1

Joint Services in Revenues

Bill Lovell IRRV,Revenues Consultant, WDL Consultancy LTDCouncil Member, IRRV

Bill.lovell@btinternet.com

IRRV SOUTH EASTERN ASSOCIATION

2

Objectives of joint service

Cost reductions Improvements in quality at lower cost Enhanced performanceMore efficient use of capital assets

3

Issues Expected outcome: Efficiency gains from the economies of scale

Risk to avoid: Beware the law of diminishing returns

Need for investment: Change incurs costs, before savings deliver

Payback period Crucial to recognise and agree

Support Services (finance/legal/HR/ICT/etc)

4

The Support Services issueIdentified as a key factor by the Joint Best Value Pilot (1997-1999) As front line services are centralised, need

for separate support services diminishes; So - amalgamate support services first; Buy-in some support services (normally,

commercially available) if more effective; Merger of front line services is simplified

once a single source for support services is established

BUT – vested interests may be a high obstacle to overcome.

5

The Traditional Single Service

Single Office Pyramid management structure All revenues & benefits sections in one building Staff working on site Normal working hours With flexitime With part-time

6

Worries over a shared service

Where will it be? Will the new office be accessible? Will travel to work time increase? Will existing work colleagues stay on?Will there be jobs for managers?Jobs for supervisors?A job for ME?

7

Benefits from a shared service

More resources available to improve the working environment More opportunities for training and promotion in a larger organisation More regular refreshment of updated systems More job satisfaction from providing a more effective and efficient service Pride from working for an innovative organisation.

8

Local Government Structure

LG Structure is a MESS! Govt appears to have a unitary agenda Enforced mergers require central funding Voluntary mergers - locally fundedShared Services – An alternative to political mergers?

9

CASE STUDY

The CenSus Partnership

10

Mid Sussex

District Council

Adur

District Council

Horsham

District Council

11

Served by the CenSus Partnershipto CENTRAL SUSSEXSEX

Adur Pop. Area Dwellings NDR a/cs

(sq miles)

Adur DC 60,000 16 27,000 2,100

Horsham 124,000 205 54,000 4,000

Mid-Sussex 127,000 128 55,500 3,800

Totals 311,000 359 136,500 9,900

12

WHAT IS CenSus

CenSus is NOT a legal entityIt IS a Partnership by AgreementObjective – commonality of service deliveryNon-statutory Joint Committee

Operational Boards with officer membership

Partnership to apply to all services Different service delivery options may

apply to different services

13

CenSus project First Project Common ICT service – CenSus ICT Head Common servers Common systems CenSus-wide EDRMS

Second Project Partnership working in revenues Selected option – joint service Head of Revenues appointed and in post

Next step - Benefits

14

How Does CenSus compare….

Pop C.Tax a/csEast Riding Yorks 315,000 130,000Wakefield MDC 310,000

140,000South Glos. Unitary245,000 105,000Newcastle-u-Tyne 260,000 121,000Brighton & Hove 214,000 112,000

15

How Does CenSus compare….

Pop C.Tax a/csCenSus 320,000 136,000East Riding Yorks 315,000 130,000Wakefield MDC 310,000

140,000South Glos. Unitary245,000 105,000Newcastle-u-Tyne 260,000 121,000Brighton & Hove 214,000 112,000

16

CenSus – A major player

Unitary Authorities Of the 46 Unitary councils, only Bristol

has a higher population than the CenSus area.

Metropolitan Authorities Of the 36 Metropolitan Councils, only 8

have a higher population then CenSus.

As a billing authority, CenSus is equal to a ‘top ten’ council.

17

Economies of scalePartnership creates large players out of small districtsTwo average districts and one small district – equivalent to a top-ten authority in area and population.CenSus has growth options with other authorities in the area. Still the unanswered question – when do the economies of scale meet the law of diminishing returns?

18

Revenues Project- Start Point

Three councils, second tier districts3 admin centres,3 IT systems (all different),

2 with EDM systems (different)

Urban and rural mix

Coast, airport, commercial harbour

Commuter towns – mobile population

19

DRIVERS

Cost reductions – economies of scaleService improvements – efficiency gainsRelease resources to improve front line servicesEnhance authorities’ reputationsPrepare for response to structural reviews (unitary status plans)

20

Barriers Need to fund costs of change Inadequate or inefficient office accommodation Distances between administration centres Staff resistance to change Staffing profiles – job-sharers, part-time employees. Mixed performance levels. Issues regarding sharing of costs and savings Impact on support services

21

CenSus ICT PROJECT

Common council tax and NDR software implemented 2005Mutual supportICT Head appointed – ICT staff secondedSingle server with Disaster Recovery back-upCorporate EDRMS procured – implementation 2006/07 and 2007/08.

22

CenSus REVENUES PROJECT

2005 (Apr) – exploratory discussions2006 (Jan) – external consultant 2006 Jan - June No preconceived approach dictated All Options assessed and evaluated.

2006 (July) Business Case agreed Joint Service - Council Tax & NDR Virtual office Benefits service to follow 12 months later

2007 (Feb) Head of Revenues, Census, in post. Benefits project in hand.

23

Issues specific to revenues project

Limited capital investment availableStaff current locationsPotential cost of Co-Location Premises costs Abandoned assets – real savings or

not? Staff relocation costs, redundancies Potential loss of key staff Service disruption Costs of change

24

OPTIONS FOR PARTNERSHIP

Independent services with common systems and mutual support. (Stay the same option)Common service at each site for each council. (Branch office option)Combination service – parts of the service at different locations. (Site-specific services)Centralised Joint Service – one main office location.

25

THE CenSus CHOICE:-THE VIRTUAL OFFICENo ‘Head Office’ SiteSingle CenSus Revenues Service created (CRS)Four Divisions / Three main locations

Accounts management ; Enforcement Customer contact (phones) ; Systems support and

admin. Jobs not determined by location – any job can be

anywhere.

‘Hot-desking’ and HomeworkingSoftware for all 3 authorities at all workstationsE-communications. EDRMS is KEY!

26

CenSusRevenues Service

Customer Contact

Accounts

Enforcement

Systems and Admin

HAYWARDS HEATHofficeHORSHAM

office

SHOREHAMoffice

Remote or Home Worker Remote or Home Worker

Remote or Home Worker

Remote or Home Worker

27

STAFFING – A KEY ISSUENo relocation – minimal impact on private lifeNo change of employer – existing staff remain employed by existing LA.One designated ‘host’ authority provides line management to Service HeadStaff seconded to work under ‘host’ authorityNew staff employed by ‘host’ authority but does not determine working locationStaff Consultation Forum

28

Implementation Project Plan2006Aug – Virtual office option approvedSept – Head of Service JD agreed Nov – Head of Service recruited2007Feb – Head of Revenues in postApril – Staffing and Management structureMay – staff appointmentsJune – CenSus Revenues Service live.

29

VIRTUAL OFFICE Not Risk Free

BUT Risks can be Managed.

Minimises costs of change.May deliver less in the long-term than single site but achieves real savings very rapidly.Minimal, pay-back period.A flexible model

can be adopted for benefits service and other services can accommodate additional joining authorities

Offers both cashable and non cashable efficiency gains

30

Work still to do

Support Services – not yet addressed – greater efficiencies forgone so far.Gradual move to site-specific services not ruled outBenefits service under CenSus now in hand.

31

Open Forum