BOROUGH OF POOLE

COUNCIL EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

15 JANUARY 2009

The Meeting commenced at 7:00pm and finished at 8:20pm

Present:

Councillor Mrs Haines (Chairman)

Councillor Gregory (Vice-Chairman)

Councillors Allen, Brown, Mrs Dion, Maiden and Rampton

Also attending: Councillor Sorton, Portfolio Holder for Improving Efficiency and Effectiveness

Members of the public present: 0

CEE26.09APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

No apologies for absence were received.

CEE27.09MINUTES

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Meeting held on 6 November 2008, having been previously circulated, be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

CEE28.09DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Allen declared a personal interest in M.CEE31.09 as a Member of Poole and District Chamber of Trade.

Councillor Brown declared a personal interest in M.CEE31.09 as Secretary of Bearwood Community Centre.

Councillor Mrs Dion declared a personal interest in M.CEE31.09 as a Member of Parkstone Sports and Arts Club.

Councillor Gregory declared a personal interest in M.CEE31.09 as a Member of Poole Sports Council.

Councillor Mrs Haines declared a personal interest in M.CEE31.09 as a co-opted Member of the Canford Cliffs Traders Association and also as a Trustee of the Dorset Race Equality Council.

Councillor Rampton declared a personal interest in M.CEE31.09 as his wife was an employee of Poole Forum.

CEE29.09URGENT BUSINESS

There were no items of urgent business.

CEE30.09INVESTORS IN PEOPLE RE-ASSESSMENT 2008

The Head of Human Resources presented a report informing Members of the feedback and outcomes of the IiP (Investors in People) Re-assessment which included a summary of strengths and areas of good practice. In terms of the process for the IiP 2008 Re-assessment, the Assessors had been asked that the Report be restricted to up to four principle focused areas of feedback that could “add value” to the organisation.

The following four focused areas had been identified by the Assessors in the IiP Review as follows:-

  • Communication: generally Communications were good within the Borough, however, there was a need to increase the amount of verbal briefing and communicate better the context on the need for change. Some Managers were “filtering” information. It was necessary to explore how suggestions and ideas from staff could be captured.
  • Leadership and Management: some managers had been left behind with the pace of change over recent years and needed to be brought up to date with management tools, processes and technology. The benefits of training could be cascaded more systematically to benefit others.
  • Learning and Development: more evidence based evaluation by the organisation of the benefits and return on investments of the money spent on training was needed.
  • Business Planning: business planning had been identified as a strength, however, there was a need to develop mechanisms for business plans to be developed, in conjunction with employees using a “bottom-up” approach to improve contributions and understanding.

In consultation with the People Strategy Group and Management Team two areas of activity relating to Change and Transformation and Diversity had been identified for the Assessors to explore. A Team of three external Assessors assessed the organisation over five days and during this time 151 employees (including 4 trade union representatives) the Leader and Cabinet Members had been interviewed. The Meeting was advised of a summary of strengths and areas of good practice and these were detailed in the Report by the Head of Human Resources.

The Assessor responses on Diversity and Change and Transformation would also lead to identification of specific actions for the organisation, following review by the People Strategy Group and Promoting Equality and Respecting Diversity Groups.

The Head of Human Resources stated that at Management Team on 6 January 2009 it was agreed that an IiP Organisation Action Plan should be developed and that this should be reviewed by Members in April 2010. Furthermore, the IiP Review Report and Action Plan arrangements would be reviewed by the People Strategy Group on 13 February 2009.

Consultation had been initialled with Unison to seek its views on the IiP Report and a report would be submitted to the Joint Information Consultative Committee on 28 January 2009. Further consultation and consideration of Equalities implications would take place with the Promoting Equality, Respecting Diversity Group at their next Meeting due to take place later in 2009.

Members felts that there was a need to engage with Members to look in more detail at the Action Plan and it was suggested that a Seminar be held in 2010 and that the Forward Plan for this Overview and Scrutiny Committee be amended to include this process.

The Portfolio Holder stated that this was a positive report and showed a real commitment by staff and that everyone at all levels should be congratulated on what had been achieved.

Members welcomed the Report, especially the actions on Communications and the need to praise staff more.

A Member suggested that, in addition to an article on the Loop that Officers should consider publishing a press release on this success.

RECOMMENDED that

(i)this Overview and Scrutiny Committee notes that the Borough of Poole has achieved an excellent result in that it continues to meet the requirements of the Investors in Poole’s Standard;

(ii)the development areas identified to improve the organisation’s people management practices and processes be noted;

(iii)this Committee review an IiP Organisational Action Plan in April 2010 and that it will be developed as a result of consultation on the feedback and outcomes identified in the IiP Review Report; and

(iv)the Borough of Poole staff at all levels and those Officers involved in the process be congratulated for the success achieved in the Investors in People Re-assessment 2008.

