to: members of the organisational improvement professor … · 2019. 9. 10. · the work programme...

Professor Steven Broomhead Interim Chief Executive

Town Hall

Sankey Street Warrington WA1 1UH

2 September 2013 Organisational Improvement and Development Policy Committee Tuesday, 10 September 2013 at 6.30pm Council Chamber, Town Hall, Sankey Street, Warrington, WA1 1UH Agenda prepared by Louise Murtagh, Democratic Services Officer – Telephone: (01925) 442111 Fax: (01925) 656278 E-mail: [email protected] A G E N D A Part 1 Items during the consideration of which the meeting is expected to be open to members of the public (including the press) subject to any statutory right of exclusion. Item Page

Number 1.

Apologies for Absence To record any apologies received.

2. Code of Conduct - Declarations of Interest Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2012 Members are reminded of their responsibility to declare any disclosable pecuniary or non-pecuniary interest which they have in any item of business on the agenda no later than when the item is reached.

To: Members of the Organisational Improvement and Development Policy Committee

Councillors: Cllr J Kerr-Brown - Chair Cllr L Murphy - Deputy Chair Cllrs P Kennedy, L Ladbury, D Price, P Walker and T Williams, S Wright, T Wood

mailto:[email protected]

Item

Page Number

3. Minutes To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of 26 June 2013

1

4. Residents’ Survey Briefing note and presentation to the Committee by the Assistant Director Partnerships and Performance

5. Customer Service Strategy Briefing note to the Committee by the Assistant Director Partnerships and Performance

6. Living Wage Report of the Chair of the Organisational Improvement and Development Policy Committee

To Follow

7. Co-operative Councils & Services and Mutual Councils Report of the Chair of the Organisational Improvement and Development Policy Committee

8.

Quarter 1 2013/2014 Performance Report Verbal report of the Performance, Policy and Partnerships Manager

9. Work Programme 2013/2014 Report of the Chairman of the Organisational Improvement and Development Policy Committee

Part 2 Items of a "confidential or other special nature" during which it is likely that the meeting will not be open to the public and press as there would be a disclosure of exempt information as defined in Section 100I of the Local Government Act 1972.

NIL

If you would like this information provided in another language or format, including large print, Braille, audio or British Sign Language, please call

01925 443322 or ask at the reception desk in Contact Warrington, Horsemarket Street, Warrington.

Agenda Item 3

ORGANISATIONAL IMPROVEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT POLICY COMMITTEE

26 June 2013

Present Councillor J Kerr Brown (Chairman)

Councillors P Kennedy, L Murphy, D Price and S Wright

Also Present Kathryn Griffiths - Assistant Director Steve Park - Managing Director Warrington & Co Gareth Hopkins - Assistant Director Human Resources Louise Murtagh – Democratic Services Officer OID 1 Apologies for Absence Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Williams and Wood

OID 2 Declarations of Interest There were no declarations of interest made. OID 3 Minutes Decision, That the minutes of the meeting held on 12 March 2013 be confirmed and signed as a correct record by the Chair OID 4 Council Motion Referral – Customer Contact with Warrington Borough

Council The Managing Director of Warrington and Co. briefed the Committee on a matter referred to them at Council on 4 March 2013. The Motion proposed by Councillor Bob Barr and seconded by Councillor Keith Gleave was as follows - This Council: Welcomes the trend towards greater ‘self-service’ by the public using the Council’s website and notes the statement by the Leader that Warrington is going ‘digital by default’. • Agrees that wherever appropriate, the website or the Contact Centre should be

used to report complaints, which has the benefit of normally providing the complainant with an incident reference number.

• Regrets that there is usually no direct feedback to residents or Councillors when a complaint has been dealt with, or there is a delay in dealing with it.

Agenda Item 3

• Requests that, in the interests of openness, transparency and cost efficiency, website access to an incident log will be made available to Councillors and the public so that the progress on complaints can be directly tracked on the internet.

• Requests that where a complaint relates to a specific location, e.g. a pothole, lamp fault, fly tipping or fly posting, that both the request, number of reports, and the actions taken to deal with the request be accessible through a map based application on the web site similar to, but more functional than, ‘FixMyStreet.com’.

It was resolved that these facilities were to be implemented no later than the end of the calendar year 2013 and that a progress report was provided to the September 2013 Council meeting. In summary it was expected that the provision of a service request reference number and the ability to track the progress of the request online, including the use of map functionality would be available for the following services by March 2014: • Highways (potholes, pavements, drains and gullies), • Street lighting, • Street cleansing (litter, general street cleansing issues, leaves/weeds, dead

animals, dog fouling), • Missed bins, • Public protection (abandoned cars, fly-tipping, noise/smell complaints,

flyposting, graffiti), • Pests, • Complaints/praise, • Misc (bus stop, traveller reports, football pitches etc). Decision - That the Committee considered the plans for the work under the

Council’s Digital Strategy in addressing the points raised in the Full Council Motion and agreed that these should be presented to the Executive Board at their meeting on 15 July 2013.

OID 5 Employee Engagement Survey Action Plan The Committee received briefing note from the Assistant Director of Human Resources in relation to the action plan developed since the running of the Employee Engagement Survey of September 2012. The Strategic Management Team and Directorate Management Teams had developed and agreed an action plan in order to address concerns raised in the survey. The steps listed in the plan included the many ways in which information was communicated to employees; review the way in which PR&Ds and team meetings were held; to improve methods of staff engagement through schemes such as a staff suggestion scheme, involvement in the responses to the survey and continued involvement in the Employee Engagement Forum; and promotion of training courses.

Agenda Item 3

Later in 2013 the Council will be running a ‘You said, We did’ campaign which will highlight the improvements made since the survey. Follow-up sampling surveys will also be undertaken to monitor the changes in employee engagement. Decision - That the Committee noted the briefing paper and requested that the results of the follow-up survey be presented to them at a later date. OID 6 2012/2013 Quarter 4 Performance Report The Assistant Director Partnerships and Performance presented the Committee with the 2012/2013 Quarter 4 Performance Report along with the Executive Board covering report as presented at their meeting of 17 June 2013. The report set out an overview of the Council’s performance for quarter 4 of 2012-13 (January to March 2013) and provided details the on progress made towards the pledges contained in the Corporate Plan for 2012-2015. The Executive Board Report also provided an overview of progress against the council’s corporate health measures relating to finance, staff and customer service. The reports were provided to the Committee for the purpose of understanding the operating context of the Council and to assist in Horizon Scanning. The section of the report of specific interest to the Committee was in relation to Corporate Health and the Strategic Risk Environment. Decision - That the Committee noted the 2012/2013 Quarter 4 Performance Report OID 7 Work Programme 2013/2014 The Committee received a report from the Chairman, Councillor J Kerr-Brown, the purpose of the report was to ask the Committee to consider items for inclusion on the work programme for 2013/2014. Members were provided with a summary of work undertaken during 2012/2013 and this had included consideration of the Digital Strategy and Customer Gateway, Staff Sickness Absence and the Energy and Water Policy. The Committee had established two Working Groups of Co-operatives and Mutuals as a delivery model for Council Services; and Living Wage. Both of these working groups were still meeting and it was hoped that they would be in a position later in the municipal year to report their findings to the Executive Board before presentation to full Council. From the discussions held during the meeting, Members requested that a number of items were added to the Working Programme including the follow up sampling surveys to monitor changes to the Employee Engagement Survey and the Customer Service Strategy. These were in addition to the already listed Residents’ Survey, Sickness Report and Intranet Project; and the existing two Working Groups.

Agenda Item 3

Decision - That the Committee noted the report presented and requested that additional items be added to the Work Programme as discussed.

Chairman ………………………………………

Date ……………………………………………

Prepared by Lake Market ResearchPresented by Partnerships and Performance10th September 2013

Warrington Borough Council Residents Survey – Headline Results

Summary Presentation – Organisational and Improvement Policy Committee

This report complies with ISO:20252 standards and other relevant forms of conduct

2

Background, Objectives & Methodology

PROJECT BACKGROUND• Warrington Borough Council has undertaken a bi-annual perception survey amongst local residents

since 2006.

• The last postal survey was completed in 2008 and a combined online / face to face survey was completed in November 2010.

2012 PROJECT OBJECTIVES:• To undertake a residential satisfaction survey with a minimum of 1,100 randomly selected responses

representative of views across Warrington Borough.

• To provide insights which allows the council to understand community perceptions of local priorities and satisfaction with service delivery.

2012 METHODOLOGY:• The project followed a postal methodology with an online link displayed in the invitation for those

invited to take part.

• 21,000 resident addresses were selected at random by Warrington Borough Council from the Local Land and Property Gazetteer database. To obtain a minimum of 1,100 responses, 5,250 addresses were selected at random within each of the 22 electoral wards according to population estimates for each ward area. This included sending a booster mail-out to wards with lower than expected response rates.

• The survey launched on 29th November 2012 and closed on 28th February 2013.

3

Questionnaire Design & Analysis Approach

QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN• The Local Government Association has set out guidelines to enable councils to undertake resident

surveys using a consistent approach so benchmarking can be conducted. • It outlines a set of questions and the criteria that would need to be met to ensure that these questions

can be benchmarked against other councils. We have adhered to this guidance in full.• The questionnaire also includes additional questions that were used in the 2008 Warrington Place

Survey to capture local trends.

ANALYSIS APPROACH• Borough data has been weighted to Census population statistics in terms of age, gender and ethnicity.

Due to sample sizes, weighting has not been conducted within the individual wards so there may be over / under representation of demographic groups within each ward.

• All findings in this report are based on weighted data. However, all base sizes quoted are unweighted.• Where possible, results comparisons made in this research report have been made against 2008 and

2010 Warrington Borough Council results; both weighted to a Warrington population profile.• Results are presented on an ‘all giving an opinion’ basis and do not include the proportions who left a

question blank or indicated ‘ don’t know’ to maintain consistency with the 2008 and 2010 Warrington Borough Council results.

