Quarterly Corporate Plan and Performance

$179 / year

This dataset contains the list of the quarter Corporate Plan and Performance report of 2016-2017.

Complexity

Each year, the Council will publish an addendum to the Corporate Plan which sets out updated targets for the year ahead. The 2016-2017 update was agreed at Full Council on 4 April 2016.

In addition to the corporate plan, each Theme Committee has a Commissioning Plan that sets out the strategic priorities and performance measures for each committee. Similarly to the corporate plan, each year, the Council will publish an addendum for each commissioning plan which sets out updated targets for the year ahead. The 2016 2017 updates were agreed by theme committees in March 2016.

The Council’s Corporate Plan for 2015-2020 sets our vision and strategy for the next five years based on the core principles of fairness, responsibility and opportunity to make sure Barnet is a place:

– of opportunity, where people can further their quality of life
– where people are helped to help themselves, recognizing that prevention is better than cure
– where responsibility is shared, fairly
– where services are delivered efficiently to get value for money for the taxpayer
The most up to date information on the Corporate Plan can be found in the 2017-2018 Addendum to the Corporate Plan.

Date Created

2017-01-05

Last Modified

2018-11-24

Version

2018-11-24

Update Frequency

Quarterly

Temporal Coverage

2016-2017

Spatial Coverage

United Kingdom

Source

John Snow Labs; London Borough of Barnet;

Source License URL

Source License Requirements

N/A

Source Citation

N/A

Keywords

Performance Report, Quarterly Performance, Performance Report 2016-2017, Quarterly Report, Report 2016-2017

Other Titles

Quarterly Performance Of The Measures, Quality Measures Reporting, Corporate Plan And performance Reporting

NameDescriptionTypeConstraints
Indicator_TypeIndicator Type (Schedule Performance Index (SPI) and Cost Performance Index (CPI), like variances, allow you to assess the health of a project. In specific, SPI and CPI help you analyze the efficiency of schedule performance and cost performance of any project)string-
Reference_NumberPerformance Report Reference Numberstring-
Indicator_DescriptionIndicator Description for performance reportstring-
PolarityPolarity of report ( State in which two ideas, opinions are completely opposite or very different from each other)string-
OutturnThe actual amounts, results etc at the end, rather than those that were expected or calculated earlier.string-
TargetExpected target for performancestring-
RAG_RatingThe RAG system is a popular project management method of rating for issues or status reports, based on Red, Amber (yellow), and Green colors used in a traffic light rating system.string-
Previous_Outturn_Long_TermPrevious outturn fourth quarter 2015-2016 long termstring-
Direction_Travel_Long_TermLong term direction of travelstring-
BenchmarkingBenchmarking of Reportstring-
Indicator TypeReference NumberIndicator DescriptionPolarityOutturnTargetRAG RatingPrevious Outturn Long TermDirection Travel Long TermBenchmarking
CPIAC/S3 (ASCOF 1G)Percentage of adults with learning disabilities who live in their own home or with their familyBigger is Better0.6420.63Green0.5952Improving68.3% (CIPFA)69.1% (London)ASCOF Comparators (2014/15)
CPIAC/S4 (ASCOF 1E)Percentage of adults with learning disabilities in paid employmentBigger is Better0.0930.096Red0.093Same9.8% (CIPFA)7.7% (London)ASCOF Comparators (2014/15)
CPIAC/S5 (ASCOF 1F)Percentage of adults with mental health needs in paid employmentBigger is Better0.07230.072Green0.048Improving7.0% (CIPFA)5.5% (London)ASCOF Comparators (2014/15)
CPIAC/S6 (ASCOF 1H)Percentage of adults with mental health needs who live independently, with or without supportBigger is Better0.8160.815Green0.804Improving79.6% (CIPFA)77.8% (London)ASCOF Comparators (2014/15)
CPIAC/S8Percentage of new clients, older people accessing enablementBigger is Better0.5970.63Green Amber
CPIAC/S9 ASCOF2A (2)Permanent admissions to residential and nursing care homes, per 100,000 population age 65+Smaller is Better75.6122.5Green
SPIAC/S16 (ASCOF 1C/2A)Proportion of service users with a direct payment (ASCOF 1C/2A)Bigger is Better0.3920.401Red Amber0.392Same28.4% (CIPFA)26.0% (London)ASCOF Comparators (2014/15)
SPIAC/S17Number of new telecare packages installed*Bigger is Better216.0200.0Green119.0Improving
SPIAC/S18Percentage of service users receiving ongoing services with telecare*Bigger is Better0.1380.138Green0.119Improving
MPIAC/S21Number of carers’ assessmentsBigger is Better194.0209.0Green Amber