Data Quality Review 2007-08

1. Appendix D1 GOVERNMENT Data Quality Review2007-08 Weymouth and Portland Borough Council February 2009 AUDIT

2. Content The contacts at KPMG in connection with this report are: Harry Mears Engagement LeadKPMG LLP Tel: 02380 20 2093 harry.mears@kpmg.co.uk Claire Hollick Senior ManagerKPMG LLP Tel: 02380 20 6000claire.hollick@kpmg.co.uk James Helliwell Assistant ManagerKPMG LLP Tel: 02380 20 2133 james.helliwell@kpmg.co.uk This report is addressed to the Council and has been prepared for the sole use of the Council. We take no responsibility to any member of staff acting in their individual capacities, or to third parties. The Audit Commission has issued a document entitled Statement of Responsibilities of Auditors and Audited Bodies. This summarises where the responsibilities of auditors begin and end and what is expected from the audited body. We draw your attention to this document. External auditors do not act as a substitute for the audited body’s own responsibility for putting in place proper arrangements to ensure that public business is conducted in accordance with the law and proper standards, and that public money is safeguarded and properly accounted for, and used economically, efficiently and effectively. If you have any concerns or are dissatisfied with any part of KPMG’s work, in the first instance you should contact Harry Mears who is the engagement lead to the Council, telephone 02380 20 2193 email harry.mears@kpmg.co.uk who will try to resolve your complaint. If you are dissatisfied with your response please contact Trevor Rees on 0161 246 4063, email trevor.rees@kpmg.co.uk, who is the national contact partner for all of KPMG’s work with the Audit Commission. After this, if you still dissatisfied with how your complaint has been handled you can access the Audit Commission’s complaints procedure. Put your complaint in writing to the Complaints Team, Nicholson House, Lime Kiln Close, Stoke Gifford, Bristol, BS34 8SU or by e mail to: complaints@audit-commission.gov.uk. Their telephone number is 0844 798 3131, textphone (minicom) 020 7630 0421.

3. Executive Summary • The Audit Commission has developed a three-stage approach for assessing data quality, the first stage being a review of management arrangements for data quality. This review determines whether the Council has in place proper corporate management arrangements for data quality, and whether they are being applied in practice. This is the third year in which work on data quality has been undertaken. • The findings support our conclusion on your arrangements to secure value for money in relation to the specific criterion on data quality. This requires the Council to have ‘a track record of using high quality information on costs to actively manage performance, improve value for money and target resources’.This conclusion was issued with the 2007/08 audit opinion on your accounts. • Stage One • The work on management arrangements focuses on corporate data quality arrangements for your performance information. Our work will help drive improvement in the quality of performance information, leading to greater confidence in the supporting data on which performance assessments are based. The review is structured around five themes: • Governance and leadership; • Policies and procedures; • Systems and processes; • People and skills; and • Data use and reporting. • These themes break down into thirteen Key Lines of Enquiry (KLOEs). We have assessed your arrangements against each KLOE and have scored you against each theme as defined below: • We have assessed your overall performance as performing adequately. You have performed adequately in respect of your arrangements over governance and leadership, policies and procedures, systems and processes, people and skills, and data use and reporting. • We have provided our key findings in Section One and have raised eleven recommendations, summarised in Appendix 1.

4. Executive Summary (continued) • Stage Two • During Stage Two of the process we followed up issues arising from the analytical review of 2007/08 BVPI and non-BVPI data, used in the Comprehensive Performance Assessment carried out by the Audit Commission. This analytical review informed our selection of a sample for testing at Stage Three. • Stage Three • When deciding how many and which PIs to review at Stage Three, in addition to those identified for review by the Audit Commission, we used the results from stage one and our cumulative audit knowledge and experience to determine the total number of PIs for review. As a result of this we identified the following BVPI’s for review; • BV78a - Speed of processing new claims to Housing Benefits/Council Tax Benefits • BV78b - Speed of processing changes of circumstances to Housing Benefits/Council Tax Benefits • The results of these spot check reviews indicate that the data quality underpinning your PIs is adequate. • The results of our data quality spot checks are summarised in Section Two. • Best Value Performance Plan Report • In prior years your Best Value Performance Plan was audited in accordance with the Local Government Act 1999 and the Audit Commission’s Code of Audit Practice. From this year there is no requirement for this to be audited.

5. Section oneManagement Arrangements • We have assessed your overall performance as performing adequately. You have performed adequately in respect of your arrangements over governance and leadership, policies and procedures, systems and processes, people and skills, and data use and reporting. • The table sets out key drivers behind each theme, and details areas where you are currently meeting requirements and areas where further development is required.