4

Response Rates & Respondent Profile1,122 completed questionnaires were received and form the basis of this report’s findings. A ward breakdown is shown below:

Returns received Response rateAppleton 69 26%Bewsey & Whitecross 44 13%Birchwood 55 20%Burtonwood & Winwick 40 24%Culcheth, Glazebury & Croft 87 29%Fairfield and Howley 55 15%Grappenhall & Thelwall 70 29%Great Sankey North 34 21%Great Sankey South 57 22%Hatton, Stretton & Walton 20 26%Latchford East 27 14%Latchford West 46 27%Lymm 95 33%Orford 50 16%Penketh & Cuerdley 49 22%Poplars & Hulme 35 11%Poulton North 45 18%Poulton South 38 23%Rixton and Woolston 52 18%Stockton Heath 44 27%Westbrook 37 23%Whittle Hall 57 21%TOTAL 1,106 21%

* We have been unable to attribute a ward to 16 of the questionnaires received as the front page was removed / the postcode question was blank

1,122

Respondent Profile:• Broadly equal proportions of males and females• A range of ages in line with population statistics

(25% aged 18-34, 39% aged 35-54, 37% aged 55+)• Ethnicity in line with population statistics (96%

White, 3% Black and Minority Ethnic Groups)• Representation from disability groups (17%)• A mix of working status profiles (45% employed in

full time job, 12% employed part time, 7% self employed and 25% retired)

• A mix of living status profiles (42% own their property, 36% have a mortgage, 9% rent from the Council / Housing Association and 8% rent from a private landlord)

5

86% are satisfied with their local area as a place to live. This proportion is broadly consistent with the 2008 and 2010 Warrington results.

Fairly satisfied52%

Very satisfied33%

Fairly dissatisfied

5%

Very dissatisfied

2%Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

7%

Base: All those giving an opinion (unweighted – WBC 2012 - 1,117)

Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your local area as a place to live?

SCORES VS. 2008 2008 2010 2012% change 2008 to

2012

Satisfied % (very / fairly) 83% 80% 86% +3%

Dissatisfied % (very / fairly) 8% 6% 7% -1%

Net Satisfied % +75% +74% +79% +4%

6

Just over two thirds are satisfied with the way the Council runs things. This is a significant improvement on the 2008 and 2010 Warrington results.

Fairly satisfied56%

Very satisfied11%

Fairly dissatisfied

11%

Very dissatisfied

5%

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

16%

Base: All those giving an opinion (unweighted – WBC 2012 – 1,111)

Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the way Warrington Borough Council runs things?

SCORES VS. 2008 2008 2010 2012% change 2008 to

2012

Satisfied % (very / fairly) 47% 59% 67% +20%

Dissatisfied % (very / fairly) 22% 17% 17% -5%

Net Satisfied % +25% +42% +51% +26%

SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER AT 95% THAN 2008

7

Just over four in ten (43%) agree that the Council provides value for money. This is a significant improvement on the 2008 results of 32%.

Tend to agree39%

Strongly agree4%

Tend to disagree

20%

Strongly disagree

4%

Neither agree nor disagree

33%


To what extent do you agree or disagree that Warrington Borough Council provides value for money?

SCORES VS. 2008 2008 2012 % change

Agree % (very / fairly) 32% 43% +11%

Disagree % (very / fairly) 31% 24% -7%

Net Agree % +1% +19% +18%


Please note 2010 Warrington Borough Council comparisons are unavailable for this question

8

Six in ten (59%) feel that the Council acts on the concerns of local residents.

A fair amount51%

A great deal7%

Not at all6%

Not very much36%

Base: All those giving an opinion (unweighted – WBC 2012 - 909)

To what extent do you think Warrington Borough Council acts on the concerns of local residents?

It is worth noting that initially 21% of Warrington residents indicated they

‘didn’t know’ to what extent Warrington Borough Council acts on

the concerns of local residents

Please note 2008 and 2010 Warrington Borough Council comparisons are unavailable

for this question

9

Just over half (51%) feel informed by Warrington Borough Council. This is a significant improvement on the 2008 results of 36%.

Fairly well informed

43%

Very well informed

8%

Not well informed at all

11%

Not very well informed

38%


Overall, how well informed do you think Warrington Borough Council keeps residents about the services and benefits it provides?


Informed % (very/quite well) 36% 51% +15%

Not informed % (not very well/not at all) 64% 49% -15%

Net Informed % -28% +2% +30%


Please note that in the 2008 Warrington Resident Survey the question was phrased ‘How well

informed do you feel about local public services?’

10

Amongst those giving an opinion, nine in ten (89%) agree that people from different backgrounds get on well in their local area. This is a significant improvement on the 2008 results of 81%.

Tend to agree70%

Definitely agree19%

Definitely disagree

4%Tend to disagree

7%


To what extent do you agree or disagree that your local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get on well together?


Agree % (very / fairly) 81% 89% +8%

Disagree % (very / fairly) 20% 11% -9%

Net Agree % +61% +77% +16%


Please note 2010 Warrington Borough Council comparisons are unavailable for this question

It is worth noting that before rebasing on ‘all those giving an opinion’, 14% of Warrington residents

indicated they ‘didn’t know’, 10% said people were all from the same ethnic background and 3% said there

were too few people in their local area to answer

11

51%

40%

38%

37%

32%

27%

26%

23%

22%

22%

18%

18%

16%

15%

10%

The level of crime

Clean streets

Education provision (including schools)

Health services

Bus and rail services

Parks and open spaces

Affordable decent housing

Road and pavement repairs

Shopping facilities

Activities for teenagers (ages 13 - 19)

Quality of street lighting

Job prospects

The level of traffic congestion

Access to nature

Refuse & recycling facilities

The top five elements recorded as the most important in making somewhere a good place to live are crime levels, clean streets, education provision, health services and bus & rail services.

What five things do you think are the most important in making somewhere a good place to live?


Other mentions

Sports and leisure facilities 9%

Road safety 9%

Wage levels and local cost of living 8%

Community activities 8%

Cultural facilities 8%

Walking routes & pedestrian facilities 8%

Facilities for children (aged 5 – 12) 7%

Support services for vulnerable people 7%

Cycle routes and networks 7%

People from different backgrounds getting on well together 7%

Child protection services 6%

Facilities for children (under 5) 5%

The level of pollution 4%

The rank order of elements recorded in 2010 are broadly consistent:1) The level of crime, 2) Health Services, 3) Clean streets, 4) Education provision, 5) Parks & open spaces

12

56%

39%

33%

27%

20%

20%

15%

14%

14%

13%

13%

12%

11%

11%

11%




Clean streets

Job prospects


The level of crime

Community activities


Road safety


Health services, e.g. local GP / hospital

Cycle routes and networks

Wage levels and local cost of living

Support services for vulnerable people

The top five elements recorded as in most need of improvement are road & pavement repairs, traffic congestion, activities for teenagers, clean streets and job prospects. The ranking of clean streets and job prospects has increased vs. 2010.

And which of the things below, if any, do you think most need improving?


Other mentions

Facilities for children (aged 5–12) 10%

Shopping facilities 10%

Sports and leisure facilities 9%

Walking routes & pedestrian facilities 8%

Parks and open spaces 8%

Cultural facilities 7%

Refuse & recycling facilities 7%

The level of pollution 6%

Child protection services 6%

Facilities for children (under 5) 5%

Education provision 5%

Access to nature 4%

People from different backgrounds getting on well together 2%

The rank order of elements recorded in 2010 are :1) Road & pavement repairs, 2) Level of traffic congestion, 3) Activities for teenagers, 4) The level of crime, 5) Public transport

13

15%

27%

5%

12%

13%

8%

14%

56%

10%

33%

20%

20%

39%

4%

7%

The level of crime

Clean streets


Health services





Shopping facilities



Job prospects


Access to nature


51%

40%

38%

37%

32%

27%

26%

23%

22%

22%

18%

18%

16%

15%

10%

The level of crime

Clean streets


Health services





Shopping facilities



Job prospects


Access to nature


The priority order given to elements in need of improvement differs to those ranked for making somewhere a good place to live, notably for road & pavement repairs and traffic congestion.

What five things do you think are the most important in making somewhere a good place to live?


And which of the things below, if any, do you think most need improving?

14

Plotting importance against need for improvement reveals that the key issues of focus should be crime levels, clean streets, health services, road & pavement repairs, traffic congestion and activities for teenagers.

IN MOST NEED OF IMPROVEMENT

MO

ST IM

PORT

ANT

IN M

AKIN

G SO

MEW

HERE

A G

OO

D PL

ACE

TO L

IVE


Shopping facilities

Parks & open spaces

Bus & rail services

Health services

Education provision

Job prospects Level of traffic congestion

Road & pavement repairsActivities for teenagers

Clean streets

The level of crime

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

15

No13%

Yes28%

Depends on the issue59%

Just under a third (32%) feel they can influence decisions in their local area and 28% would like to be more involved in decisions. This proportion is broadly consistent with the 2008 results but lower than in 2010 for both.

Tend to agree27%

Definitely agree

5%

Definitely disagree

23%

Tend to disagree

45%

Base: All those giving an opinion (unweighted – WBC 2012 – 935, 1,045)

Do you agree or disagree that you can influence decisions affecting your local area?

SCORES VS. 2008 2008 2010 2012 % change 2008 to 2012

Agree % (very / fairly) 30% 41% 32% +2%

Disagree % (very / fairly) 70% 49% 68% -2%

Net Agree % -40% -8% -36% +4%

Would you like to be more involved in the decisions that affect your local area?

SCORES VS. 2008 2008 2010 2012 % change 2008 to 2012

Yes 28% 42% 28% -

No 9% 5% 13% +4%

Depends on the issue 62% 49% 59% -3%

16

23%

18%

14%

11%

11%

11%

9%

9%

9%

9%

Council Tax / Business rates

Refuse & recycling

Bus passes

Planning & building control

Council Tax Benefit / Housing Benefit

Environmental issues

Blue badges

Street lighting

Electoral registration

Traffic & highways enquiries

Of those who have made contact, common contact methods are by telephone, at council offices and email, and concern council tax / rates and refuse / recycling.

What were you in contact about?

Base: All those giving an opinion (unweighted – WBC 2012 – 1,107, 953)

Please think about the last time you contacted the Council. How were you in contact with the Council?

