Hackney Council's performance monitoring framework is facing scrutiny from the Scrutiny Panel, with significant concerns raised about the appropriateness of target setting and the quality of data used.
The panel met on Thursday, 08 October 2026, to examine the effectiveness of the council's performance monitoring dashboards, as detailed in the Public reports pack. Discussions highlighted how key performance indicators (KPIs) are utilised, the challenges in measuring qualitative outcomes for residents, and the integration of risk management into performance tracking.
Target Setting and 'Data Only' Indicators
Councillors questioned the appropriateness of setting targets for all indicators, particularly those labelled 'data only'. These indicators, while not directly controllable, are retained by the council as they provide essential information about operational realities. Bruce Devile, Assistant Director, Business Intelligence, Elections and Member Services, explained that some indicators are not suitable for targeting because they measure uncontrollable volumes or simply reflect the current state of affairs. He emphasised that the absence of a target does not obscure performance, as the data and performance trends are always presented transparently, allowing for interpretation and judgment.
The effectiveness of SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound) targets was also debated. It was acknowledged that some targets, such as responding to member inquiries, may require adjustment due to current capacity and demand challenges. The historical target of 10 days for responding to member inquiries is being reviewed because of incredibly high relative volumes of members inquiries compared with those historical numbers.
This, coupled with a high number of complaints often handled by the same teams, necessitates a re-evaluation of the target timeframe, with considerations for extending it to 15 or 20 days, subject to collective agreement.
Measuring Qualitative Outcomes
A significant concern was raised about how well current KPIs measure genuine qualitative outcomes for residents, such as long-term housing stability, as opposed to administrative volume or process throughput. The difficulty in developing proxy KPIs for complex social outcomes was highlighted, with a recognition that data collection needs to be robust and meaningful to avoid misleading information.
Councillor Sarah Young suggested that commentary within reports could be enhanced to provide more qualitative insights. For example, detailing the number of large families housed in the borough would offer a clearer understanding of real-world progress beyond quantitative assessments. Mr Devile acknowledged that commentary is often the most challenging and subjective section, traditionally focusing on underperformance rather than successes. He also noted that building more sophistication into measurement, such as incorporating priority levels (high, medium, low) for inquiries or complaints, could be a solution, but this would require a wider discussion on prioritization.
Data Quality and Verification
Assurances were sought regarding the control systems and audit procedures in place to verify the accuracy and completeness of raw data before it is aggregated into dashboards. While a data quality policy exists, the discussion indicated a need for more standardised procedures across services for raw data verification. Mr Devile mentioned that while data quality checks exist within services, a standardised procedure or a clear indication of what individual services do for raw data verification before it reaches the dashboards was not fully detailed. Councillor Bettina Maidment requested a written response on the specifics of how the accuracy and completeness of raw data are verified, which officers agreed to provide offline.
Escalation of Underperformance and Recovery Plans
Mechanisms for escalating underperformance were explored, with it explained that this is largely managed on a case-by-case basis. Councillor Florence Schechter, Cabinet Member for Finance, Resident Service and Digital, explained that the approach to formal, time-bound recovery plans for underperformance is still being felt out
as the new administration is only four months in. She noted that some issues are long-standing and have formalized processes, citing the Adult Social Care Improvement Board
as an example of a formalized approach with monthly meetings for improvement delivery plans. However, for newer issues, the council is still determining the right plan
for improvement, acknowledging that the approach depends on the root cause of the underperformance. Therefore, some recovery plans are formalized, while others are not yet.
Reconciling Priorities
Discussions also touched upon the challenges of reconciling potential contradictions between local priorities, legacy KPIs, and the outcomes framework. Mr Devile explained that legacy business-critical indicators will remain central
to the organisation, as failures in areas like children's social care, adult social care, housing services, temporary accommodation
would lead to the overall health of the organisation fail.
These indicators are considered front and centre in a new local framework.
He acknowledged that there may be differing priorities between the council plan and the national outcomes framework, and the government's new outcomes framework indicators will also be tracked. The plan is to track all of that
to ensure that even if national priorities are not the council's primary focus areas, minimum service levels are maintained. Councillor Jasmine O'Connor sought clarification on why local and national priorities might differ, and Mr Devile explained this is due to central government setting national priorities which may not always align with local ones, although they may introduce performance targets in the future.
Councillor Florence Schechter acknowledged the ongoing work to develop new strategic plans and performance indicators, expressing confidence in improving performance tracking. Bruce Devile also thanked officers for their diligence and dedication to the scrutiny process. The meeting minutes can be found in the Item 6 Coversheet Minutes.
