Agenda item

Year End Performance Progress Report

For the Committee to consider the year end performance for the period 1st April 2021 to 31st March 2022.


Pete Sidgwick, Assistant Director for Social Care and Support introduced this item. The Council Plan year end Performance Progress Report for the period 1st April 2021 to 31st March 2022 was considered and approved by Cabinet on 16th June 2022. The report provided an overview of progress of the key elements of the Council Plan, specifically in relation to performance against Key Business Measures (KBMs), strategic risks and workforce management. A separate financial monitoring report for the period covering both the revenue and capital budgets, reserves and delivery of the savings plan was also provided at the same Cabinet meeting.


The Committee received a tailored report with information relevant to its remit. It provided commentary on year end performance for 2021/22. It was noted that future performance reporting would be based on the new Council Plan 2022-2027. The Cabinet had also approved the implementation of a new Performance Management Framework effective from 1st April 2022, which would provide a sharpened focus on performance and trajectory to support delivery of the Council’s new priorities and areas of focus.


Members were reminded of the two high level outcomes within the Council Plan and progress to achieve these outcomes was assessed against 54 KBMs, of which 12 were within the remit of the Committee. One of these had been paused as a result of ongoing data restrictions linked to the Covid-19 pandemic. Of the remaining 11 KBMs, nine were on track and two were not.


A series of tables were included in the report, to pull out key information around achievement of KBMs, a summary of performance from the Power Bi report and an area of note around reporting of domestic abuse incidents. Additional information was provided for those areas which were ‘not on track’, including one which required escalation on the percentage of successful completions as a proportion of all in treatment. A further table showed the forecast performance projection, it being expected that both of the KBMs that currently were not on track, would remain static over the forthcoming period.


The report concluded with the financial commentary for the revenue budget, delivery of the savings plan, the capital programme and risk management.


The following questions and comments were submitted, with responses provided as indicated:


  • Discussion took place about the changes to inspection requirements for care homes. These would now take place only where there was intelligence of significant concerns. Pete Sidgwick explained the changes that the Care Quality Commission (CQC) had introduced to care home inspections during the Covid pandemic. A more targeted approach was expected for the future, focussing on those homes which had significant issues. For the County Council this was about its quality assurance role and a range of other information sources were available. Currently, the aim was to return to a ‘business as usual’ approach.  This also applied to CQC regulation of the reablement service.
  • A question was submitted about underspends of budgets. Generally, these were not carried forward to the subsequent financial year. An exception was the carry forward of the Better Care funding. Another councillor asked if an underspend resulted in a budget cut for the following year. Context was provided on the £280 million of funding for social care each year and the £52 million of income from residents’ contributions. This was a highly complex budget area, with points made on the impact of the Covid pandemic, additional income received from the NHS and the medium-term financial planning approach. This all made it harder to forecast budget expenditure.
  • Discussion about the rising number of reported domestic abuse (DA) incidents. The Chair spoke of the impact of DA on children, families and communities. She asked about the reporting of outcomes and whether cases were being resolved satisfactorily. The data was high but did not tell the complete story and further detail was sought. It was noted that the response to DA was multi-disciplinary.
  • Reference to addiction outcomes with only 16.2% successful completions of all treatments. Further detail was sought, including a breakdown of the data across each area and by addiction type. It was noted this was a cross cutting issue.
  • Likewise on customer service, the satisfaction target of 85% was questioned as this seemed low. More information was sought on why this target level had been agreed and this would be looked into.
  • It was requested that briefing notes be provided to give further background on the rising number of reported domestic abuse incidents, addiction outcomes and the customer satisfaction target.
  • The risks on sustainability of the care market was raised. There was reliance on an independent market to deliver the domiciliary and care home services. This was a risk both nationally and within the county and there were duties for the Council under the Care Act legislation. If the local market could not deliver care services, it would be deemed as a failure for the council to meet its statutory duties.  In Warwickshire, there had been a good care market for a long time, but domiciliary care services had started to struggle since October 2021. Comparatively Warwickshire was better placed than many local authorities. There were continued efforts to support the care market with examples provided, including the fair cost of care. Currently, the Council was meeting its statutory duties. It was agreed that periodic updates be provided by way of briefing note.  
  • Reference to the numbers of people with a learning disability or autism who were in inpatient care. Further detail was sought on this area. It was an indicator which the CCG led on, which was also of importance to the County Council, due to work on transforming care. Comparatively, more people were in inpatient beds than the target level nationally. There was a programme of work across Coventry and Warwickshire to reduce this data. It was about reducing unnecessary admissions and enabling people to return to a community setting as soon as possible. There was significant involvement from NHS England in this work. The performance data was below target, and whilst the trajectory was improving, a lot more work was required as a transforming care partnership. It was requested that more information be provided from the partners involved.
  • A member asked about hidden DA cases and how even more reporting could be secured. Reference to the wide impacts DA had and the services involved in responding to it. The aims of this work, which rested within Public Health amongst other agencies, was to reduce DA whilst increasing the reporting. It was expected that the reporting target would be increased, having been achieved for the previous year. This could be included within the subsequent briefing note. 
  • The requests for briefing notes would be considered further at the next Chair and spokesperson meeting, to ensure they covered the correct areas. The briefing notes would be provided and then consideration could be given to whether follow up reports or presentations were required.




That the Committee comments as set out above on the progress with delivery of the Council Plan 2020-25 for the year end Performance Progress Report 2021-22.

Supporting documents: