Agenda item

Matt Wagner (Chief Analyst) was in attendance for this item

1.    Mr Wagner outlined the report for Quarter 4 (Q4, 2025/26) which covered the period up until the end of March 2026. Of the 39 KPIs reported, 18 were rated Green (the same as the previous quarter) 12 were rated Amber (three fewer than the previous quarter) and 9 were rated Red (three more than the previous quarter). With regards to Direction of Travel, 7 indicators showed a positive trend, 28 were stable or with no clear trend, and 4 showed a negative trend. Mr Wagner addressed the KPIs that were rated RED, the reasoning and the mitigating actions for these were set out in the report.

2.    Further to questions and comments from Members the discussion included the following:

(a)  A question was raised regarding the Customer Services Performance Report, specifically the KPI rated as red, and whether it was appropriate for complaints with formally agreed extensions to continue to be recorded as late. It was suggested that this did not fully reflect performance, particularly where an initial response had been provided within the 20-day target and an extension had subsequently been agreed with the customer. Clarification was sought on whether information could be provided on the number of such cases. In response, it was explained that the KPI was designed to provide a consistent measure of response times across services and therefore recorded all responses completed beyond the target timescale as late, regardless of whether an extension had been agreed. However, it was acknowledged that, particularly in Adult Social Care, some complaints were more complex and required additional time to investigate. It was further noted that agreeing an extension in advance generally provided a better customer experience than failing to communicate delays. Mr Watts (Deputy Chief Executive) confirmed that he would work with Mr Wagner to review the information available and provide a further response to the Cabinet Member. He noted that some of the data requested was not currently collected or reported in that format, but that recent discussions at the Governance and Audit Committee had considered how performance information was captured and presented.

(b)  Clarification was sought on the significant increase in Freedom of Information (FOI) requests and whether this reflected increased scrutiny of the new administration, together with the implications for performance indicators. Mr Watts advised that FOI request volumes had increased significantly beyond the levels originally anticipated for the year. It was noted that, despite this increased demand, performance had improved considerably, with response rates increasing from 70% to 86% - 89%, which represented some of the strongest results achieved in recent years. Substantial work had been undertaken across the organisation to improve the handling of requests, although the volume of enquiries continued to create considerable pressure, as each request required officer time and resources to process. It was noted that, where multiple requests related to similar subjects, efficiencies could sometimes be achieved through quicker responses.

(c)  In response to whether the demand for FoI requests would reduce over time as the administration became more established, it was advised that there was currently no clear evidence of a sustained reduction in request volumes. While occasional month-to-month decreases had been observed, these were often followed by new areas of public interest generating additional requests. It was further suggested that increased public awareness of FOI rights, together with the growing use of artificial intelligence tools to generate more detailed and complex enquiries, may have contributed to demand. Officers noted that many of the highest monthly volumes of FOI requests recorded had occurred within the previous twelve months and agreed to provide further detailed statistics outside the meeting.

(d)  Clarification was sought on whether more information could be proactively published to reduce the number of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, including the possibility of making frequently requested information more readily available. In response, it was reported that a range of measures were being explored to improve access to information and help manage demand. A searchable online disclosure log was already available and work was underway to improve its visibility and accessibility through internet and AI-assisted searches. Additional information had also been published online, with Council and committee papers now appearing more readily in search engine results. It was noted that many FOI requests were highly specific in nature, which limited the scope for a traditional frequently asked questions approach. However, officers agreed to consider this suggestion as part of ongoing work to reduce demand and improve access to information.

(e)  Concerns were expressed By Mr Osborne (Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport) regarding a number of performance indicators rated red, particularly those relating to highways services. It was noted that performance against targets for attendance at emergency highway incidents within two hours and responses to enquiries within 28 days had been affected by exceptional demand and external factors, including severe weather conditions. Context was provided that the volume of highways-related complaints had increased significantly compared with previous years, peaking at around 580 complaints in a single month and remaining consistently above 250 per month, compared with approximately 100 per month previously. It was reported that this had placed considerable pressure on the Customer Feedback team and had impacted performance against the relevant indicators. It was emphasised that, despite these challenges, highway services continued to respond to a wide range of incidents and enquiries within existing resources.

