Upload
kennan-dunn
View
192
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
City Treasurer’s – Accountancy. Source: CIPFA Accountancy Benchmarking Club 2006. City Treasurer’s – Internal Audit. Source: CIPFA Internal Audit Benchmarking Club 2006. City Treasurer’s – Insurance. Lowest unit cost per claim handled (i.e. £290) when compared to other core cities. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
Source: CIPFA Accountancy Benchmarking Club 2006
City Treasurer’s – AccountancyCost per £k of gross expenditure:
NCC (£)
Benchmark Lower Quartile (£)
Benchmark Average (£)
Financial strategy and advice 0.36 0.49 0.79
Preparation of budgets and accounts
2.38 2.84 3.45
Other (e.g. technical research and projects, systems support and treasury management)
1.01 0.85 1.21
TOTAL 3.74 4.39 5.45
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
Source: CIPFA Internal Audit Benchmarking Club 2006
City Treasurer’s – Internal Audit
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
Co
sts
per
£m
Gro
ss E
xpen
dit
ure
(£)
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
City Treasurer’s – Insurance
Lowest unit cost per claim handled (i.e. £290) when compared to other core cities
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
City Treasurer’s
Use of resources scores
2005 2006
NCCNearest
Neighbours Mean
NCCNearest
Neighbours Mean
Financial reporting 2 2.1 2 2.3
Financial management 2 2.3 3 2.5
Financial standing 2 2.4 3 2.7
Internal control 3 2.0 3 2.6
Value for money 2 2.1 2 2.3
FOR INFORMATION ONLYSpend
Per
form
ance
XNo change from
previous year
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
City Treasurer’sTemporary increase in resources to improve efficiency andeffectiveness (spend to save):• Accountancy transformation programme (e.g. corporate budget
monitoring tool) – transformation fund• Increased focus on improving strategic capital and asset
management process – transformation fund• Increased focus on improving VFM and efficiency – transformation
fund and internal prioritisation• Income and debt management project – treasury management
savings• Additional investment in IT audit and anti-fraud and corruption audit
– corporate growth and transformation fund• Additional investment in contract management – transformation fund
and then self-funding
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
Organisational Development
NCC Benchmark Average
Ratio of HR staff to all employees* 1:105 1:87
HR staff cost per employee (lower middle quartile = £262)*
£246 £338
HR cost proportion of pay bill (lower middle quartile = 1.43%)*
1.37% 1.81%
Gross training expenditure as proportion of pay bill
1.2% 1.3%
* Source: DLA Benchmarking Club 2006
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
• Improved sickness absence (i.e. 13.4 days in 2002/03 and 10.6 days in 2006/07)
• 26% reduction in major injuries from 2005/06 to 2006/07
• 14% reduction in accidents resulting in over 3 days absence from 2005/06 to 2006/07
• Improved diversity PIs• Improved staff survey results (i.e. 32 ratings
higher and 7 ratings lower)• 9,000+ employees trained in E&D• 800+ managers trained on NMP
Organisational Development
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
• Good employee relations• Budget workforce reduction implemented
successfully each year• 2,300 equal pay claims settled• Single Status phase 1 delivered and phase 2
progressing wellBut• Does not have controlling impact on Council wide
workforce PIs; and• BVPIs do not reflect much of OD Service (Safety,
Training, Single Status)
Organisational Development
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
Workforce BVPIs2005/06 Nearest
Neighbours2005/06 Core Cities
Rank (out of 8)
BV11a % of top 5% of staff who are women
2nd quartile 3rd
BV11b % of top 5% of staff who are BME Bottom quartile 8th
BV16a % of employees with a disability Top quartile 1st
BV17a % of employees from BME community
Bottom quartile 8th
BV14 % of employees retiring early 2nd quartile 4th
BV15 % of employees retiring on grounds of ill health
Top quartile 1st
BV12 days sickness absence FTE 3rd Quartile 5th
FOR INFORMATION ONLYSpend
Per
form
ance
X Workforceindicators
X OrganisationalDevelopment
FOR INFORMATION ONLYSpend
Per
form
ance
X Combined
No change fromprevious year
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
Organisational Development
• Enabling further manager self-service through modernising HR and health and safety intranet sites and training
• Improving efficiency of HR procedures following completion of single status pay and grading review in 2008
• Continue to optimise benefits of SAP HR system
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
Policy and Performance
Average spend per head of population slightly under benchmark average consisting of Bristol, Birmingham, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, Nottingham, Gateshead and North & South Tyneside (based on existing population data)
No single cost yet identified on all policy/research across Newcastle City Council. Efficiency to be achieved.