I have not contacted the

Council12%

In person - home visits

2%

In person - at council offices

17%

By telephone50%

Council's website

9%

By letter5%

By email12%

29% have requested a

service or information via Contact Warrington

* Note - Top 10 reported

Method of contact in 2010:By telephone: 36%, In person at council offices: 11%, By email: 14%, Council’s website: 14%, By letter: 3%, In person – home: 3%, Not contacted the council: 15%

17

Just under two thirds (65%) were satisfied with their experience of contacting the Council. A higher proportion of those dissatisfied last made contact by telephone or email.

Fairly satisfied

41%

Very satisfied23%

Fairly dissatisfied

12%

Very dissatisfied

9%

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

14%

Base: All those giving an opinion (unweighted – WBC 2012 – 941)

Overall, how satisfied are you with your experience of contacting the Council?

Satisfied total =

65%

Dissatisfied total =

21%

SATISFACTION EXPERIENCE

Satisfied % (very / fairly)

Dissatisfied % (very / fairly)

LAST METHOD OF CONTACT

By telephone 57% 65%

In person – at council offices 23% 10%

By email 12% 22%

Council’s website 11% 7%

REASON FOR LAST CONTACT

Bus passes 17% 5%

Traffic & highways enquiries 7% 18%

Complaints 3% 15%

SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER AT 95% THAN THOSE SATISFIED / DISSATISFIEDOverall satisfaction with contacting the council in 2010: 56%

18

45%

8%

57%

8%

33%

9%

2%

3%

5%

Council's website

By telephone

By letter


By email

Social Media


SMS

Do not want to receive information

The common means of currently accessing information about the Council is via the website and by phone. In the future, there is a considerable proportion who would choose to receive information by letter or email.

Base: All those giving an opinion (unweighted – WBC 2012 – 953, 976)

63%

34%

23%

21%

14%

7%

2%

2%

Council's website

By telephone

By letter


By email

Social Media


SMS

Do not want to receive information

Where do you get information about the Council and its services?

In future how would you like to receive information about council services and what is going on?

N/A

19

Correlation Analysis – A brief guide

• In order to further understand the influences of Council satisfaction, correlation analysis was undertaken on the scaled questionnaire inputs and overall satisfaction.

MAINTAIN

LOWER IMPORTANCESTRONG PERFORMANCE

NO CHANGE REQUIRED

LOWER IMPORTANCELOWER PERFORMANCE

STRENGTHS

HIGHER IMPORTANCESTRONG PERFORMANCE

FOCUS AREAS

HIGHER IMPORTANCELOWER PERFOMANCE

IMPACT ON SATISFACTION (DERIVED IMPORTANCE)

PERF

ORM

ANCE

(TO

P 2

AGRE

EMEN

T SC

ORE

)

• A correlation is an estimate of how related two variables are. The scale runs 0 to 1, where 0 indicates a complete lack of a relationship and 1 indicates a perfect relationship between the two variables. Where there is a high link or correlation with an attribute, it can be inferred that the attribute is driving satisfaction.

• Deriving the importance of attributes can show the greater influence of softer issues (things that respondents tend to not rationalise or admit to in a ‘stated answer’).

• It highlights areas of higher & lower than average performance to highlight improvement areas.

AVERAGE AGREEMENT

SCORE ACROSS ALL INPUTS

AVERAGE CORRELATION SCORE ACROSS

ALL INPUTS

20

At an overall level, correlation analysis tells us that perceptions of value for money, acting on resident concerns and keeping residents informed should be treated as key focus areas for the future in terms of influencing Council satisfaction.

* Note - Average ‘top 2 agreement’ across all statements – 69%

MAINTAIN

NO CHANGE REQUIRED FOCUS AREAS

STRENGTHS


PERF

ORM

ANCE

(TO

P 2

AGRE

EMEN

T SC

ORE

)

Different backgrounds getting on

Satisfied with Refuse CollectionFeel safe during the day

Satisfaction with area as a place to live

Council acts on resident concerns

Informed - Council benefits & services

Pull together to improve local area

People using/dealing drugs

Groups hanging around streets

Household waste recycling centres

Belonging to local area

Doorstep recycling

Drunk/rowdy people

Vandalism/graffiti/damage

Noisy neighbours/ loud parties

Parks & open spaces

Local bus services Street lighting repair times

Local transport information

Sports/leisure facilities

Can influence decisions

Council provides value for money

Rubbish/litter lying aroundFeel safe after dark

Keeping public land clear of litter/refuse

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

21

93%85% 84%

73% 69%

South East West &Town Centre

Central IMD 10%most

deprived

Satisfaction with their local area as a place to live and perceptions of safety are strongest in the South and East areas and lowest in Central and the top 10% most deprived areas.

Base: All those giving an opinion (unweighted – WBC 2012, South – c371, East – 279, West & Town Centre – 308, Central – 143, IMD 10% most deprived - 53)

% Satisfied with area as a place to live

73%64% 68%

46% 49%


Central IMD 10%most

deprived

% Not worried about becoming a victim of crime

96% 92% 91%80%

73%


Central IMD 10%most

deprived

% Feel safe outside during the day

72% 67% 62%

45% 42%


Central IMD 10%most

deprived

% Feel safe after dark

SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER AT 95% THAN OTHER AREAS

22

93% 88% 85%

68%75%

Wealthyachievers

Comfortablyoff

Urbanprosperity

Moderatemeans

Hardpressed

A consistent pattern is observed when looking at perceptions by Acorn category groupings. Satisfaction with their local area as a place to live and perceptions of safety are lowest amongst Moderate means and Hard pressed residents.

Base: All those giving an opinion (unweighted – WBC 2012, Wealthy achievers – 363, Comfortably off – 441, Urban prosperity – 31, Moderate means – 104, Hard pressed - 139)

% Satisfied with area as a place to live

72% 71% 67%

47% 48%

Wealthyachievers

Comfortablyoff

Urbanprosperity

Moderatemeans

Hardpressed

% Not worried about becoming a victim of crime

94% 94% 94%84% 80%

Wealthyachievers

Comfortablyoff

Urbanprosperity

Moderatemeans

Hardpressed

% Feel safe outside during the day

72%66% 67%

47% 45%

Wealthyachievers

Comfortablyoff

Urbanprosperity

Moderatemeans

Hardpressed

% Feel safe after dark

SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER AT 95% THAN OTHER CATEGORIES

23

69% 71% 65% 66% 64%


Central IMD 10%most

deprived

Satisfaction, perceptions of value for money, accountability and feeling informed are broadly consistent across the geographical areas with no significant differences.

Base: All those giving an opinion (unweighted – WBC 2012, South – c369, East – 267, West & Town Centre – 307, Central – 118, IMD 10% most deprived - 53)

% Satisfied with way Warrington Borough Council runs things

55%64%

57% 61%72%


Central IMD 10%most

deprived

% Agree Warrington Borough Council acts on concerns of local residents

43% 44% 43% 44% 46%


Central IMD 10%most

deprived

% Agree Warrington Borough Council provides value for money

47%54% 54% 52%

68%


Central IMD 10%most

deprived

% Feel informed about Warrington Borough Council benefits & services

SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER AT 95% THAN OTHER AREAS

24

72%65%

50%60%

40%35% 34% 33% 34% 34%

23% 19%13%

26%37%

Wealthyachievers

Comfortablyoff

Urbanprosperity

Moderatemeans

Hardpressed

Wealthyachievers

Comfortablyoff

Urbanprosperity

Moderatemeans

Hardpressed

Wealthyachievers

Comfortablyoff

Urbanprosperity

Moderatemeans

Hardpressed

11%20% 19%

30%37%

16% 15% 12%5%

12%6% 8%

2%10%

5%

Wealthyachievers

Comfortablyoff

Urbanprosperity

Moderatemeans

Hardpressed

Wealthyachievers

Comfortablyoff

Urbanprosperity

Moderatemeans

Hardpressed

Wealthyachievers

Comfortablyoff

Urbanprosperity

Moderatemeans

Hardpressed

A consistent pattern is observed when looking at behaviour by Acorn category with a higher proportion of Moderate means and Hard pressed residents using the council offices are a common access point.

Council’s website By telephone By letter

In person – at council offices By email Social Media



SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER / LOWER AT 95% THAN OTHER CATEGORIES

25

Online communication (via website/email) is the preferred choice for Wealthy Achievers/Comfortably off residents, whereas the more traditional methods (by letter/ telephone) are preferred by Moderate means and Hard pressed residents.In future how would you like to receive information about council services and what is going on?



SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER / LOWER AT 95% THAN OTHER CATEGORIES


56%45%

54%

41%

22%

6% 8%2% 6%

15%

52% 54%

35%

69% 72%

Wealthyachievers

Comfortablyoff

Urbanprosperity

Moderatemeans

Hardpressed

Wealthyachievers

Comfortablyoff

Urbanprosperity

Moderatemeans

Hardpressed

Wealthyachievers

Comfortablyoff

Urbanprosperity

Moderatemeans

Hardpressed

5% 8% 9% 10% 11%

39% 36%45%

29%

15%6%

12%4% 6% 9%

Wealthyachievers

Comfortablyoff

Urbanprosperity

Moderatemeans

Hardpressed

Wealthyachievers

Comfortablyoff

Urbanprosperity

Moderatemeans

Hardpressed

Wealthyachievers

Comfortablyoff

Urbanprosperity

Moderatemeans

Hardpressed

26

78% 77%70%

55%

41%

15%26% 26%

34%39%

44%50%

21% 19% 20%26% 26%

31%

18-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ 18-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ 18-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+

There are stark contrasts in how residents access information by age. The Council’s website is particularly popular amongst residents aged 18-54. Over 55 year olds opt for more traditional forms of contact, e.g. telephone, letter and at council offices.

Base: All those giving an opinion (unweighted – WBC 2012, 18-34 (102), 35-44 (160), 45-54 (207), 55-64 (227), 65-74 (225), 75+ (153)

SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER AT 95% THAN OTHER AGE GROUPS


22% 18% 15%23% 25% 25%

11% 15% 14% 17%12% 12%

4% 8% 9% 9% 8% 4%

18-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ 18-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ 18-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+



27

In future how would you like to receive information about council services and what is going on?



