New Performance Framework
Additional documents:
Minutes:
(Presentation by Ms D Exall, Head of Performance and Planning, and Ms T Gailey, Information Performance & Policy Manager)
(Mr L Christie, Mrs S V Hohler and Mr W V Newman were present for this item)
(1) Ms Exall and Ms Gailey introduced a series of slides which set out the current performance framework and how this would change with the introduction of new national indicators and how these related to the Local Area Agreement, Transforming Social Care, etc. The slides used in this presentation are attached to these Minutes as Appendix 1. Arising from a presentation, and in responding to questions put by Members, Ms Exall, Ms Gailey, Mr Mills and Mr Leidecker highlighted the following points:-
(a) With the Kent Local Agreement 2, it was good that there were few social care indicators (two out of 36; NI125 – achieving independence for older people through rehabilitation/Intermediate Care, and NI141 – the number of vulnerable people achieving independent living) as the criteria for selecting indicators were performance improvement and partnership working. The small number of indicators was a reflection that social care services were performing well, and the two chosen could both only be implemented in partnership with others.
(b) Ms Gailey explained that she served on the national group, and through this group Kent had expressed concern that not enough indicators were outcome focussed. Professional staff administering the service did not necessarily agree with the content of some of the indicators.
(c) With the reduction in the number of indicators from the old system, there was nothing on residential and nursing care, and CIPFA had pointed out that there were no indicators on funding and finance.
(d) Kent hoped to set up its own indicators by asking clients to comment on how well it had helped them address their three most important concerns.
(e) Kent was currently in a transition period with the new system being phased in and the old system phased out.
(f) Members expressed concern that working in partnership might lay KCC open to risk, as partners’ performance standards might compromise our own. Officers agreed it was important to identify and be aware of strengths and weaknesses in partnership, but reassured Members that Kent had a good partnership tradition, particularly with the NHS. Mr Mills reminded Members that the public, quite rightly, expected public services to be seamless, and it made sense for them to be assessed together. The NHS was fully signed up to the new indicators.
(g) It was important to tailor services to serve the broadest population possible and offer maximum choice.
(h) Although the overall number of indicators had been reduced, it was the content and focus of them which were important, and the wording of them was still being developed.
(i) Information that Kent was required to collect under the new system was the information that it would want to collect anyway, to support and develop its own best practice. Indicators applied consistently nationwide gave ... view the full minutes text for item 61