Return to Agenda

ITEM EX6

EXECUTIVE – 29 OCTOBER 2002

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT – QUARTERLY MONITORING REPORT

Report by Director for Strategy

Introduction

  1. This report provides additional information to that provided in the report to the Executive on 23 July 2002, on our performance for 2001/02. It identifies areas of potentially poor performance that may require review and areas of top quartile performance. The report also provides:
    • An update on progress towards our targets in priority areas for the current year.
    • A comparison between actual performance for 2001/02 and the targets we have established for the current year is provided. This has been undertaken to review the reasonability of those targets.

Best Value Performance Indicators 2001 – 2002

  1. The report to Executive on 23 July 2002 stated that there were a total of 116 performance indicators for 2001 – 2002. However, 8 have been added since that report so the actual total is 122. In the previous report, 79 indicators could be assessed against target. The release of financial data has increased this to 96.

  2. The overall position is that we have achieved target in 53.1% of the 96 indicators reported.

    3. Target met/exceeded

    (53.1% of the total)

    75% to 99.9% of target met

    (37.5% of the total)

    Less than 75% of target met

    (9.3% of the total)


  3. Annex 1 provides details of those areas where performance fell below 75%

  4. The upper quartile figure for 70 of the 96 indicators reported is available for all county councils. Oxfordshire achieves this level of performance (or very close to it) in 34.5% of those 70 indicators. (Upper quartile figures are not currently available for the Fire Service.) Details of these are provided in Annex 2.

  5. Future reports will compare our performance with both upper and bottom quartiles.

    6. Current year performance - Oxfordshire Plan Targets 2002 – 2003

  6. There are 19 commitments in the Oxfordshire Plan with 27 measurements associated with them. We have asked departments to report on each of these and Annex 3 provides details of the responses received. Our review of these reports suggest that departments feel confident that they will deliver target in each area.

    7. Comparison between past performance and current target

  7. To help assess the quality of target setting, we have compared our actual performance for last year with the target set for the current year. We are able to do this for 64 performance indicators. We have identified those performance indicators where there is a significant discrepancy (ie, the percentage difference is +/- 20%). 31% of the 64 performance indicators show a significant difference on this basis. Annex 4 details these.

    8. RECOMMENDATIONS

  8. The Executive is RECOMMENDED to receive the report and invite the respective Executive Members to investigate further with the relevant Directors:

    1. those areas where performance for 2001/02 fell below 75% of target, as shown in Annex 1; and

    2. those areas where actual performance for 2001/02 differs by more than 20% from the target set for the current year, as shown in Annex 4.

STEPHEN CAPALDI
Director for Strategy

Background papers: Nil

Contact Officer: David Lines, Tel: Oxford 810150

October 2002

Return to TOP