Meeting documents

The Executive
Tuesday, 19 April 2005

EX190405-06

Return to Agenda

Division(s): N/A

ITEM EX6

EXECUTIVE – 19 APRIL 2005

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT: ROGRESS AGAINST PRIORITIES AND TARGETS

Report by County Council Management Team

  1. This report sets out our third quarter performance for 2004-2005 against

    1. Oxfordshire Plan priorities

    2. Public Service Agreement targets

    3. Best Value Performance Indicators

Oxfordshire Plan priorities

  1. The Oxfordshire Plan 2004-05 contains 13 priorities (the "10+3").

  2. The following seven priorities were reported as being on target at the end of the third quarter:

    • Child Protection;

    • Waste Minimisation and Re-cycling;

    • Affordable Housing;

    • Foundation Stage Learning;

    • West End of Oxford;

    • Better Use of our Property;

    • Drugs and Alcohol.

  1. There are two priorities where it is unsure whether or not they are on target. These are:

    • Delayed Discharges from Hospital;

    • Improve Maintenance of Local Roads and Pavements.

  1. For a further two priorities there is a mixed picture. These are:

    • Educational Attainment (unchanged from the second quarter);

    • Youth Crime Reduction (unchanged from the second quarter).

  1. This leaves two other priorities:

    • Public transport is an area where we are the second best performing county in the country by population and we continue to increase the number of people using local buses in Oxfordshire; however, the PSA negotiations resulted in overly ambitious targets in this area so whilst we predict continued good performance in this area we are not likely to achieve our targets.

    • Support for Older People, where our performance is improving but our targets are related to our Public Service Agreement targets and are, therefore more demanding than other targets.

  1. A detailed schedule is attached at Annex 1 (download as .doc file).

    2. Public Service Agreement Targets

  2. The Public Service Agreement is between the County Council and the Government. Agreements were reached in 12 areas that identified stretching targets for achievement by March 2006 and in several cases targets were chosen in areas where performance was a concern. The targets are, therefore, more demanding than other targets towards which we work. However, if we are successful in achieving some or all of these targets we will benefit from a ‘performance reward grant’.

  3. At present we can report progress in 11 target areas (see Annex 2). For the 12th, cost effectiveness, the Government have not yet come up with proposals for discussion with local government.

  4. Of the 11:

    • 3 are on track to achieve target;

    • for 4 it is unsure at this stage whether they will achieve target; and

    • 4 are predicted not to achieve target.

  1. These predictions are unchanged from the second quarter.

    2. Best Value Performance Indicators: Third Quarter 2004-2005

  2. There are 133 Best Value Performance Indicators for 2004/05. Some of these are information provision rather than performance measures. At the end of the third quarter we should be able to report on 85 of them.

  3. Of the 85 indicators where a judgement has been made as to whether or not we are on track to achieve our end of year target:

    • 43 indicators (51%) were reported as being on target;

    • For 16 indicators (19%) it was felt to be too early to judge at this stage. This is normally because current performance is very close to the target but it can not be stated for definite that the target will be met; and

    • 26 indicators (31%) were reported as not on target.

RECOMMENDATION

  1. The Executive is RECOMMENDED to note the report.

COUNTY COUNCIL MANAGEMENT TEAM

Background Papers: Nil

Contact Officer: Adrian Sell, Performance Review Adviser Tel: (01865) 816031

April 2005

Return to TOP