(f)   In response to comments regarding performance indicators rated red, it was noted that KPIs provided a consistent framework for monitoring performance and understanding the factors influencing service delivery. While performance figures provided an important measure of outcomes, it was equally important to consider the wider context behind the data, including service demand, organisational capacity and financial constraints. The quarterly performance report enabled Members to examine both the performance results and the reasons underlying changes in performance, supporting informed discussion and decision-making.

(g)  Further explanation was provided in relation to highways performance, where it was noted that a number of indicators had been affected by periods of short, sharp and severe weather. Such events generated a high volume of emergency incidents within a compressed timeframe, making it more challenging to meet target response times than when demand was spread more evenly across a reporting period. It was also highlighted that the quarterly performance report supplemented the KPI data with narrative explanations and details of actions being taken to improve performance. These included the implementation of the new highways maintenance contract, the impact of which would continue to be monitored through future performance reporting.

(h)  Clarification was sought on the timetable for the introduction of the Government’s national performance framework and how it would align with the Council’s existing performance reporting arrangements. In response, it was explained that the Local Outcomes Framework had been announced in February and a report would be presented to the Policy and Resources Cabinet Committee on 2^nd July, setting out the proposed national metrics, how they aligned with KCC’s current performance measures, and where differences existed. It was noted that KCC reported in greater detail in some areas than the national framework would require. While a national benchmarking tool was expected to be released later in the year to enable comparisons between authorities, no confirmed publication date had yet been provided. Members were advised that the forthcoming report would also highlight any caveats associated with comparing KCC’s performance with that of other authorities.

(i)    Further clarification was sought on whether the introduction of the national framework would require a review of KCC’s existing KPIs. In response, it was agreed that the Council’s performance measures should be reviewed to ensure appropriate alignment with the national framework, while retaining indicators that were of particular relevance to Kent. It was noted that consideration would be given to where KCC already held more meaningful or detailed local measures and to ensuring that performance reporting continued to focus on priority areas requiring the greatest oversight and scrutiny.

(j)    A question was raised as to whether there were measures in place to prevent Freedom of Information (FOI) requests from being used maliciously or in excessive volumes, and whether there were limits on the number of requests an individual could submit. Mr Watts advised that FOI requests were a statutory right and that the Council was required to respond to the overwhelming majority of requests received. While legislation allowed requests to be refused in limited circumstances, such as where they were deemed vexatious, this was subject to strict legal tests and applied only in a very small number of cases. It was noted that the purpose of the legislation was to ensure public access to information and enable scrutiny of public bodies. Although significantly more information was proactively published and readily available online than when the legislation was introduced, the statutory right to request information remained in place and continued to be exercised by residents.

(k)  With regard to the extent of increased Freedom of Information (FOI) requests and volumes compared to the previous administration, it was reported that FOI requests had increased substantially, with some periods showing increases of between 30% and 100% compared with previous levels. It was noted that, as requests were processed without regard to the identity of the requester, it was not possible to definitively attribute the increase to any particular group or cause. However, there had been a clear rise in demand, reflecting increased interest in the Council’s activities. Officers agreed to provide Members with further information illustrating trends in request volumes. It was also noted that similar increases were being experienced by other authorities and organisations, suggesting that a range of factors were contributing to the growth in FOI requests.

(l)    Clarification was sought regarding the Public Health KPI relating to the number of eligible people receiving NHS Health Checks, which had continued to fall below target. Concern was expressed that this could undermine preventative health measures, and further information was requested on the reasons for the decline, including whether it reflected issues around appointment availability, public uptake, or particular demographic trends. It was also suggested that targeted public health messaging may help improve participation. In response, it was noted that the KPI measured the number of eligible people receiving NHS Health Checks rather than the proportion of those eligible who had been offered them. While there had been a 6% decrease in the number of checks delivered during the previous quarter, 92% of eligible individuals had been invited to attend a health check during the last financial year. Officers agreed that further analysis would be useful, including consideration of the eligible population, uptake rates and demographic information, and undertook to liaise with Public Health colleagues and provide additional information outside the meeting.

3.    It was RESOLVED that Cabinet agree to note the Quarter 4 Performance Report and the actions being taken to address areas where performance is not as targeted.