Financial and Service Planning; Communications; Self Evaluation

Members Seminar 29th September 2014

Today’s seminar

• Financial Planning – Nigel Aurelius;

• Public Engagement and communication, including the ‘budget simulator’ – Richard Edmunds;

• Self Evaluation – Doug Elliot.

2

Financial Planning

3

Key messages – 21st July Seminar

• That the forward indications from WG could not be relied upon for 2015/16 and beyond;

• The (former) Minister for Local Government and Government Business had written to all Councils suggesting we plan for year on year cash reductions of ‘up to 4.5%’;

• The stark choices this will mean for this and all councils in terms of services;

• The impact these choices will have on the organization, our service offering and employment levels.

4

Scenarios in July• At a ‘worst case’ the scenarios painted in July were:

5

2015/16

(at 4.5% reduction)2016/17

(at 4% reduction)2017/18

(at 4% reduction)

£000’s £000’s £000’s

Total Service Pressures (March 2014 MTFP) 8,445 9,523 7,308

Change in WG funding 6,097 5,284 5,208

Council Tax at 3.5% (1,169) (1,210) (1,252)

Annual Projected Shortfall 13,373 13,597 11,264

Scenarios in July (cont)• Challenges of over £38 million inclusive of pressures over three years; or• Just over £16.5 million in respect of just the potential WG grant;• There are a number of budgets which are fixed/difficult to reduce

totalling £22m (including debt, insurance, council tax reduction);• Schools and social care have been protected in the past with the result

the financial challenge falls disproportionately on the remaining areas;

6

Scenarios in July (cont)• With the ‘fixed budgets’ and if we continue to protect some areas of

spend these challenges fall on a net spending of only £51 million;

• That is before we factor in any grant reductions;

• If the challenge is at ‘worst case’ it is hard to see we can honour the protections of the past to the same level;

7

And remember its within a context of:

• Rising demand for and cost of our services;• Increased expectation;• Increased ambition from Welsh Government (WG);• Increasing legislation from WG without the necessary funding;• Increasing complexity;• Increasing regulation; and• Increasing ‘hypothecation’ of funding either through grants or the

protection of certain services.

8

Current planning assumptions

• Our ‘reduction‘ likely to be in the range of -3.5% (£4.7m reduction) to -4.5% £6.09m reduction);

• Torfaen will ‘lose’ on the formula changes and adjustments – mainly due to falling pupil numbers;

• Formula loss may potentially add 0.5% to any headline WG reduction (we assumed some formula loss as part of our pressures in the original MTFP);

• Assuming there will be a floor at - 4.5% (as its referenced in (former) Ministers letter) - but no guarantee – especially given we have a new Minister;

9

Some potential ‘corporate choices’ for ‘planning purposes’

• Council Tax assumed collection rate – move from 98% to 99%;• Modelled CTRS numbers indicate scope to reduce the budget;• Council Tax base – will in all likelihood rise;• Council tax – increase above MTFP assumptions;• Assume a reduction in the Fire Levy;• Some pension provision budget (Leisure Trust) not required;• Assume annual return of surpluses on Gwent Crematorium;

10

Some potential ‘corporate choices’ for ‘planning purposes’ (cont)

• Revisiting some of the ‘assumed pressures’ – eg pay; energy; pensions.

None of above without risk and will need to be worked through very carefully;

• Revised MRP – not included at this stage – need to liaise further – WG; Audit Committee required further work and consideration.

11

Current thinking on overall approachAll services were requested to identify mitigation measures of up to 10% (including absorbing pressures) for each of the three years of the MTFP;2015/16: Some potential ‘framework planning assumptions’ after the ‘corporate potential choices’:•Funding the school pledge (0.6%) from falling rolls again;•At -3.5% - all services would be asked for a reduction of 2% at least;•At -4.5% - some services would need to move towards 10%;

Remember – this is working on a forecast

12

Current thinking on overall approach (cont)2016/17: and 2017/18:•Looking to model similarly – but have to determine likely ‘headline planning assumption’ ie will it be worse case?For all years (but with an immediate focus on 2015/16) working towards:•Corporate measures worked up;•Identifying those mitigations required (from those received) to balance at the settlement level; all other mitigations will be highlighted;•Members will have option to prioritise; but all choices are difficult.

13

Current thinking on overall approach (cont)Mitigations received are a mix of:•stopping some of our service offering•salami slicing;•greater efficiency;•doing more for less;•adopting new models of provision;

Position on grants – remains unknown and so will be a feature of the detailed budget build;Note: all of the above based upon the March MTFP forecast – detailed estimates and provisional settlement will crystallise things: better or worse?;

14

Immediate Indicative timeline and democratic process• Member seminar – today;• PDF consideration – 8th October and 15th October;• Public Engagement sessions w/c 20th October;

(Ed will cover this in second part)• Cabinet 7th October (this seminar in terms of content);• Further Cabinet consideration – prior to Christmas – policy direction and

mitigations;• Joint Scrutiny – 19th November 2014.• Initial consideration Equalities Impact Assessment?• Public Engagement and Communications outcome?

15

WHAT MATTERS TO YOU?

