Back Office Shared Services Implementation Study

A new direction in challenging times

High-level business case for joint working Nuneaton & Bedworth and Rugby Borough Councils

Final Draft v0 16 January 2010

Sector Projects, 17 Rochester Row, Westminster, London SW1P 1QT Tel 0871 664 6886 Fax 0871 664 6830

Email: [email protected] www.sector-group.com A Trading Division of Sector Treasury Services Ltd

Authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority. Registered office as below. Registered in England No. 2652033 Part of The Capita Group Plc, 71 Victoria Street, Westminster, London SW1H 0XA. www.capita.co.uk © Sector Projects 2009 Table of Contents

Executive summary...... 4 High level options analysis...... 4 Performance business case...... 4 Financial business case...... 5 Strategic business case...... 5 Conclusions and recommendations...... 6 Next Steps...... 7

Introduction...... 9 The purpose and scope of the business case...... 9 The steps involved in building a successful strategic partnership...... 9 Stakeholder engagement...... 10 Background...... 10 What are other authorities doing?...... 11

Financial and performance business case...... 13 Performance comparisons...... 13 Summary of performance business case...... 19 Financial business case...... 19 Summary of financial business case...... 22

Strategic business case...... 24 High level comparison...... 24 Partnerships...... 25 Local priorities and policies...... 26 Resilience and capacity...... 27 Capacity for improvement and change...... 28 Realising savings...... 28 Management team capacity and management structures...... 29 Members...... 29 Raising the profile...... 29 Other issues...... 29 Options comparison...... 30 Summary...... 30

Conclusions and recommendations...... 32

Sector Projects, 17 Rochester Row, Westminster, London SW1P 1QT Tel 0871 664 6886 Fax 0871 664 6830

Email: [email protected] www.sector-group.com A Trading Division of Sector Treasury Services Ltd

Authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority. Registered office as below. Registered in England No. 2652033 Part of The Capita Group Plc, 71 Victoria Street, Westminster, London SW1H 0XA. www.capita.co.uk © Sector Projects 2009 Risk-based decision making...... 34

Next steps...... 36 Vision and protocol for moving forward...... 36 Further detailed business case...... 36 Making the change happen...... 37

Appendix A...... 38

Appendix B...... 40

Appendix C...... 42 History of local government reform in England...... 42 Context of Local Government Re-organisation 2007...... 42 Current context of Local Government Re-organisation 2009...... 44 Newly created Unitary Authorities effective from April 1st 2009...... 44 Unsuccessful proposals...... 45 Further changes...... 45 Draft Proposals for Devon...... 45 Draft Proposals for Norfolk...... 45 Draft Proposals for Suffolk...... 46 Workshop notes discussion point and barriers...... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Appendix E...... 47 Opportunity Matrix and Direction of Travel...... 47

Sector 3 Executive summary

High level options analysis In November 2009 Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Council (NBBC) and Rugby Borough Council (RBC) commissioned Sector to undertake this business case for joint working focusing in particular on the consideration of a shared Chief Executive.

This is a high-level business case the purpose of which is to look at the options for joint working going forward. These options include:

Option 1 Two separate authorities under separate management (do nothing); Option 2 One Chief Executive – but both authorities would remain separate (ad hoc opportunities for joint working could be taken when they arise); Option 3 A formal partnership including joint Chief Executive and joint approach to the delivery of some services mainly support services; Option 4 A formal partnership including joint Chief Executive and joint management team and combined workforce in some or all services; Option 5 A full merger between the two authorities including joint political management arrangements. These options represent a direction of travel. So the first decision to be taken is whether this is the direction of travel the Councils wish to take. This moves us from option 1 to option 2. The next decision to take is how far the Councils initially want officers to progress down this path. This then moves us from option 2 and into option 3 and then on to option 4. The options are therefore milestones on this direction of travel. An important feature of this proposal for decision makers is that progress will be based on a series of additional business cases that will determine how the transformation of each operation or service is to be brought together, the timescales for those changes and the level of benefits anticipated. A key feature to progressing with this direction of travel is the pace of change the Councils wish officers to adopt. This will determine how quickly available benefits can be accessed.

Option 1 would provide a fall back position if the business case does not show substantial benefits from joint working. This option is not discussed in any detail in this document. Option 5 we understand is not politically viable but has been included for completeness.

This high level business case examined the opportunities for joint working from three perspectives:

Performance business case

Our findings from the performance business case are summarised as follows:

 Though performance is not identical, there is enough common ground on which joint working can take root and be effective. Assessing opportunities for joint working and implementing joint working approaches acts as a review process for both Councils that will help to improve performance;

 In our experience, where Councils have similar levels of performance this helps with the implementation of change and joint working. The similar levels of performance achieved by the Councils presents a positive environment for joint working;

 The performance of NBBC and RBC is broadly consistent with the wider Warwickshire area. RBC and NBBC have the opportunity to be the lead district councils in this area encouraging a new way of working together which meet the challenges facing all local authorities; and

Sector 4  There are a number of change initiatives currently taking place across Planning, Housing and Revenues and Benefits. The Councils need to agree on a joint approach to change before embarking on changes to these larger more complex service areas.

As a result of these findings, we suggest there are significant performance benefits available to the Councils from joint working.

Financial business case Options Comparison

Option 2 - One Chief Executive – but both authorities would remain separate

At this stage, it is anticipated that potential savings accruing from option two would be limited to savings resulting from the appointment of one Chief Executive rather than two, and a reduction in the direct support for this post. These savings should be considered in the context of a review of senior management across both authorities to maintain clear lines of management accountability and appropriate capacity. A restructured single senior management structure should allow for the same or increased capacity at reduced cost.

The cost of transition to a shared Chief Executive would be relatively low. Savings can be released and some benefits accrued simply from a shared Chief Executive meaning reduced salary costs for both councils, although to release the full savings and maintain effective capacity, a management review will need to be undertaken.

Option three – formal partnership and a structured approach to joint working

Based on the assumptions made within this report, it is anticipated that option three could potentially generate savings in the region of £0.7M to £1.6M. These figures include the benefits achieved under option 2. Shared between the councils.

The costs of transition would be higher than for option two, including the establishment of an improvement team to carry out a number of services reviews, and entering into formal shared service arrangements for a number of services.

Option four – A formal partnership including joint chief executive and joint management team and combined workforce in some or all services;

Some further savings may be generated from a full partnership arrangement and combined workforce. It is anticipated that the bulk of the additional savings would be generated within corporate services. Based on the assumptions made within this report, it is anticipated that option four could potentially generate additional savings in the region of £2.5M to £4.5M across both the General Fund and Housing Revenue Account. Shared between the councils.

The costs of transition would be highest for option four, significantly more than option three, since there would be a number of legal issues around the creation of a shared workforce, and significant change management costs.

Strategic business case The strategic business case builds on the financial and performance analysis by looking at a number of strategic issues to test out the opportunities and limiting factors to joint working under a single chief executive.

Options Comparison

This option would make more effective use of the leadership capacity of the chief executive. It would help to build the reputation of the two authorities, and lay the groundwork for potential further joint working. However it would be unlikely to offer significant improvements in resilience across services and would not allow for access to significant financial savings.

Sector 5 Option 3 – A formal partnership including joint Chief Executive and joint approach to the delivery of some services mainly support services

A formal partnership would maximise the potential for realising savings, provide a high-profile example of joint work, but would avoid significant set-up costs and risk issues, while leaving the way open for full service merger. Existing relationships would need to be managed but would be unlikely to be threatened.

More information on the detailed joint working opportunities is included in the matrix in Appendix D. The detailed approach to each of these service areas needs to determine through the detailed business case process.

Option 4 – A formal partnership including joint Chief Executive and joint management team and combined workforce in some or all services

This option would provide the greatest opportunity to increase capacity and reduce costs, but would also generate the highest levels of impact on existing relationships, the highest costs, and the highest level of risk.

Conclusions and recommendations As a result of our analysis we recommend that the councils appoint a shared Chief Executive (option two) and establish a formal partnership of joint working (option three). The imminent departure of Rugby Borough Council’s Chief Executive creates a window of opportunity for pursuing Option three on a trial basis, and at a reduced cost.

Option four could be progressed to in the future once option three has been effectively established, the full scope of savings identifies and risks can be managed from a position of experience. The figure below summarises our approach.

Figure 1: Joint working strategy direction of travel

As the diagram above shows, the recommended approach focuses on establishing joint leadership, transformation and change, and support services. In particular our analysis has identified:

 The specific individual requirements of the Councils relating to the needs of two sets of political leaders and residents in service delivery  The comparable levels of performance at the whole Council level and the complexity of the performance picture at a more detailed level  The difference in approaches to change and transformation Sector 6  The wide range of partnership arrangements in place at both Councils

As a result, our recommendation focuses on establishing a strong ‘strategic core’ based on Senior management, transformation team and other strategic corporate services as appropriate that will place the emphasis for joint working on reduced risk activities while still achieving significant benefits.

The higher risk service areas; those with ‘front line’ delivery responsibilities are in general both more complex and larger in nature. Establishing a strategic core that is aligned through a joint approach will achieve the following:

 Clarity of purpose in terms of outcome from joint working priorities for both Councils and a structure to support this  One approach to change  Allow opportunities for joint working to be identified at the strategic level (simplifying the business case process)  Reduce the levels of risk involved in joint working across the organisations.

Once the ‘core’ of the organisations is established through a joint approach, further joint working and the potential for option four (joint management team and combined workforce in some areas) will be simplified, as the organizational infrastructure will already be common to both Councils. In this situation, a detailed assessment of where joint working will benefit the two Councils can be made on a case-by-case basis but implemented with relative ease.

Comparable levels of performance are an area of strength that can be built on and suggests that there are no performance barriers that would prevent the councils from moving forward with options two and three. However establishing a joint change team and methodology will be critically important to ensure the approach to change and improvement is strategically aligned to the corporate priorities of both organizations. The joint change team needs to clearly define a new approach to change that is common to both Councils and communicate this effectively.

Based on the assumptions made within this report, it is anticipated that option three could potentially generate savings in the region of £0.7M to £1.6M across, shared between the councils.

The financial and performance analysis therefore suggests that there are achievable savings to be had, and that the best balance of cost and benefit appears to be obtainable by the speedy appointment of a shared Chief Executive (option two), and the establishment of a formal partnership and joint working (option three). The cost-benefit analysis of full service merger (option four), along with substantially higher realisation risks, suggests that this option should only be considered once option three has been effectively established, the full scope of potential savings has been identified, and risk can be managed from a position of experience in joint working.

Our strategic analysis suggests that there are areas of strong synergy between the Councils but an equally strong requirement to maintain local service priorities and partnership arrangements. As a result, our recommendation is that the Councils continue work on joint financial analysis and quickly establish a shared vision and protocol for joint working to ensure risks to local performance, priorities and partnerships are mitigated. We strongly recommend establishing a joint change team that will carry out a management review and manage communications.

Next Steps More detailed next steps and recommendations are included after the Performance, Finance and Strategic business cases within this document.

Sector 7 Overall the key next steps for NBBC and RBC are to appoint the joint Chief Executive, agree the shared vision, and ways of working, and set up a joint business transformation team. It will then be necessary to establish the individual business cases for service clusters and joint working projects in more detail on a case-by-case basis.

In order to move quickly the appointment of a joint Chief Executive could be progressed alongside the development of further business cases and agreement of joint working arrangements.

Sector 8 Introduction

The purpose and scope of the business case In November 2009 Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council and Rugby Borough Council commissioned Sector to undertake this business case for joint working focusing in particular on the consideration of a shared Chief Executive.

This is a high-level business case the purpose of which is to examine the options for joint working going forward. These options include:

Option 1 Two separate authorities under separate management (do nothing); Option 2 One Chief Executive – but both authorities would remain separate (ad hoc opportunities for joint working could be taken when they arise); Option 3 A formal partnership including joint Chief Executive and joint approach to the delivery of some services mainly support services; Option 4 A formal partnership including joint Chief Executive and joint management team and combined workforce in some or all services; Option 5 A full merger between the two authorities including joint political management arrangements. These options represent a direction of travel. So the first decision to be taken is whether this is the direction of travel the Councils wish to take. This moves us from option 1 to option 2. The next decision to take is how far the Councils initially want officers to progress down this path. This then moves us from option 2 and into option 3 and then on to option 4. The options are therefore milestones on this direction of travel. An important feature of this proposal for decision makers is that progress will be based on a series of additional business cases that will determine how the transformation of each operation or service is to be brought together, the timescales for those changes and the level of benefits anticipated. A key feature to progressing with this direction of travel is the pace of change the Councils wish officers to adopt. This will determine how quickly available benefits can be accessed.

Option 1 would provide a fall back position if the business case does not show substantial benefits from joint working. This option is not discussed in any detail in this document. Option 5 we understand is not politically viable but has been included for completeness.

The steps involved in building a successful strategic partnership If, as a result of the business case, it is agreed that this is the right strategic direction for the two councils, then other more detailed and operational activities will need to be undertaken. The diagram below identifies the key steps involved in building a successful strategic partnership. This process will be expanded on and contextualised in the next steps section of this document.

Sector 9 Figure 2: Overview of process - Strategic Partnering

1 Options appraisal 3 Set up project 5 Create short list 7 Create Individual and high level office of service service business business case opportunities cases

Rugby and Nuneaton & Bedworth are currently here in the process

Strategic Partnering

2 Create and agree 4 Long list of 6 Strategic high level vision service approach to and concordat for opportunities target operating joint working model

Stakeholder engagement The process applied in developing this business case has taken the first step in stakeholder engagement. It was recognised by both councils that this process would be critical to the success of this project. Sector and both sets of the Councils management teams (at Director and Chief Executive level) have endeavoured to engage key stakeholders along the way. At this stage stakeholder engagement has mainly focused on Members Leaders and Heads of Service / Assistant Directors. Although some communications have been made with staff and a press statement released. A workshop was held with Heads of Service/Assistant Directors upwards to build on our analysis and refine our findings. A number of discussion points and barriers were identified at the workshop and as far as possible we have included them in both our analysis and recommendations. More detail of the workshop material can be found at Appendix E.

The final document is intended to be used by the Councils senior management team and Members to support decision making where appropriate, but sections from this document may be used as a communications or briefing note for other key stakeholders such as staff and Unions. We would recommend that once the business case is complete and a decision is taken, resource is focussed on building a detailed joint stakeholder engagement and communications plan.

Background The situation of local government in England

Local government in England seems always to be going through ‘interesting times’ but rarely as interesting as these. The challenges that are currently being faced are unprecedented. Significant financial and economic pressure have combined with a number of other long term trends to create a ‘funding recession for Local Government. Four pressures define this funding recession:

 Increased demand for services - the effect of the recession on local communities leads to an increase in demand for public sector support;   Increased costs - Local government’s operational costs are increasing. Issues such as the two-tier workforce and pension fund contributions continue to constitute

Sector 10 significant challenge for authorities. These costs can be substantial, and at a time of great pressure, will be hard to manage;

 Reduced income generation - Local government income generation has suffered substantial falls in the last eighteen months. Interest on balances has dropped, as interest rates have declined and more risk adverse investment has become the norm. Rentals and other associated income from businesses have declined as the challenging economic environment has impacted local businesses; and

 Reduced central grant and subsiding support - It is anticipated that after the next election there will be a significant tightening of central government support, in terms of revenue and capital to Local Government. The amount is still uncertain. What is certain is that Local Government needs to prepare for a significant reduction.

Even prior to the recent financial crisis, there was a continuing expectation of producing ‘more for less’; improved outcomes with constantly reducing inputs. Successive rounds of Comprehensive Spending Reviews have accelerated the requirement to produce year-on- year efficiency gains, even though by their nature these are increasingly difficult to achieve. This was re-affirmed by the 2009 Budget and Operational Efficiency Programme (April 2009) that raised the most recent local government efficiency target to £5.5bn for the period 2007- 2011.

At the same time, the recognition and development of the wider role of local government as a ‘place shaper’ has seen ever-greater demands on the political and managerial leadership of authorities. They must meet the national agenda in numerous ways, improving the liveability, sustainability, community cohesion, safety, healthiness and economic prosperity of the area while introducing ever-greater devolution to neighbourhood level.

NBBC and RBC have positioned themselves well in responding positively to the economic pressures currently in play. In particular, in their active pursuit of partnering opportunities within and within the County boundaries.

For more detail on the history and current context of local government reform in England, please see Appendix C.

What are other authorities doing?

A number of district and borough authorities are putting into place joint working agreements or strategic alliances, including:

 Adur and Worthing;  Ashford and Maidstone;  Barking and Dagenham and Havering Council;  Braintree DC and Colchester Borough Council;  Cotswold DC and Tewkesbury Borough Council;  East Devon DC and Somerset DC  Rushcliffe and Gedling;  South Hams, West Devon, and Teignbridge;  Stockton and Darlington;  Staffordshire Moorlands and High Peak District Councils;  Teesdale and Wear Valley District Council; and

More information (including case studies) on what other councils are doing is included in Appendix A of this document.

A clear message from past and current initiatives to share services and/or leadership are that savings and service improvements do take time, but that this depends on the nature of change sought, the boldness of the authorities and, critically, whether there is initial willingness, or resistance.

Sector 11 Sector has advised councils in some of these cases, notably Adur and Worthing and Staffordshire Moorlands and High Peak Borough Council. The key lessons learnt from these projects are summarised below:

 The Councils should take ownership of finances; achieving savings through joint working requires a degree of trust reinforced by agreed protocols for how savings will be managed. It is critical that to demonstrate the success of the programme, the savings forecast need to be accurate. Ownership of the finances at an early stage in the process ensures that both Councils recognise and agree to savings figures based on the budgets that they recognise. In turn, this enables accurate predications of savings that bolsters support for the whole programme. An understanding of the level of savings achievable gives momentum, directs investment and makes the best use of available capacity;

 Structured communications to stakeholders is vital to the success of any joint working. There are three critical work streams that make up communications:

 Members need to be fully briefed on the choices the Council can make and the benefits that joint working brings and how this approach staves off the need to cut front line services. As the programme progresses, it is critical that Members are well briefed on the successes achieved and challenges the programme faces. Most critical of all, is that Members understand and can articulate the benefits that joint working brings to support service delivery;

 Staff need to understand the impact the programme will have on their job. Everybody in every organisation is concerned with changes that impact their life for example, who their boss is going to be. The change programme won’t affect all the Council at the same time, and the challenge is to make the programme relevant to everyone so that the Council approaches change as one large team;

 Residents and external stakeholders need to understand why change is needed and what pressures are being faced and what it means to them and their communities.

 There needs to be an explicit recognition that management capacity will be taken up by managing this process. The Councils should carefully organise the application of management capacity. That is to say members must understand that senior managers will have less capacity to resolve operational matters which will thus need to be delegated to Heads of Service/Assistant Directors. Once the shared way of working settles in then management capacity will increase.

Sector 12 Financial and performance business case

One of the central aims of this review is to assess the relative performance of the two councils, in order to establish areas in which joint leadership and/or joint services may improve performance at one or both organisations. In order to achieve this, we have used national performance information supplemented with detailed information reported from discussions with Heads of Service/Associate Directors. The performance data used in this analysis is the 2007/08 Best Value Performance Indicator (BVPI) Results and the 2008/09 and 2009/10 National Indicator Set (NIS) results. Data over a three-year period has been used to provide additional depth and enable us to identify trends. This work should be updated as new more up to date data becomes available; in order to take effective decisions in terms of programme management for a more integrated approach.

There have been a number of changes to the performance regime over the past three years. BVPIs have been replaced by a reduced number of indicators (the NIS), in order to minimise the performance burden on councils and to allow for locally determined performance measurement. As a result, we were guided by the Councils as to the performance indicators they thought most appropriate. We believe this level of information will be sufficient for the purpose of this high level business case, however recognise there are drawbacks to our approach as we have been unable to cover Council performance in a comprehensive way. If the councils proceed with joint working our recommendation is that they work towards a set of locally defined measures (such as locally defined customer satisfaction survey results) that can be applied consistently across the authorities to ensure the performance assessment is sensitive to local conditions.

We have also undertaken a high-level financial comparison of each council’s revenue budgets. The Councils have jointly produced a high level budget that enables comparison and the assumptions on which this comparison is based are referenced through the chapter. The results of this comparison of costs form the basis of the business case for the proposed joint working arrangements summarised under the options presented in the second half of this chapter.

Performance comparisons In the sections below, key performance indicators have been identified and highlighted in the headline tables, and the following commentary provides insight into how this data might be interpreted in the context of joint working between the two Councils.

Overall performance1 The overall performance section uses Audit Commission scores2 to analyse performance at the whole Council level. We have also compared the RBC and NBBC to other councils in the region.

Key Quartile Top Upper Lower Bottom

Table 1: 2009 CAA scores for Nuneaton & Bedworth and Rugby Councils Area of measurement Nuneaton & Bedworth Rugby Managing performance 2 (out of 4) 2 (out of 4) Use of resources 2 2 Managing finances 2 2 Governing the business 2 2 Managing resources 2 2

1 Source: 2009 CAA data (oneplace.direct.gov.uk) and 2008 CPA data (audit-commisson.gov.uk) 2 The Audit Commission’s performance assessment has recently revised. It is now split into two parts that are combined to give an overall score. The two parts are ‘managing performance’ and ‘use of resources’. Sector 13 Table 2: 2008/2004 CPA scores for Nuneaton & Bedworth and Rugby Councils Area of measurement Nuneaton & Bedworth Rugby Overall performance Good (2008) Fair (2004) Use of resources 3 (out of 4) 2 (out of 4) Financial reporting 2 3 Financial management 3 2 Financial standing 2 3 Internal control 3 2 Value for money 3 2

The 2009 organisational assessment carried out by the Audit Commission identifies that both councils are performing ‘adequately’. This level of performance is consistent with the 2008 CPA scores as shown in figure 2. Under the CPA (Comprehensive Performance Assessment3), RBC scored a ‘fair’ in 2004 that was confirmed again by the Audit Commission in 2008. NBBC scored ‘fair’ in 2004 and ‘good’ in 2008.

