Meeting documents
Cabinet
Wednesday, 6th September, 2006
SERVICE DELIVERY AND RESOURCES PLANNING
Overview of the Framework and Timetable
July 2006
CONTENTS
1. Introduction and Background
2. The Framework for Service Delivery and Resource Planning High Level Timeline
3. Key Features and Changes
ANNEXES
Detailed Timetable and Responsibilities
1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1.1. The Council is always striving to improve its corporate management to deliver outcomes based on an alignment between agreed corporate priorities, resources, efficiency and value for money.
1.2. As part of the commitment to improve, there have been some significant changes to the way we are proposing to undertake service planning going forward.
1.3. These changes have been made now as we approach the final year of the Corporate Plan to reflect the revised roles and responsibilities of the new senior management team following restructure and in response to a number of factors, including:
The emerging Local Area Agreement (LAA).
The need to co-ordinate our efforts across the Council to deliver Council priorities.
The need to improve Overview and Scrutiny and member involvement in the process.
The Capital Review, Value for Money Check, and Risk and Opportunity Strategy.
The review of the Council's Performance Management Arrangements external audit.
The requirements of the CPA `harder test.'
The commitment to Council during the 2006-07 budget process to provide a clear focus on value for money to inform the 2007/08 budget process.
The Government's financial settlement.
1.4. The key objectives of the framework are to:
Ensure that all objectives and targets are an appropriate reflection of priorities as set out in the Corporate Plan.
Link performance with resources and value for money.
Set the overall direction for the Council in terms of performance and resource
Facilitate more focussed performance management with clear accountability.
Provide a clear framework for member involvement in planning and performance management.
Demonstrate and evidence prioritisation.
1.5. At the heart of the process is to be clear about the overall direction of our performance and costs - what we have called SQUEEZE, HOLD & DRIVE.
1.6. This overview provides a high level summary of the objectives and thinking behind the revised service delivery and resources planning framework.
1.7. The integrated service delivery and resources planning framework remains one of the most important management processes for the Council. It sets out what we want to achieve, produces a budget and provides the platform for performance management at the corporate, service, team and individual levels.
2. THE FRAMEWORK FOR SERVICE DELIVERY AND RESOURCE PLANNING
2.1. The framework for service delivery and resource planning together with the summary changes to the framework are shown in Figure 2.1 overleaf.
2.2. The framework emphasises:
AMBITION, ACHIEVEMENTS & PRIORITISATION: what we aiming to deliver in line with local, regional and national priorities. What we have already done towards achieving our ambition. Where we need to focus our effort and available resources in future to achieve our ambition. Setting our deliverables and targets accordingly.
PLANNING & CAPACITY: can we deliver priorities and related deliverables and targets within the cash limits while demonstrating value for money and taking advantage of the change programme?
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT: Robust corporate, service, team and individual level performance management, to ensure deliverables, service levels and targets are met and the resulting outcomes are achieved.
ORGANISATION & SKILLS: A clear set of accountabilities, management competences, roles and responsibilities that put planning and delivering the programme at the heart of the management `day-job' at all levels.
2.3. The framework is also aligned to the Key Lines of Enquiry for the corporate assessment under the Comprehensive Performance Assessment.
2.4. A simplified version of the framework in four steps is illustrated in Figure 2.2.
1.
Figure 2.1: The Framework for Service Delivery and Resources Planning and Summary Changes
1.
Figure 2.2: Service Delivery Planning - 4 Step Process
|
1. Priority Check |
|
Performance indicators (national and local) grouped by high level function, by service, by Executive Portfolios and prioritised by: Contribution to the Corporate Plan Improvement Priorities One of 3 priorities identified through residents survey Essential/statutory service provision |
|
Other functions that contribute to sound management of the Council to follow similar process using national/ local indicators. |
|
2. Value for Money Check |
|
Comparative cost and performance established for each service/function (where possible). |
|
3. Direction - Service Planning Parameters |
|
Based on 1 & 2 above, services are asked to SQUEEZE, HOLD or DRIVE both cost & performance in SERVICE PLANNING PARAMETERS. E.g. depending on priority, services that are: HIGH cost and HIGH performance may be asked to SQUEEZE costs and HOLD performance LOW cost and HIGH performance may be asked to HOLD costs and HOLD performance HIGH cost and LOW performance may be asked to SQUEEZE costs and DRIVE performance LOW cost and LOW performance may be asked to HOLD costs and DRIVE performance |
|
Lower/higher priority services/functions may also be asked to identify the impact on performance of +/- £50k/£100k & £250k |
|
4. Planning Delivery |
|
SERVICE DELIVERY PLANS developed at Assistant Director level to set appropriate objectives and targets within the direction set & supported by service team plans & individual objectives. |
|
SERVICE DELIVERY PROGRAMME developed by Assistant Directors' Group to co-ordinate cross service planning & delivery. |
2.5. The four step process simplifies the framework and the following caveats are important:
The framework is a starting point for developing the allocation of resources to priorities. At each stage a reality check will be needed, including the impact on the community, the Council's reputation, and customer satisfaction. In exceptional cases it may mean holding higher costs in the short term to drive out longer term benefits and outcomes.
