114 Systems to collect and report on partners' performance should meet the different needs of the LSP governance layers (Table 8).
| Table 8 Performance reporting layers Are partners meeting at the right frequency - and are they discussing the right things? | |||
| Governance layer | Frequency of performance data | Type of performance data | Purpose |
| Strategic | Three to four times a year. | Key changes, reportable performance indicators (outputs and outcomes) LAA indicators and other LSP-related data. | Challenge performance: examine and respond to trends, steer partner activity. |
| Executive | Six to twelve times a year. | Management data (process and output). | Monitor performance; adjust activity to bring it back on track. Report exceptions to plan. Give an account to strategic level. |
| Operational | Twelve to 52 times a year. | Performance data (input and process). | Take immediate action. Report exceptions to plan. Give an account to executive level. |
Source: Audit Commission (1998) Performance Review in Local Government: Action Guide (adapted Audit Commission, 2008)
115 LSPs provide an opportunity for statutory partners to benchmark their performance against one another. Some LSPs use performance information from other areas to help them interpret local performance (Case study 18).
| Case study 18 Benchmarking in Derby Derby City Partnership's performance management group reviewed the opportunities for performance benchmarking within the LSP The first stage of the review identified partners' existing benchmarking arrangements. The group also identified activities for benchmarking across the partnership and with other organisations. The LSP continues to use benchmarking data to assess processes within partner organisations and to compare local outcomes with those in other LSPs. Source: Audit Commission, 2008 |