These scores reflected our findings from discussions with officers. The story of both Councils is one of recent improvement albeit in slightly different ways; NBBC have worked steadily to improve performance over a number of years and were rewarded with their revised score in 2008. RBC have begun to rapidly improve since the appointment of the new Chief Executive with notable initiatives such as the organisational restructure in 2006 and the commencement of the recent transformation programme.

Though performance is not identical, there is enough common ground on which joint working can take root and be effective. In our experience, where Councils have similar levels of performance this helps with the implementation of change and joint working. It especially mitigates the impression of one authority being better than the other and helps communicate the fact that change involves bringing out the best in both. Our assessment in this case is that RBC and NBBC perform well and are improving; both have areas of strengths and areas to improve which will be discussed in the remainder of this section. There is also comparability in their attitude to change – both Councils recognise the importance of change in preparing them for future challenges. This is discussed further in the ‘Strategic Business Case’ below. The budget comparison set out below reveals that each council sets its priorities differently and the balance of funding commitment reflects those priorities.

To put these scores in context, the tables below show the scores for other Councils, Fire and Rescue Authority, and the Police Authority in Warwickshire.

Table 3: CAA scores for other organisations in Warwickshire Organisation Overall Managing Use of Managing Governing Managing score performance resources finances the resources business Warwickshire County Performs 3 out of 4 3 out of 4 3 out of 4 3 out of 4 2 out of 4 Council well North Warwickshire Performs 2 out of 4 2 out of 4 2 out of 4 2 out of 4 2 out of 4 Borough Council adequately Stratford-on-Avon Performs 3 out of 4 2 out of 4 2 out of 4 2 out of 4 2 out of 4 District Council well Warwick District Council Performs 2 out of 4 2 out of 4 2 out of 4 2 out of 4 2 out of 4 adequately Warwickshire Fire and Performs 2 out of 4 2 out of 4 2 out of 4 2 out of 4 2 out of 4 Rescue Authority adequately Warwickshire Police n/a n/a 3 out of 4 3 out of 4 3 out of 4 2 out of 4 Authority

The tables above show that RBC and NBBC perform on a par with North Warwickshire, Warwick and the Fire and Rescue Authority but that Warwickshire County and Stratford-on- Avon and Warwickshire Police Authority perform slightly better overall. The County and

3 The Audit Commission CAA assessment was preceded by the CPA assessment. The two frameworks are similar but there are notable differences. Sector 14 Warwickshire Police Authority are the best performer of the councils reported here; scoring three out of four on both managing performance and use of resources. Performance among the districts is broadly in line with RBC and NBBC, though Stratford-on-Avon has a higher managing performance score and as a result higher score overall.

The results of this high level analysis are encouraging for RBC and NBBC. Both Councils are broadly in line with other districts in the area. As already discussed, there is potential at both Councils for improvement. Joint working offers the opportunity for RBC and NBBC to provide leadership both within their own Councils and within the wider region. Assessing opportunities for joint working and implementing joint working approaches acts as a review process for both Councils. Both have a partner to work with in a relationship of trust that provides a potential ‘real’ external benchmark (one that compares ‘apples with apples’) and a pool of past and present delivery initiatives along with lessons learned. Joint working will expose the councils to each others best practice which will provide a benchmark against which to work and will, in and of itself, help to improve their services

The local government funding recession has yet to fully bite. Performance in coming years may change as councils decide to focus on local priorities and potentially to accept that the services and the level of performance are what can be afforded.

Service delivery

The Councils raised a number of concerns over the validity of performance indicators in giving genuine insight into the strengths and weaknesses of their service departments. As a result, officers have guided us to a selection of front line service delivery indicators that give an indication of the compared performance of the two Councils. Due to changes in the national performance framework, it is no longer possible, without a significant amount of work, to compare two authorities on a large number of indicators. Instead, we have taken a case study approach. Our findings are reported below.

Corporate Health4

The corporate health indicators show the percentage of council tax collected by the authorities, percentage of NDR (non-domestic rates), number of working days lost to sickness and percentage of staff turnover.

Key Top Average Bottom

Table 4: BVPI and NIS scores for Corporate Health in Nuneaton & Bedworth and Rugby Councils RBC NBBC RBC NBBC RBC NBBC No. DESCRIPTION 2007/08 2007/08 2008/09 2008/09 2009/10 2009/10 latest data latest data BV Percentage of Council Tax 98.60% 97.77% 98.50% 97.68% 58.70% 78.06% 009 collected by the Authority in the year BV The percentage of non- 99.70% 99.14% 99.40% 98.92% 58.40% 76.66% 010 domestic rates due for the financial year which were received by the authority BV Number of working 8.99 11.58 9.67 11.67 days 5.00 6.07 days 012 days/shifts lost to the Local days days days days Authority due to sickness absence RBC is a consistently better performer on collection of council tax and NDR compared to NBBC and this trend continues into 2009/10. RBC performed in the top third for Council Tax collection and NDR collection where NBBC performed on the bottom and middle third.

4 Source: 2007/08 data from BVPI scores (audit-commission.gov.uk) 2008/09 and 2009/10 data provided by the councils (contacts: Peter Aughton, Rugby and Steve Gore, Nuneaton & Bedworth) Sector 15 In general, this finding was supported by anecdotal information that was gathered through interviews with council staff. NBBC staff recognised that there was room for improvement in their Revenues and Benefits department, where there are opportunities to make efficiency savings through headcount and improve performance. At RBC the Revenue and Benefits department has recently undergone transformation (using end to end service reviews) and is considered to be performing well by council staff. There is opportunity for joint working in Revenues and Benefits, and in particular for NBBC to benefit from RBCs approach to change. However, some work is required to assess the resource requirements at NBBC that are currently unknown. As described elsewhere, the variance in approach to change at the two Councils is a key precedent to tackling larger, more complex service areas such as this one. As identified in the financial business case there may be quick wins in this service area arising out of the nature of the service for example, Revenues and Benefits tends to have a high turnover of staff which could present opportunities for short term savings, especially with an increase in collaboration. However, a more structural move to a joint Revenues and Benefits team would take considerable investment, effort and time. As a result, we have prioritised Revenues and Benefits in the second tier of opportunities for joint working (see Appendix E for more information). Housing5

Key Quartile Top Average Bottom

Table 5: BVPI and NIS scores for Housing in Nuneaton & Bedworth and Rugby Councils RBC NBBC RBC NBBC RBC NBBC No. DESCRIPTION 2007/08 2007/08 2008/09 2008/09 2009/10 2009/10 latest data latest data BV No of private sector 17 65 48 116 25 50 064 vacant dwellings that are returned into occupation or demolished BV Rent collected by the 98.52% 98.23% 98.66% 98.28% 97.74% 97.83% 066 local authority as a a proportion of rents owed on Housing Revenue Account (HRA) dwellings

Evidence from the Audit Commission reports suggests that both Councils have made recent improvement to their Housing services. RBC has a good level of satisfaction from tenants. NBBC have similarly improved, reducing delays in housing repairs and finding homes for vulnerable people but still have work to do to reduce the number of households in temporary accommodation.

Our findings from discussions with officers supported this picture. Both Councils drew attention to the extent of change occurring in both Housing departments. Recent restructuring has been carried out in NBBC and savings realised. End to end service reviews have been (and are currently being) conducted in RBC.

The variance in areas that require improvement, areas that have improved and extent of current change paint a complex picture. There are numerous opportunities for joint working in Housing, but we would argue that they are less strategically important to the success of the joint working initiative and can be pursued independently by the service areas in both Councils. Despite Housing centrality to the delivery of political priorities for both Councils in terms of joint working, a structural merger of the Housing service is likely to require considerable investment in terms of time and resource and to minimise the impact on existing

5 Source: 2007/08 data from BVPI scores (audit-commission.gov.uk) 2008/09 and 2009/10 data provided by the councils (contacts: Peter Aughton Rugby and Steve Gore Nuneaton & Bedworth) Sector 16 good performance. As a result, we have prioritised Housing in the second tier of opportunities for joint working (see Appendix E).

Environment6 Evidence from the Audit Commission suggests that both Councils have made recent improvement to their environment services.

Table 6: BVPI and NIS scores for Environment in Nuneaton & Bedworth and Rugby Councils RBC NBBC RBC NBBC RBC NBBC No. DESCRIPTION 2007/08 2007/08 2008/09 2008/09 2009/10 2009/10 latest data latest data BV 082 % of Household Waste a(i) Recycled 13.6 11.74* 15.09% 17.28% 24.51% 15.45%* BV 082 % of Household Waste b(i) Composted 12.40% 15.50% 17.25% 16.69% 30.26% 24.27%* Improved street and NI environmental cleanliness 195 (levels of litter, detritus, a graffiti and fly posting): Litter 22 20.3 6% 9% 1% n/a Improved street and environmental cleanliness NI (levels of litter, detritus, 195 graffiti and fly posting): b Detritus 3 7 21% 15% 9% n/a Improved street and environmental cleanliness NI (levels of litter, detritus, 195 graffiti and fly posting): c Graffiti 1 2 3% 0% 2% n/a Improved street and environmental cleanliness NI (levels of litter, detritus, 195 graffiti and fly posting): Fly d posting 4 2 0% 6% 0% n/a

The performance data below shows that both Councils scored in the bottom and middle third nationally of Councils for household waste until recently but data from 2009/10 show a marked improvement. Our findings indicate that they have both started street cleanliness initiatives in the past twelve months – RBC has chosen to focus on street cleanliness in wards, and NBBC has invested in new equipment. There is an opportunity for the Councils to benefit from the sharing of experience in these areas.

According to the Audit Commission report7, NBBC is a good national performer on carbon emissions where RBC performs slightly below the county average. Both Councils are involved in the Warwickshire Climate Change Partnership (see strategic business case) and opportunities for a more joined up operational approach may exist in this area.

In Refuse and Recycling, RBC has recently changed to a three bin system collected on alternate weeks which has improved the recycling rate from circa 20%-50% and has achieved significant savings. NBBC officer reported their awareness of the success of this scheme but have not implemented it due to political direction.

6 Source: 2007/08 data from BVPI scores (audit-commission.gov.uk) 2008/09 and 2009/10 data provided by the councils (contacts: Peter Aughton Rugby and Steve Gore Nuneaton & Bedworth) 7 http://oneplace.direct.gov.uk Sector 17 Neither Council currently operate a significant number of outsourcing contracts; the one exception to this is NBBC’s recent outsourcing arrangement for parks maintenance to Glendale that has achieved significant savings. During discussions, RBC officers did not believe that an outsourced arrangement could bring significant benefits to their Council however this could be explored further under a closer partnership arrangement.

There are clear opportunities for joint working in environmental services as a larger resident area brings advantages in economies of scale. The Councils have already begun to share expertise and are jointly leading on the Climate Change priority in the Warwickshire partnership. However, while the Councils are focused on similar priorities they have chosen to respond to them in different ways. The benefits of joint working are likely to lie in an assessment of the varying initiatives the Councils have chosen to embark upon and their cross application. Any joined up initiative is likely to require a detailed assessment of areas of real commonality and areas where local priorities are paramount. As a result, environmental services is not a strategic priority in terms of joint working; like Housing and Revenues and Benefits it has been prioritised in the second tier of opportunities under option four.