Not all services will have, or could have, the requisite information the first time around. The framework is as also about developing the Council's approach to value for money.
The framework should not become a bureaucratic paper-chase. This relies on managers understanding the relationship between customer needs and satisfaction, performance, service standards and costs and not on filling in templates.
2.6. The framework emphasises accountabilities that reflect the revised roles and responsibilities of the new senior management team following restructuring of the Council. This is illustrated in Figure 2.3.
Figure 2.3: Framework for Service Delivery and Resources Planning - Accountability at all Levels
2.7.
The most significant changes to the current framework include giving services an initial steer by using service planning parameters based on a demonstration of value for money. This recognises that value for money cannot be driven by cash limits alone.
2.8. A further overlay on the traditional cash limits is the for some selected services the Service Delivery Plans may require an illustration of the impact on performance and service standards of a reduction/increase of £50K, £100K and £250K. The service planning parameters are illustrated at Figure 2.4.
Figure 2.4: Sample Service Planning Parameters (high priority service with high costs & average performance)
|
Cost |
Service Levels/ Performance |
||
|
Target |
Timescale |
Target |
Timescale |
|
Financial Plan targets. PLUS SQUEEZE costs to less than average for similar authorities. |
Lower than average costs within 2 years |
HOLD current service levels/ standards. DRIVE performance to meet targets. PLUS for Selected lower/higher priority services illustrate impact of +/- £50K/£100K/ £250K |
1 year |
2.9. In recognising that not all services will have the requisite information to demonstrate value for money the first time around, the framework is flexible to allow this to be developed. This is illustrated in Figure 2.5.
Figure 2.5: Value for Money and Service Planning
2.10. The high level timeline for the process is shown in Figure 2.6. A more detailed timetable is shown in Annex 1.
Figure 2.6: The Framework for Service Delivery and Resources Planning - High Level Timeline
|
Period |
Activity |
|
June / July 2006 |
Service Delivery and Budget planning framework developed in more depth. Initial update of financial position to inform revised financial plan parameters. New process launched to senior managers, new templates and guidance distributed along side financial plan parameters and initial service planning parameters. |
|
August 2006 |
Services begin service and financial planning. - first draft. |
|
September 2006 |
Chief Executive to consult on service planning parameters with key services affected. Executive Member (Resources) considers any changes to budget consultation, publications, including recommendations from the Resources O&S panel. Executive to consider this report, formally register framework, actions and agree timetable. Briefing note to all Councillors on the financial position and the new process, including how they can contribute. O&S Panel Chairs briefed. Letter from the Executive to all O&S panels to encourage scrutiny and evaluation of service delivery plans and budget changes for 2007/08. Start update of Corporate Plan led by sponsor Strategic Directors/Executive Members, including progress to date, focus on actions and outcomes that are challenging but realistic given resource constraints. |
|
October 2006 |
First draft Service Delivery Plans due - 1st week Oct including response to initial service planning parameters. Consideration by the Strategic Directors Group & Executive of first phase of budget changes and implications on services. Service Planning parameters reviewed in the light of response in first draft Service Delivery Plans and service based vfm assessment. |
|
November 2006 |
Second draft Service Delivery Plans due - 2nd week November (only where change required) O&S Panels consider and feedback to the Executive on overall strategy and in particular vfm and service/community impact for services within their remit. |
|
December 2006 |
Update for financial settlement, and further review of the overall financial position for 2007/08 and future years |
|
January 2007 |
Executive prepare corporate plan update and Budget, drawing from draft service delivery and resource. (For Executive February 2007) O&S panels to follow up on any issues from November and consider any interim Executive response to November feedback |
|
February 2007 |
Recommendation/Approval of corporate plan and financial plan update and Budget/Council Tax to Executive and full Council. |
|
March 2007 |
Finalisation of Service Delivery Programme and Service Delivery & Resource Plans for approval by Executive Members via the Weekly List |
1.
