KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA PARTNERSHIP

Tuesday 19 January, 2010

Local Area Agreement - Annual Refresh

This paper outlines the Local Area Agreement (LAA) Annual Refresh process, to be completed in March 2010, and asks the KCP to approve the recommended revised target position.This paper also presents the 6-monthly LAA performance reports, showing progress towards all designated targets for the Partnership’s consideration.
For approval and consideration

1.Introduction

1.1KCP members will recall that the LAA is refreshed annually to take account of any issues of concern or relevant updates. This also provides an opportunity for Local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs) to propose re-negotiation of targets as appropriate, where there is a strong case. At the last Steering Group meeting, the KCP agreed to propose to Government the re-negotiation of the target measured by National Indicator (NI) 152 – number of people claiming out of work benefits – as a result of the impact that the recession has had on this indicator.

1.2The refresh applies only to the suit of targets in the LAA negotiated with Government that are also subject to Performance Reward Grant (PRG) if met, known as ‘designated’ targets. A performance report showing progress towards designated targets in LAA2 , the final remaining target in LAA1 is attached at Annex B and C, for consideration.

2.Refresh

2.1When the KCP signed off the designated element of LAA2 with Government in July 2008, it was agreed that any targets measured by NIs that would be directly affected by the changing economic climate at the time would be in effect ‘frozen’ subject to a review during annual refresh. Steering Group members will recall discussions had during the last LAA refresh in January 2009, where it was agreed that sufficient data was not yet available to indicate the impact of the recession on any of the NIs fitting this criteria in LAA2, but that this would be reviewed during the following refresh.

2.2At the KCP Meeting in November 2009, the Partnership agreed that officers should pursue a case to re-negotiate the target set against NI 152 since direction of travel towards the current target has been directly impacted by the recession. Most recent performance data available shows that the KCP will not meet the performance target for 2009/10 and are very unlikely to meet the final target set for 2010/11 if the current performance trend continues.

2.3Officersmet with colleagues from JobCentre Plus, Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and Government Office for London (GoL) to discuss a proposed new target for this NI. Although recent performance data shows an upward trend of the numbers of people claiming out of work benefits, it is difficult to predict how this trend will continue based on statistical evidence. The data used by DWP provides a rolling quarterly average of claimant numbers, which is released six months after the period of measurement. Other supporting data which is available with only a month delay shows that the trend in claimants (of Job Seekers Allowance) continues to be upwards.

2.4DWP have released a target negotiating brief which outlines that they would be willing to allow LSPs to set a comparative target with national or regional trends. The premise here would be that Partnerships aim to ensure that the gap between local performance and national or regional performance does not worsen. Following consideration of the most up to date performance data, it is evident that RBKC are performing better than the London and England average for NI 152. However, performance trends against the National average are less volatile than those mapped against the London average. As a result, advice from officers and colleagues is that a performance target should be proposed which measures the gap between the RBKC figure for NI 152 and the national average figure for NI 152 and ensures that RBKC maintain a lead in performance of 2.9 percentage points.

2.5DWP are also expecting LSPs to refresh any other targets which were ‘frozen’ at the time of signing-off LAA2. For the KCP, this includes NI 153 – number of people claiming out of work benefits in the worst performing neighbourhoods. Although performance for 153 is has not deteriorated as much as 152, the trend is a worsening position and therefore a refreshed target tracking performance against regional or national averages is proposed. Once again, RBKC performance is less volatile when compared with the national average and so officers and colleagues are suggesting that the KCP proposes a target to maintain a lead in performance between the RBKC and national average of 4.5 percentage points. Both of these positions are outlined in Annex A.

3.6-monthly performance report

3.1Steering Group members will recall that the Partnership have committed to receiving regular performance reports on progress towards each of the designated indicators in LAA2. The report attached at Annex B shows progress towards these indicators at the mid-year point, measured from April 2009 to September 2009. Steering Group members are asked to note the following:

  • that there are only 10 indicators which are measured at the mid-year point;
  • of these, only 7 were able to indicate progress and 4 of these were rated green, 1 was rated amber, 2 were rated red and 3 were not given a progress rating since a mid-year target had not been set; and
  • out of the full 20 designated targets, 8 were given a green rating for risk, 5 were rated amber, 2 were rated red and 4 were not given a risk rating.

3.2Steering Group members will also recall that one target in LAA1 had a measurement period up to March 2010 and so a separate 6 month progress report is attached for this at Annex C. The Partnership is asked to note both progress reports.

4.Conclusion

4.1The KCP is asked to note the contents of the LAA 6 month progress reports at Annex B and C, and to indicate approval for the approach to the LAA refresh, recommended in paragraphs 2.4 and 2.5.

FOR APPROVAL AND CONSIDERATION

Contact Officer:

Rachel Smith

KCP Manager

020 7361 3671

1