Planning and Regulatory Services8

Figure 7 shows that in 2007/08 both councils were in the bottom quartile for the processing of planning applications. Since then both Councils have made improvements. The Audit Commission9 reported NBBC have made improvements but more work is required. They also reported that RBC has improved from a relatively low level of performance. Discussions with officers suggested that the planning service was one of the first to be redesigned through the transformative service reviews and anecdotal evidence suggests this has been successful in both improving performance and making savings.

Table 7: BVPI and NIS scores for Planning and Crime in Nuneaton & Bedworth and Rugby Councils RBC NBBC RBC NBBC RBC NBBC No. DESCRIPTION 2007/08 2007/08 2008/09 2008/09 2009/10 2009/10 latest latest NI Processing of planning 157 applications: Major a applications 62.79 61.11 63.33% 58% 30.77% 64% NI Processing of planning 157 applications: Minor b applications 68.73 59.55 66.76% 70% 55.48% 71% NI Processing of planning 157 applications: Other c applications 79.61 81.93 82.74% 89% 76.23% 87%

NI 15 Serious violent crime rate 0.08 0.66 0.09 0.45

NI Serious acquisitive crime 16 rate 1.06 19.96 0.99 9.8 Dealing with local concerns about anti-social behaviour NI and crime issues by the local 21 council and police 21.70% 18.80% Annual Annual NI Understanding of local 21.1 21.50% Annual Annual 27 concerns about anti-social behaviour and crime issues by the local council and

8 Source: 2007/08 data from BVPI scores (audit-commission.gov.uk) 2008/09 and 2009/10 data provided by the councils (contacts: Peter Aughton Rugby and Steve Gore Nuneaton & Bedworth) 9 http://oneplace.direct.gov.uk Sector 18 police

The crime rate for acquisitive crime shows a significant difference between the two boroughs one that is reflected in the corporate priorities of the Councils (it is explicitly mentioned at NBBC – see Appendix B).

Though the above figures demonstrate a comparable low level of performance in planning our findings from discussions with officers suggest that the Councils are at different stages in terms of service improvement. In particular, RBC has completed a service redesign. In moving towards a joint working arrangement, we have prioritised aligning the approach to change, before moving to apply a joint approach to bringing services on board. In particular, there are risks around reducing performance that has recently been improved and impacting staff morale (those with vested interest in change).

Crime is an area that reflects the demographic differences between the two areas and one where there are local requirements for specific service delivery arrangements. As a result we have prioritised both planning and crime in the second tier of opportunities.

Summary of performance business case

Our findings from the performance business case are summarised as follows:

 Though performance is not identical, there is enough common ground on which joint working can take root and be effective. Assessing opportunities for joint working and implementing joint working approaches acts as a review process for both Councils that will help to improve performance;

 In our experience, where Councils have similar levels of performance this helps with the implementation of change and joint working. The similar levels of performance achieved by the Councils presents a positive environment for joint working;

 The performance of NBBC and RBC is broadly consistent with the wider Warwickshire area. RBC and NBBC have the opportunity to be the lead district councils in this area encouraging a new way of working together which meet the challenges facing all local authorities; and

 There are a number of change initiatives currently taking place across Planning, Housing and Revenues and Benefits. The Councils need to agree on a joint approach to change before embarking on changes to these larger more complex service areas. As a result, they have been categorised as a lesser priority (see Appendix D) under option four rather than three.

As a result of these findings, we suggest there are significant performance benefits available to the Councils from joint working.

Financial business case A high level comparison has been undertaken of each council’s revenue budget. The councils are structured differently and even though they deliver roughly the same services their budget books are quite different. We therefore asked the finance departments to work together to produce a comparable analysis. A number of assumptions were made to achieve this work in a short time scale. Further detailed business case work will need to look at these budgets in more depth to evaluate realisable benefits more accurately. However, for the purpose of this high-level business case the comparison is adequate.

The methodology we adopted in examining the potential savings that could be realised from joint working was to conduct a workshop with senior finance staff and the strategic directors responsible for finance. What we were seeking to do was identify where the joint working could produce the most financial benefits. In addition, as both councils are already fairly lean Sector 19 in their operations we were able to identify areas that would not deliver significant benefits in the short term.

Our discussions recognised the degree of complexity involved in doing this kind of analysis because of the differing levels of investment required to deliver the efficiencies, the differing periods of time over which the benefits would be delivered. It was also recognised that both councils had existing transformation programmes and were developing other partnering arrangements, all of which could potentially distort the financial picture we were trying to generate in this comparison.

Given all the complexities we resolved as a group to suggest bandings of potential savings to a combined annual revenue budget on the assumption that the current level of services would continue to be delivered. This it was felt would give an adequate suggestion of potential savings subject to all the caveats noted herein.

In the first instance, each authority’s budget has been divided into the service areas below.

Please note the budgets for the two councils reflect the way their services are organised. They are not organised in the same way in each council, and so these figures represent the best comparison of like for like service costs which we have been able to achieve.

NBBC RBC Non Staff Staff Non Staff Staff £‘000s £’000s £‘000s £’000s Chief executive 5 119 5 160 Policy, performance, strategy 247 144 372 104 Community safety/partnerships 242 542 37 115 Chief officers 63 202 11 196 Heads of service\assistant directors 525 34 479 Asset management 633 697 958 196 Payroll 44 1 59 OD\recruitment\training 378 183 Transformation 197 145 84 Corporate assurance\internal audit 194 14 149 IT&C 23 544 403 683 Finance, including procurement 1,034 12 635 Environmental and licensing 314 843 140 910 Customer services 759 622 Administration 418 17 344 Revenues & Benefits 127 1,502 340 1,053 Legal and democratic 396 586 497 553 Planning and building control 95 1,033 458 1,170 Leisure, parks and community recreation 4,848 1,490 1,561 1,133 Street cleansing 1,018 206 663 Refuse and recycling 1,852 1,163 953 1,278 Transport 93 384 129 Public amenities and culture 620 979 706 659 HRA\ housing management 1,704 2,900 2,106 1,850 Repairs and maintenance 3,352 2,422 Direct labour 1,887 Sector 20 Private sector housing 111 659 100 224 Total 14,725 20,241 11,498 13,360 Council total 34,966 25,128 Combined total 60,094

It was agreed that in common sense terms the opportunities arising from joint working would lead to at least a 5% annual saving, unless there was a specific reason why this would not be the case. This base saving would come from reduced overheads in terms of senior management and support as well as basic efficiencies around economies of scale. Therefore the bottom banding on most budget heads is 5%.

The following table shows the savings bandings that the workshop produced. The exception to this is the transformation budget that was increased.

Option 3 Option 4 Quick Savings Lower Upper Lower Upper Win Projection £’000s £’000s £’000s £’000s Chief executive y 20% - 25% 58 72 Policy, performance, strategy Community safety/partnerships Chief officers 0% in the short term Heads of y 20% - 30% 208 311 service\Assistant directors Asset management 5% - 10% 124 248 Payroll 10% - 15% 10 16 OD\recruitment\trainin 10% - 30% 56 168 g Transformation 20% (85) (85) increase Corporate assurance\internal audit IT&C 5% - 15% 83 248 Finance, including 5% - 15% 84 252 procurement Environmental and 5% - 10% 110 221 licensing Customer services y 5% - 10% 69 138 Administration 5% - 15% 39 117 Revenues & Benefits y 5% - 7% 151 212 Legal and democratic 5% - 10% 102 203 Planning 5% - 7% 72 101 Building control y 7% - 10% 53 76

Sector 21 Option 3 Option 4 Quick Savings Lower Upper Lower Upper Win Projection £’000s £’000s £’000s £’000s Leisure, parks and 5% - 10% 452 903 community recreation Street cleansing 3% - 7% 57 132 Refuse and recycling 10% - 15% 585 878 Transport Public amenities and 0% - 2% 59 culture HRA\ housing 5% - 10% 428 856 management Repairs and 5% - 10% 289 577 maintenance Direct labour 10% - 15% 189 283 Private sector housing 3% - 7% 33 77 Total 710 1,593 2,457 4,470

The above table summarises how the different options we are considering play in to the efficiency agenda. The projected savings meeting was a preliminary step in identifying opportunities. What has been revealed from experience elsewhere is that as the transformation teams begin to work together the possibilities for making efficiency savings expand and extend. To understand how the savings are delivered we need to look at the process that achieves them. To begin with the chief executive is given the joint appointment. This creates a quick win in direct cost and support terms. The transformation team begins its work in the other quick win areas. Higher staff turnover departments take the benefits of vacancy management by introducing arrangements to make better use of the combined capacities without the need for full transformation. The back office arrangements are then transformed to create the platform for the next stages of transformation. The councils are already looking at shared IT&C and procurement, both of which are very much on this path to improved efficiency.

We have used an officer workshop to suggest the potential savings levels because they understand the councils, how both councils cope with transformation and will be responsible for delivering these savings. An alternative route to these numbers is an analysis of each service. Such consultant led work can be unreliable without a significant investment of resource.

This analysis crudely identifies the levels of benefits that could be achieved through adopting this direction of travel. The speed with which these benefits are achieved will very much depend on the pace of change adopted by the Councils. The numbers discussed above are based on the delivery of benefits at the end of the programme, which would take between three and five years. The programme itself would involve a combined transformation team preparing business cases for each of the operations and services that would establish a change plan and identify the likely benefits in a more detailed manner. The decision to implement would then be based on that material.

The options represent a direction of travel and so to a large extent it is artificial to split the savings as though they will be delivered in phases. In reality, the two councils will be working on several services simultaneously and those services will deliver savings at different speeds, so the boundaries between options 3 and option 4 will be blurred. Indeed the full extent of savings listed under Option 3 may not have been realised by the time the two councils start sharing services listed as Option 4. However, splitting the savings in this way does demonstrate what is realistically possible to achieve with differing levels of integration an indicative order in which the councils may wish to approach sharing services, with those that are easiest to combine being tackled first. Sector 22 Summary of financial business case Options Comparison

Option two – Shared Chief Executive

At this stage, it is anticipated that potential savings accruing from option two would be limited to savings resulting from the appointment of one Chief Executive rather than two, and a reduction in the direct support for this post. These savings should be considered in the context of a review of senior management across both authorities to maintain clear lines of management accountability and appropriate capacity. A restructured single senior management structure should allow for the same or increased capacity at reduced cost.

The cost of transition to a shared Chief Executive would be relatively low. Savings can be released and some benefits accrued simply from a shared Chief Executive meaning reduced salary costs for both councils, although to release the full savings and maintain effective capacity, a management review will need to be undertaken.

Option three – formal partnership and a structured approach to joint working

Based on the assumptions made within this report, it is anticipated that option three could potentially generate savings in the region of £0.7M to £1.6M. These figures include the benefits achieved under option 2. Shared between the councils.

Option four – A formal partnership including joint chief executive and joint management team and combined workforce in some or all services;

Some further savings may be generated from a full partnership arrangement and combined workforce. It is anticipated that the bulk of the additional savings would be generated within corporate services. Based on the assumptions made within this report, it is anticipated that option four could potentially generate additional savings in the region of £2.5M to £4.5M across both the General Fund and Housing Revenue Account. Shared between the councils.