58%51%

46% 46%

30%

13%2%

7% 5%11% 10%

23%

59%

44%54%

60%67% 66%

18-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ 18-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ 18-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+

7% 5% 6% 10% 10% 14%

46%35%

28%35%

22%12% 12% 11% 7% 8% 8% 6%

18-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ 18-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ 18-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+

Base: All those giving an opinion (unweighted – WBC 2012, 18-34 (101), 35-44 (160), 45-54 (208), 55-64 (232), 65-74 (224), 75+ (155)

SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER AT 95% THAN OTHER AGE GROUPS

As perhaps expected, online communication (via website/email) is a popular choice amongst residents aged 18-54. A significant proportion of residents across all age also indicate a preference for receiving information about Council services by letter.

28

Research Summary (1)

LOCAL AREA• Satisfaction with the local areas is high and is broadly consistent with the 2008 and 2010

Warrington Borough Council results. • Perceptions of people from different backgrounds getting on well together are also

encouraging and have significantly improved from 2008 levels. • The elements ranked most highly in terms of need of improvement differ to those ranked

for making somewhere a good place to live. The following elements are potential key issues of focus in that they are both in need of improvement and are also considered important: road & pavement repairs, traffic congestion, activities for teenagers, clean streets, crime levels and health services.

LOCAL PUBLIC SERVICES• Significant improvements are observed vs. 2008 / 2010 levels in terms of satisfaction with

the way the Council runs things.• As is currently common in resident surveys, views are mixed in terms of the Council

providing value for money. Whilst the proportion agreeing represents a significant improvement on 2008 levels and now stands at 43%, perceptions represent a future development opportunity.

• Six in ten (59%) feel that the Council acts on the concerns of local residents.

29

Research Summary (2)

• Just over half (51%) feel informed by Warrington Borough Council. This is a significant improvement on the 2008 results of 36%.

• What is particularly encouraging is that there is a significantly higher proportion of respondents living within the closing the gap areas (10% most deprived nationally) who feel informed about benefits and services provided by the council (68%) compared to the rest of the borough (47% to 54% across the neighbourhood areas). This perhaps reflects focussed activity within these areas over recent years.

• Common means of currently accessing information about the council is via the website (63% in 2012) or by telephone (34% in 2012).

• Looking to the future, there is a considerable proportion who would choose to receive information by letter (57%). With the recent removal of the printed Wire publication and move to online access, we would recommend a sense check on how residents not using the internet are informed of Council services & developments (particularly in light of the correlation analysis conducted).

• At an overall level, correlation analysis tells us that perceptions of value for money, acting on resident concerns and keeping residents informed should be treated as key focus areas for the future in terms of influencing Council satisfaction.

• The analysis also reveals a number of strengths in which the council is performing well, which include satisfaction with the local area as a place to live, feeling safe during the day, satisfaction with refuse collection, as well as agreement that the local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get on well together

30

Research Summary (2) ‘Influences on Council Satisfaction’In order to further understand the influences of Council satisfaction, correlation analysis was undertaken on the scaled questionnaire inputs (e.g. value for money) and overall satisfaction. This analysis looks at the pattern of each respondent’s answers to see if there are any underlying factors influencing how satisfied respondents are with the Council.

This analysis reveals a number of strengths but also some areas that could be noted as potential future focus areas for performing above average in terms of agreement: Providing value for money

Acting on resident concerns

Feeling informed of Council benefits & services

Keeping public land clear of litter & refuse

Feeling safe after dark

People pulling together to improve their local area

Agreement with being able to influence decisions affecting the local area

MAINTAIN

NO CHANGE REQUIRED FOCUS AREAS

STRENGTHS

Different backgrounds getting on

Satisfied with Refuse CollectionFeel safe during the day

Satisfaction with area as a place to live

Council acts on resident concerns

Informed - Council benefits & services

Pull together to improve local area

People using/dealing drugs

Groups hanging around streets

Household waste recycling centres

Belonging to local area

Doorstep recycling

Drunk/rowdy people

Vandalism/graffiti/damage

Noisy neighbours/ loud parties

Parks & open spaces

Local bus services Street lighting repair times

Local transport information

Sports/leisure facilities

Can influence decisions

Council provides value for money

Rubbish/litter lying aroundFeel safe after dark

Keeping public land clear of litter/refuse

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8


PERF

ORM

ANCE

(TO

P 2

AGRE

EMEN

T SC

ORE

)

Benchmarking

• The results of the survey can be compared to other local authorities who have followed the Local Government Association ‘Are you being served’ guidance

• The guidance outlines a set of resident satisfaction, crime and cohesion questions that councils can choose to use in their local surveys and which are broadly comparable

• Local Government Inform (LG Inform) - the free data service from the Local Government Association - will provide the mechanism by which councils can undertake these comparisons

• Results available 30 September 2013

Communications Strategy

A communication strategy is being developed with the Corporate Communications Team. This will include:

• August 2013 (completed): Communicate results with services to show where they are doing well and where they can improve via a series of directorate themed workshops the aim of which is to formulate a response plan

• 3 September 2013: Presentation to Neighbourhoods Strategic Programmes Board (Tier 3)

• 10 September 2013: Presentation to Organisational Improvement and Development Policy Committee

• 1 October 2013: Joint presentation to the Local Strategic Partnership/Health and Wellbeing Board of the Warrington Resident Survey and the Warrington Health and Wellbeing Survey

October to November 2013:• Communicate results with residents designed to reflect the positive results, show how

the council will work to resolve the issues they have raised and to further improve on their satisfaction levels

• Press releases and article in the Wire Magazine based upon the council’s overall communication strategy as well as the key drivers of satisfaction

Agenda Item 4

© Warrington Borough Council

WARRINGTON BOROUGH COUNCIL ORGANISATIONAL IMPROVEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT POLICY COMMITTEE– 10th September 2013 Report of the: ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, PARTNERSHIPS AND

PERFORMANCE Report Author: COLIN WOJTOWYCZ Contact Details:

01925 442025 [email protected]

Ward Members:

All

TITLE OF REPORT: WARRINGTON RESIDENTS SURVEY – HEADLINE RESULTS 1. PURPOSE

1.1. This report outlines the headline results of the 2012 Warrington Residents Survey, the key messages and summarises the next steps, in terms of dissemination.

1.2. The report is provided to help inform the committees future work programm activity and raise awareness of the views of our local residents and customers.

2. CONFIDENTIAL OR EXEMPT

2.2. This report is not confidential or exempt. 3. INTRODUCTION

3.1. Project background Warrington Borough Council has undertaken a bi-annual perception survey amongst local residents since 2006. The last postal survey was completed in 2008 and a combined online / face to face survey was completed in November 2010. 3.2. Project objectives To undertake a residential satisfaction survey with a minimum of 1,100 randomly

selected responses representative of views across Warrington Borough. To provide insights, which allow the council to understand community

perceptions of local priorities and satisfaction with service delivery. 3.3. Project methodology Please see Appendix 1 for more information on the methodology, questionnaire

design, analysis approach and respondent profile.

Agenda Item 4


4. RESEARCH RESULTS SUMMARY

4.1. Local Area:

There has been overall positive outcomes given the context the council and the public sector is operating within recent years. Of particular interest are the following results:

Satisfaction with the local areas is high (86% very / fairly satisfied). This proportion is broadly consistent with the 2008 and 2010 Warrington results.

Amongst those giving an opinion, nine in ten (89%) agree that people from different backgrounds get on well in their local area. This is a significant improvement on the 2008 results of 81%.

The elements ranked most highly in terms of need of improvement for Warrington differs to those ranked for making somewhere a good place to live. The following elements are potential key issues of focus in that they are both in need of improvement and are also considered important:

o road and pavement repairs (56% think needs improvement versus 23% states as important in making somewhere a good place to live)

o levels of traffic congestion (39% improvement versus 16% importance) o activities for teenagers (ages 13-19) (33% improvement versus 22%

importance) o clean streets (27% improvement versus 40% importance) o level of crime (15% improvement versus 51% importance) o health services (12% improvement versus 37% importance)

4.2. Local Public Services: Siginificant improvements are also observed vs. 2008 / 2010 levels in terms of

satisfaction with the way the Council runs things (67% very / fairly satisfied in 2012 versus 47% in 2008 and 59% in 2010).

As is currently common in resident surveys, views are mixed in terms of the council providing value for money (43% very / fairly agree in 2012). The proportion agreeing represents a significant improvement on 2008 levels (32% very / fairly agree).

Six in ten (59%) feel that the Council acts on the concerns of local residents.

Significant improvements are observed vs. 2008 levels in terms of respondents feeling informed by the Council on key benefits and services (51% very / quite informed in 2012 versus 36% in 2008).

What is particularly encouraging is that there is a significantly higher proportion of respondents living within the closing the gap areas (10% most deprived nationally) who feel informed about benefits and services provided by the council (68%) compared to the rest of the borough (47% to 54% across the neighbourhood areas). This perhaps reflects focussed activity within these areas over recent years.

Agenda Item 4


Common means of currently accessing information about the council is via the website (63% in 2012) or by telephone (34% in 2012).

Looking to the future, there is a considerable proportion who would choose to receive information by letter (57%). With the recent removal of the printed Wire publication and move to online access, we would recommend a sense check on how residents not using the internet are informed of Council services & developments (particularly in light of the correlation analysis conducted).

4.3. Influences on Council Satisfaction:

In order to further understand the influences of Council satisfaction, correlation analysis was undertaken on the scaled questionnaire inputs (e.g. value for money) and overall satisfaction. This analysis looks at the pattern of each respondent’s answers to see if there are any underlying factors influencing how satisfied respondents are with the council.

