(a)

the quarter three report outlined progress and emerging trends against key actions and the supporting performance measures;

(b)

the majority of the Corporate Plan Key Actions remained on target to achieve their milestones, so that outcomes would be completed by the end of 2016/17;

(c)

there had been a decrease in the number of Key Actions on target which had resulted in an increase in the number not on target (in most cases action plans for the Key Actions were fully operational;

(d)

of the 42 Key Actions -

?

six (on target to achieve outcome)

?

34 (on target to achieve outcome)

?

two (outcome at risk but mitigation in place)

(e)

of the 25 performance measures tracking outcomes of the Corporate Plan, the majority were performing well; performance had improved compared to previous quarters, although new measures had been added;

(f)

of the performance measures -

?

15 (meeting target – good performance)

?

seven (below target but above  intervention level)

?

one (below target and intervention level)

?

two (uncoded  measure under development/no target)

(g)

further information on Key Action 40 ‘develop a proactive approach to lobbying Government, working with the LEP and neighbouring authorities’ would be provided to the next Board meeting;

(h)

Key Actions marked as ‘red’ in the report were continually monitored by the Assistant Directors, raised at team meetings and scrutinised by the Corporate Management Team;

(i)

with regard to -

?

P19’ children’s safeguarding timing of core assessments’; this target was ‘amber’ as there had been an unanticipated increase in demand for children requiring assessments and was also due in part to the availability of social workers; in the second quarter more capacity had been dedicated to this issue and the backlog of cases had been cleared;

?

P17 ‘ percent of residents who believed they can influence decisions affecting their local area’; historically this measure had been very low achieving 19 percent during the last Place Survey, which was a reduction from 24 percent; work was currently taken place focusing on community engagement (action plans were being created and it was therefore expected that future performance for this measure would improve);

?

P18 ‘reduce the gap between the worst 10 neighbourhoods and city average rate per 1000 population for overall crime’; the target was ‘amber’ as it was largely due to an increase in less serious violence, other theft and shoplifting; in recent months the gap had closed slightly with partnership activities appearing to impact positively on the overall crime levels; the launch of the ‘Community Action Against Crime’ small grant fund and shoplifting action plan should result in a positive impact on this target.