrease in
the annual completion rate of affordable homes compared to the previous year.
Suffolk Coastal District Council only saw 368 homes completed - the lowest
number of homes since 2001/02, whilst Ipswich Borough only saw 545
completions - the lowest since 2002/03.
Transforming Learning and Skills in Suffolk
Under the Transforming Learning and Skills theme one of the main focuses is
on school children and adult learning attainment – as well as other key schools
related measures which collectively give a good sense of how the council is
meeting this very important priority. In this section, as well as the
measure/colour summary there is also some more detailed analysis providing
an overview of how the council is performing at both Key Stages 2 and 4 when
compared to its statistical neighbours and England averages.
Visits to libraries
Young offenders engaged
ESE
Level 2 qualification by the age of 19
Visits to museums
s
Early Years Foundation Stages
Level 3 qualification by the age of 19
Schools less than 55% KS2 maths/eng
KS2 Maths and English
Schools judged as good standards
Schools less than 30% 5 GCSE A-C
5 or more A*- C grades at GCSE
Persistent school absence
Schools with extended services
Schools in Special Measures
Take up of 14-19 learning diplomas
Participation in education & training
LAC achieving KS2 English
LAC achieving KS2 Maths
LAC achieving 5 GCSEs
SEN excluding exceptions
SEN achieving KS2 Maths & English
Delivery of Sure Start
SEN including exceptions
SEN achieving 5 GCSE A - C
Permanent exclusions
16-18 year olds (NEET)
Care leavers education/employment
Adult learning – Level 1
Adult learning – Level 2
Adult learning – Level 3
% access extended schools
Focus on Transforming Learning and Skills
Attainment at Key Stage 2
5
Annual progression at KS2 L4+ for both English & Maths
Spring Term Assessment
78
76
74
72
70
Suffolk
68
England
66
Stat. Neighbours
64
62
cte
d
pr
ed
i
20
10
20
11
20
09
20
08
20
07
20
06
20
05
60
School improvement partners reported on schools progress for the spring term.
For middle and primary schools the attainment scores predicted for the
percentage of pupils achieving Level 4 or above at KS2 (for both English and
Maths) would translate to an approximate score for the county of 76%.
However, in the previous year a predicted score of 73% resulted in an actual
score of 68%, so caution needs to be taken as a potential margin of error will
need to be taken into consideration.
However, if this predicted score was realised this would represent an
improvement of 3% on the previous year potentially bringing Suffolk in line with
statistically similar counties.
Attainment at Key Stage 4
NI 75 5+ GCSC A* - C Grades including English & Maths
58%
56%
Suffolk
Stat. Neighbours
54%
England
52%
50%
48%
46%
44%
42%
40%
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11 predicted
For KS4 the overall predicted scores would translate to a score of 56.7%,
representing an improvement on the previous year moving Suffolk just ahead of
the current national average of 55.2%, but again caution needs to be taken.
The predicted difference in achievement between 2 and 3 tier schools shows
the average in the 2 tier system as being 59.7% and 53.6% in the 3 tier.
Protect Vulnerable People and Reduce Inequalities
6
The measures for this priority/theme cover a diverse range of service areas –
including road and fire safety, looking after vulnerable children, and timeliness
of adult social care and adoption placements.
As well as the measure/colour summary below there is also commentary to
provide context on the measures judged as ‘red’ as well as some further
analysis intended to give an overview of how the council is performing against
key children in need measures when compared to its statistical neighbours and
England averages.
People killed/seriously injured roads
Child & adolescent mental health
servicesESE
Stability of LAC placements (time)
Children killed/seriously injured roads
Initial assessments in timescale (child)
Child Protection Plans (over 2 yrs)
Number of Looked After Children
Core assessments in timescale (child)
Child Protection Plans (second time)
Number of purchased placements
Timeliness of adoption placements
Child Protection reviews in timescale
Repeat incidents of domestic violence
Stability of LAC placements (number)
LAC cases reviewed within timescale
% referrals going to initial assessment
Long term conditions supported
Initial assessments in timescale (adult)
Vulnerable people – independent living
- independence
Independence for older people
Timeliness of care packages (adult)
People Learning Disability - settled
Care leavers suitable accomodation
Serious crime in pubic place
People Learning Disability – jobs
Older people feeling safe
Primary Fires
Fatalities - Fire
Obesity in primary school children
Mortality rate (health)
Casualities - Fire
Teenage conception rate
Self directed support
Adults with Learning Disabilities in Settled Accommodation 1,642 adults
with learning disabilities of working age (18 to 64) are currently known to Adult
Social Care. Of the 599 who were reviewed, 36% were in a form of
accommodation that was deemed to be settled for them. This compares to
49% in 2010 when there were 790 reviews completed from a total of 1,592
people. This apparent fall in numbers is not a reflection of the current housing
situation but rather of the reduction in the number of reviews completed in the
financial year. If a review were to be undertaken for all customers with
Learning Disabilities, then it is highly likely that performance would improve.