This analysis reveals a number of strengths, in which the council is performing well in terms of being satisfied with the council, which include:

o Satisfaction with the local area as a place to live o Feeling safe during the day o Satisfaction with Refuse Collection o Agreement that local area is a place where people from different

backgrounds get on well together

It also identifies some potential future focus areas to ensure we are performing above average in terms of agreement with being satisfied with the council, which include:

o Providing value for money o Acting on resident concerns o Feeling informed of council benefits & services o Keeping public land clear of litter & refuse o Feeling safe after dark o People pulling together to improve their local area o Agreement with being able to influence decisions affecting the local

area

5. BENCHMARKING

The results of the survey can be compared to other local authorities who have followed the Local Government Association ‘Are you being served’ guidance

The guidance outlines a set of resident satisfaction, crime and cohesion questions that councils can choose to use in their local surveys and which are broadly comparable

Local Government Inform (LG Inform) - the free data service from the Local Government Association - will provide the mechanism by which councils can undertake these comparisons with results available later in the summer

Results will be available to benchmark from 30 September 2013

Agenda Item 4


6. COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY A communication strategy is being developed with the Corporate Communications Team. This will include:

August 2013 (completed): Communicate results with services to show where they are doing well and where

they can improve via a series of directorate themed workshops the aim of which is to formulate a response plan

3 September 2013: Presentation to Neighbourhoods Strategic Programmes Board (Tier 3)

10 September 2013: Presentation to Organisational Improvement and Development Policy

Committee

1 October 2013: Joint presentation to the Local Strategic Partnership/Health and Wellbeing

Board of the Warrington Resident Survey and the Warrington Health and Wellbeing Survey

October to November 2013: Communicate results with residents designed to reflect the positive results, show

how the council will work to resolve the issues they have raised and to further improve on their satisfaction levels

Press releases and article in the Wire Magazine based upon the council’s overall communication strategy as well as the key drivers of satisfaction

7. RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1. To consider how the results of the survey and in particular the strengths and priority

issues identified in 4.1 and 4.3 will impact upon Council policy development.

8. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

8.1. The perception of providing value for money is a key driver of satisfaction with the Council.

9. EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY / EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT

9.1. Borough data has been weighted to Census population statistics in terms of age, gender and ethnicity. Due to sample sizes, weighting has not been conducted within the individual wards so there may be over / under representation of demographic groups within each ward.

9.2. Please see Respondent Profile in Appendix 1.

Agenda Item 4


10. RISK ASSESSMENT 10.1. There is a risk that the results are not used to inform future policy development.

This can be mitigated through the Policy Development Framework. 11. BACKGROUND PAPERS Contact for Background Papers:

Name E-mail Telephone Colin Wojtowycz [email protected] 01925 442025


Agenda Item 4


APPENDIX 1: ANALYSIS APPROACH & RESPONDENT PROFILE

Methodology: The project followed a postal methodology with an online link displayed in the

invitation for those invited to take part. 21,000 resident addresses were selected at random by Warrington Borough

Council from the Local Land and Property Gazetteer database. To obtain a minimum of 1,100 responses, 5,250 addresses were selected at random within each of the 22 electoral wards according to population estimates for each ward area. This included sending a booster mail-out to wards with lower than expected response rates.

The survey launched on 29th November 2012 and closed on 28th February

2013.

Questionnaire Design: The Local Government Association has set out guidelines to enable councils to

undertake resident surveys using a consistent approach so benchmarking can be conducted.

It outlines a set of questions and the criteria that would need to be met to ensure that these questions can be benchmarked against other councils. We have adhered to this guidance in full.

The questionnaire also includes additional questions that were used in the 2008 Warrington Place Survey to capture local trends.

Analysis Approach: Borough data has been weighted to Census population statistics in terms of age,

gender and ethnicity. Due to sample sizes, weighting has not been conducted within the individual wards so there may be over / under representation of demographic groups within each ward.

All findings in this report are based on weighted data. However, all base sizes quoted are unweighted.

Where possible, results comparisons made in this research report have been made against: 1. 2008 Warrington Borough Council results and 2010 Warrington Borough

Council results both weighted to a Warrington population profile 2. The national results obtained by the Local Government Association in

January 2013 (although this is based upon a small number of authorities and results may change)

Results are presented on an ‘all giving an opinion’ basis and do not include the proportions who left a question blank or indicated ‘ don’t know’ to maintain consistency with the 2008 Warrington results and the national results obtained by the Local Government Association in January 2013.

Agenda Item 4


Respondent Profile: Broadly equal proportions of males and females A range of ages in line with population statistics (25% aged 18-34, 39% aged 35-

54, 37% aged 55+) Ethnicity in line with population statistics (96% White, 3% Black and Minority

Ethnic Groups) Representation from disability groups (17%) A mix of working status profiles (45% employed in full time job, 12% employed

part time, 7% self employed and 25% retired) A mix of living status profiles (42% own their property, 36% have a mortgage, 9%

rent from the Council / Housing Association and 8% rent from a private landlord)

Agenda Item 5


WARRINGTON BOROUGH COUNCIL ORGANISATIONAL IMPROVEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT POLICY COMMITTEE– 10th September 2013 Report of the: ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, PARTNERSHIPS AND

PERFORMANCE Report Author: Kathryn Griffiths Contact Details:

01925 442797 [email protected]

Ward Members:

All

TITLE OF REPORT: BREIFING ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CUSTOMER SERVICE

STRATEGY 1. PURPOSE 1.1. This reports provides the committee with some background to the development of a

customer service strategy; and it outlines initial plans for a project to produce the strategy.

1.2. At a previous meeting of the committee members expressed an interest in working

with officers to develop this strategy. The report asks the committee to consider how members plan to support this activity.

2. BACKGROUND 2.1 The Council’s Corporate Strategy 2012-15 prioritises customer focus and

demonstrates the organisation’s commitment to delivering and commissioning services that are informed by our customers' needs

2.2 The Council’s senior management teams organisational improvement and

development priorities for 2013/14 build on this and commit to the delivery of a revised Customer Strategy, better handling of complaints and a new programme of employee learning and development.

2.3 For an organisation to be efficient, effective, excellent and equitable the customer

must be at the heart of everything it does. Understanding how customers feel about the services they receive is vital as is an awareness of customers’ expectations. The way in which customers access services is changing though the use of digital media and the Council must plan these changes with the aim of improving the customer’s experience.

2.4 In response to the above a project to support the development of a customer service

strategy is commencing in September 2013.

Agenda Item 5


3. CUSTOMER SERVICE STRATEGY PROJECT Project Obbectives 3.1 The project aims to develop a customer strategy which outlines our commitment to

customer service and to outline the standards by which customers can measure our performance. The development of such a strategy will further support a consistent approach to customers across the organisation. This will be supported by the development of an effective feedback and monitoring process. Alongside this, the project aims to examine the culture of the organisation in terms of how we serve our customers and to develop and encourage ownership of their enquiries

Proposed Project Activity

3.2 Phase 1

3.2.1 We will introduce a Customer Champion for each Directorate who will establish a link between the project and the Directorate Management Teams and, in the longer term, represent customer interests and monitor performance against the standards established in the Strategy. The Customer champions will help us to understand what standards already exist within Directorates and our performance against them.

3.2.2 We will review the existing Customer Feedback Policy to ensure that the original aim that we record and learn from both complaints and compliments is met and to improve and strengthen the policy where necessary. The learning from the existing feedback process will inform and contribute to the development of the Customer Strategy.

3.2.3 The recently completed resident’s survey provides significant data about our residents and their view of their relationship with the council. A large proportion of Council staff are also Warrington residents and we will enhance the learning from the resident’s survey by talking to staff and seeking their experience of dealing with the Council as residents.

3.3 Phase 2

3.3.1 We will research and report on examples of good practice both in the public and private sectors and will take account of examples of excellence proposed by the Customer Service Institute and the Customer Service Excellence Standards. We will also consider the EFQM (European Foundation for Quality Management) excellence model. This will support the development of a Corporate Customer Service Framework.

3.3.2 We will review the use of the existing CRM (Customer Relationship Management) system across the organisation with a view to developing customer relationship management that supports effective case management and allows us to develop broader intelligence and make better use of the data that we collect about our customers experiences.

3.3.3 We will explore the journey experienced by some of our customers, particularly those with complex needs to establish how joined up our service feels to them and how effectively we meet their needs.

Agenda Item 5


3.3.4 We will work with the Employment, Learning and Skills Team to review existing Customer Service Training and to develop a programme that supports culture change across the organisation. It is anticipated that this will be either an online toolkit or tools for managers to use to filter learning through team meetings.

3.4 Phase 3

3.4.1 We will take account of our research and existing data and develop and promote our Customer Strategy and publish the standards that customers can expect us to deliver against.

3.4.2 We will establish a monitoring and Quality Assurance Framework to sample the quality of responses to complaints to ensure that standards are set.

3.4.3 We will encourage culture change across the organisation by using the Directorate Customer champions to promote the strategy and standards within their Directorate and to monitor our performance.

4. CONFIDENTIAL OR EXEMPT 4.1 This report is not confidential or exempt. 5. TIMESCALES 5.1 The initial project is planned to run from September 2013 to April 2014. 6. RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 To consider the information provided and agree on the committees approach in

supporting the development of the customer service strategy.

7. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 7.1 There are no financial implications at this stage. 8. EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY / EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT 8.1 An impact assessment will be completed as the strategy is developed. 9. RISK ASSESSMENT 9.1 No risks are identified at this stage. 10. BACKGROUND PAPERS

Quarterly performance reports Corporate Strategy 2013-15

Contact for Background Papers:

Name E-mail Telephone Kathryn Griffiths [email protected] 01925 442797


Agenda Item 6

WARRINGTON BOROUGH COUNCIL EXECUTIVE BOARD – 14 October 2013 Report of Executive Board Member:

TBC

Director : Katherine Fairclough, Deputy Chief Executive Report Author: Gareth Hopkins, Assistant Director, Human Resources. Contact Details: Email Address:

[email protected]

Telephone: 01925 443932

Key Decision No. N/A Ward Members:

All

TITLE OF REPORT: ORGANISATIONAL IMPROVEMENT & DEVELOPMENT POLICY COMMITTEE REPORT – ‘LIVING WAGE’ 1. PURPOSE 1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Organisational Improvement and

Development Policy Committee to update Executive Board on its findings from undertaking a review of the implications of introducing the ‘Living Wage’ to Warrington Borough Council.

2. CONFIDENTIAL OR EXEMPT 2.1 This report is neither confidential nor exempt. 3. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 3.1 The ‘Living Wage’ is an independently set, annually updated figure that the

charitable Living Wage Foundation believes means that ‘workers earn enough to provide their families with the essentials of life”. The rate of the Living Wage as at the date of the report is £7.45 (in London it is £8.55).

