Agenda item

To consider a report from the Director of Strategy and Resources which presents a summary of performance data relating to Council and city priorities that fall within the remit of the Scrutiny Board (Strategy & Resources) including coverage of Office for Local Government (OFLOG) indicators.

The Board considered a report from the Director of Strategy and Resources which presents a summary of performance data relating to Council and city priorities that fall within the remit of the Scrutiny Board (Strategy & Resources) including coverage of Office for Local Government (OFLOG) indicators.

In attendance for this item were

·  Mariana Pexton, Director of Strategy and Resources

·  Emma Kamillo-Price, Senior Intelligence and Policy Officer

·  Richard Ellis, Deputy Chief Finance Officer

·  Lisa Colver, Head of Health, Safety and Well-Being

The Senior Intelligence and Policy Officer introduced the item setting out the twice yearly reporting approach, the OFLOG indicators and that performance covers quarter 4 from 2023/24.

The following key points were highlighted:

·  Healthy Workforce - showing a small increase in absence rates and also that long-term sickness accounts for between 65% and 70% of all time lost through sickness.

·  Gender pay gap – this has dropped since the last reporting period to 3.4%.

·  Customer complaints – performance in some directorates remains below target albeit it this is up on the previous year’s Quarter 4 position.

·  Information Management and Governance – both targets have been met and performance is improving with a target of 95% having been set for future performance.

·  OFLOG – where the metrics have been established these are covered in today’s report, but as further metrics are announced these will be built into scrutiny performance reporting based on where they fall in terms of board remits.

Responding to comments and questions from board members the following areas were discussed:

·  Board members requested comparison with previous year’s performance where it is possible and where it would add value in terms of analysis and spotting changes and trends. The Board were informed that this will be looked into for the next report where that yearly comparison is possible, some indicators would not be as suitable to this type of approach.

·  Members also asked about comparison with other authorities and core cities and around musculoskeletal sickness absence which is increasing. On the comparison issue, this will be looked at for the next report in January, on musculoskeletal conditions members were informed that this issue sits in the ergonomic work stream (within the Health and Safety work) and that joint work is ongoing across services to make more data informed choices to tackle the issue. In addition, work is ongoing to develop a musculoskeletal toolkit for priority services which will offer free training and will be launched next year.

·  The Board inquired about SENSAP service complaints and delays in EHCPs being delivered linked to education psychologists (EPs). Members had concerns about delays and complaints within this service and the impacts on families. In response the Board heard that this issue has been picked up by the Children and Families Scrutiny Board who conducted a scrutiny inquiry on the provision of EHCP Support in Leeds, with plans also for these issues to be considered through a report to Executive Board in June that builds on previous reports in October and December 2023. On EPs the board heard that there has been a national shortage of these staff and that more widely demand for EHCP support is a national issue that has increased significantly in recent years.

·  The Board asked about long-term sickness and whether waiting times for health treatment being experienced by the public are impacting long-term sickness for LCC colleagues. This will be taken away with a view to seeing if there is any data available to assist with the query.

·  In relation to KPI 1 the board asked about city wide disability data and the gap between city demographics and the workforce the Council has. In response it was noted that work is ongoing with recruitment processes through HR and the staff networks to remove barriers and to also support disabled colleagues to progress more. It was also noted that the DAWN Network supports disabled colleagues through their employment at the Council and as a specific example support disabled colleagues through the provision of reasonable adjustments.

·  The Board wanted to hear more about how staff are supported to progress at the Council. The Be Your Best Manager Programme has been introduced to support managers and provide training, coaching and shadowing opportunities. In addition, the appraisal process is aimed at drawing out personal development requirements and trying to support staff to meet their career ambitions. The Council has also launched the Aspiring Leaders Programme with a detailed training and support programme to support their development.

·  The Board welcomed the support for managers as set out. However, there was also concern that support should be given to staff more generally. In response the Board heard that the appraisal process is there to support staff development and that appraisal completion rates are good albeit there is work to do and support for managers will help in improving appraisals and ensuring that all staff receive a quality appraisal.

·  On support for local businesses members asked about longer-term trends on contractual engagement with Leeds businesses. It was noted that procurement is on the work programme, and it will come through as part of that item but also that, if available, a note will be provided on that to the Board.

·  Board members expressed an interest in hearing more about the improvements that have taken place in Information Management and Governance and that this should feature on the work programme for the board this municipal year, whilst recognising this also features on the Corporate Governance and Audit work programme annually.

Resolved – The Boardnoted the performance information contained in Appendix 1, and where appropriate highlighted areas for further scrutiny.