Adults with Learning Disabilities in Employment in comparison to last year
the number of working age adults with a learning disability who are being
supported in to paid employment has risen quite considerably. In 2010, there
were 71 individuals known to Adult Social Care in paid employment, from the
same total of 1,592 customers (or 4.4%). This figure has since risen to 115
from 1,642 (or 7%). This is due to work undertaken by Whitehouse Enterprises
with Learning Disabled clients within the past year.
Looked After Children the number of Looked After Children is currently 795
with overall numbers increasing since April. The reliance on externally
purchased care has a current projected cost of £10.8 million.
Number of Looked After Children - 2007 to date
810
790
770
750
730
7
Children in Need – Child Protection Plans. The current number of children
with a Child Protection Plan has increased to over 600 as at April 2011.
Number of Child Protection Plans
600
550
500
450
400
ar
/M
/J
a
n
20
11
ov
20
11
p
/N
20
10
l
/S
e
/J
u
20
10
ay
/M
20
10
ar
20
10
n
/M
/J
a
20
10
ov
/N
20
10
p
20
09
l
/S
e
/J
u
20
09
ay
/M
20
09
ar
/M
20
09
/J
a
n
20
09
/N
20
09
20
08
20
08
/S
e
p
ov
350
Be the Greenest County
These measures focus primarily on waste management and progress against
the council’s emissions targets.
Residual household waste collected per head of population results for this year
were 126.6 kilograms compared to 129.1 kilograms last year, a slight decrease
which is encouraging news.
The percentage of household waste recycled or composted this year was
50.7% compared to 47.2% last year, a significant increase, which again is very
good news.
The county’s CO2 emissions target (which is also an LAA2 target) is unlikely to
be achieved based on the latest trend. However, because this data is reported
nationally and takes 2 to 3 years to be published, the county will not know the
actual outcome for the LAA2 target for some time, but the indication is not
encouraging.
Local bus passenger journeys
% waste recycled & composted
Residual household waste (tonnage)
Reduction in CO2 emissions
% waste landfilled
School Travel
8
Deliver Great Services at Exceptional Value
The provision of self-directed support and supporting people to live
independently are areas where the council has performed well this year.
In terms of measuring ongoing net cash savings and value for money, this is an
area where nationally available information is now limited and therefore the
council may wish to identify new measures to gauge its direction of travel for
providing value for money to feature in future reports.
Clients receiving self-directed support
Business satisfaction with regulation
People supported to live independently
Delayed transfers of care
Adult participation in sport & recreation
net value of ongoing cash release vfm
Principal roads requiring maintenance
There has been an increase in the number of delayed transfers of care this
year; however it is not as great as it may appear from the figures at hand. This
is due to a delay in the release of updated population estimates from the ONS.
Mid 2010 estimates won’t be released until August, and so the weekly patient
outturn for Delayed Transfers of Care for the year to date is artificially high.
Performance Information – Statutory Returns
Currently, statutory returns remain in place and are a considerable burden on
the council across various teams and directorates. The Government’s new
single data list maintains most of the statutory reporting mechanisms that were
in place in previous years, including Adult Social Care returns such as RAP
(which has been expanded since 2009-10), ASC-CAR, the PSSEX1, and
Children’s Social Care returns such as the SSDA903 for Looked after Children
and the Child In Need (CIN) Census.
Any return listed on the Single Data List is mandatory but we are working to
streamline activity required to prepare the submissions by focusing on
improving data quality at source and so reduce the need for data cleansing at
year end.
Adopting this approach to date has meant that the council has significantly
reduced the need for additional temporary staff to complete the submissions
work.
9
Risk Management Overview
Suffolk County Council promotes risk management through ensuring that all
directorates and service areas within Suffolk County council (SCC) embedding
the process of risk management within the day-to-day operational activities of
SCC.
