Key to performance ratings
|
Direction |
|
|
|
Performance has improved |
|
|
Previous data not captured |
|
|
Performance has declined |
|
N/A |
No previous data to compare |
|
RAG Rating |
|
|
|
Target not achieved |
|
|
Target slightly missed (within 10%) |
|
|
Target met |
|
|
Data Only |
Performance Summary
|
Green |
Amber |
Red |
N/A[1] |
Total |
|
|
KPIs |
5 |
1 |
4 |
14 |
24 |
|
Direction |
Up |
No Change |
Down |
N/A |
Total |
|
Last Quarter |
12 |
0 |
7 |
5 |
24 |
|
Last Year |
9 |
0 |
10 |
5 |
24 |
· 50% (5 of 10) the targetable quarterly key performance indicators (KPIs) reportable to this Committee achieved their quarter 1 (Q1) target1.
· Compared to last quarter (Q4 22/23), performance for 63.2% (12 of 19) KPIs have improved, and for 36.8% (7 of 19) KPIs have declined1.
- Compared to last year (Q1 21/22), performance for 47.4% (9 of 19) KPIs have improved, and for 52.6% (10 of 19) KPIs have declined1.
Housing & Health Q1 Performance
|
Performance Indicator |
Q1 2023/24 |
||||
|
Value |
Target |
Status |
Short Trend (Last Quarter) |
Long Trend (Last Year) |
|
|
Housing |
|||||
|
Number of Rough Sleepers accommodated by the Council on the last night of the month |
25 |
|
|
|
|
|
Number of homeless cases where the cause of homelessness is domestic abuse |
40 |
|
|
|
|
|
Number of households living in temporary accommodation last night of the month (NI 156 & SDL 009-00) |
254 |
|
|
|
|
|
Number of households living in nightly paid temporary accommodation last night of the month |
149 |
|
|
|
|
|
Percentage of successful Prevention Duty outcomes |
67.23% |
65% |
|
|
|
|
Number of households prevented or relieved from becoming homeless |
237 |
125 |
|
|
|
|
Percentage of successful Relief Duty outcomes |
38.98% |
40% |
|
|
|
|
Private Sector Housing |
|||||
|
Number of private sector homes improved (through PSH interventions) |
39 |
45 |
|
|
|
|
Total number of Disabled Facilities Grants processed within the period |
15 |
|
|
|
|
|
Number of completed housing assistances |
Annual Indicator |
||||
|
Housing Allocation & Strategy |
|||||
|
Number of affordable homes delivered excluding first homes (Gross) |
50 |
50 |
|
|
|
|
Affordable homes as a percentage of all new homes |
Annual Indicator |
||||
|
Community Safety |
|||||
|
Percentage of CPWs to CPNs in period (CPT/SMP) |
5.7% |
|
|
|
|
|
Number of Community Protection Notices (CPNs) in period (CPT/SMP) |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
Number of Community Protection Warnings (CPWs) in period (CPT/SMP) |
35 |
|
|
|
|
|
Health, Biodiversity & Climate Change |
|||||
|
Improvement in Air Quality |
Annual Indicator |
||||
|
Borough wide carbon emissions reduction (Gov Data) |
Annual Indicator |
||||
Private Sector Housing
The key performance indicator (KPI) monitoring “The number of private sector homes improved (through PSH interventions)” missed target by over 10%, achieving 39 homes improved against a target of 45 homes. The reason for this dip in performance is due to staffing vacancies in the team, which have now been filled. And as the newer members of the team become fully trained, we expect performance to improve for next quarter.
Environmental Services Q1 Performance
|
Performance Indicator |
Q1 2023/24 |
||||
|
Value |
Target |
Status |
Short Trend (Last Quarter) |
Long Trend (Last Year) |
|
|
Public Realm |
|||||
|
The percentage of relevant land and highways that is assessed as having acceptable levels of litter |
79.83% |
98% |
|
|
|
|
The percentage of relevant land and highways that is assessed as having acceptable levels of detritus |
82.16% |
95.00% |
|
|
|
|
Waste Services |
|||||
|
Percentage of household waste sent for reuse, recycling and composting |
54.79% |
53.00% |
|
|
|
|
Contaminated tonnage (rejected) as a percentage of tonnage of household waste sent for reuse, recycling or composting |
5.22% |
6.00% |
|
|
|
|
Tonnage of household waste produced per household |
0.207 |
|
|
|
|
|
Missed bins per 100,000 collections |
53.4 |
40 |
|
|
|
|
Biodiversity & Climate Change |
|||||
|
Number of trees planted/size of area rewilded |
Annual Indicator |
||||
Public Realm
The KPI monitoring “The percentage of relevant land and highways that is assessed as having acceptable levels of litter” missed target by over 10%, achieving 79.83% against a target of 98%. The main factor to this low outcome was due to the ‘litter level survey’ being conducted a few days before the scheduled grass cutting and litter picking was undertaken along the high-speed roads in Boxley, Detling/Thurnham and Lenham/Harrietsham wards. These roads have now been litter picked and the required level of cleanliness has been achieved.
The indicator monitoring “The percentage of relevant land and highways that is assessed as having acceptable levels of detritus” missed the "acceptable levels of detritus" target by over 10%, achieving 82.16% against a target of 95%. The levels of detritus during this quarter along the 5 chosen wards was high and therefore this target was not achieved. The main factors to this missed target were due annual night-time closures of A249 and A20, to allow street cleansing activities as undertaken the a few days after the survey was completed. The current detritus levels are now at a much lower level and within target.
Going forward, we will coordinate the survey schedule more effectively to avoid such conflicts and ensure accurate assessments of litter levels. By doing so, we aim to improve the performance and achieve the target in the upcoming quarters.
Waste Services
At the time of writing the report, Waste Services have not received data from Kent County Council for quarter one of this year. Once received, the updated figures will be circulated with the quarter two report. The indicator monitoring the number of “Missed bins per 100,000 collections” missed its Q1 target by more than 10%, achieving 53.4 against its target of 40. Performance has declined compared to the previous quarter but is improved compared to the same period last year. These numbers are generally higher than in previous years as we are now using the unfiltered data from Biffa, so these results do have a direct impact on the performance mechanism and, therefore, the contract payments made to the contractor.