The costs of transition would be highest for option four, significantly more than option three, since there would be a number of legal issues around the creation of a shared workforce, and significant change management costs.

Sector 23 Strategic business case The strategic business case builds on the financial and performance analysis by looking at a number of strategic issues to test out the opportunities and limiting factors to joint working under a single chief executive. The strategic considerations set out below are not exhaustive but set out some of the key questions that come to mind in looking to progress joint working.

High level comparison This report includes a comparison grid in Appendix B that shows a high level comparison of the councils.

The Councils are in the same county and region though they differ in population (Rugby’s population is about ¾ of the size of Nuneaton and Bedworth), and size (Rugby is about three times the size of Nuneaton and Bedworth). As a result, the population density between the two authorities varies significantly as does the mix of rural and urban inhabitants. The Councils face a number of different challenges in responding to the needs of their residents. Our findings indicated that officers are acutely aware of this, and keen to continue to deliver to local needs.

Rugby Borough Council – A pen picture RBC is geographically in the centre of Warwickshire and covers a large geographical area. It has a population of 91,000. The borough has a higher proportion of residents based rurally than NBBC. The area is relatively low down the national deprivation rankings; it ranks 246 out of 354 for deprivation. As the Audit Commission notes in its 2009 assessment, it has a number of wards with more serious deprivation but the issues are largely confined to small areas. In the main, the borough is less diverse than the region and national average. The Council has been Conservative controlled since 2004. There are 28 Conservative councillors, 11 Labour councillors and 9 Liberal Democrats.

Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Council – A pen picture NBBC is in the north of Warwickshire. It is separated from RBC by the M6 motorway, though the boroughs share one border. NBBC covers a significantly smaller area than RBC and is the smallest of the five Warwickshire districts but has the second largest population at 121,200 people. NBBC has considerably more deprivation than RBC and is the most deprived area in Warwickshire. Its ranking is 112 out of 354 authorities nationally and levels of worklessness, health inequalities, education and house prices all reflect this. The Council is Conservative controlled with 18 Conservative councillors, 15 Labour councillors and 1 BNP councillor.

In 2009, under the new CAA performance assessment framework both Councils received an ‘adequate’ performance rating for the organisational assessment. The Council’s also both scored two on both the Managing Performance score and the Use of Resources score. In March 2008, NBBC scored an overall ‘Good’ performance rating and a three on use of resources. RBC by contrast, scored ‘Fair’ with a use of resources score as two. As summarised in the financial and performance business case, both Councils are in a broadly similar position with regards to performance, having made good progress in recent years. Comparable levels of performance are an area of strategic strength and a good basis for joint working. There is still room for improvement, but the similar starting point, means that the Councils can develop together, drawing on joint experience.

NBBC’s expenditure is roughly 40% larger than RBCs and the two Councils budgets are structured slightly differently. NBBC structures its budget under six budget headers and includes a Central Services header. RBC structures its budget under four main expenditure categories. In order to project financial savings in this business case, the Councils made significant progress towards a ‘comparable’ high-level budget. This work needs to continue to enable a joint working protocol to be developed.

Sector 24 One notable, but more detailed finding is the amount of synergy in IT platforms. As Appendix B shows, the Councils share IT platforms in Revenues and Benefits, Customer Services, Finance, Environmental Health and Electoral Registration. In our experience, one of the key operational barriers cited by staff is IT, and synergy in this area will remove a key perceived obstacle. Though we believe IT can be always be overcome by good joint working, the joint platforms are a key enabler that will help the programme move forward.

Partnerships Both Councils have a strong record on partnership working locally, regionally and sub regionally. In addition to working with others, they already work successfully together at the regional and local level. For example, the Councils are jointly leading in the Climate Change and Environment themed block in the Local Area Agreement. At an operational level, the Councils are already pursuing joint working arrangements with each other in procurement, IT and joint member training independently of this business case. There are a number of additional areas where a joint approach is under review, or being planned, such as in environmental protection and some aspects of housing such as property maintenance. Both Councils have agreed to a review of their Home Improvement Agencies with a view to combining them in countywide services.

Figure 3: NBBC and RBC local partnership map

Joint working between NBBC and RBC has made significant progress over the past year. However, our findings indicate that even the most advanced initiatives (ICT and Procurement) would benefit from a closer aligned strategic approach. In the ‘next steps’ section below, we have identified the importance of a shared vision and protocol. This vision and protocol will enable the Councils to achieve much more in their existing working arrangements as well as through those initiatives they take forward on the basis of this business case.

In terms of joint working, RBC has a strong partnership with the County but acknowledges there are areas for improvement. For example, it provides joint scrutiny on health, acts as an agent for the County on street parking and has a number of other initiatives either in place or forthcoming. RBC is involved in the Warwickshire Waste Partnership. In addition to local partnerships with NBBC, the Council provide legal services to Harborough District Council. RBC is heavily involved in the West Midlands regional spatial strategy.

Locally, RBC has more or less daily interplay with the Town Centre Company, BID, Chamber and Community Association for Voluntary Action. Sub-regionally RBC is an active participant Sector 25 in the Coventry, Solihull Warwickshire Partnership and it’s Public Services Board. At the regional level RBC have an excellent reputation with Advantage West Midlands and the Homes and Communities Agency and have been chosen to work with them as a test bed for innovations in HCA/Council working. The Leader of the Council is Vice Chair of the West Midlands Leaders Board. The recently restructured LSP and improved. In addition to those already mentioned, it includes the Learning and Skills Council West Midlands and Warwickshire NHS.

NBBC has a strong relationship with Warwickshire and pursue joint services on regulatory services and internal audit and have exciting projects underway in both Social Services and Housing. At the current time, they are undertaking a business case with the Leicestershire partnership investigating the provision of joint legal services. With North Warwickshire they are joint working on planning and performance, building control and housing (which also includes RBC). The Council is also investigating a joint depot site with North Warwickshire and Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council along the A5 corridor. They have recently outsourced their parks contract. At the sub regional level, both councils are pursuing a joint training academy with a number of other public sector bodies (both Councils and non- Councils).

In addition to the County, NBBC Local Strategic Partnership includes Warwickshire police, Warwickshire NHS, Warwickshire fire and rescue, Warwickshire Community and Voluntary Action, Coventry and Warwickshire Chamber, Job Centre plus, Coventry and Warwickshire Connexions and Advantage West Midlands. NBBC take a lead role at the LSP; the NBBC CEO chairs it. .

Our ‘partnership map’ above (not an exhaustive list of all partnerships) shows that there is significant overlap in the nature of partnership working between the two Councils. As the Councils are in the same County; this finding is hardly surprising. However, there are subtle differences between the two; for example, RBC’s LSP works with the Learning and Skills Council and NBBC with Warwickshire Connexions. There are also a number of other organisations (primarily other district Councils) that form a wide network of associates for joint working. Both authorities have a good track record of joint working, within Warwickshire and even in other local Counties such as Leicestershire. There is good collaboration with other district Councils in the area particularly with North Warwickshire. A consideration in making decisions about joint working will be that the establishment of a successful partnership between RBC and NBBC would significantly facilitate the addition of further offering other authorities improved efficiency.

There is a risk that some of these partnerships may be affected by closer working between the two councils due to the diversion of management capacity to shared working rather than the partnership projects – a concern raised by a number of officers. It is clear that what is being considered is a partnership to promote managerial efficiency, which does not necessarily require alignment at a policy level and that some of these relationships will continue unaffected. While it will be important to clearly and consistently communicate this fact, in some areas opportunities will arise to align policy and use the close relationship between RBC and NBBC to improve joint working (and in turn service delivery) across the region. With influence over an increased economic area, the Councils have the potential to become a magnet for other public sector organisations, increasing the effectiveness of their partnerships as a whole.

It is also important to note that both authorities have a number of Members who also sit on the County Council, who will no doubt be particularly concerned that an effective working arrangement with the County is maintained.

There are some risks to existing arrangements that may arise from the two councils working more closely together. However, there will also be a range of new opportunities to exploit those opportunities to the mutual benefit of both councils.

Local priorities and policies

Sector 26 The councils’ corporate priorities are based on some similar themes such as lifestyle (improving quality of life, pleasant environment and social justice at NBBC and enjoy achieve, prosper and pride in environment at RBC). Good services and value for money is important for both Councils.

Having said that, there are also some subtle and stark differences; at NBBC the corporate priorities put special emphasis social justice and at RBC achievement is explicitly mentioned. There is a specific priority at each Council that is not comparable. At NBBC reducing crime and disorder is a council priority and at RBC meeting housing needs. Both subtle and stark differences reflect the different priorities of the political leadership and to some extent needs of the residents.

There is a specific priority at each Council that is not comparable, particularly reducing crime and disorder at NBBC and meeting housing needs at RBC. This reflects the different priorities of the political leadership and to some extent needs of the residents.

One of the main challenges to the success of this joint working arrangement will be the flexibility with which the aligned organisation can continue to respond to two separate sets of residents and political inputs. Both sets of residents should still be able to set their own service levels for all services provided on a shared service or joint working basis. As a result, joint working cannot mean uniformity of service standards, even if option four (service merger) is pursued. In order to continue to address the needs of their localities and to make the best of opportunities for joint working, it will be crucial to define a shared vision and protocol to work together. This does not mean having the same objectives, but being clear about how the organisations can work together for mutual benefit and maintain flexibility. The shared vision needs to aggregate priorities at a high enough level to be common (e.g. effectiveness in meeting residents needs) but specify different, potentially geographical based priorities at a more detailed level.

This analysis highlights one of the key principles under the options for joint working. That being, local democratic control. Localism is to be maintained and developed so that policies are established and delivered for each of the local communities. This localism will at times run contrary to the flow of the pure efficiency agenda. Maintaining the flexibility to define services locally will cost more than a single combined service. However, for the localism principle to hold then joint service development must be devised flexibly.

Resilience and capacity An important aspect of the business case that at this stage cannot be reflected financially is the opportunity to generate increased resilience and capacity across a significant number of services. Appendix D provides a first overview of services and potential prioritisation for joint working this illustrates that there is potential to improve resilience, recruitment and retention for most services by joint working.

The increased flexibility associated with the combined resources of the two Councils offers the opportunity for a higher degree of tailoring of service; joint working has the potential to improve delivery of services to local needs. In our view, even after savings have been made, the joint arrangements should still result in additional capacity and resilience when compared to either Council working in isolation. In addition, the experience and track record of both of the Chief Executives will be a significant factor for the two Councils to consider in weighing the benefits of joint working.

The other side of the resilience and capacity analysis is that one chief executive means that each council would be ‘giving up’ 50% of the capacity of its own chief executive. To ensure this works effectively the joint chief executive will need to establish their management arrangements so they have adequate support. What will be key to this is the role of effective delegation to the strategic director level and further to the head of service/assistant director level. Members will notice some difference in the capacity of chief officers but this should not limit their ability to deliver.