Business Development’s role is to provide an oversight function - the second
line of defence in the Corporate Governance Model. It ensures that operational
managers are fulfilling their risk management obligations and so to provide
assurance to the organisation. Business Development also promotes the
benefits to be derived from risk management, both from departmental and
corporate perspectives.
THE THREE LINES OF DEFENCE
FOR GOOD GOVERNANCE
The First Line of Defence
is operational managers
and staff (the organisational
operations).
The Second line of Defence
The Third line of Defence
is the oversight functions
are Internal Audit and External
(e.g. Business Development,
Assurance Providers.
Finance; HR; ICT).
They offer independent
They have day-to-day
responsibility for managing
and controlling risk.
They set directions, define
challenge to the levels
policy and provide
of assurance provided by
assurance.
business operations and
oversight functions.
AUDIT COMMITTEE
In order to deliver this function, Business Development (BD) has identified
individuals to take responsibility for promoting risk management at a strategic
level, to act as a risk management advocate, offering support and challenge to
operational teams , and risk management system administration to enable risk
actions to be tracked and monitored.
In the last 6 months since this model has been adopted, we have used the JCAD
tool to identify risk management activity and ‘cold spots’ by auditing use of the
site and chasing overdue reviews of risks. Meetings with key service areas have
begun to encourage more proactive use of the site and to check that appropriate
action is being taken.
10
Given the many changes happening in service areas, this action is timely, though
incomplete at this stage. An overview is provided in the table below which
identifies common issues which have been identified and are being addressed,
and an assessment of the state of risk management in each area contacted to
date.
Issue
Use of JCAD is low
as it is perceived to
be unnecessarily
laborious and not
user friendly
Description
The previous version
of JCAD was based
on a ‘one size fits all’
approach’ that
required users to go
through all stages of
RM even when it was
not necessary to do
so. For example,
when the risk
assessment has
already been done
outside of JCAD.
Performance issues
and lack of ease of
navigation contributed
largely to making
JCAD user unfriendly.
Misconception that
formalisation of RM
framework is nonvalue adding
exercise.
Formal risk
management
recording seen as
something that is
done after a risk has
been managed rather
than part of an active
and ongoing process.
This led to risk
management being
seen as a
meaningless, nonvalue adding exercise
that detracts from
doing the ‘real’ valueadding work.
11
Action taken
The JCAD system has been
upgraded and the current
version is web-based and vastly
improved in terms of ease of
use. It is more flexible and
logical in the implementation of
the RM process. The
performance of the system in
terms of speed is also
noticeable.
Colleagues are more receptive
to the tool once they have
interacted with it. JCAD is now
seen as a tool that could add
value to their work, through the
proper implementation of RM,
rather than a bureaucratic tool
used for the purpose of
satisfying audit requirements.
Business Development is raising
awareness of the improved
JCAD system among colleagues
and encouraging them to use
the tool, where they haven’t and
effective RM system in place
already.
A simpler approach to risk
management focused on
ensuring that the organisation
considers ‘the likelihood of
something going wrong’ and ‘the
impact of something going
wrong’ in its planning has been
accompanied by work to reenforcing the importance and
benefits of active risk
management.
The need to ensure corporate
visibility to support high-level
decision making is also being
promoted.
In addition to this, Business
Development is making
colleagues aware of the
importance of tailoring RM
approach to be proportionate, to
Issue
Description
Directorate / Service
Area risk ownership
Restructures in
directorates and
service areas has
resulted in
uncertainty,
particularly with roles,
making it difficult to
assign / reassign
ownership to risks.
Some directorates /
service areas,
although practising
RM in silos, do not
have a co-ordinated
approach to RM that
will deliver efficiency
in their approach.
Lack of integrated
approach to RM
Action taken
suit the corporate environment
and to be an integral part of
normal day-to-day activities. The
emphasis is on helping
colleagues to make the shift
from ‘bureaucratic’ RM to ‘real’
RM, through the realisation of
the benefits to be realised. The
responsibility for leadership in
risk management is shared
across the Business
Development team.
The situation is improving as the
various restructures are being
completed.
Business Development is
reviewing risk owners and
working with directorates to
transfer risk to new owners and
offer training and support where
needed.