CEE31.09SCRUTINY REVIEW OF THE COUNCIL’S GRANT PROCESS

The Chairman reminded the Meeting that the Council Efficiency and Effectiveness Overview and Scrutiny Committee had established a Scrutiny Review Group to consider whether or not the current process met the Council’s intentions in giving Grants. The Report before Members detailed the findings of the deliberations of the Working Party, which also included Recommendations for improvement of the process.

The Chairman of the Scrutiny Review Group, Councillor Burden, thanked Councillors Gregory and Maiden for their assistance with this process and also MrLee Baron, Legal and Democratic Services, for his support. The Group had been asked to look at the way the Council organised the Grants process and this had proved to be a very interesting exercise.

The Meeting was advised of the main points of the Review as follows:-

(i)in scoping the Review agreement had been reached on a number of people to be interviewed and it was also agreed that a visit to an Exemplar Council would be an advantage;

(ii)the Group looked at the type and size of Grants awarded and rejected;

(iii)seven individuals were interviewed and a visit was made to Brighton and Hove City Council Grants Department;

(iv)it was highlighted that no one had complained about the present grant application process; and

(v)a number expressed concern with the amounts, the justification for the Grant and the follow-up process.

It was emphasised that the Review Group had felt that the following needed more investigation:

(i)Grants to enhance or deliver Strategic Priorities had been suggested but there was no overall oversight by a Senior Manager to ask pertinent questions and to ensure that this happened;

(ii)An Audit Review was carried out in 2002 but the Group could not see that some of the opportunities for improvement highlighted had not been implemented;

(iii)Award of grants making needed to be objective rather than subjective;

(iv)It was virtually impossible to determine how much Council money was given in Grants, including Grants that many would consider were really contracts. There was no central funding “pot”.

(v)How was value for money measured – money spent, efficiency and effectiveness measured?

(vi)Funding for the Lighthouse, the BSO, Poole CVS and Poole CAB required investigation;

(vii)There appeared to be little, if any, expectation that many applicants would seek additional outside funding;

(viii)It appeared that the Council offered very little incentive for applicants to look elsewhere for funding, e.g., matched funding;

(ix)There appeared to be a culture of expectation rather than justification that once given, a grant would continue year on year;

(x)There was need to agree what were contracts to ensure that a department fulfilled its priorities, what were grants and how support for some individual organisations might be split between a contract and a grant.

It was felt that the next stage was for this Overview and Scrutiny Committee to request that an Officer Group be established, under a Strategic Director, to look at ways of implementing the recommendations and report back to this Committee in, say, 6 months.

Members raised the following issues:-

  • It was necessary for a Senior Officer to take responsibility for this process but the Group had some difficulty in determining the exact figure of how much was actually paid out in Grant Funding.
  • The process in Brighton and Hove City Council was impressive, as there was direct monitoring by Staff and follow-up once the Grant had been paid to see if the money had been spent. Some examples in Poole had shown that this was not happening. Follow-up needed to be sharper.
  • When Service Unit Heads had been interviewed they had supported the idea of having a Strategic Director responsible for the process.
  • It was suggested that perhaps small amounts of, say, £500, which were to be given out as Grants, should be delegated to either the Portfolio Holder or Strategic Director without going to Grants Panel.
  • It was also felt that the question of having a central or divided “pot” between Service Units should be considered further.

Members of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and Portfolio Holder thanked the Working Party for its input on this item and for the detailed Report, which had been produced.

RECOMMENDED that

(i)the findings of the Scrutiny Review of the Council’s Grants Process be noted;

(ii)consideration be given to approve in principal, the following suggested areas of improvement. In addition, it is recommended that agreement be sought to establishing an officer Working Group who will then make specific recommendations to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee regarding implementation, prior to submission to Cabinet for approval;

(iii)formation of a dedicated Grants Team to deal with ALL applications regardless of Service Unit;

(iv)the Grants Team to report to a Strategic Director and liaise closely with the Portfolio Holder;

  • All potential applicants are invited once a year to a clarification meeting;
  • At any time a grant applicant can call in to talk face to face with the grant officer;
  • Look at ways to encourage smaller hard to reach groups to apply;
  • Applications should be prioritised on an Annual Basis depending on selected categories/themes based on Council Priorities.