Sector 27 Capacity for improvement and change Our findings indicated that RBC has a positive attitude to change. The influence of the fundamental restructuring which was undertaken three years ago is clear and present around the Council and anecdotal evidence suggests that the impact of this change has been very positive both in terms of generating results and in terms of generating an open culture and a ‘can-do’ attitude. Recently the Council has embraced the radical re-engineering of services on an end-to-end review basis. RBC would wish to continue to make process savings whilst also benefiting from the economies of scale that could be delivered by joint working with NBBC.

NBBC’s culture is based around a strong commitment to meeting the requirements of the population the councils serve, which is a primary motivator of the staff. In particular, officers are conscious of risks to performance and this doesn’t always have a positive effect on innovation. The Council has started to challenge this culture and has had some success. It recognises the need to change to continue to adapt to the challenges of its changing communities. In particular, the Council is open and very positive around joint working arrangements. It is in these areas that it is most innovative.

Both NBBC and RBC are recognised as adequate performing authorities, with areas for improvement for both councils. The two councils have however, demonstrated an appetite for ongoing review and challenge. A key benefit of options two to four is that the process of merging elements of services would itself act as a review process, and the two authorities together would have greater expertise and capacity to conduct review and benchmarking of services, drawing from each others strengths and forming one larger and more effective review team. In adapting to the evolving performance management regime for local government, performance management, communications and business transformation will all be critical.

To facilitate the implementation of joint working and optimise the efficiency savings achieved the councils should establish a joint implementation team. The joint transformation team to carry out swift and effective service reviews would be required for options three to four, and advisable for option two. This should include process improvement, risk, and change management and procurement review expertise, as well as use of resources, value for money, performance management and preparation for inspection knowledge.

A joint business transformation team to carry out swift and effective service reviews should include process improvement, risk, and change management and procurement review expertise, as well as use of resources, value for money, performance management and preparation for inspection knowledge. Our recommendation is that the Councils identify a joint change team as a priority, along with a shared approach to change.

Realising savings Our outline financial business case indicates that material savings are possible from joint arrangements. The basis for splitting savings equitably, to the benefit both authorities needs to be agreed as part of the formalisation of arrangements. Any protocol is unlikely to be perfect and should be regularly revisited to ensure it remains equitable. This will enable a clear communication to both sets of Members as to the likely returns and other benefits to individual authorities.

Savings will be released in a number of ways:

 combining capacity – for example; appointing a joint chief executive and thorough vacancy management or shared infrastructure;

 quick wins (opportunistic changes that lead to early access to savings) – for example; reducing duplication of niche resources, sharing of lessons learned and reductions in waste across a larger critical mass;

Sector 28  planned combinations – for example; support service reviews that deliver greater productivity at a lower cost and full service reviews accessing economies of scale; and

 asset rationalisation – for example; combined approach to the utilisation of physical assets.

Savings would be both capital and revenue.

The speed with which savings are realised will depend upon how quickly a transformation team is tasked to deliver and the level of resources invested to achieve this change.

Management team capacity and management structures Both Councils have emphasised the need to maintain enough leadership capacity to support a challenging change agenda. When progressing any option, it will be appropriate to carry out a management review to ensure consistency across the two councils.

Significant changes to the way the strategic directors work and manage their responsibilities will need careful support and training.

The joint working programme will examine the various stages of change and senior management resource will need to be maintained in the short term with a planned reduction over time.

Members and Governance Members will need to be assured that effective mechanisms are in place for their three key responsibilities of policy control, budget setting and scrutiny. There will need to be clear agreement about how Members will oversee any transition, and how they will be involved, or will oversee the joint management and scrutiny of shared services. Given that strategic management capacity will be reduced (at a minimum, at the Chief Executive level), it will be sensible to ensure that member responsibilities incorporate an appropriate level of delegation to portfolio holders and Members may need to take the time to understand the increased responsibilities of senior officers and adjust accordingly. In line with any changes to delegation, consideration should be given to appropriate member allowances and the most effective scrutiny approach to the new arrangements.

The joint chief executive will want to have open discussions with Members around their physical location, attendance at meetings and Member’s access. Clarity and flexibility being the key factors in these discussions.

Raising the profile Demonstrating that the councils are leading the agenda by delivering improved services and savings for local people will make an impact locally, and will also raise the national profile of the local political and managerial leadership. Shared services has been current policy focus of central government for a number of years but as the fiscal landscape becomes clearer, opening up new efficiency streams (like this one), will take on increasing importance.

Other issues It will be important to consider the potential implications of option three to five in particular on equal pay and single status across the authorities, and also on audit and Section 151 officer responsibilities. The Audit Commission and the Department for Communities and Local Government should be consulted, partly as a profile-raising mechanism. Section 151 officer and Monitoring Officer responsibilities should be determined at an early stage, as part of an agreed protocol for joint working (see below).

Successful examples of joint working between the two councils will also greatly increase the possibility of broadening the partnership (should that be desired), or trading services to other Sector 29 nearby councils or community partners. Heads of Service/Managers should be encouraged to identify opportunities where income could be generated in this way, particularly in areas where the combined organisations excel.

These and further issues should be identified in a full risk assessment as part of a detailed business case should the councils wish to take the next steps for closer working.

Should these arrangements be implemented then it may be useful for some clear discussion around the options to go beyond the current proposals. Formal merger would not form part of this agenda. However, one question that will be asked is whether a chief executive could take on a third council. The answer is probably no because of the implications for the role as head of paid service. The next logical steps would likely see either outsourcing or a public public option combining services across a larger number of councils.

Options comparison

This option would make more effective use of the leadership capacity of the chief executive. It would help to build the reputation of the two authorities, and lay the groundwork for potential further joint working. However it would be unlikely to offer significant improvements in resilience across services and would not allow for access to significant financial savings.

Option 3 – A formal partnership including joint Chief Executive and joint approach to the delivery of some services mainly support services

A formal partnership would maximise the potential for realising savings, provide a high-profile example of joint work, but would avoid significant set-up costs and risk issues, while leaving the way open for full service merger. Existing relationships would need to be managed but would be unlikely to be threatened.

More information on the detailed joint working opportunities is included in the matrix in Appendix D. The detailed approach to each of these service areas needs to determine through the detailed business case process.

Option 4 – A formal partnership including joint Chief Executive and joint management team and combined workforce in some or all services

This option would provide the greatest opportunity to increase capacity and reduce costs, but would also generate the highest levels of impact on existing relationships, the highest costs, and the highest level of risk.

Recommendation Our recommendation is to progress to option three as that offers the best balance of achievability and benefits and then begin to move to option 4 once risk and cost mitigation strategies have been developed and the benefits of option 3 begin to be realised.

Summary In order to ensure the successful transition to option three, we make the following recommendations:

 In order to project financial savings in this business case, the Councils made significant progress towards a ‘comparable’ high-level budget. Our recommendation is that both authorities to continue this work and to enable a joint working protocol to be developed commit a financial capability.

 In order to continue to address the needs to their localities and to make the best of opportunities for joint working, it will be crucial to define a shared vision and protocol to work together. This does not mean having the same objectives, but being clear about how the organisations can work together for mutual benefit and maintain

Sector 30 flexibility. The shared vision needs to aggregate priorities at a high enough level to be common (e.g. effectiveness in meeting residents needs) but specify different, possibly geographical based priorities at a more detailed level.

 A joint business transformation team to carry out swift and effective service reviews should include process improvement, risk, and change management and procurement review expertise, as well as use of resources, value for money, performance management and preparation for inspection knowledge. Our recommendation is that the Councils identify a joint change team as a priority, along with a shared approach to change.

 The Council should investigate the potential for savings through its senior manager structure and this should be explored as part of a management review. By providing more opportunity for new challenges, development, and promotion, better joint working should provide opportunities to improve the recruitment and retention situation at both councils. If option two or three is selected, some thought should be given to increasing the possibility of recruitment across the two authorities as a form of ‘internal advertising’, to encourage this.

 It is vital that communication with Members continues beyond the business case and a communications work stream as part of the new change agenda. Support from Members across the political spectrum can be maintained throughout the process. The Councils will need to continue to invest in building and maintaining their support, involving them in planning where appropriate. The responsibility for this should lie with the joint change team.

Sector 31 Conclusions and recommendations As a result of our analysis we recommend that the councils appoint a shared Chief Executive (option two) and establish a formal partnership of joint working (option three). The imminent departure of Rugby Borough Council’s Chief Executive creates a window of opportunity for pursuing Option three on a trial basis, and at a reduced cost.

Option four could be progressed to in the future once option three has been effectively established, the full scope of savings identifies and risks can be managed from a position of experience. The figure below summarises our approach.

Figure 4: Joint working strategy direction of travel

As the diagram above shows, the recommended approach focuses on establishing joint leadership, transformation and change, and support services. In particular our analysis has identified:

 The specific individual requirements of the Councils relating to the needs of two sets of political leaders and residents in service delivery  The comparable levels of performance at the whole Council level and the complexity of the performance picture at a more detailed level  The difference in approaches to change and transformation  The wide range of partnership arrangements in place at both Councils

As a result, our recommendation focuses on establishing a strong ‘strategic core’ that will place the emphasis for joint working on reduced risk activities while still achieving significant benefits.

The higher risk service areas; those with ‘front line’ delivery responsibilities are in general both more complex and larger in nature. Establishing a strategic core that is aligned through a joint approach will achieve the following:

 Clarity of purpose in terms of outcome from joint working priorities for both Councils and a structure to support this  One approach to change  Allow opportunities for joint working to be identified at the strategic level (simplifying the business case process)  Reduced complexity in on-going joint working initiatives parity in support processes will reducing the burden on both change capacity and front line services Sector 32 Once the ‘core’ of the organisations is established through a joint approach, further joint working and the potential for option for four (joint management team and combined workforce in some areas) will be simplified, as the organizational infrastructure will already be common to both Councils. In this situation, a detailed assessment of where joint working will benefit the two Councils can be made on a case-by-case basis but implemented with relative ease.

Comparable levels of performance are an area of strength that can be built on and suggests that there are no performance barriers that would prevent the councils from moving forward with options two and three. However establishing a joint change team and methodology will be critically important to ensure the approach to change and improvement is strategically aligned to the corporate priorities of both organizations. The joint change team needs to clearly define a new approach to change that is common to both Councils and communicate this effectively.

Based on the assumptions made within this report, it is anticipated that option three could potentially generate savings in the region of £0.7M to £1.6M across, shared between the councils.

The financial and performance analysis therefore suggests that there are achievable savings to be had, and that the best balance of cost and benefit appears to be obtainable by the speedy appointment of a shared Chief Executive (option two), and the establishment of a formal partnership and joint working (option three). The cost-benefit analysis of full service merger (option four), along with substantially higher realisation risks, suggests that this option should only be considered once option three has been effectively established, the full scope of potential savings has been identified, and risk can be managed from a position of experience in joint working.

Our strategic analysis suggests that there are areas of strong synergy between the Councils but an equally strong requirement to maintain local service priorities and partnership arrangements. As a result, our recommendation is that the Councils continue work on joint financial analysis and quickly establish a shared vision and protocol for joint working to ensure risks to local performance, priorities and partnerships are mitigated. We strongly recommend establishing a joint change team that will carry out a management review and manage communications.