Promoting knowledge sharing
and ‘best practice’: Making
colleagues aware of the benefits
associated with an integrated
approach. Encouraging
colleagues to learn from other
directorates where the
integrated approach is working
well.
Using reports generated by the JCAD system we are chasing overdue reviews
and there are encouraging signs of progress in this area. The current JCAD
report of overdue risks, as of 31st May 2011, is presented as a table below. The
data shows a downward trend in the number of overdue risks, compared to the
same report produced on 2nd February 2011. As of the time of writing, risk
owners are taking steps to address outstanding actions that should further drive
down the number of overdue risks in subsequent reports. Also, we are working
with directorates and service areas to ensure that all assigned risk / control
owners are valid and current employees of SCC.
Overdue Risk level
Very High
High
Medium
2nd February 2011
18
58
94
31st May 2011
13
50
88
The goal is to report zero overdue risks.
An assessment of the current situation regarding risk management practice is
provided in the table below:
12
Directorate / Service
Area
ACS
CYP
Status
15/4/11: Initial
review meeting
held.
Follow-up meeting
to be scheduled
for August
15/4/11: Initial
review meeting
held.
Follow-up meeting
to be scheduled
for July
Public Protection, Social
Inclusion and Diversity
Initial meeting to
be scheduled.
ESE
13/4/11: Initial
review meeting
held.
Follow-up meeting
to be scheduled
for July
Monitored by CMB
meetings
Corporate Management
Board
Resource Management
Initial Review
meeting to be
scheduled for July
with RM Team
Corporate Health and
Safety
20/4/11: Initial
review meeting
held.
Follow-up meeting
to be scheduled
for July
Risk management –
Commentary
A structured and integrated
approach to RM is in place.
Inconsistent use of JCAD
addressed and follow-up
meeting to review use of JCAD.
Coordinated approach to risk
management across Directorate
has been adversely affected by
long-term staff absence.
Uncertainty due to the
Directorate restructure has
hampered attempts to making
RM more effective.
Actions are being driven by
reports on JCAD across the
Directorate.
Risk management
arrangements adequate.
Inconsistent application of risk
recording.
Actions are being driven by
reports on JCAD. Discussions
regarding effective working of
RM within the group held on 24
March 2011.
Responsible for risk
management leadership across
organisation and focused work
on corporate health and safety.
Inconsistent use of JCAD but
risk management and recording
arrangements in place. Move to
better use of JCAD.
Health and safety risk
management has improved
considerably. Inconsistent use
JCAD due to poor user
experience of earlier versions of
the tool. Following intervention,
JCAD to be used to log top 10
corporate H&S risks.
The new approach is beginning to have an impact on recognition of active risk
management process and recording of risks and mitigating actions. There is
more to be done in ensuring that as directorates emerge from restructuring and
as services are considered for alternative delivery methods, that appropriate
13
consideration and management of risk is embedded in our approach. For the
approach to be further improved and sustainable, it is important that;
1. periodic progress reviews with the directorates / service areas are
scheduled and where arrangements are inadequate, raise the issues with
management teams
2. ‘best practice’ and support learning / knowledge is share; and
3. the senior management team promotes risk management and leads by
example.
Suffolk CC Very High Risks overdue for review on JCAD:
Currently there are 321 risks recorded on the council’s Risk Register (JCAD)
divided between the directorates and their business areas. Of these there are
28 risks rated as very high (VH) - 6 are recorded as overdue for review and are
listed below. This does not mean that they are not being actively management
– indeed, it is clear from looking at all ‘topics’ that significant mitigation
strategies are in place to minimise risk, but these strategies are not being
recorded on the corporate system and therefore it is difficult for Directors and
Members to access current information about these strategies without
approaching service managers.
Reference
Nature
CORP0053 Threat
CORP0057 Threat
CORP0054 Threat
CORP0049 Threat
CORP0055 Threat
CORP0039 Threat
Topic
Current
assessment
Reduced central government
expenditure
Failure in health & safety
management
Conflict with partners and
stakeholders over budgets
CSD contract becoming
unaffordable
Failure to improve educational
attainment in KS2 and KS4
20
Loss of data centre in
Constantine House
10
14
20
16
16
12
Change Review status
since Q3
report
Very high
Overdue since
02/02/11
Very high
Overdue since
10/09/10
Very high
Overdue since
17/06/10
Very high
Overdue since
27/01/11
High
Overdue since
15/03/10
High
-
Overdue since
05/04/11