Issue - meetings

The minutes of the meeting of the Performance Management Board held on 15th July 2008 were submitted.

Under this item the Chairman referred to the issue of Disabled Facilities Grants (DFG) and how performance could best be measured in a meaningful way. The Head of Strategic Housing clarified the basis of the existing corporate performance indicator and stated that because of its historical nature and the fact that categories of work being undertaken were not shown separately, the indicator was not now accurately reflecting the improved performance of the Authority in undertaking DFG work as a result of additional resources and revised procedures which had been put in place in April 2007.

It was suggested as an alternative that the corporate performance indicator could be amended to provide the total number of weeks from referral to completion broken down into the three categories of works and that this be based upon cases completed since April 2008 which were referred since April 2007. Performance on the 15 cases referred prior to April 2007 would still be recorded but the figures would not form part of the calculation of the corporate indicator.

The Board discussed various aspects of this issue in detail and officers provided information on the DFG process. It was also reported that there was shortly to be a County wide review of the whole process.

RESOLVED that the minutes be approved as a correct record

RECOMMENDED:

(a)       that the corporate performance indicator in respect of DFG work be revised to provide the total number of weeks from referral to completion, with cases broken down into the three categories of works (low, medium and high) and that only cases completed since April 2008 which were referred after April 2007 be included in the figures;

(b)       that the outstanding older cases continue to be recorded but do not form part of the corporate performance indicator;

(c)        that additional information be provided in the commentary to the indicator in relation to levels of customer satisfaction and a timeline for a “typical” application

(d)       that further consideration be given to appropriate benchmarking for the service at a later stage.