The public's satisfaction levels with services provided by Scottish Borders Council generally declined between 2012 and 2018, according to Audit Scotland's detailed analysis of the local authority's functions while performance reporting comes in for criticism from the authors of the so-called Best Value assessment.
However, it is not all bad news.
The report states: "Education services continue to perform well overall. Outcomes for children are above the national average and improving. The council’s performance against the LGBF (Local Government Benchmark Framework) indicator for the proportion of pupils entering ‘positive destinations’ improved from an already-high level, from 94.4 per cent in 2013/14 to 95.8 per cent in 2016/17. Positive destinations include higher education, further education, training, voluntary work and employment."
Social work and social care services’ performance is described as "mixed
but improving".
"The Care Inspectorate and Healthcare Improvement Scotland
inspected health and social work services for older people, from October 2016
to February 2017.The delivery of key processes, strategic planning and plans to
improve services, leadership and direction were assessed as ‘weak’.
"The IJB
(Integrated Joint Board) has since developed an improvement plan to address the
inspection’s recommendations. A progress report in May 2018 showed some
improvement actions needed completion deadlines. A Progress review by
Healthcare Improvement Scotland and the Care Inspectorate is under way.
"In April 2019, the Care Inspectorate reported on a criminal
justice social work inspection, which focused on people subject to community
payback orders. The council was ‘good’ in terms of its impact on people who
have committed offences, and at assessing and responding to risk and need.
Operational managers supported staff well.
"Areas assessed as ‘weak’ areas were:
improving the life chances and outcomes for people subject to a community
payback order, and leadership of improvement and change. There was a lack of
governance and oversight from senior officers and elected members and no
performance management structure in place to drive service improvement."
From 2013/14 to 2017/18, the council’s performance declined
for 14 indicators and declined by a margin of ten per cent or over the
following four indicators: • quality ratings for children’s early years’
service providers – performance declined from 97.5 per cent of providers graded
good or better for all quality themes, to 87.5 per cent • the proportion of
invoices sampled that were paid within 30 days – performance declined from 90.2
per cent to 78.0 per cent • the proportion of procurement spent on local
small/medium enterprises – performance declined from 28.5 per cent to 23.1 per
cent • the proportion of internal floor area of operational buildings in
satisfactory condition – performance declined from 91.6 to 62.1 per cent.
In
2017/18, the council performed above the Scottish average by ten per cent or
more for eight indicators (18 per cent) but was over ten per cent below average
for 20 indicators (46 per cent), including: • the proportion of unemployed
people assisted into work by council-funded or operated employability
programmes – 4.2 per cent (Scotland average 14.4 per cent) • investment in
economic development and tourism per 1,000 population –£43,132 (Scotland
average £91,779).
According to Audit Scotland's findings: "Recent national data shows that satisfaction has declined
across Scotland for all council services and this is also the case in the
Scottish Borders . Satisfaction with the council’s services declined from
2012–2018 on eight of the nine indicators and declined for four services at a
faster rate than the national average. In 2018, the council was rated among the
eight weakest councils on five indicators, including four indicators for which
it was among the three weakest councils. This includes satisfaction with parks
and open spaces, leisure facilities, libraries and museums and galleries. The
council needs to better understand the reasons behind its relatively poor
performance.
"Benchmarking practice is inconsistent across the council The
Accounts Commission requires councils to report their performance using the
national LGBF data. Although the council does this, it is unclear how it
utilises the data to pursue service performance improvements systematically.
Benchmarking is applied in some service areas including education and
complaints handling, but the council should embed proactive, systematic use of
this approach to drive performance improvements across all services.
"There is
room to improve performance reporting. Officers submit quarterly performance
reports to the Executive Committee and an annual report in June each year.
Members’ scrutiny of the information reported to them is generally good. The
Executive Committee has no opposition members, but opposition members can
publicly scrutinise and challenge performance information in a meeting of all
members in full council meetings.. In addition, officers invite all members to
attend a private annual briefing on the council’s performance. However, in
January 2019, fewer than half of members (15 of 34) attended a briefing
arranged by officers and no meeting record was kept."
Performance reports to
the Executive Committee highlighted activities that affect performance in
each corporate theme. However, they lack a clear, succinct overview of the
council’s position and the number of indicators; and the amounts of performance
information provided vary significantly across the four corporate themes.
"There
is insufficient explanation of areas identified for improvement.The council’s graphical public performance reporting (PPR)
summary for 2018/19 makes it difficult for members and the public to gain a
clear overview of the council’s changing performance.
"It would be helpful to
distinguish actual performance on an indicator from the performance trend to
clarify, for example, situations where: • performance was at a very high level
and a small decrease is acceptable • performance was adequate, and remains
relatively unchanged over time • performance was poor and any deterioration is
not acceptable. There is scope for performance reporting to more clearly and
consistently include concise information on reasons for under-performance and
actions to address these, helping drive planned continuous improvement.
Although the council compares itself against its family groups for relevant
LGBF indicators, this material is not part of the PPR summary and is not
published on the council’s website in a timely way."
NEXT: IS THE COUNCIL USING ITS RESOURCES WELL?
No comments:
Post a Comment