3.2 Executive Board agreed at their 21 January 2013 meeting to support the referral

of the issue of the ‘Living Wage’ to the Organisational Development and Improvement Policy Committee for further investigation, and requested that a report to be presented back to the Executive Board by 30 October 2013.

3.3 At their meeting on 28 January 2013, the Organisational Development and

Improvement Policy Committee resolved to form a working group to look at the Living Wage issue, in order that a report could be back to the Committee to meet the requirement from Executive Board as detailed at 3.2.

Agenda Item 6

4. LIVING WAGE WORKING GROUP 4.1 The Living Wage Working Group, made up of Councillors from the main policy

committee, began its work on 11 February with regular meetings being held, and with support provided by the Assistant Director – HR and Democratic Services.

4.2 The areas the Working Group considered were as follows: * Information provided by the Living Wage Foundation, UNISON and GMB as to

the benefits of introducing the Living Wage * The Council’s pay and grading structure and the profile of the workforce currently paid less than the Living Wage

* Details on the methods by which the Living Wage could be introduced at Warrington Borough Council

* The national and regional position with regard to other councils implementing the Living Wage

* Potential impacts on services if their staffing costs were to increase * The legal position regarding paying staff the same salary as others despite being graded differently under the council’s Job Evaluation scheme

* The effect on other benefits received by staff if their pay were to be increased to the rate of the Living Wage

* How Warrington may engage its partners on the Living Wage debate 4.3 Trade Union representatives were invited to provide their views to the Working

Group, as was a Service Manager from Building Cleaning and Caretaker Consultancy Services, who have a large number of staff currently paid less than the Living Wage.

4.4 At the working group’s final meeting, it was agreed by all present that they were

not in a position to recommend the implementation of the Living Wage at Warrington Borough council due to the following specific concerns: * The potential for the increased costs to services to result in a reduced requirement for our traded services, or other providers gaining contracts currently held by us * The sustainability of introducing an uncontrollable element to the pay structure * Fundamental and costly changes to the council’s agreed pay and grading structure or alternatively, the use of a legally untested ‘Living Wage’ supplement, being required in order to implement the Living Wage

4.5 At the Organisation Improvement and Development Policy Committee’s meeting

on 10 September, the Committee agreed the recommendations at 10.1. 5. NEXT STEPS 5.1 Whilst the Policy Committee has not recommended the implementation of the

Living Wage at this point, it believes that the issue remains of national

Agenda Item 6

importance, and in particular that the Council must continue to review its position in light of any further developments, which includes the recent formation of a Living Wage Commission.

5.2 The Living Wage Commission is an independent, 12 month inquiry into the future of the Living Wage. Bringing together leading figures from business, trade unions and civil society, Commissioners will research and assess evidence on the value of the Living Wage, barriers to its implementation and how these could be overcome. The chair of the commissioners is the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, and its findings are expected next year.

6 FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS 6.1 It is estimated that the implementation of the Living Wage by way of a

supplement to Spinal Column Points 1-5 would cost approximately £400,000 per annum.

7. RISK ASSESSMENT 7.1 The implementation of a living wage by way of a supplement to Spinal Column

Points 1-5 carries the potential for equal pay claims to be made, with the Living Wage not yet well established to have been tested through the employment law system. In addition, commitment to pay the Living Wage on an ongoing basis introduces a further non-controllable element to our salary costs.

8 EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY / EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT 8.1 Paragraph 9.1 provides details of the equal pay concerns 9 CONSULTATION 9.1 A number of stakeholders were asked to either provide information or their views on

the Living Wage by the Working Group. These included: • UNISON (Local branch) on behalf of the council’s workforce • GMB (Local branch) on behalf of the council’s workforce • Building Cleaning & Caretaker Consultancy Services • North West Employers Organisation • Other Local Authorities

10 RECOMMENDATION 10.1 Executive Board is asked to accept the following recommendations:

a. Warrington Borough Council does not implement the Living Wage at this point due to the concerns detailed at 4.4

b. That Executive Board recognise the difficulties in organisations seeking to implement the Living Wage locally and independently rather than via the legally enforceable minimum wage

Agenda Item 6

c. That a further review of the council and borough’s position is undertaken in liaison with the council’s partners once the outcome of the 12 month national Living Wage Commission is made public

d. That any future review of the council’s current pay and grading structure takes account of the Living Wage with regards any proposals that affect Spinal Column Points 1-5 (which are currently less than the Living Wage)

11 APPENDICES Appendix 1 – Executive Board 21 January paper – The Living Wage Contacts for Background Papers:

Name E-mail Telephone Gareth Hopkins [email protected] 443932 14. Clearance Details (Record of clearance of report – see Note 13): Name Consulted Date

Approved Yes No Relevant Executive Board Member TBC SMT Relevant Strategic Director (Chief Executive)

Katherine Fairclough

Solicitor to the Council Tim Date S151 Officer Lynton Green


Agenda Item 6

WARRINGTON BOROUGH COUNCIL ORGANISATIONAL IMPROVEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE – 10 September 2013 Report of the: Chair of the Organisational Improvement and

Development Policy Committee Report Author: Gareth Hopkins, Assistant Director, Human Resources. Contact Details: Email Address:

[email protected]

Telephone: 01925 443932

Key Decision No. N/A Ward Members:

All

TITLE OF REPORT: ORGANISATIONAL IMPROVEMENT & DEVELOPMENT POLICY COMMITTEE REPORT – ‘LIVING WAGE’ 1. PURPOSE 1.1 To request the Organisational Improvement and Development Policy

Committee to agree a report to Executive Board on the issue of the Living Wage.

2. CONFIDENTIAL OR EXEMPT 2.1 This report is neither confidential nor exempt. 3. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 3.1 Executive Board agreed at their 21 January 2013 meeting to support the referral

of the issue of the ‘Living Wage’ to the Organisational Development and Improvement Policy Committee for further investigation, and requested that a report to be presented back to the Executive Board by 30 October 2013.

4 FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 Contained in the draft Executive Board report. 5. RISK ASSESSMENT 5.1 Contained in the draft Executive Board report.

Agenda Item 6

6 EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY / EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT 6.1 Contained in the draft Executive Board report. 7 CONSULTATION 7.1 Contained in the draft Executive Board report. 8 RECOMMENDATION 8.1 The Organisational Improvement & Development Policy Committee is

recommended to consider the attached draft report on the Living Wage and agree to present this to the Executive Board at their meeting on 14 October 2013.

9 APPENDICES Appendix 1 – Draft Executive Board paper – The Living Wage Contacts for Background Papers:

Name E-mail Telephone Gareth Hopkins [email protected] 443932


1

Agenda Item 7

WARRINGTON BOROUGH COUNCIL ORGANISATIONAL IMPROVEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT POLICY COMMITTEE– 10th September 2013 Report of the: Chair of the Organisational Improvement and

Development Policy Committee (Councillor John Kerr- Brown)

Report Author: Jan Boon; Performance, Policy and Partnerships Manager

Contact Details:

Email Address: [email protected]

Telephone: 01925 44 3866

Ward Members:

All

TITLE OF REPORT: EXECUTIVE BOARD REPORT ON CO-OPERATIVE

COUNCILS AND MUTUALS AS A DELIVERY MODEL FOR COUNCIL SERVICES

1. PURPOSE 1.1 At its inaugural meeting the Organisational Improvement and Development

Committee held a workshop to identify potential areas for consideration. They decided to examine the concept of Co-operative and Mutual models of delivery to assess whether these models could be applicable and beneficial to Warrington Borough Council.

1.2 The Organisational Improvement and Development Committee set up a

working group to examine these models and assess the potential for use by Warrington Borough Council.

1.3 The attached Executive Board Report summarises the working group’s

investigations and conclusions and proposes three recommendations for the Organisational Improvement and Development Committee to make to the Executive Board.

2. CONFIDENTIAL OR EXEMPT 2.1 This report is not confidential or exempt. 3. TIMESCALES 3.1 It is proposed that the attached Report be presented to the Executive Board

on 14th October 2013.

2

Agenda Item 7

4. RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 It is recommended that;

The Organisational Improvement and Development Committee should endorse the attached report and put forward the three recommendations within it to the Executive Board.

5. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 5.1 There are no financial implications at this stage. 6. EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY / EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT 6.1 An Equality Impact Assessment is not required. 7. RISK ASSESSMENT 7.1 No risks are identified at this stage. 8. BACKGROUND PAPERS

Co-operatives and Mutuals Briefing note January 2013 Co-operatives and Mutuals Briefing note March 2013 Council Service Provision 2013 Local Authority Delivery Models


Name E-mail Telephone Jan Boon [email protected] 01925 443866

3

Agenda Item 7

WARRINGTON BOROUGH COUNCIL EXECUTIVE BOARD – 14th October 2013 Report of the: Chair of the Organisational Improvement and

Development Policy Committee (Councillor John Kerr- Brown)

Report Author: Jan Boon; Performance, Policy and Partnerships Manager

Contact Details:

Email Address: [email protected]

Telephone: 01925 44 3866

Ward Members:

All

TITLE OF REPORT: CO-OPERATIVE COUNCILS AND MUTUALS AS A

DELIVERY MODEL FOR COUNCIL SERVICES 1. PURPOSE 1.1 At its inaugural meeting the Organisational Improvement and Development

Committee held a workshop to identify potential areas for consideration. They decided to examine the concept of Co-operative and Mutual models of delivery to assess whether these models could be applicable and beneficial to Warrington Borough Council.

1.2 The Organisational Improvement and Development Committee set up a

working group to examine these models and assess the potential for use by Warrington Borough Council.

1.3 This report summarises the working group’s investigations and conclusions

and puts forward the recommendations of the Organisational Improvement and Development Committee in relation to the use of these models.

2. CONFIDENTIAL OR EXEMPT 2.1 This report is not confidential or exempt.

4

Agenda Item 7

3. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

3.1 The working party comprised of Councillors Dan Price, Peter Walker, Jan Davidson, John Kerr-Brown and Laurence Murphy.

3.2 The working group considered the following:

• The concept of co-operatives and mutuals as customer and/or employee led organisations.