An opportunity matrix is included in appendix D that identifies the opportunities for joint working and prioritises service areas for joint working. Our analysis has considered the costs, cashable benefits, extent of additional capacity, opportunities for quick wins, and the timescales to generate an overall priority. The priority of different service areas gives a direction of travel that will enable the Councils to continue to achieve significant savings. The Councils appetite for change will largely determine how fast they establish a joint approach to delivering services and if they decide to move beyond this to establish joint teams.

Sector 33 Risk-based decision making In order to ensure a smooth transfer of responsibilities and to maintain delivery of quality services to the community throughout the transitional period, it will be necessary to consider the likelihood and impact of the challenges, or risks, to successfully achieving your goals. Risk management is, therefore, key to a seamless transition and efficient joint working arrangements and allows potential opportunities to be maximised by addressing the threats surrounding them. Early consideration of these risks will allow you to develop more effective, prioritised implementation plans and to ensure that performance is maintained through the process of change. At this stage, the preliminary, high-level risk assessment needs to focus on key risks to strategic outcomes and vision rather than process risks.

The Table below identifies examples of strategic risks associated with the level of transformation proposed.

Table 8: Strategic risks to joint working

Risk category Risk Mitigation and controls Financial implications Robustness of financial assumptions Further detailed business within business case case Service continuity Interruptions to key services or Identifying key areas at risk performance standards Corporate governance Maintaining stakeholder confidence; De-risking strategic decisions; lack of clarity on accountability maintaining standards of internal control Management of change Management of corporate and local, Clarity and explicit agreement cultural change; behavioural risks; on shared vision. residual effects of aggregation People risks Impact of cultural changes; Communication and assessment of skills; contractual development programmes to &TUPE implications; recruitment & ensure staff buy-in retention Key projects and Managing changes to shared service Improved risk management of partnerships delivery arrangements (e.g. LSP’s) new & evolving partnerships Performance Adequacy of framework to monitor Early warning system to pick management transition up on risks materialising Reputation and Maintaining existing partner Communication and relationship risks confidence promotion with existing partners

The following Table considers the more specific challenges and opportunities surrounding joint working arrangements and proposes that they apply in varying significance depending on the level of change to be implemented.

Table 9: – Detailed risks to joint working

Risk Category Risk Option Mitigation Corporate Governance Allocation and acceptance 3 & 4 Requires clear protocols of accountability, liability Political acceptance of 2,3 & 4 Robust change implications of efficiencies management and communications People Risks Staffing efficiencies 4 Identify key roles and through natural wastage posts through robust may affect desired workforce planning balance in skills base Lack of clarity and 3 & 4 Clear protocols, roles and accountability at service responsibilities level Lack of staff buy-in 3 & 4 Robust change resulting in behavioural management

Sector 34 Risk Category Risk Option Mitigation risks Risk of over-capacity, 3 & 4 Clear roles and particularly at managerial responsibilities, and level coaching for management level staff Community Planning Loss of focus on local 3 & 4 Member involvement in priorities change planning Cultural differences 2, 3 & 4 Seek common agenda, between partners vision which embraces local differences Impact of transfer on local 3 & 4 Revisit local partnerships; Community Partnerships consult partners in other local public service areas Performance & Efficiency As a result in joint working 3 & 4 Consolidated performance there may be a reduction reporting, robust risks in service standards assessment and management Potential for duplication in 3 & 4 Opportunity to rationalise key roles structures through robust workforce planning Capacity issue for Chief 2, 3 & 4 Review senior Executive management support Reputation and relationship risks Existing partner 2, 3 & 4 Consult and engage organisations feel partners in other local excluded or less well public service areas, treated engage and share benefits where appropriate

Risk management is a key tool in times of acute financial pressure. It therefore will have increasing importance in the coming months and years. Risk mitigation should have an associated investment strategy to delivery effective risk management. We recommend the transformation team have access to those resources to help realise savings as quickly as possible.

Sector 35 Next steps

Vision and protocol for moving forward Our experience shows that, given willingness to move to shared arrangements, the two most important success factors are a shared vision of the outcomes desired (including measurable success criteria), and a protocol agreed from the start as to how the process will proceed. Both of these should be agreed by Members and senior officers on both sides, and as widely shared and consulted on as possible:

 The vision provides strong guidance on what is being sought, which keeps officers and Members on track through a relatively complex project that will change and develop over time;

 The protocol provides key assurances and an understanding of ‘how we do things’, ensuring equity between authorities, the distribution of savings released, (and governance and audit issues), implications such as single status and Section 151 and monitoring officer responsibilities, and how the review and change process will happen. Governance will require particular attention to ensure that Member and officer governance arrangements are agreed in advance to the satisfaction of Members; and

 Joint decision making arrangements, how decisions are taken and what happens when agreement is not reached.

Both of these can quickly and effectively be developed in a number of short workshop sessions or away days led by the Chief Executive with appropriate support. The proposal for a joint Chief Executive, who would have equal responsibility for, and commitment to, both councils should help ensure a relatively smooth passage to reaching agreement on these issues.

Further detailed business case It is recommended that a further, more detailed business case be drawn up. However, this further detailed business case need not precede the early appointment of a shared Chief Executive to drive forward this work with the two management teams. The business case should:

 Be based on the vision and follow the terms of the agreed protocol for moving forward;  Make recommendations for service reviews and transformation, with project prioritisation and a route map to achieve the vision (and not exclude consideration of outsourcing);  A thorough assessment of the potential risks within the preferred options to identify those which could have a material impact on achieving the vision;  Provide further detailed current costings and comparisons and estimates of costs, timescales, and benefits of recommended integration projects, as well as groupings for review and change of services which are considered in this document as individual areas;  Identify potential funding sources for support with transition, including Regional Centres of Excellence (soon to become Regional Improvement and Efficiency Partnerships);  Begin to sketch out the implications of different service levels for the different councils, and make initial recommendations for the developing management structure. This should consider the establishment of a strategic core team, including at a minimum a Chief Executive with PA and at least a joint approach to Transformation with resource commitments, with Directors based in each authority;

Sector 36  Consider the implications of planned changes on staffing arrangements below chief officer level, which may include joint outsourcing of back office services, including contracts where other neighbouring authorities may join later;  Include a detailed project plan for at least the first phase of transformation;  Include a consultation plan with trade unions, staff District Audit and other key stakeholders (statutory and public consultation is unlikely to be required); and  Set out a change management approach (see below).

A critical part of the project plan should be key benchmarks at which success criteria, set now, can be evaluated. At a very early stage a communications plan will need to be developed and implemented.

Making the change happen Both authorities have a good culture of joint working and good experience of change. However, there is still a need for pragmatic change management to ensure that joint working does not meet with unexpected obstacles. This process requires work to understand the concerns and opportunities of all levels of the organisation, including Members, Directors, Heads, Managers and frontline staff. This ‘softer’ edge of change management is as critical as the ‘harder’ technical aspects of change for example, moving to shared IT systems. A number of effective tools are available to support this.

This vital work should be conducted alongside the establishment and operation of a small business transformation team, to effectively take on new services and mould them into an effective joint shared service. As noted above, this team should include risk management, process improvement, change management and procurement review expertise, as well as use of resources, value for money, performance management and preparation for inspection knowledge within its scope.

In both cases, while some outside consultancy resource may be required, the authorities should seek to maximise the use of internal staff and have them skilled up as appropriate through training or skills transfer in order to build the capacity to continually improve. It is clear that there is internal capability to support this kind of change but some work would need to be done to review the internal capacity to take this change forward while maintaining day-to-day functions.

As part of the stakeholder engagement to date interviews and workshops have been conducted with strategic directors, heads of service and assistant directors. We have included some interesting material that drew out officer concerns about implementing change at Appendix D. What the material shows us is that officers are looking for strong positive political leadership to make change happen. The barriers to change left after that leadership and steer has been given become more technical in nature and therefore easier to address through transformation methodologies and simple hard work.

A critical element of bringing about change is an effective stakeholder communications strategy that will help demystify the processes and objectives whilst promoting the positive motivations behind these changes. That being improving the efficiency of each council thereby ensuring increases in council tax levels are minimised and frontline services are prioritised in a time of significant funding pressure.

Sector 37 Appendix A Table 10: This table identifies councils that are leading the way in shared services

Sector 38 Council Model Description

In 2007 Adur District Council and Worthing Borough Council Joint Chief Executive and joint formally agreed to enter into a joint working partnership for management team and shared services the delivery of their local services using a single workforce and senior officer structure. In April 2008 a new, joint, senior management structure was implemented, incorporating a joint Chief Executive, three Strategic Directors and ten Adur District Council Executive Heads of Service. The key objective since then & Worthing Borough has been the completion of high level business cases for Council each of the new service blocks now managed by the new Executive Heads of Service (the last of which was Ian Lowrie, Joint considered by Members in April 2009). These set out teams Chief Executive that could be brought together over the next two years; how shared services could be delivered in the future and clear indications of where further savings can be made. A comprehensive programme of individual service reviews will be delivered by 2011/12 covering all services across the two councils. They set to achieve net savings on revenue budgets of over £860,000 in 2009/10.

Barking and Dagenham and Havering Council are the first Shared Customer Services (Collection of councils in London to provide joint services. They have Business rates) teamed up to support services available to local companies. They will be collecting business rates jointly on behalf of Barking & Dagenham central government. The new scheme will ensure that and Havering Council collections will be more efficient and easier to manage. Both councils will benefit, as savings will be made from the joint Rob Whiteman working partnership over the next five years. Barking and Chief Executive of Dagenham Council will be providing operational capability Barking and for the partnership while Havering will provide all IT services. Dagenham A new ten-person team will work from Dagenham, to deal with administration and collection services for both boroughs. As well as being the first councils in London to achieve this, the scheme was also short-listed for the annual ICT Trade Industry awards, hosted by Government Computing Magazine to celebrate excellence and innovation in public sector services.

Blackpool Council worked with Hewlett-Packard to create a Provision of IT services to various councils more stable, resilient and efficient IT system that is now shared with a number of other councils to provide better services and better value for money for Council Tax payers. With the new IT infrastructure in place, Blackpool Council Blackpool Council soon launched its new Business Rates, Council Tax and Benefits system, which it was able to share with Steve Weaver, Chief neighbouring Fylde Council as originally planned. This was Executive such a success; Blackpool Council has since won a contract to host the same service for Rochdale Council (a much larger council than Blackpool) – beating off competition from private sector service providers. Scalability has been built in to the new IT infrastructure that enables Blackpool to extend its infrastructure in order to provide services to many other councils throughout the UK in the future.

