Agenda item

Debbie Hogg, Director of Corporate Resources introduced a report, and provided an overview of the revisions to the Performance Management Framework for the Council, and Statement of Implementation, outlining the mechanism by which the Council manage, monitor and govern key activities that contribute to the successful delivery of the Council’s Corporate Plan and its alignment to the ‘Doncaster Delivering Together’ Borough Strategy.

The Performance Management Framework had been developed as a tool so that the Council can monitor and review progress with delivering the priorities in the Corporate Plan and ensure good governance and accountability of its work.  The Framework had been reviewed in 2020 to ensure that it remained ‘fit for purpose’ during the challenging times of the Covid-19 pandemic. The aim of the Framework is to assist Senior Managers, staff and Councillors to understand the key components that contribute to effective performance, as well as providing a corporate approach for the Council.

The Framework brings together the following six key standalone elements of governance under one strategic umbrella and together these documents ensures that the Council have clear guidance and systems in place, and key responsibilities for delivery:-

·         Managing the Council’s Performance

·         Corporate Finance and Performance Reporting Profile

·         Service Planning

·         Risk Management Strategy

·         Data Information Quality Policy

·         Due Regard Statements

Paragraph 10 of the report set out a diagram, illustrating the structure, purpose and documents that made up the Framework and the improvements that have been made to the 6 elements of the framework were outlined in paragraph 11.

Further to clarity being sought regarding the resource management process, it was explained that this sets out the Council’s budget setting process and the budget control environment. The Assistant Director of Finance outlined the Council’s approach in terms of the budget setting process and provided an overview of the different stages of that process.  It was further explained that the resource management process was based on the Council having sufficient resources to deliver against the Council’s core priorities which was the beginning of the budget setting process. Other components of the performance management framework related to the service standards, firstly with regard to the policies that the Council want to pursue at a top level and the resources aligned to this, and the setting and monitoring of arrangements in place after that.

In response to a question with regard to the Council assessing the impact of risks and whether the Council have a criteria to quantify the impacts, make a judgement of those risks and what the impact it would have. It was clarified that as the Council is a multi-faceted organisation, the assessment of risks was subjective and explained the difficulty in assessing risks, as some risks may have financial impact, others may impact on a particular service and could potentially have political implications, which may be a reputational risk for the Council.

The Councils arrangements to deal with the management of risks to deliver the Council’s objectives form part of the budget setting process and each service managers as part of their service plans in terms of managing risk in their areas. Assurance was provided that the Council’s had an established framework in place to manage the risks from a service manager perspective and the risk management process was overseen by the Governance Group. This group comprised of statutory officers who reviewed and monitored the risks put forward by management and determine whether the mitigations that officers had identified in assessing whether the overall risk was reasonable, and whether they were to be escalated or de-escalated, dependent upon the consequential impact of the risk. The same Governance Group arrangements apply with regards the Annual Governance Statement.

In answer to questions regarding whether Officers have received training on ‘Pentana’, the Council’s performance management system and whether there was the likely risk that the software provider may withdraw the support for the package, it was reported that the Pentana system was used extensively by staff and championed by the Policy and Insight team manager. The system was easy to access and navigate and was part of the Council’s corporate technology and had universal licences which had been rolled out to partner organisations in terms of reporting. There was no risk as it was financed by the Council. The Trusts performance management would be incorporated on to the system. Performance standards information was inputted on to the system by managers on a monthly basis and that information was then extracted and included in the quarterly monitoring report. The Assistant Director of Finance provided an overview of the Pentana system and offered to provide a demonstration to Members if required.

The Director of Corporate Resources provided an overview of the Performance Management Framework and how this aligned to the Council’s Borough Strategy, setting out the broad ambitions of the Council and its partners, and the Corporate Plan which details and coordinates the Council’s priorities and key objectives.  She explained the process, controls and mechanisms in place for managing operational and strategic risks and performance of the Council in terms of how it was administered and worked in practice. She highlighted that some risks were critical to the organisation and explained the difficulty in these risks being managed down to lower levels due to the nature of the risks. These would be kept on high alert and be given high priority.  It was recognised that whilst all members of staff had a part to play in the organisation, in terms of the structure, many actions were required above Heads of service level who had a pivotal role in the organisation in delivering services. The role of Assistant Directors were to ensure that the Councils operations were effective in looking forward and moving from strategic to tactical.

A Member whilst welcoming the statement relating to the Risk Appetite, which reflected the Council’s current position, encouraging risk taking for minor to moderate level risks, but controlling more closely those risks that come further up the scale, as set out at page 2 of the Risk Management Strategy, asked how this statement translated into the Risk Matrix and what did that mean. It was reported that Officers would look at the Councils objectives that needed to be delivered and consider the risks and mitigations. It was explained that the matrix did not have the facility to quantify the risks and what that would mean and in practice Officers did not operate in this way.

Following further questions and concerns raised by Members, regarding risks assessed at mid-management or at a lower level that may slip through the net and not be reviewed at a high level, may be overlooked and the potential risk to the authority. It was subsequently agreed the queries and comments raised by Members be communicated to the Policy and Insight Manager and her team and that it would be beneficial for the Committee in the future to have an awareness training session on the practicalities of managing risk within the Council and the arrangements in place to ensure that all risks were managed and reviewed at an appropriate level to help Members understand the process.

RESOLVED that

(1)      the revisions to the Performance Management Framework be noted; and

(2)      the questions and comments raised by Members be communicated to the Policy and Insight Manager and her team and that in futurean awareness training session be held for Members of the Audit Committee on the practicalities of managing risk within the Council, and the arrangements in place to ensure that all risks were managed and reviewed at an appropriate level to help Members understand the process.