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
Policy and PerformanceSelf-
assessment
Development of policies in priority areas – are we ahead? 3
Level 3 of the ESLG achieved and improving 3
LSP annual performance assessment at amber/green and improving 3
69% BVPIs show improvement (above average) 3
Economic indicators of regeneration strategy and corporate plan (i.e. employment participation levels, total number of jobs and GDP per capita)
2
Profile – influence in multi-partner areas of work (i.e. RESAP and City Region) 3
Involvement in other networks (i.e. chair of EuroCities Social Welfare Committee) driving the CR agenda, development of Science City and CDC
3
Level of change in the organisation as a result of policy development (e.g. CDC) 3
FOR INFORMATION ONLYSpend
Per
form
ance
XNo assessment for
previous year
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
Policy and Performance
• Corporate review – opportunities for new ways of joining policy, analysis and delivery
• Need for increased emphasis on research/analysis, and economic and social policy
• Strengthening of economic policy with appointment of Head of Service
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
Community Development
LocalAuthority
Budget – CD Population Per capita
Aberdeen 1,250,000 212,125 5.89Burgess Hill 51,000 28,650 1.78Harlow 385,000 78,000 4.93Ipswich 120,000 118,200 1.01Kirklees 479,000 394,600 1.21Newcastle 1,100,000 276,400 3.97Middlesbrough 690,000 137,600 6.68Newham 1,680,000 246,200 6.82Slough 150,000 117,500 1.27South Somerset 270,000 156,100 1.72Southwark 1,000,000 257,700 3.88Tameside 120,000 214,100 0.56
Source: DCLG CD LA Audit: Exercise Jan 2007 –Author Colin MillerLA’s named have most comparable delivery models to Newcastle
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
Community Development
• Steadily improving satisfaction levels with Members and directorates
• Integral support to participatory budgeting pilots and delivery of new corporate engagement strategy
• Links the development of corporate policy to grass roots community issues (i.e. regeneration strategy)
FOR INFORMATION ONLYSpend
Per
form
ance
XLimited comparative
performance data – noassessment forprevious year
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
Community Development
• Young Foundation work on neighbourhoods next steps agenda – opportunity for further evolution of the Community Development function
• Making further savings in 2007/08 and completing transformation process
• Will be playing a leadership role in inclusion/engagement in 2007/08 (e.g. participatory budgeting and community development programme)
• Corporate review of community development activity across whole organisation to be led by Deputy Chief Executive
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
Communications and Marketing
• No spend comparators available as each authority measures and defines its communication/marketing functions very differently, so comparison undertaken instead against a benchmarking club covering 43 other authorities
• Comparison covers one comparable cost indicator (Council magazine/newspaper) and five comparable quality indicators (two for communication with residents and one each for internal communication, strategic influence, and corporate consistency)
FOR INFORMATION ONLYSpend
Per
form
ance
XNo assessment for
previous year
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
Communications and Marketing
• A step change in internal communications is in hand, although this will require further resources to fund a staff newsletter to become fully embedded
• A significantly enhanced marketing function to promote change in public behaviour in key priority areas is also in hand (although this will have limited direct impact on the team’s own performance indicators, and impact more on other services)
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
Corporate Business Management
• Comparative data has been obtained by direct contact with core cities, Tyne & Wear and Nearest Neighbours to a lesser extent
• Cost comparisons are based on staffing structures where available, however, structures in other local authorities often differ
• Performance data is generally derived from CPA use of resources scores
• Data is not available for all services in both dimensions
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
Corporate Business Management
Comparative Spend Comparative Performance
Business management n/a Above median
Programme and project management/major projects
