DISSF(11-12)05
DEBT AND INSOLVENCY SERVICE STAKEHOLDER FORUM
Achievement against AiB’s Key Performance Indicators 2010/11
FOR DISCUSSION
Purpose
1. Debt and Insolvency Service Stakeholder Forum (DISSF) members are invited
to note AiB’s performance against its Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) during
2010/11.
Decisions and actions required of DISSF
2. DISSF is invited to consider AiB’s KPI performance and provide constructive
feedback on the achievement reported in Annex A with a view to using comments as
quotes in the Annual Report & Accounts 2010/11. An example of a comment is
given in respect of KPI 1.
Key Information DISSF will need to support its decision
Background
3. At the end of 2008/09, AiB carried out a fundamental review of its KPIs to
ensure they were fit for purpose and relevant to its customers, stakeholders and
internal management. Initial measurement and benchmarking of the 8 agreed KPIs
took place during 2009/10 to set the baseline for this year’s improvement monitoring.
The KPIs, rationale behind the selection of the specific improvement measurement
and achievement against each of the targets are detailed in Annex A, an extract of
the draft Annual Report and Accounts 2010/11.
Advice and Conclusions
4. DISSF is invited to note the performance reported in Annex A to:-
provide a comment on any KPI(s) relevant to their area of interest or
expertise by midday Thursday 7 July 2011
indicate willingness for the comment to be included in AiB’s Annual Report
& Accounts 2010/11
Karen Halford
Business Planning Manager
20 June 2011
An agency of
EMBARGOED UNTIL 9 AUGUST 2011 ANNEX A
ANNEX A
Key Performance Indicators
KPI 1 – To adjudicate and inform the outcome of debtor applications on receipt
of all relevant information
AiB recognises a prompt response on the outcome of an application is very
important to our customers as this will have a major impact on their financial future.
This indicator measures the time taken to notify a debtor of a bankruptcy award.
At the beginning of the year, the timescale for informing debtors of the outcome of
their applications was 6.3 days. Following a number of improvements to the Debtor
Application process as a result of the Home Owner and Debtor Protection Act
(Scotland) 2010, including the removal of Form 17, this timescale has been reduced
significantly to 4.9 days at the end of the year.
"Having finally taken the huge step of applying for bankruptcy, debtors want the
process to be as fast and efficient as possible, as this helps take the pressure off.
AiB's performance in reducing the processing and therefore waiting time for
applicants is a key element of their service delivery and is to be commended"
Yvonne MacDermid, OBE, Chief Executive, Money Advice Scotland
KPI 2 – To increase the percentage of cases where a dividend is paid out to
creditors
AiB has a statutory duty to maximise the return to creditors. Information indicates
the level of dividend is predominantly driven by the economic conditions and
environment in which cases are determined. The majority of cases where AiB is the
Trustee are those with little disposable income, which impacts on AiB's ability to
influence ongoing improvement in the rate of return. This KPI focuses its staff and
providers on, for example, contributions and changing our working practices so we
can influence an overall increase in the percentage figure of cases where a dividend
is paid.
Although ending the last quarter of 2010/11 at 14.65% of cases producing a dividend
to creditors, the average over the year has seen a slight drop from 13.2% of cases in
2009/10 to 10.6%. We have introduced a number of new processes, such as direct
telephone payment procedure and greater use of Sheriff Officers, where required,
to improve on our dividend payment performance over the coming years .
2
An agency of
EMBARGOED UNTIL 9 AUGUST 2011 ANNEX A
KPI 3 – To promptly determine accounts on receipt of all relevant information
from trustees
It is important for creditors and other stakeholders that accounts are determined
accurately and quickly as the determination provides the authority to pay any fees,
outlays and dividends that are due.
The introduction of AiB’s web portal functionality in December 2010 has helped
improve our process for receiving and determining some bankruptcy accounts during
2010/11 by reducing the amount of time AiB staff require to determine accounts.
The average accounts determination time has reduced from 11.1 days in 2009/10, to
7.25 days in 2010/11. We will be investigating if we can extend the use of the Web
Portal to receive other accounts in 2011/12.
KPI 4 – To adjudicate and inform the result of the Debt Arrangements Scheme
applications on receipt of all relevant information
This indicator was introduced to ensure applications for Debt Payment Programmes
are processed and customers are advised of the outcome promptly to protect them
from diligence and enable them to set up repayments to creditors.
Figures for the start of the year amounted to 2.8 days and by 31 March 2011 had
reduced to 2.4 days. This decrease in process time is noteworthy given the increase
in volume of DPPs by 34% on last year.
KPI 5 – To improve customer experience
In seeking to reduce the cost of its services to the public purse, AiB’s service users –
our customers – are increasingly covering the cost of the Agency. AiB recognises
the need to focus on and improve service delivery, monitoring and evaluation
performance through customer feedback.
In October 2009 a customer service survey was carried out resulting in an overall
satisfaction rating of 93%. The nature of the score left little room for investigation of
areas for improvement. In consultation with our stakeholders, we decided to look for
a way to identify specific areas for development through a process of more regularly
gathered feedback. Work has begun to explore how we can best obtain evaluation
of the service we deliver across the range of AiB’s service users throughout the
period of a customer’s contact with the Agency.
3
An agency of
EMBARGOED UNTIL 9 AUGUST 2011 ANNEX A
KPI 6 – To improve employee engagement within the Agency
Evidence shows that engaged employees are far more committed and productive to
improved service delivery. To measure performance against this indicator, AiB takes
part annually in the UK Civil Service Employee Engagement Survey, a survey
measuring the attitudes and opinions of Civil Servants across the UK. Taking part
allows the Agency to benchmark itself against the other 95 participating UK
Departments and Agencies.
The Agency scored an overall Employee Engagement Score of 63%. While the
score fell slightly this year in absolute terms, the Agency scores 7% higher than the
Civil Service average engagement score, placing the Agency in the top quartile of all
the organisations that took part in the survey. This is a welcome result given the
uncertain landscape of the public sector. However, in recognition that we can do
even better, we have developed action plans designed to ensure employee
engagement continues to underpin the delivery of the Agency’s objectives.
KPI 7 – To reduce the unit cost of sequestration
This KPI focuses on achieving efficiency savings in the use of staff and resources for
cases where The Accountant in Bankruptcy is trustee, helping AiB to reduce the
impact of its service delivery on the public purse. The indicator excludes Low Income
Low Asset cases.
In 2010-11 there has been a 5% drop in the unit cost of sequestration from £1,688 in
2009/10 to £1,605 in 2010/11. This has primarily been driven by the efficiencies
now feeding through from improved contracts with key suppliers involved in the
sequestration process.
KPI 8 – To reduce the unit cost of the Debt Arrangement Scheme (DAS)
This indicator measures the unit cost of processing each DAS application and Debt
Payment Programme, aiming to reduce the cost of managing the scheme. The unit
cost is the gross cost of administering the DAS and does not include contributions
paid by debtors towards their Debt Payment Programmes.
In 2010-11 the unit cost of administering DAS decreased by 45% from £58 to £32.
Over the same period the number of Debt Payment Programmes has increased by
38% on the previous year. Improvements to processes and improved efficiencies
have meant we have been able to keep increase in costs to a minimum and
combined with the increase in volume has resulted in a drop in the unit cost.
4
An agency of