|
3A. KEY FEATURES AND CHANGES - AMBITION, ACHIEVEMENTS & PRIORITIES |
||
|
Key Feature |
Current Arrangements |
Summary Changes and Why |
|
Local Area Agreement (LAA) |
New requirement |
Draft Agreement - September 2006. Final Agreement - April 2007. |
|
Corporate Plan and Consultation (Local, Regional & National Priorities) |
Current plan agreed 2004 and is updated annually including any change in regional and national requirements. Consultation is at service level with service users, trade unions and other stakeholders |
No major changes for 2007-08. Annual update of progress to date, clarity, focus on actions and outcomes that are challenging but realistic given resource constraints. Priority check based on Residents Survey information, and the three year customer satisfaction survey. Fundamental review by the new Council after local elections in May 2007. Consider Strategic Audit of the area to identify key issues and priorities for review of corporate plan in 2007. More widespread consultation will be required for the new Corporate Plan and accompanying Financial Plan after the local elections in May 2007. |
|
Value for Money/ Service Planning Parameters |
No corporately evidenced overview of value for money. Local arrangements to consider vfm but not in all services. Audit Commission vfm profile. Service planning parameters tend to centre on cash limits. |
The financial plan targets need to be more strongly linked to priorities, value for money, outcomes, deliverables, service levels/standards and performance targets. The proposals include an annual value for money check building on the 2006 check and the Audit Commission's toolkit. The Council needs the scope to re-allocate resources between services knowing the impact on outcomes, deliverables, service standards and targets. The proposals include the introduction of Service Planning Parameters to guide the Autumn service planning round. These parameters are based on priorities and any current demonstration of value for money. For example, a service with high costs cannot expect additional resources through the process unless efficiency and effectiveness is demonstrated by a service level vfm assessment as being due to local circumstances or much better comparative performance in a high priority service or function. |
|
3B. KEY FEATURES AND CHANGES - PLANNING & CAPACITY |
||
|
Key Feature |
Current Arrangements |
Summary Changes and Why |
|
Priorities, Outcomes, Deliverables and Targets. |
The current service and resource plan template. |
The current service and resource plans can be `silo based'. While this reinforces accountability it can detract from joining up service delivery. It is not always clear what the difference is between an outcome, deliverable, service standard & target. The current service & resource planning template does not allow sufficient scope for all services and functions to demonstrate their contribution to the Council. Services try to `shoe-horn' their objectives into corporate priorities. The proposals include: Service Delivery and Resource Plans at an AD level, supported by service team plans and individual objectives. A Service Delivery Programme to join up planning & delivery across the Council, managed collectively by the Assistant Directors' Group with exception reporting to the Strategic Directors' Group. It is also proposed that the Service Delivery & Resource Plans are revised to: Focus on the long term vision of the service/function, value for money and what needs to happen to make the changes. Differences between outcomes, deliverables, service levels & targets. Distinguish between outcomes and deliverables which are discrete to a service and those that depend on corporate working within the Council and with its partners. The latter would need to be planned for across the Council and its partners in the Service Delivery Programme. Recognise that some services have a direct community/user impact & others support those services and the sound management of the Council. In this way different functions can relate more clearly to the objectives of the Council. Reflect the agreed recommendations from the capital review (Council Executive 12th July 2006), principally a more rigorous framework for capital planning and a five year capital programme with a ten to twenty year outlook. Include deliverability and risk. |
|
Resources and Cash Limits |
Well established financial plan targets reflecting the corporate priorities of the Council. |
The financial plan targets need to be more strongly linked to priorities, outcomes, deliverables, service levels/standards and performance targets. There is a danger that the current reliance on cash limits to reflect priorities may have unintended impacts i.e. the level of service is determined within a cash limit and resources and performance are not considered together. As this is the last year of the current Council and corporate plan no changes are proposed in the underlying financial plan targets, although they may need to be adjusted after a re-appraisal of the financial situation in Summer 2006. Financial plan targets may also be overlaid by: Service planning parameters to reflect improving value for money. A need for selected lower/higher priority services to illustrate the impact of +/-£50K/£100K/ £250K over and above the cash limit. |
|
Value for Money at Service Level |
Local arrangements to consider vfm but not in all services. |
The corporate vfm check can only pick up major services. The first check in July 2006 still has gaps. Vfm should be a concern of all managers and can further inform service planning parameters in future years. The revised Service Delivery and Resource Plan template will therefore incorporate a section on value for money (arrangements for and demonstration of vfm) recognising that this may be approached differently by different types of service. In some instances it may involve a value judgement comparing cost with deliverables and priorities rather than benchmarking. The service level vfm is also a sanity check on the initial service planning parameters developed during the summer i.e. if a service can demonstrate vfm contrary to the high level check. This is a key feature of the framework which relies on managers understanding the relationship between customer needs (through market research), customer satisfaction, service levels/standards, performance, and costs. Without this there is a danger of the process becoming a template filling paper-chase. Support arrangements for services who find this difficult will need to be considered. |