Below median n/a
Risk management Above median Above median
Procurement and efficiency n/a n/a
Asset management n/a Above median
Information governance Bottom quartile Bottom quartile
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
Corporate Business Management
• Improved CPA Use of Resources overall score from 2 to 3 for the financial year 2005/06, which also included achieving an improved score of 3 for asset management
• Managed the Council’s engagement with the corporate assessment inspection process
• Ensured CXO met the requirements for Level 3 of the Equality Standard for Local Government
• Played a key role in ensuring that the Council achieved Level 3 of the Equality Standard for Local Government
• Developed strong programme management structures for the Children’s Services transformation programme
• Played a key role in the management of the MTP process
FOR INFORMATION ONLYSpend
Per
form
ance
XNo assessment for
previous year
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
Corporate Business Management
• To build on contacts with other local authorities in comparator groups to encourage more robust benchmarking for 2008, however, it must be acknowledged that differences in Council structures make this difficult
• Measures of performance beyond CPA data, such as benchmarkable customer satisfaction surveys, will be developed
• External review to be commissioned to validate value for money and benefits realised
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
Exchequer Services – Payroll
NCC Benchmark Average
Net cost per employee (bottom quartile)
£26.70 £54.80
Net cost per payslip (lower middle quartile)
£3.44 £4.03
Payroll errors 0.04% 0.18%
Source: CIPFA Payroll Benchmarking Club 2006
FOR INFORMATION ONLYSpend
Per
form
ance
X
XLast year’s assessment
covered ExchequerServices as a whole
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
Exchequer Services – Payroll
• Focus on greater potential automation (e.g. DMS)
• Focus on non-staff costs (e.g. e-pay slips)
• Continue to optimise investment in MSS
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
Exchequer Services – Debtors and Creditors
NCC (£)
Benchmark Lower
Quartile (£)
Benchmark Average (£)
Creditors – cost per invoice paid/processed (staff cost is £0.88 below average)
2.31 1.36 2.10
Debtors – cost per invoice raised (staff cost is £3.02 below average)
4.04 6.09 9.25
Source: CIPFA Debtors/Creditors Benchmarking Club 2006
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
Exchequer Services – Debtors and Creditors
NCC Benchmark Average
Average number of days taken to collect cash (lower middle quartile)
56 76
Proportion of invoices paid on time (lower middle quartile)
88% 89%
FOR INFORMATION ONLYSpend
Per
form
ance
X
X
Debtors
Creditors
XLast year’s assessment
covered ExchequerServices as a whole
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
Exchequer Services – debtors and creditors
• Debtors – new income and debt management system (due to go live in autumn 2007) and policy will further improve performance
• Creditors – 2007/08 year to date performance ahead of target plus implementation of payment cards will assist in the reduction of staff costs
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
Benefits
Source: CIPFA Finance & General Statistics 2007/08
0
5
10
15
20
Live
rpoo
l
South
ampt
on
Coven
try
Man
ches
ter
Kings
ton-
upon
-Hull
Derby
Nottin
gham
Gat
eshea
d
Wolve
rham
pton
Bristo
l
Sheffie
ld
Newca
stle-
upon-
Tyne
Stoke
-on-
Trent
Salfo
rd
Mid
dlesb
roug
h
Peter
boro
ugh
Live
rpoo
l
Man
ches
ter
Leed
s
Nottin
gham
Birming
ham
Bristo
l
Sheffie
ld
Newca
stle-
upon-
Tyne
North
Tyn
eside
Gat
eshea
d
South
Tyn
eside
Newca
stle-
upon-
Tyne
Sunde
rland
Sp
end
per
to
tal p
op
ula
tio
n (
£)
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
Benefits
NCC Benchmark Average
CPA rating for benefit fraud (out of 4) 4 3.6
Income generated from prosecutions and sanctions
£4.40 per case £3.90 per case
Number of fraud investigations per member of staff
52 35.8
Cost per case (staff costs £8.70 below average)
£65.80 £76.40
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
2005/06 nearest neighbours
2005/06 core cities
Claimants visited per 1000 caseload (BV76a)
Lower middle quartile 6th
Fraud investigations per 1000 caseload (BV76c)
Top quartile 1st
Prosecutions and sanctions per 1000 caseload (BV76d)
Upper middle quartile 2nd
Average time for processing claims (BV78a)
Top quartile 1st
Average time for processing changes of circumstance (BV78b)
