The Scrutiny Panel of Hackney Council met on Thursday 08 October 2026 to review the Council's performance monitoring dashboards and the Corporate Transformation Programme. The meeting focused on how key performance indicators (KPIs) are used to track progress, the effectiveness of the Council's transformation initiatives in achieving financial sustainability and service improvements, and the governance structures in place to manage risks and ensure delivery.

Council Performance and Monitoring Dashboards

The panel reviewed the Council's performance management framework, which has been refreshed and now includes business-critical and organisational health dashboards. These dashboards are designed to provide a high-level overview of performance in key service areas and internal functions. While the initial intention was to conduct a deep dive into the planning service's performance indicators, officers from that department were unavailable. Instead, the discussion focused on the broader principles of performance monitoring, target setting, and data quality.

Key discussions included:

• Target Setting: Councillors raised questions about the appropriateness of setting targets for all indicators, particularly those that are data only and not directly controllable. The effectiveness of SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound) targets was debated, with an acknowledgement that some targets may need to be revisited or adjusted based on current capacity and demand, such as the historical target for responding to member inquiries.
• Qualitative Outcomes vs. Quantitative Measures: A significant concern was how well the current KPIs measure genuine qualitative outcomes for residents, such as long-term housing stability, as opposed to administrative volume or process throughput. The challenge of 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.
• Data Quality and Validation: The panel sought assurance on 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 standardized procedures across services for raw data verification, with a commitment to a written response on this specific point.
• Escalation of Underperformance: The mechanisms for escalating persistently red KPIs or worsening trends from director-level one-on-ones to the Corporate Leadership Team (CLT) or scrutiny panel were explored. It was explained that this is largely managed on a case-by-case basis, with monthly performance boards and issue management systems in place. The development of formal, time-bound recovery plans for identified underperformance was also discussed, with some areas having formalized processes (e.g., the Adult Social Care Improvement Board) while others are still developing their approach.
• Risk Management Integration: The panel questioned how quickly KPIs showing persistent or worsening trends are integrated into the Corporate Risk Register. It was clarified that this depends on the nature of the indicator and whether it poses a structural or reputational risk to the council. The pyramid structure of risk management, from directorate-level registers up to the corporate level, was explained, with the Audit Committee providing oversight. The use of the risk register to improve performance was also discussed, with the expectation that it should feed into service planning and target setting.
• Alignment of Plans and Priorities: The alignment of new performance dashboards with the Borough Plan, Mayoral priorities, the Council Plan, and the government's outcomes framework was a key theme. Officers explained that while legacy business-critical indicators will remain central, there may be differing priorities between national and local frameworks, necessitating the tracking of all areas to ensure minimum service levels are maintained.

Corporate Transformation Programme

The panel received an update on the Council's Corporate Transformation Programme, initiated to address rising demand for services, constrained funding, and the need for modernisation. The programme aims to ensure long-term financial sustainability and improve service delivery through a strategic roadmap.

Key aspects of the programme discussed include:

• Programme Objectives and Scope: The transformation programme, which has been in development for approximately three years, aims to deliver better outcomes for residents with available resources. It focuses on changes that require cross-organisational collaboration. While financial savings are a key driver, the programme also seeks to balance improvements for residents and staff. The programme is grouped into corporate and people in place portfolios, with 11 live programmes, eight of which have associated savings.
• Target Operating Model: The council has developed a target operating model, which visualises how services will function in the future. This model emphasizes a neighbourhood focus, resident experience, early intervention and prevention, data-driven interventions, well-managed workforces, asset utilisation, and effective strategic and enabling services.
• Financial Contributions and Savings: The transformation programme is projected to contribute significantly to the Council's Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) savings target of £57 million. Approximately two-thirds of these savings are tracked through the transformation governance arrangements. Specific examples of savings were provided, including £300,000 from the creation of Connect to Hackney for agency staff recruitment and £400,000 from repurposing vacant caretaker properties into care homes.
• Case Study: Children's Social Care: A detailed case study was presented on the Finding My Future programme within Children's Social Care. This initiative aims to improve the description and understanding of children's needs, ensure evidence-based decision-making, and reduce care escalations. The programme uses tools like Valuing Care and Carecube to inform commissioning and home-finding approaches, with a projected cost reduction of £608,000 for 2026-27. The programme has also delivered social value through paid internships for care leavers and donated laptops.
• Challenges and Risks: Despite progress, all transformation programmes are currently rated as amber due to complexity and scale. Challenges include mobilising resources, potential over-optimism in timelines, and change fatigue within the organisation. The programme's resilience to further changes in senior leadership and national policy reforms was also a point of discussion, with assurances that the governance framework is designed to adapt and that knowledge retention is a priority.
• Equality and Equalities Impact: The programme incorporates equalities impact assessments for each workstream to identify benefits and risks. Examples were given of how the resident experience programme, including the new web platform, addresses accessibility requirements. Mitigations and alternatives are being developed for groups who may find digital transactions challenging. The council's commitment to being an anti-racist organisation and its broader social justice framework were also highlighted.
• Budget Gap Clarification: A clarification was sought regarding the difference between the initial budget gap of £51 million when the transformation programme began and the current projected gap of £10 million. Officers explained that the £51 million represented the original gap, and the transformation programme is designed to address this. The £10 million figure is the current gap, assuming all transformation savings are delivered. Delays in savings delivery are expected to be managed through one-off resources, without impacting the MTFP budget gap.

The meeting concluded with thanks to the officers involved and an acknowledgement of the ongoing nature of transformation within the council.