(v)a Central Grants Fund be established which would appear as a separate item on the Medium Term Financial Plan;

(vi)consider whether it is felt appropriate that the Portfolio Holder should sit on the Grants Panel as a “Voting” Member;

(vii)if an outside charitable/not for profit organisation is vital to meeting Service Delivery Objectives year after year they should have a CONTRACT, based on need, VFM and service delivery, and not go to the Grants Panel for approval;

(viii)it is essential that any VAT implications of awarding a contract are explored;

(ix)the Grants Panel should be convened for all Contracts and Grants over a certain value (say £5000);

(x)look in to the possibility of part Contract and part Grant eg BSO, CHAOS, etc;

(xi)a grant should only be considered is the organisation meets all the criteria and can deliver VFM;

(xii)there is need for Justification rather than Expectation;

(xiii)applicants to be visited prior to applications being considered;

(xiv)advise Service Units that Service Level Agreements are not legal with external organisations;

(xv)explore possible advantages in splitting grant-making applications in to, say 2 or 3 (or even 4) tranches rather than all in the spring, and with particular Themes based on the Councils priorities;

(xvi)consider whether there would be any benefit in the Grants Panel including include a member of a charity or a member of PCVS;

(xvii)a standard matrix is produced to assess V.F.M of applications received and how the service offered fits in with the Council’s priorities, to include a risk assessment;

(xviii)P.C.V.S be approached to market applications;

(xix)agree a maximum amount to be allowed as a ‘grant’ (eg. Up to £5000);

(xx)all Grant applicants to be encouraged to look for other sources of funding;

(xxi)seek to improve the Monitoring of how the money is used after a Grant is awarded;

  • Follow-up is critical. With some smaller organisations receipts should be required for money spent;
  • Comprehensive records to be kept centrally for every organisation that has received a grant;
  • For those with 3 year Grants, or a 3 year Contract, it must be made clear that they are not applying for a renewal, they are putting in for a NEW grant or contract each year from a zero base;
  • The way that the Council distributes Grants to become part of the Comprehensive Area Assessment (CAA) with special reference to:

(i) the third sector involvement

(ii) voluntary service involvement

(iii)how the community influence decision making

(xxii)in the future Poole Council needs to be aware of the formation of Community Interest Companies, half way between a Charity and a Company Limited by Guarantee. A CIC can pay Directors and can make a profit and distribute dividends as long as their aims and objectives are to benefit the community; and

(xxiii)the Council should explore CAB funding with special reference to the financial part played by the Legal Services Commission.

CEE32.09FINDINGS FROM THE CUSTOMER FIRST SCRUTINY REVIEW

The Chairman reported that the Council Efficiency and Effectiveness Overview and Scrutiny Committee had established a Scrutiny Review Group to establish whether the implementation of Customer First Phase One had met the Council’s intentions. Councillors Brown, Mrs Dion and Mrs Haines had been appointed to the Review with Councillor Mrs Dion being elected as Chair.

The Chairman of the Review Group stated that it had met on 10 September and 4 November 2008 in order to establish the preferred way forward for scrutinising the topic and also undertook some preliminary investigation to help in its work. The Review Group met with Mr Andrew Flockhart, Strategic Director, and Mr Chris Owens, Head of Customer Services and Communications, in order to share their experiences and also question them on a number of issues. Members also received an updated version of the Performance Report originally presented to Cabinet on 4 September 2007.

Members of the Review Group had also visited the Customer First Centre and sat in with staff taking calls in order to gain first hand experience of how calls made to the Council were dealt with.

The Report from the Review Group set out the various issues, which had been identified together with improvement areas, which had already been identified by Customer Services.

Members of the Working Party had found this to be an interesting Scrutiny Review and the conclusion had been that the implementation of Customer First Phase One had met the Council’s intentions and it was felt that the recommendations contained in the Report by the Review Group would help to improve the system even further and the improvements already highlighted by Customer Services were welcomed.

The Chairman of the Review Group advised the Meeting that for her, there were three main issues, which had been raised in this process, namely:-

  • it was interesting to see a shift in behaviour and how people found and researched information
  • the Group had felt that there would be merit in Customer Services investigating whether or not there was a co-ordinated role for them in relation to the Council’s “out of hours” phone services and that this should be investigated
  • there was a need to raise the profile of the central phone number (01202 633633)

Finally, the Chairman of the Review Group stated that Customer Services were really doing a good job and customer satisfaction levels were high and the recommendations put forward by the Review Group had been based on what was already an excellent service.

The Portfolio Holder stated that enormous savings had already been achieved by doing things on line, including such things as applying for jobs at the Council, etc.

Members of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee felt that the update Report in six months time should include details of staff cost savings and efficiencies which had been achieved for the departments that had migrated to the service and to include evidence on actual improvements.

RECOMMENDED that

(i)the findings of the Customer First Scrutiny Review Group be noted;