Top quartile 4th
% cases processed correctly (BV79a) Top quartile 2nd
% overpayments recovered (BV79b) Bottom quartile 8th
Benefits
FOR INFORMATION ONLYSpend
Per
form
ance
XX
2006/07
2007/08
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
Benefits
• Cost of staffing will fall as a result of restructure in April 2007
• Rationalisation of office accommodation
• Fraud performance will be maintained over the next year
• Processing claims will significantly improve
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
Revenues
Source: CIPFA Finance & General Statistics 2007/08
0
10
20
30
40
50
Live
rpoo
l
Man
ches
ter
Newca
stle-
upon-
Tyne
Salfo
rd
Wolve
rham
pton
Bristo
l
Kings
ton-
upon
-Hull
South
ampt
on
Nottin
gham
Mid
dlesb
roug
h
Derby
Gat
eshea
d
Coven
try
Stoke
-on-
Trent
Sheffie
ld
Peter
boro
ugh
Live
rpoo
l
Man
ches
ter
Newca
stle-
upon-
Tyne
Bristo
l
Nottin
gham
Birming
ham
Leed
s
Sheffie
ld
Newca
stle-
upon-
Tyne
North
Tyn
eside
Sunde
rland
South
Tyn
eside
Gat
eshea
d
Sp
end
per
to
tal p
op
ula
tio
n (
£)
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
Revenues
2004/05 2005/06 2006/07
*Council Tax collected in year (BV9) 94.7% 94.3% 95.5%
Core Cities relative position 5th 4th 4th
Nearest Neighbours quartile position Upper middle
Lower middle
Upper middle
NNDR collected in year (BV10) 97.2% 97.0% 98.3%
Core Cities relative position 6th 7th 6th
Nearest Neighbours quartile position Lower middle
Bottom quartile
Lower middle
*After compensating for deprivation according to DCLG (ODPM) methodology, the Council is in the top quartile
FOR INFORMATION ONLYSpend
Per
form
ance
X
X
X
Council Tax –adjusted fordeprivation
Council Tax –not adjusted
for deprivation
NNDR
FOR INFORMATION ONLYSpend
Per
form
ance
X 2007/08 –combinedX
2006/07
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
Revenues
• Cost of staffing will fall as a result of restructure in April 2007
• Council Tax recovery and NNDR will both continue to improve over previous years targets and comparator organisations
• Rationalisation of office accommodation
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
ICT Services
Lower middle quartile
Median Upper middle quartile
NCC
Cost of connection to voice network
£28.00 £65.50 £121.50 £29.00 (i.e. lower middle
quartile)
Cost of connection to data network
£62.50 £94.50 £172.75 £47.00 (i.e. bottom quartile)
Support cost per workstation
£117.75 £177.50 £245.50 £153.00 (i.e. lower middle
quartile)
Acquisition cost per workstation
£599 £662 £727 £601 (i.e. lower middle)
Source: SOCITM 2005/06 National Benchmarking Survey
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
ICT Services
Lower middle quartile
Median Upper middle quartile
NCC
Proportion of calls resolved in agreed time
76.5 86.0 93.0 81.4 (i.e. lower middle)
Proportion of successful projects
74 82 86 89 (i.e. top quartile)
Workstations supported per specialist
119.0 177.5 245.8 228.04 (i.e. upper middle
quartile)
Source: SOCITM 2005/06 National Benchmarking Survey
FOR INFORMATION ONLYSpend
Per
form
ance
X 2007/08 –no change
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
ICT Services
• ICT enabling business transformation across the Council
• ICT investment strategy• 2006/07 benchmarking results due in August • Continuous improvement: - Review of disaster recovery - Server rationalisation - Review of S&M contracts - Implementation of ITIL
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
Nearest Neighbours median = £17.91NCC cost = £14.30
therefore cash difference = £998k
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sp
en
d p
er
tota
l p
op
ula
tio
n (
£)
Mid
dles
brou
gh
Sal
ford
Kin
gsto
n-up
on-H
ull
Wol
verh
ampt
on
Live
rpoo
l
Sou
tham
pton
Cov
entr
y
Not
tingh
am
Der
by
Pet
erbo
roug
h
Bris
tol
Gat
eshe
ad
New
cast
le u
pon
Tyn
e
Man
ches
ter
Sto
ke o
n T
rent
She
ffile
d
Public Health & Environmental Protection
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
Self Assessment Performance Rating: GOODNo core budget used to manage the Licensing Act 2003, the Gambling Act 2005 and Housing HMO Licensing
05/06 06/07 Ranking/Direction of Travel
Financial Position of Service
3rd Quartile 4th Quartile Positive
Requests for Service
(3 day response)
12142 annually
86% response
13462 annually
87% responsePositive
Fixed Penalty Notices
Litter, Dog fouling etc
513 (total)
4/16 nearest neighbours (4th Quartile)
(Defra)
2196 (total)
(estimate 4th Quartile) Positive
% Fixed Penalty fine collected
75.3%
2/16 (Defra) (4th Quartile)
75.0%
(to be advised) (Defra)
T.B.A.