• The Co-operative Council’s Network and the benefits of membership for this council.

• Examples of co-operatives and mutuals delivering services in the public sector.

• The spectrum of potential models for council delivery. • Research on the benefits of co-operative and mutual models in

practice. • An analysis of the current delivery models used by Warrington

Council. • The options for future delivery of Adult Social Care Provider

Services which include consideration of the development of a mutual model of delivery.

4. DEFINITION OF CO-OPERATIVES AND MUTUALS

4.1 Mutuals and Co-operatives can broadly be defined as employee, user or citizen led organisations.

4.2 Co-operatives are autonomous organisations consisting of people who have united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social and/or cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly owned and democratically controlled enterprise.

4.3 Mutuals are organisations which are owned by and run for the benefit of their current and future members.

4.4 Both of these differ from Social Enterprises in that a large proportion of the business should be owned by either employees, service users and/or the local community.

5

Agenda Item 7

5. POLICY DRIVERS

5.1 The model is not a new one as co-operatives and mutuals have operated within the private sector for some time. The most well known of these is the John Lewis Partnership which runs the John Lewis department stores and Waitrose Supermarkets where all employees are partners in the business. It has also operated in a public sector context for some years, most notably in housing provision as tenant management co-operatives.

5.2 The Big Society agenda and the Localism Act 2012 promote the concept of decentralising power and funding to the level of the local people as well as promoting the concept of local services delivered as mutuals.

5.3 The Coalition Government expressed commitment to “support the creation and expansion of mutuals, co-operatives, charities and social enterprises, and enable these groups to have much greater involvement in the running of public services”.

5.4 A key part of this is the Cabinet Office’s Mutual Pathfinder Programme, launched in August 2010. The government gave government employees a ‘right to provide’ to enable them to form employee-owned mutuals. The pathfinder programme led to 12 pilot schemes which was extended to a further nine projects in 2011.

5.5 The programme has put the following support in place: A Cabinet Office Mutual Information Service

(http://mutuals.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/) is an information resource for local authority commissioners, staff and suppliers.

A Mutual Support Programme, which is a £10 million fund to provide professional support and advice (HR, Legal, Business Planning, etc). No money passes to the organisation, rather the awards are used to provide the professional support, procured by the Cabinet Office. (Warrington Council has been awarded some of this support to assist in developing a business case for a mutual model of delivery for Adult Day Care Services).

To address an apparent lack of commissioning skills in local authorities, a Commissioning Academy was launched in January as a practical development programme for commissioning organisations in the public sector.

6. CO-OPERATIVE COUNCILS NETWORK 6.1 The concept of co-operatives and mutuals is promoted by the Co-operative

organisation and their use as a model of public sector delivery is promoted by the Co-operative Councils Network. The network acts as a forum where councils and councillors supporting this approach can share best practice and ideas. The group currently has 25 Local Authority Members - both Labour councils and Labour opposition group members, who have signed up to the ideals of the co-operative network which focuses on collective action, co-operation, empowerment and enterprise in order to help transform local

http://mutuals.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/

6

Agenda Item 7

services and local communities. Members of this network aspire to values based on self-help, self-responsibility, democracy, equality, equity and solidarity.

6.2 The co-operative council model is not just about commissioning individual

services from mutual or co-operative organisations but is seen as a constructive way for a council to engage and involve all stakeholders (service users, citizens, employees, etc) in actively reviewing and shaping service delivery. This is achieved through engagement forums which enable participants to get involved in decision making, co-production and supporting communities to help themselves.

6.3 The Co-operative Council enshrines a partnership with the community giving

local people the opportunity to be involved and have their voice heard in the design and delivery of public services. Public services are planned by staff, users and the community and delivered through a variety of organisations that will improve outcomes, empower citizens and users, and strengthen civic society.

6.4 Co-operative councils often seek to harness the model to develop local

employment. By engaging in civic society, residents are able to develop new skills and enhance their employment opportunities.

6.5 The working group were informed by the Co-operative Councils Network that

it currently lacks funding for its activities and that Oldham Council was considering taking the lead using contributions from network members.

7. OTHER MODELS OF COUNCIL SERVICE DELIVERY

The working group examined alternative models of service delivery to understand the range of options available to councils:

Ensuring Council Core services are provided in house and the council is a major local

employer. • Core capacity is retained within the council. • Collaborative relationships are built with partner agencies. • Services can be joined-up across the council to meet the needs of local

communities.

Commissioning Council • Services are contracted to private and voluntary sector service

providers. • The Council monitors delivery through contractual agreements. • Market democracy and individual choice determines who provides

services. • Emphasis is on individual user outcomes. • Services are fragmented and can lack overall strategic co-ordination.

7

Agenda Item 7

Entrepreneurial provision • Councils can extend their current service provision by selling their

services to other parts of the public sector (including other councils) or to private entities.

• Additional income which is generated and profits or surpluses made through such trading activity can be redirected or invested to meet other local authority objectives and purposes.

Shared Services/consortia • Working across borough boundaries and joining up departments and

services enables local authorities to secure efficiencies of operations in the fashion long deployed by private sector.

• Flexible ways of working with neighbouring councils (who too face similar pressures) in order to secure efficiencies, eliminate waste and duplication, and generate economies of scale

• Joint procurement can lower transaction costs and reduce overheads. • Good practice, skills and know-how can be shared.

Partnerships with other agencies • Councils enter into partnerships with other agencies such as health to

provide services within an integrated framework. • Management sits with one of the partner agencies and resources and/or

budgets are pooled. • Services work collaboratively and flexibly and there are reduced

management and overhead costs. • Benefits from the user perspective are more joined-up, person centred

services.

8. EXAMPLES OF CO-OPERATIVES AND MUTUALS

8.1 The working group looked at examples of the work of Co-operative Councils and co-operative and mutual models of delivery:

• Liverpool invested £1m in credit unions to tackle legal loan sharking (£700,000 of the investment) and to introduce Liverpool’s first mutual micro financing initiative for businesses (the remaining £300,000 of the investment). A consortium of seven of Liverpool’s credit unions covering the whole city has come together so that all residents can potentially benefit from this.

• Co-operative schools are an alternative to academies, which allows pupils, teachers, parents, local people and employers to become members of the trust, forming a community-based mutual organisation.

• Oldham Community Leisure is a community benefit society responsible for the management of fifteen sports and leisure centres.

• Pearls of Rochdale is a play, education and child development service. In April 2010 they transitioned away from Rochdale council to become a workers’ co-operative.

8

Agenda Item 7

• London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham is leading a pathfinder which is part of a tri-borough business model with Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster. This delivers education support services to schools and will sell some services back to the Local Authority.

• Swindon Intermediate Care Centre - Commissioned by NHS Swindon and Swindon Borough Council is one of the first Mutual Pathfinders.

• Lambeth Council have involved its residents in working alongside them

to design and create a completely new website for the council in a major co-operative project.

• Through neighbourhood working, within Warrington two food co-

operatives have been set up, with support from the council and Golden Gates Housing. This is linked to Change4Life activity promoting healthy eating on a budget.

• Four Parish Councils in Telford & Wrekin have each contributed

£25,000 to fund new environmental teams, covering tasks such as litter picking, weeding, planting, etc., The council contributed £12,500 to each of these teams. The partnership contract will run for five years.

• A team of social workers formerly employed by Lambeth council,

launched as a social enterprise in July 2012. The team, called TOPAZ or Team Offering People Advice and Support, work alongside health services, voluntary organisations and faith groups to give residents advice and support. They work with people who have been assessed by the council but who don’t meet their eligibility criteria. Their aim is prevention for those not eligible for council services.

• Amsterdam District West Council’s 22 Neighbourhood Boards

developed their own agenda with an annual neighbourhood budget of around 50,000 Euros to be spent on neighbourhood priorities. The neighbourhood areas can select their own community led initiatives, which are decided through a neighbourhood level voting system.

• These Community led initiatives have included a training programme for

young men to combat disastrous crime rates and provide community safety guards. This involved local youths being trained and offered work experience in teams working alongside the police. This project grew to be the largest service provider – offering youth work, girl empowerment training and care for young disabled people and mother and father groups.

• Oldham’s vision for a Co-operative Council seeks to fundamentally

reshape the council’s relationship with its communities by helping them to become more resilient and to assume more self-responsibility for council services through co-production – a move towards treating people as “active participants” rather than “passive recipients”, bolstered by improved procurement and commissioning. It also aims to reduce demand for services over the long-term, by encouraging behaviour

9

Agenda Item 7

change and self-help initiatives, such as through a ‘Love Where You Live’ campaign to inculcate positive behavioural choices, civic pride and greater levels of community activism.

9. EFFECTIVENESS OF CO-OPERATIVE AND MUTUAL MODELS

9.1 Advocates of co-operatives and mutuals claim that the structure and design of these models has inherent advantages over other forms of delivery including financial benefits, employee commitment and responsiveness to customers.

9.2 The Association of Public Service Excellence (APSE) reviewed the role of co-operatives and mutuals in local public service provision in August 2011. They found that there was little objective evidence available for them to be able to evaluate how successful these types of organisations are in delivering outcomes.

9.3 They did however find some critical conditions for success including the length of contract awarded and ensuring that the contract ‘locks in’ particularly valued ways of working. They also viewed buy-in from staff and citizens as a critical success factor and highlighted the importance of access to expert advice and support.

9.4 The Co-operative Society published a policy document ‘Towards Co-operative Councils: empowering people to change their lives’. This provides statements from MPs and council officers from across Europe advocating the need for co-operatives and gives some examples of how the model is being used. Throughout, it confirms the key role of local authority in facilitating the shift and empowering communities.

9.5 The House of Commons: Communities and Local Government Commons Departmental Select Committee report on mutual and co-operative approaches to delivering local services found that there is currently limited evidence of concrete benefits for mutuals and co-operatives in local government and describes this as a “chicken and egg” situation which calls for more support to develop effective models.