Informing and engaging Torfaen people in the council’s 2015/16 budget process

Increase knowledge of the council’s budget process

Increase awareness of the need for difficult financial choices

Increase participation and engagement in the budget process

Enhance our reputation for engagement and transparency

Increase council awareness of what matters to our citizens

A continuous cycle of budget engagement and ideas generation

Information gathering and information sharing

What matters to YOU?

What Matters to You branded campaign (links with CP2)

Online and offline activities to increase engagement and awareness

Social media conversations

Media relations

Targeted stakeholder engagement

Almost £0.00 budget campaign = re-using existing resources and materials, council venues for roadshows, making use of LGA simulator

What matters to YOU?

Cwmbran Stadium

Civic Centre, Pontypool

Blaenavon VC Heritage School

Experienced facilitators

Leadership Team

Executive Members

What matters to YOU?

Interactive exercises/challenges/discussions

Torfaen 2020: What does it look like?

How are services delivered differently?

What needs to happen to achieve this?

What can be done cheaper, different or better?

What services do you value the most?

What are your ideas for income/efficiency/redesigned services

How can we work together to make your community better

What matters to YOU?

Residents (including People’s Panel and Service Users) Young people Older People Disabled BME communities Partners (LSB) Staff (frontline and managers) Trade unions Elected members and community council Local/national media Businesses Service users

What matters to YOU?

What matters to YOU?

(and keep a council tax increase under 4%)

(and keep a council tax increase under 4%)

What matters to YOU?

Nov: meeting of all scrutiny committees

Dec 1st: Torfaen Talks

Oct 21, 22, 23: Roadshows

Dec: Cabinet

Dec: council

Feb: Council agrees budget

Jan 15: Feedback/next steps

Oct: Torfaen Talks delivered to 40,000 homes

Sept: Member seminar

Nov 1st: Simulator results analysed

Feb/Mar 15: Council tax leaflet/info published

Torfaen

Members Self-Evaluation (SE) Seminar

Doug ElliottSept 2014

Today -focus/scope

Self - evaluation: the national drivers

services s ubjec t to some form of “ self-reflection” everywhereBut..... huge range of approach/quality around…Why its done ! ( PM? , future planning?, service plans?, mix? )SE disciplines ( engagement, evidenc e, comparison, other models ?)How SE outcomes/judgements are challenged/tested internallyThe story SE’s tell -How SE outcomes are used/timed to s upport decis ion making….. or not !!

National common messages

“Effective self-evaluation is dependent upon the creation of a culture that routinely challenges and evaluates its own performance objectively, values and uses information well, and has good standards of, and a focus on, quality data and reporting to enable a rounded judgement of performance… whilst some progress has been made in how the Council judges its performance, weaknesses and inconsistencies remain in the quality and robustness of its assessment and further work remains to be done to improve coverage and reporting…”

Wales Audit Office AIR April 2013

The local challenges

The local challenges

“…Self-evaluation is not consistent enough across the work of all education services…ESTYN”

The WAO has made recommendations to the Council…“to ensure that members and officers can be confident about performance across all service areas….CSSIW.

Corporate arrangements•Strong member and s/management ownership and advocacy of the process•All services included ( inc. Educ/ Social services)•Sit within a commonly-understood strategic planning and PM framework•They align/interact with other internal evaluation processes (eg AGS/other business planning) – no duplicationUndertaking SEs•Comprehensive evidence base

Core characteristics of SE

Undertaking SEs (cont)•underpinned by effective engagement with customers/service users, partners and external agencies, and staff/members•Assessments of performance/improvement needs are honest and balanced, and based on outcomes or end results for customers•Linked to strategic objectives/improvement objectives etc•SEs identify service performance, improvement scope, service and corporate risks and highlight resource implications for improvement

Core characteristics of SE

Undertaking SEs (cont)•SEs look to consider more radical service delivery solutions, not just refining existing model

Internal challenge•Outcomes from all SEs are subject to some form of robust internal challenge

Core characteristics of SE

Integrating SEs with other corporate planning and PMF arrangements

•SE’s timed to transparently feed strategic planning, MTFS/budget processes, improvement reporting, risk management planning and other corporate processes•SEs influence HR strategy and training/development and leadership planning (golden thread)•SEs are used to support an effective learning/sharing culture within the organisation

Core characteristics of SE

A more defined prescriptive model?•Specific SEs annually

•All services/corp. functions included

•Prescribed central guidance/template initially to support development and delivery and create consistency

•Annual position statements are prepared for each SE (however divided up between depts. etc based on organisational structures and accountabilities )

Planned SE model for Torfaen

•Internal challenge/moderation mechanism across all areas potentially through peer panels

•Consolidated overall position report is prepared that feeds MTFS, strategic planning, risk management, Outcome Agreements, LG Measure reporting etc and

•Is one of the core decision-making vehicles for Cabinet, Leadership Team and for Scrutiny.

Planned SE model for Torfaen

Member involvement in SE ?

Progress and next steps

Next Steps timetable…

Draft Torfaen approach shared with SMTF 5 November 2014

Planned implementation for 2015/16 service & financial planning processes