Fly Tipping Enforcement performance
N/A
2nd core cities
2nd nearest neighbours
1st Tyne and Wear
(Defra)(4th Quartile)
Very Effective (Defra category)
2nd core cities
2nd nearest neighbours
1st Tyne and Wear
(Defra – interim judgement)
Positive
Public Health & Environmental Protection
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
05/06 06/07 Ranking/Direction of
Travel
Noise complaints 3269 annually
88% satisfaction
(by survey)
4488 annually
92% satisfaction
(by survey)
Positive
High Risk Food Premises Inspection
98%
3rd quartile (nearest neighbours/Core Cities)
Food Standards Agency sourced
95%
Food Standards Agency figures not yet available T.B.A.
Trading Standards Inspection of High Risk Premises
100%
Top quartile (all categories)
(CIPFA)
100%
Top quartile (all categories)
(CIPFA)
Positive
Public Health & Environmental Protection
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
Public Health & Environmental Protection
• VFM Improvement Plans
– Development of flexible deployment of CCTV enforcement and air quality monitoring
– Implementation of “Scores on the Doors” for food business
– Proceeds of Crime Legislation developed
– Accreditation Scheme in partnership with University.
– Partnership with Your Homes Newcastle regarding night-time noise enforcement
– Improve customer front end – licensing/accommodation
– Incorporate 24 hour response service for other disciplines alongside the 7 day night time noise service
– Review all “licensing” income overhead
– Risk assessment across all disciplines in line with LBRO guidelines
FOR INFORMATION ONLYSpend
Per
form
ance
X
Expected to maintain position
into next year
X
X
Combinedfor 2007/08
Consumer protection – 2006/07
Public health – 2006/07
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
Legal Services
Local Authority Net Cost of Service (£k) Net Cost per Head of Population (£)
NCC 2,840 10.27
A 7,034 9.73
B 2,588 11.66
C 17,638 17.62
D 1,875 6.61
E 2,621 13.69
F 2,279 10.53
Source: internal benchmarking with nearest neighbours and core cities 2007
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
Legal Services
• The HouseMark ALMO benchmarking club recently compared support costs of the 48 ALMOs in existence across the country. The average cost of legal services provided to YHN were the 8th lowest at £39 per hour
• The average cost of right to buy completions is £151. This is less than that charged by our external partners which was £160 and £175 per standard completion
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
Legal Services
Financial Year NCC Quartile
2005/06 99.97% Lower middle
2006/07 96.04% n/a
2007/08 (to date) 99.42% n/a
BV179 – percentage of local land chargesearches completed within ten working daysof receipt:
Internal customer ratings on timeliness andquality of advice is satisfactory (June 2007)
FOR INFORMATION ONLYSpend
Per
form
ance
XLimited comparative
performance data – noassessment forprevious year
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
Legal Services
• In terms of comparative spend the aim is to maintain this at its current level notwithstanding the increased demands on the service as a result of the Council’s ambitious programme of regeneration and development for the next 15 years
• There is no national local authority benchmarking data for legal services. To date it has not been possible to compare in-house performance data (e.g. average cost per case) with that of other local authorities because service definitions and cost calculations vary so widely
• Initiatives are currently being developed to remedy this via the core cities and a national network of local authority solicitors
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
Democratic Services Managers
• Although staff levels joint highest the number of formal meetings serviced is highest at 783 (Gateshead 2nd at 539)
• Number of formal meetings per staff member/Councillor highest
• Number of school appeals serviced highest• One of only three local authorities also preparing traffic
orders (major increase since 2005/06)• Increasing support for partnerships (LSP, strategic
commissions) and company secretary role (Eldon Square, Science City)
• High satisfaction rates amongst SLA clients
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
Scrutiny
• 4.4fte compared to national average of 5• 2007/08 working budget = £7k (survey average =
£23k)• 6 non-statutory external members (survey average =
2.5)• 75 external witnesses called (survey average = 21)• 96% of recommendations accepted (survey average
= 83%)• Significantly higher volume of call-ins• Customer satisfaction tests exceed survey average
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
Electoral Services
