States Strategic Plan: annual debate on progress (P.27/2011) – comments.

STATES OF JERSEY

STATES STRATEGIC PLAN: ANNUAL DEBATE ON PROGRESS (P.27/2011) – COMMENTS

Presented to the States on 10th March 2011 by the Council of Ministers

STATES GREFFE

2011   Price code: A  P.27 Com.

COMMENTS

1. Annual Performance Report and Strategic Plan Progress Report

1. Deputy  Le  Claire's  Report  to the  Proposition  confuses  the  Annual Performance Report with the Strategic Plan Progress Report'. The original States Question 5858 on 30th November asked: Will the Chief Minister be publishing  progress  against  Strategic  Plan  initiatives  again  in  January 2011?'.
2. The Annual  Performance  Report  updates  a  wide  range  of  economic, environmental, financial, social and value-for-money indicators. Specifically, it monitors: (a) outcome key performance indicators (kpi) and trends related to strategic objectives (metrics with a short contextual narrative); (b) progress by Departments against the key objectives and success criteria set out in the Annual  Business  Plan  (narrative);  and  (c) value-for-money  kpis  (inputs/ outputs) and trends related to department/service level performance (metrics). Data for many of these kpis is only available annually and much of itis not available by the end of the following January.
3. The Progress Report' reports progress against Delivery Plans, is published annually  after  the  year  end,  and  specifically  describes –  using  narrative – activity, what has been achieved and what is being planned. It is structured by Strategic Plan Priority, which may involve more than one department, and other agencies. It is not structured by Minister'.
4. Under the previous Strategic Plan, progress reports were more straightforward because  the  plan included  specific  tasks  against  which  progress  could  be assessed  as  red/amber/green  (RAG'  rated).  The  current  Strategic  Plan  is higher level and more focussed on priorities and objectives rather than tasks and therefore not suitable for RAG' rating.
5. The Progress Report as at 31st December 2010 was presented to the States on 1st February this year.
6. The only reports published in January of any year have been the progress reports referred toin (iv) and (v) above.
7. Annual  Performance  Reports  were  published  in June  2008  (for  2007), September 2009 (for 2008) and February 2011 (for 2009).

(viii)  The 2009 Annual Performance Report was delayed because of CSR. It was

decided early on to postpone production of the 2009 report with the intention of including the 2009 data in the 2010 report.

9. However, towards the end of 2010, the Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG) requested that the 2009 report be produced as a baseline to enable him to take over publication of the 2010 report (see below). Consequently, the 2009 Report has now been completed and made publicly available on the gov.je website.

2. 2010 Annual Performance Report

10. The C&AG has indicated that, from 2010, he will be publishing the Annual Performance Report independently (although this will need to be done with the assistance of States Departments who will provide the data).
11. The format and content of the report will be decided by the C&AG, but is as yet undetermined. However, the C&AG has indicated that it is likely that there will be changes to the published document: partly as a result of a review of the indicators contained within it and partly to make sure that it concentrates on data which should be reliable at the expense of narrative comment.
12. The C&AG has also indicated that he intends to consult publicly on his plans for the Annual Performance Report before producing the 2010 document.

(xiii)  It therefore follows that that the 2010 report will not be available within 30 days if the Proposition is adopted (14th April), nor is it likely to be in the current format.

14. Notwithstanding the above, it would be very difficult to produce the Report inits current format by the end of January each year for the following reasons:

– Much of the information is not available by the end of January – particularly the information that relies on the Statistics Unit. Using previous  years'  data  would  result  in  the  report  being  more  than 12 months  out  of  date –  although  with  a  very  small  number  of indicators where data is only available post-June, this is unavoidable.

– Departments  are  still  finalising  the  financial  information  for  the previous year during January.

– The workload on departments is already very high during January because  of  the  year  end –  the  same  people  produce  much  of  the information.

3. Satisfaction with the work and progress made by Ministers

15. The Strategic Plan priorities are, almost without exception, cross-cutting and involve a number of departments and other agencies. It is therefore difficult to see how individual Ministers' overall performance can be linked directly to the  Annual  Performance  Report.  The  Annex,  which  relates  to individual departments, mainly focuses on value-for-money-type indicators, and is not specifically linked to Strategic Plan objectives.

4. The Council of Ministers therefore opposes the Proposition on the basis that:

– Deputy Le Claire has confused the Strategic Plan Progress Report against Delivery Plans and the Annual Performance Report.

– The C&AG has taken over publication of the Annual Performance Report, and will produce the 2010 report.

Page - 3

P.27/2011 Com.

– The content, format of the report and timing of publication will be decided by the C&AG in due course.

– The proposed timescales for production of: (a) the 2010 report; and

(b) future reports, are unrealistic and will in any case be determined by the C&AG.

– Strategic  Plan  objectives  are,  on  the  whole,  cross-cutting,  thus involving more than one Minister. This would make it difficult to assess performance by individual Minister by relating it to the Annual Performance Report.

In the light of the above, it is recommended that the Proposition be withdrawn, but otherwise rejected.