10. ANALYSIS OF MODELS IN USE IN WARRINGTON COUNCIL 10.1 An analysis of how Warrington Council delivers its service shows that there

are a range of different models being used. These include;

Community Interest Companies e.g. Livewire, Culture Warrington, Golden Gates

Over 90% of adults social care domiciliary services are provided by private companies

Shared services with other local authorities e.g. Adoption, Youth Offending, Trading Standards

Partnerships with local agencies e.g. Intermediate Care, Community Equipment

10

Agenda Item 7

10.2 Options for delivery of Adult Social Care Provider services are currently being considered and these include the option for a staff mutual which is being developed by the service itself – with support from the governments Mutual Support Programme.

11. CONCLUSIONS 11.1 The research the group conducted has highlighted that a range of different

delivery models are used by Warrington Council. This includes direct delivery of core services, commissioned services, shared services, traded services, and Community Interest Companies (Livewire and Culture Warrington).

11.2 It is clear from this research that the delivery of services through mutuals and co-operatives and understanding of the benefits this brings is still in its infancy – there are no long term outcomes as yet with regard to public services. At present it is about exploring new and innovative models of service delivery.

11.3 The working group concludes that may be merit in the use of mutuals and co-operatives for delivering services – but this should not be at the expense of value for money, efficiency and effectiveness and it considers that a full options appraisal should be conducted where the council is considering moving services outside the remit of the council.

11.4 The working group does not recommend at this stage that Warrington Council should join the Co-operative Councils network. The group felt that the Neighbourhood model that is in place in Warrington could potentially lend itself well to the concept of a Co-operative Council for the future. It could provide a local interface where residents could be actively involved in decision making, planning and overseeing local services. The working group was not able to examine whether this was the case at present as neighbourhood services has recently been reviewed and is currently in an implementation phase. The group would wish to review this at a future date.

12. RECOMMENDATIONS 12.1 It is recommended that;

1. The Organisational Improvement and Development Committee should look at

how the neighbourhood model engages with residents at a suitable future date.

2. Co-operative and mutual models of operation should be considered in future

options appraisals of services. 3. Where these options are being considered the Organisational Improvement

and Development Committee should be involved from an early stage.

11

Agenda Item 7

13. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no financial implications at this stage. 14. EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY / EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT An Equality Impact Assessment is not required at this stage 15. RISK ASSESSMENT No risks are identified at this stage. 16. BACKGROUND PAPERS

Co-operatives and Mutuals Briefing note January 2013 Co-operatives and Mutuals Briefing note March 2013 Council Service Provision 2013 Local Authority Delivery Models


Name E-mail Telephone Jan Boon [email protected] 01925 443866

Agenda Item

WARRINGTON BOROUGH COUNCIL ORGANISATIONAL IMPROVEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT POLICY COMMITTEE 10 September 2013 Report of the: Chairman, Cllr J Kerr-Brown,

Organisational Improvement and Development Policy Committee

Report Author: Louise Murtagh, Democratic Services Officer Contact Details: Email Address:

[email protected] Telephone: 01925 442111

Ward Members:

All Wards

TITLE OF REPORT: Work Programme Organisational Improvement and

Development Policy Committee 2013/2014 1. PURPOSE 1.1 The purpose of the report is to inform the Committee on items currently

listed on the Work Programme and to consider further areas of the work for inclusion.

1.2 CONFIDENTIAL OR EXEMPT 2.1 Not applicable 3. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 3.1 The Work Programme for 2013/2014 was initiated by the Committee at

its meeting on 26 June 2013 and a copy of this is attached at Appendix A.

3.2 The Terms of Reference for the Committee is attached at Appendix B

to help focus Members’ attention. 3.3 Members are asked to consider and suggest further items for inclusion

on the Work Programme as appropriate. 4. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 When carrying out activity Members are reminded of the general

financial climate and the Council’s commitment within the ‘One Team’ framework, “to be well run and efficient.”

5. RISK ASSESSMENT


Agenda Item

5.1 The following potential risks have been identified: recommendations not accepted by Executive Board, nor not acted upon; partners and colleagues unwilling to engage; insufficient capacity within the Council to support activity following service redesign; selection of inappropriate topics, which have minimal impact or are undeliverable; capacity within the work programme to deal with matters arising.

5.2 Risks are regularly monitored and managed by the Policy Committee

Chairs Forum, with the advice and support of relevant officers. Links with Partnerships and Performance are being strengthened and the Work Programme is routinely monitored.

6. EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY/EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT 6.1 Democratic and Member Services has an up to date Equality Impact

Assessment for its policies and services. 6.2 There are no specific equalities issues in relation to the content of this

report. However, section one of the Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) asks for information on the directorate, department and assessment lead responsible for the policy / service / function that is being assessed and whether it is a ‘new’ or ‘existing’ development. Also requested is background information on the policy/service/function. Headline questions for each of the items presented to the Organisational Improvement and Development Policy Committee should include:

1. What are the main aims and objectives of the policy/service/function?

2. Who are the main stakeholders? 3. What outcomes are delivered as a result? 4. How is the service promoted/explained to those it might affect

directly or indirectly? 5. Is there evidence of any complaints on grounds of

discrimination? If yes, how were these resolved?

Answers to these questions need to be clearly stated and documented at the outset of an E.I.A.

7. CONSULTATION 7.1 Officers are consulting with Assistant Directors and a report will be

presented to the Committee at their next meeting consisting of a consolidated list of Council policies currently in development or due for review.

8. RECOMMENDATION 8.1 To consider items to be included in the Work Programme for 2013/2014 10. BACKGROUND PAPERS

Agenda Item

Contacts for Background Papers: None

Name E-mail Telephone Louise Murtagh [email protected] 01925 442111


Agenda Item 7 Work Programme

(Appendix A)

Progress Legend Completed Progressing to target Early progress / just started Not started (lower priority) Complete – Immediate review programmed

Issues (exception)

NOTE: The Equality Act 2010 includes a number of protected characteristics which are as follows: - Age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage & civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion & belief, sex and sexual orientation. For further information please refer to http://www.equalityhumanrights.com..

10 September 2013

(Report Deadline Monday 30 August 2013) Issue Methodology, Details, Purpose

Equality Impact Group (see note) Lead Officer(s)

Progress Further Action(s)

Council Motion referral – Living Wage

Initially considered at the meeting of 18 January 2013 and working group set up. Working Group has since met 11 February 2013, 1 May 2013 and 23 July 2013. Officers and Trade Union representatives called upon to provide evidence. On target to be presented to Executive Board 14 October 2013

Gareth Hopkins

Co-operative Councils and Mutual Arrangements for Service Delivery

Initially considered at the meeting of 18 January 2013 and working group set up. Working Group has since met 5 February 2013, 10 April 2013, 13 May 2013 and 15 July 2013. Officers called upon to provide evidence. Update to be provided to the Committee 26 June 2013 on work to date. On target to be presented to Executive Board 14 October 2013

Jan Boon

Staff Engagement Survey

To review the effectiveness of the action plan following the Employee Engagement Survey via the Follow up Sampling Surveys

Gareth Hopkins

Residents Survey

To consider the results of the residents survey and inform the PC of the views of residents. This topic will also help to set the scene for the work on the customer service strategy

K Griffiths & Colin Wojtowycz

Workforce Health & Wellbeing

Staff absence figures remain an area of concern. Officers are developing an action plan to help to build staff resilience It is suggested that the PC help to develop and finalise the action plan

Gareth Hopkins

Customer Service Strategy

An officer project group will be set up to develop a customer service strategy. The PC will be invited to allocate member/s to work with officers. There will also be scope for the PC to gather evidence on customer experience from a member perspective

K Griffiths & Amanda Juggins

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/


(Appendix A)


Issues (exception)


Items for future meetings 2013-2014 Issue Rationale Anticipated

Timescale Integration & Commissioning

Pilot work to test out awareness raising initiatives. There could also be the opportunities for the PC to help track progress on the integration agenda.

12 November 2013

Energy Efficiency To ensure that the policy on energy efficiency is been implemented and that the council is developing a holistic approach to energy efficiency.

12 November 2013

Intranet Project ?? Referred to at the last committee meeting 21 January 2014 Digital Strategy To ensure that the priorities and actions identified in the digital strategy are been implemented 26 March 2014

Work already undertaken by the Committee in 2013/2014 Issue Rationale Council Motion referral – customer contact with the Council

Initially considered at the meeting of 4 March 2013 where Members requested further information to be provided. Report to be considered at the meeting. Recommendations to be sent to Executive Board 15 July 2013 and then to Council 5 September 2013

Summary of Work undertaken by the Organisational Improvement and Development Policy Committee during 2012/2013

Report to appraise the work undertaken by the Committee at the first two meetings since inception in January 2013. As there were a number of new Committee members for 2013/2014 it was considered essential that they were provided with summary of the work undertaken by the Committee during 2012/2013.

2012/2013 Quarter 4 Performance

To provide information to the Committee about how the Council’s performance management framework, including advice and support in the preparation and reporting of corporate strategy and business plans



(Appendix A)


Issues (exception)


Report

Provide an overall corporate assurance framework to support the use of good quality data and information

Support development of Warrington’s Closing the Gap framework, including regular performance reporting

Provide a business intelligence advice and support function in areas such as benchmarking, value for money, external assessments and data analysis

Schedule of Future Meeting Dates Meeting Dates Where possible, draft

documentation to be provided no later than (agenda pre-meetings)

Final documentation to be provided no later than

2013 26 June 2013 N/A 17 June 2013 10 September 2013 12 August 2013 30 August 2013 12 November 2013 14 October 2013 1 November 2013

2014 21 January 2014 16 December 2014 10 January 2014

26 March 2014 17 February 2014 17 March 2014


Agenda Item 7 Work Programme – Monitoring of Recommendations & Actions

(Appendix A)


Issues (exception)


Committee Recommendations & Actions 2013/2014 Minute No & Date

Recommendation/Action Referred to & Date

Response/Comments Progress

26 June 2013 OID 4

That the Committee considered the plans for the work under the Council’s Digital Strategy in addressing the points raised in the Full Council Motion and agreed that these should be presented to the Executive Board at their meeting on 15 July 2013.

Executive Board 15 July 2013

Working Group Final Report Recommendations 2012/2013 Title of Working Group Recommendation Referred

to & Date Response/Comments Progress

Review Date

Not applicable at this time


to: members of the organisational improvement professor … · 2019. 9. 10. · the work programme...

Documents