• 4fte (joint lowest T&W, electorate 2nd highest)
• 67,294 postal voters (35% = highest in UK)
• 2007 turnout 2nd highest in Tyne & Wear
• Response to 2006 canvass second lowest
• Joint procurement of election stationery and advertising campaign since 2006 – carried forward to 2007 canvass and 2008 elections
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
Registrars
• Second lowest net cost in region despite providing extra services (e.g. Nationality Checking Service and Designated Register Office)
• Volume of birth and death registrations highest
• Citizenship applications and civil partnerships highest (469 and 64 – Durham 2nd highest 141 and 42)
• New structure/working practices since 1 April 2007 – Newcastle only Council offering full 6 day week service
• Income from certificate sales increased 11% over past year
• Formal customer service monitoring procedures in place - March 2007 survey confirms 91% clients felt service excellent
FOR INFORMATION ONLYSpend
Per
form
ance
XNo change from
previous year
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
Democratic Services
• Increased joint working with other local authorities to maximise VFM and adopt best practice
• Electoral Commission’s efforts to promote Electoral Services benchmarking failed – Council to take lead in 2007/08 in setting up local group
• Council have led Registrars benchmarking group since 2005/06
• Active member of regional/national groups for Admin Services, Lord Mayors, Complaints and Scrutiny
• Ongoing efficiency measures to free up resources to meet increasing demand
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
Customer Service Centres
NCC Ranking
Satisfaction with the way staff dealt with enquiries
100% Joint 1st
Satisfaction with waiting times 99% Joint 3rd
Overall satisfaction 100% Joint 1st
Operational cost per customer (including accommodation)
£7.57 2nd lowest
Operation cost per customer – staff only
£3.19 2nd lowest
Source: National Customer Services Benchmarking Group – 17 members
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
Contact Centre
NCC Ranking
Number of calls offered 194,000 4th
Number of calls answered 151,000 5th
Average wait for answer 3.2 minutes 41st
Call duration 4.2 minutes 29th
Calls answered per FTE 6,028 5th
Source: National Local Authority Call Centre Benchmarking Group – 44 members
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
Cashiering
Year Cost of Service
(£m)
Number and cost of
transactions
Access Customer satisfaction
2003/04 1.6 1,001,724
£1.56
23 locations
8:30 – 4:00
(closed Wed pm)
Not available
2006/07 1.0 1,153,568
£0.88
267 locations in Newcastle and
12,000 nationally
96%
FOR INFORMATION ONLYSpend
Per
form
ance
X
FOR INFORMATION ONLYSpend
Per
form
ance
X
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
Customer Services
• CSCs – completion of PFI programme with opening of the final 3 primary centres within next 14months. Over 650,000 customers expected in 2009 with satisfaction levels of over 90% retained and improved targets re first point of contact resolution and waiting times with CRM integration implemented from June 2007
• Cashiering – continuing trend of reduced costs in 2007/08 and continue to maintain high satisfaction levels and achieve waiting time targets
• Contact Centre – with additional resources secured from 2007/08 expect increased performance in relation to calls answered/waiting times and within 6-9 months increased efficiencies to enable additional services to be provided in contact centre (e.g. parking). Introduction of CRM within contact centre environment within next 12 months will enable further expansion of services to improve Council’s performance in relation to telephone services
FOR INFORMATION ONLYSpend – 2006
Per
form
ance
– 2
006
1,2,3 6,8,9 4,5
1 – City Treasurer’s
2 – Organisational Development
3 – Benefits
4 – Revenues
5 – Exchequer Services
6 – ICT Services
7 – Consumer Protection (PHEP)
8 – Public Health (PHEP)
9 – Democratic Services
10 – Customer Services
10
7
FOR INFORMATION ONLYSpend – 2007
Per
form
ance
– 2
007
1,216,19
3,6,9,1113,14
12
10,15
17
4
1 – City Treasurer’s (£4.9m)
2 – Organisational Development (£4.0m)
3 – Benefits (£1.2m)
4 – Revenues (£3.4m)
5 – Exchequer Services – n/a
6 – ICT Services (£9.9m)
7 – Consumer Protection (PHEP) – n/a
8 – Public Health (PHEP) – n/a
9 – Democratic Services (£3.3m)
10 – Customer Services (£4.6m)
11 – Policy and Performance (£0.7m)
12 – Community Development (£1.7m)
13 – Communications and Marketing (£0.9m)
14 – Corporate Business Management (£1.7m)
15 – Exchequer Services – payroll
16 – Exchequer Services – debtors
17 – Exchequer Services – creditors
18 – Legal Services (£2.6m)
19 – PHEP combined
18
£5.1
m