6. Section oneManagement Arrangements (continued)

7. Section oneManagement Arrangements (continued)

8. Section oneManagement Arrangements (continued)

9. Section oneManagement Arrangements (continued)

10. Section twoData Quality Spot Checks • Our Stage Two and Three analytical review work identified that the PI values reviewed were substantiated by evidence. • We carried out spot checks on two of your PIs, the conclusion of this work is shown within the table below:

11. No • Risk • Issue and performance • improvement observation • Management response • Officer and • due date • Governance and leadership • 1 • (three) Records Manager to lead. Establish by September 2009 Report progress to Risk & Governance group. • Data quality working group • The Council has an established data quality lead officer who is in place to consider and address data quality issues. • We suggest that the Council consider the introduction of a data quality working group to promote, address and report to those charged with governance data quality issues. The data quality working group could include data quality champions representing the business areas in which data quality is of significance. KPMG has agreed to provide further advice on the business areas which it is considered should be prioritised for inclusion in a working group and whether an operational or strategic group is envisaged. • Data quality within strategic documents • The council’s commitment to data quality is not currently outlined in key strategic documents, such as the corporate performance plan or performance management framework. • We suggest that the Council consider the inclusion of data quality, in respect of its importance, and arrangements for, securing the quality of key data, within key strategic documents. • 2 • (two) Principle is accepted but will take time to implement as strategic documents such as the Corp Plan come up for review. Head of Governance On next review of Corporate Plan & other strategic documents Appendix 1Recommendations • This appendix summarises the recommendations we have identified relating to your data quality management arrangements. We have given each a risk rating (as explained below) and agreed with management what action you will need to take. • We will follow up these recommendations as part of our 2008-09 audit.

12. Appendix 1Recommendations • No • Risk • Issue and performance • improvement observation • Management • response • Officer and due date • Governance and leadership • 3 • (three) • Data quality strategy • Arrangements for data quality management are developing, and the Council was in the process of drafting a data quality strategy at September 2008. • We suggest that the data quality strategy is considered and approved by senior management. A data quality strategy was approved by Audit Committee in January 2009 • (three) • 4 • Data quality objectives • Arrangements for data quality management are developing, however there are currently no formal objectives in relation to data quality. • We suggest the Council consider the introduction of corporate data quality objectives, linked to business objectives, in line with SMART good practice (specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and timebound). Records Manager to develop objectives as part of the Strategy by December 2009. The principle is supported. KPMG has agreed to provide good practice examples to aid implementation at WPBC. • 5 • (three) • Risk management of data quality • The Council has undertaken reviews identified within risk management processes in relation to data quality, for example a review of storage and handling of data arrangements was undertaken during the year. However, data quality is not fully embedded into the Council’s risk management arrangements. • We suggest the Council should consider embedding data quality into the risk management processes, thus providing a formal approach to identifying, quantifying and mitigating risks associated with unreliable and inaccurate information. Audit Manager For inclusion in risk management training programme for service managers by September 2009 Principle accepted Training and guidance in carrying out risk management should include reference and explanation to data quality.

13. Appendix 1Recommendations • No • Risk • Issue and performance • improvement observation • Management response • Officer and • due date • Policies and procedures • 6 • (three) • Data quality policy • Arrangements for data quality management are developing, and the Council was in the process of drafting a data quality policy at September 2008. • We suggest that senior management consider and approve a data quality policy which encompasses data collection, recording, analysis and reporting; and all business areas. A data quality policy was approved by Audit Committee in January 2009 • 7 • (three) • Procedure and guidance notes • The Council has developed some procedure notes in relation to data quality, however these are mainly driven by the Data Protection Act requirements. • We suggest the Council consider the development of procedure and guidance notes, tailored to user requirements, which encompass data collection, recording, analysis and reporting. Practical procedure notes covering data collection, recording, analysis and reporting to accompany the strategy should be produced. Records Manager December 2009 • Records Manager/ • Performance & Improvement Manager • Jan – Feb 2010 • 8 • (three) • Staff awareness of data quality policies and procedures • Currently staff awareness of data quality is driven by established workflows of each department. • We suggest the Council consider processes for raising awareness of data quality and make available data quality documents and procedures to relevant staff. Training and guidance delivered to staff

14. Appendix 1Recommendations • No • Risk • Issue and performance • improvement observation • Management response • Officer and • due date • Systems and processes • 9 • (three) • Validation of third party information • The Council currently validates data received from third parties on an ad-hoc basis as part of the established workflows within departments. • We suggest that the Council consider the introduction of quality requirements in relation to the use of data received from external organisations. Records Manager Timescale dependent on further information from KPMG KPMG has agreed to provide examples of where this could has practical application for WPBC before timescale agreed • People and skills • 10 • (three) • Staff code of conduct • Currently staff are briefed on their data quality responsibilities on an informal basis in relation to established workflows within each of the departments. • We suggest that the Council consider the introduction of staff responsibilities, in relation to data quality, within the staff code of conduct. • Similarly, we suggest that the Council consider an appraisal of staff training needs in relation to data quality. Deputy Chief Executive January 2010 Guidance on data quality & security etc would more appropriately be included within the IT protocol for staff and councillors which is currently under review & due to go to Standards Committee in July 2009 and will then need to be considered by Management Committee and Full council.

15. Appendix 1Recommendations • No • Risk • Issue and performance • improvement observation • Management response • Officer and • due date Systems and processes • Data use • 11 • (three) • Performance benchmarking • In March 2008 the Council introduced a system of benchmarking, whereby performance indicators for departments were compared to similar Councils. This information was reported to the Scrutiny and Performance Committee, and there is evidence of appropriate follow up with departments. • We suggest the Council further embed the use of performance information to monitor service delivery, forecast year-end achievement, and identify areas where action is needed. The principle that greater use of benchmarking to test performance and value for money is accepted. The Council’s Change and Development Programme includes a project to progress use of benchmarking within the council. Deputy Chief Executive. Timescales in accordance with project plan for improving use of benchmarking which is overseen by the Change & Improvement Board