|
Deliverability (Capacity and Risk) |
The current service plans focus on 3-4 key initiatives for change. Service risk registers are not always reviewed, either during the year or as part of change flowing from service delivery plans. Director's review of budget robustness and risks that inform the s151 officer's assessment of the adequacy of reserves and robustness of the budget. |
There is some evidence that services set targets which are not always delivered or delivered in the timescale envisaged. In some instances, this may be a result of aspirational Government targets - but this is not always the case. Service risk registers are not reviewed as regularly as they should be. The agreed Risk Management Strategy has changed this. Nevertheless, the at the Service Delivery Plan stage the risk registers will need to be reviewed, particularly if there is major change in the service. The Service Delivery and Resources Plan template will include: An assessment of deliverability of outcomes, deliverables, targets together with any dependencies. A confirmation that the relevant service risk registers have been reviewed and any major corporate risks have been communicated to the Council's Risk Manager to be included in the Corporate Risk Register. It is proposed to retain the Director's review of budget robustness and risks in order to evidence the s151 officer's assessment of the level and adequacy of reserves and the robustness of the budget. |
|
Change Programme Management |
The Council has a well established change programme and a Change Programme Management Group to co-ordinate and bring coherence to the different streams within the programme. |
No new proposals. However, the service planning template is revised to encourage explicit consideration of how the change programme toolkit can contribute to improving efficiency and effectiveness. |
|
3C. KEY FEATURES AND CHANGES - PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT |
||
|
Key Feature |
Current Arrangements |
Summary Changes & Why |
|
Performance against deliverables & targets and that the resulting outcomes are achieved. |
Performance Management Framework now well established. External audit review of Performance Management Framework. |
No major changes. It is proposed to that the clearer distinction between outcomes, deliverables, service levels/standards and targets in the Service Delivery Plans are reflected within the performance management framework. Performance reporting at officer level will be focused through the new AD Group, with reporting Strategic Directors Group on an exception basis. Consider integration with financial/ risk reporting from 2007/08 for a more holistic picture. |
|
Financial Performance |
Monthly budget monitors to managers, Directors and Executive members (copied to O&S Chairs). Quarterly reporting to the Council Executive. Financial Performance reported with performance but in separate reports. |
Review current reports (Directors' Group, Assistant Directors' Group, Executive Members, and Council Executive) to have sharper identification of current issues/strategic issues. Financial Performance reporting at officer level will be focused through the new AD Group, with reporting Strategic Directors Group on an exception basis. Consider integration with performance/ risk reporting from 2007/08 for a more holistic picture. |
|
Risk management |
Included no overview of risk. Process of updating risks and mitigations unclear. |
New arrangements approved by Executive in June 2006 - See Risk Management Strategy on CIS. Quarterly update and reporting of Corporate Risk Register. Regular update of service risk registers and Directors' Review. Consider integration with performance/ financial reporting from 2007/08 for a more holistic picture. |
|
3D. KEY FEATURES AND CHANGES - ORGANISATION & SKILLS |
||
|
Key Feature |
Current Arrangements |
Summary Changes and Why Needed |
|
Roles and Timeline |
In 2005-06, the service planning process began in October with Autumn Plans. High level timeline produced for Service and Resource Plans. |
The current timeline starts too late to take a more measured approach and makes it difficult to involve O&S Panels. With the announcement of Government support already known for 2007-08 and with 3 year revenue and capital settlements allows for a more measured approach that can take more time to consider options and their impact. It also It is proposed to: Start the service planning process at least 1-2 months earlier i.e. August/Sept. Although August is a holiday period, it can be used to start assembling information and holding preliminary discussions. Make the draft templates and guidance available from the end of July. Figure 2.4 gives a high level timeline. For 2008-09 it is likely that early consultation on any new corporate plan/LAA and financial plan will be necessary which will require the timeline to be expanded. |
|
Accountability |
High level timeline produced for Service and resource Plans |
The framework needs to reflect new management structures, management roles, and emerging management arrangements to reflect the accountability for service planning and performance as part of the day job at all levels. (See Figure 2.3) |
|
Workforce Planning and Management Competences |
HR Strategy but no consistent workforce planning across the Council. Management Competences agreed and being implemented/ embedded. Culture change programme established. |
No new proposals. A project on Workforce Planning is about to start as part of the HR Strategy and in response to the DCLG (formerly ODPM) Pay and Workforce Strategy for Local Government. |