The Lincolnshire Shared Services partnership was Shared Services Partnership (back office) established in 2007. The purpose of the partnership is for Lincolnshire Authorities to work together to achieve efficiency based collaborative working in the short term and transformation of services over the next ten years. Phase 8 Lincolnshire one of the partnership has work streams reviewing Councils (see Procurement, Legal Services, ICT support, Training, description forSector which Property Management and Building Control.39 Procurement councils) Lincolnshire is a Shared Service partnership between eight local authorities in Lincolnshire. The members are: Boston Borough Council, City of Lincoln Council, East Lindsey District Council, Lincolnshire County Council, North Sector 40 Appendix B

Table 11: Comparison Matrix

Nuneaton & Bedworth BC Rugby BC

County - Warwickshire County - Warwickshire

Region – West Midlands Region – West Midlands

Population – 121,200(Audit Commission, Population – 91,000 (Audit Commission, 2009) 2009)

Area – 7,894 hectares (2001 Census) Area – 35,111 hectares (2001 Census)

Density – 15.09 (persons per hectare Density – 2.49 (persons per hectare)

Main Towns Main Towns

Indices of multiple deprivation – 112/354 Indices of multiple deprivation – 246/354

Political Control - Conservative Political control – Conservative

Number of wards - 17 Numbers of wards – 20

Number of Councillors – 34 Number of Councillors – 48

Number of staff - 781 Number of staff - 480

Executive/Cabinet System Executive/Cabinet System

CAA 2009 Use of resources – 2 CAA 2009 Use of resources – 2

CAA 2009 Managing performance - 2 CAA 2009 Managing performance – 2

Revenue Budget (2008/9) - £18,948,230 Revenue Budget - £13,359,000

Spend per head of population: £156 Spend per head of population: £147

Spend per hectare: £2400 Spend per hectare: £380

Average Council Tax Band (Band D): Average Council Tax Band (Band D) £1,501.37 £1,486.58

Council priorities: Council priorities  To improve the quality of life and  Ensure all the Borough’s residents social justice for residents so it is are aware of our services and can much closer to that enjoyed by the access and influence them rest of Warwickshire  Meet the housing needs of our  To work in partnership with to reduce residents, now and in the future the level of crime and disorder so  Enable our residents, visitors and

Sector 41 that the community is and feels safer enterprises to enjoy, achieve and  To provide a pleasant environment prosper for those living, working and visiting  Enable and sustain an environment the Borough which our residents can take pride in  To provide quality services which and which impresses our visitors represent value for money  Enable the delivery of excellent value for money services in line with our corporate plans

Housing stock – Council owned Housing stock – Council owned

Leisure – operated by external leisure trust Leisure – in house

Parks - contract outsourced to Glendale Parks - in house

Refuse - in house Refuse – in house

Street care – in house Street care – in house

Housing Repairs & Maintenance – in house Housing Repairs & Maintenance - outsourced

Revenues and Benefits: IBS Revenues and Benefits: IBS

Customer Services: Northgate CRM Customer Services: Northgate CRM

Housing:SX3, Northgate Housing: Anite, Northgate

Environmental Health: APP Environmental Health: APP

Planning: FLARE, Pest Control Planning: Anite, fast planning and Limehouse

Financial Management: Agresso Financial Management: Agresso

Electoral Registration: Express Electoral Registration: Express

Sector 42 Appendix C

History of local government reform in England In the search for the most efficient system of local government, there have been several major structural changes since the 1960s. In the early 1960s, the UK was covered by two-tier administrations, based on counties and a mixture of sub-administrations including municipal boroughs, county boroughs, rural districts and urban districts. In 1974 a new two-tier structure was introduced in non-metropolitan England. Within this new structure, the larger (shire) counties provided the top tier of local government and non-metropolitan districts the lower tier.

In the early 1990s, it was advocated that a review of the existing two-tier system should be undertaken, to assess its continued relevance. The Local Government Commission for England (LGCE) was set up to undertake this review of non-metropolitan areas and, following considerable research and consultation, recommended that some areas retain the existing two-tier structure, whilst others be set up as single-tier or ‘’unitary authorities. Parliament approved reorganisation in 25 counties and the subsequent process of restructuring occurred between 1995 and 1998: Some of the key dates in the process included: -

 1995 - The two districts of the Isle of Wight were merged and the county became a unitary authority.

 1996 - The counties of Avon, Cleveland and Humberside were abolished and divided into unitary authorities. The city of York was separated from North Yorkshire and became a unitary authority.

 1997 - A number of other large towns and cities were detached from their counties and became unitary authorities. The historic county of Rutland was detached from Leicestershire and converted to a unitary authority.

 1998 - Several more urban unitary authorities were created. The county of Hereford and Worcester was divided into the two-tier Worcestershire and the misleadingly named unitary authority, County of Herefordshire. Also the two-tier system in Berkshire was abolished and replaced by six unitary authorities.

Prior to the re-organisation in the 1990s, there were 39 shire counties split into 294 districts. The structure post-1998 consisted of 34 shire counties split into 239 districts, and 46 unitary authorities. Only 14 pre-1995 shire counties were unaffected by the changes.

Context of Local Government Re-organisation 2007 Following the publication of the White Paper, Strong and Prosperous Communities, on the 26 October 2006, local authorities were give a deadline of 25 January 2007 to submit a bid for unitary status.

The criteria for proposals for governance change say that proposals should:  Enhance strategic leadership, neighbourhood empowerment, accountability, value for money and equity;  Command a broad cross section of support from partners and stakeholders; and  Be affordable, representing value for money and meeting any costs of change from councils’ existing resources.

The Government made it clear that it expects all councils in continuing two-tier areas, even if they are not pathfinders, to pursue new arrangements to achieve the same level of improvement and efficiency gains as the new unitaries and pathfinders would be achieving.

By the 25 January deadline, 26 proposals had been submitted. On the 27 March 2007 Phil Woolas, Local Government Minister, announced the sixteen bids that had been shortlisted:

Sector 43  Bedfordshire County Council - for a single unitary authority for the county; Bedford Borough Council - for a unitary Bedford;  Cornwall County Council - for a single unitary authority for the county;  Cheshire County Council - for a single unitary authority for the county; Chester City Council - for two unitary authorities for the county;  Cumbria County Council - for a single unitary authority for the county; Durham County Council - for a single unitary authority for the county;  Exeter City Council - for a single unitary authority for the city;  Ipswich Borough Council - for a single unitary authority for the borough;  North Yorkshire County Council - for a single unitary authority for the county; Northumberland County Council - or a single unitary authority for the county;  Northumberland Districts - for two unitary authorities for the county;  Norwich City Council - for a single unitary authority for the city on existing boundaries;  Shropshire County Council - for a single unitary authority for the county;  Somerset County Council - for a single unitary authority for the county; and  Wiltshire County Council - for a single unitary authority for the county.

The ten unsuccessful bids were:

 Cornwall districts;  Durham City Council;  East Riding of Yorkshire Council and Selby District Council;  Ellesmere Port and Neston Borough Council;  Lancaster City Council;  Mid Bedfordshire District Council and South Bedfordshire District Council;  Oxford City Council;  Pendle Borough Council and Burnley Borough Council;  Preston City Council; and  South Somerset District Council.

The situation in England up to August 2007 was as follows (Council Proposals for Unitary Local Government: An Approach to Implementation, CLG August 2007):

 In Cornwall, Durham, Northumberland, Shropshire and Wiltshire, the county council became a transitional authority with plans for a new authority taking on district functions on 1 April 2009  In Exeter and Ipswich the existing district council became a transitional authority with plans for a new authority with plans to take on county functions from 1 April 2009.  In Bedford the existing district council was likewise not abolished, and would take on county functions; the approach in the remaining area of Bedfordshire would depend on the unitary proposals received in response to the invitation that the Secretary of State is now minded to issue.  In the case of the 2 Cheshire unitaries, a shadow authority was created for each, which became the new authority from 1 April 2009, when all the existing authorities in Cheshire would cease to exist.

Sector 44 Current context of Local Government Re-organisation 2009

On 1 April 2009, a number of new unitary authorities were created in parts of the country that previously operated a 'two-tier' system of counties and districts10. In five shire counties the functions of the county and district councils were combined into a single authority; and in two counties the powers of the county council were absorbed into a significantly reduced number of districts.

Newly created Unitary Authorities effective from April 1st 2009  Cornwall County Council - merging Cornwall County Council and the six borough and district councils in Cornwall - Caradon, Carrick, Kerrier, North Cornwall, Restormel and Penwith.  Durham County Council1112 - replacing the previous two-tier system of a county council providing strategic services and seven district councils providing more local facilities.  Northumberland - previously a two-tier system of local government, with one county council and six districts, each with their own district council, responsible for different aspects of local government.  Shropshire Council13 - replaced the former two-tier local government structure in the non-metropolitan county of Shropshire, which involved its immediate predecessor, Shropshire County Council, and five non-metropolitan districts - Bridgnorth, North Shropshire, Oswestry, South Shropshire and Shrewsbury & Atcham. These districts and their councils were abolished in the reorganisation.  The ceremonial county of Wiltshire consists of two unitary authority areas, Wiltshire and Swindon, governed respectively by Wiltshire Council and Swindon Borough Council. Until 2009 Wiltshire (apart from Swindon) was a two-level county, divided into four local government districts, Kennet, North Wiltshire, Salisbury and West Wiltshire, which existed alongside Wiltshire County Council, covering the same area and carrying out more strategic tasks, such as education and county roads. However, on 1 April 2009 these five local authorities were merged into a single unitary authority called Wiltshire Council. With the abolition of the District of Salisbury, a new Salisbury City Council was created at the same time to carry out several citywide functions and to hold the City's charter.  Bedford Borough Council1415 - is now a unitary authority. Bedford Borough has assumed responsibility in areas such as education, social services and transport that were previously provided by Bedfordshire County Council.  Central Bedfordshire is now a unitary authority. In addition to taking over the powers of the two district councils, it has also taken over the powers previously exercised by Bedfordshire County Council in the two districts.  Cheshire East16 is now a unitary authority area with borough status. It was an amalgamation of the boroughs of Macclesfield, Congleton and Crewe and Nantwich,

10 Communities and Local Government - Proposals for future unitary structures: Stakeholder consultation

11 The County Durham (Structural Change) Order 2008". Office of Public Sector Information. 2008. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2008/uksi_20080493_en_1. Retrieved 2009-04-18.

12 The Durham (Borough of Darlington) (Structural Change) Order 1995". Office of Public Sector Information. 1995. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si1995/Uksi_19951772_en_1.htm. Retrieved 2009-04-18.

13 Shropshire (Structural Change) Order 2008

14 Unitary solution confirmed for Bedfordshire - New flagship unitary councils approved for Cheshire - Corporate - Communities and Local Government

15 Bedfordshire County Council - The proposal

16 Proposals for new City of Chester and West Cheshire Local Authority. Chester District website. Retrieval Date: 25 October, 2007 Sector 45 with the other three boroughs of Cheshire County Council making up the authority of Cheshire West and Chester.  Cheshire West and Chester17 is now a unitary authority area with borough status. It replaced the boroughs of Ellesmere Port and Neston, Vale Royal and Chester District. The rest of ceremonial Cheshire is composed of Cheshire East, Warrington and Halton

Unsuccessful proposals

 Bedfordshire County Council - for a single unitary authority for the county;  Cheshire County Council - for a single unitary authority for the county;  Cumbria County Council - for a single unitary authority for the county;  North Yorkshire County Council - for a single unitary authority for the county;  Northumberland Districts - for two unitary authorities for the county; and  Somerset County Council - for a single unitary authority for the county;

Various local councils indicated they wish to seek unitary authority status

 Ipswich, Oxford, Norwich and Exeter proposed unitary status on their present boundaries, and commissioned a report jointly to press their case. Oxford did not respond to the invitation.  In Lancashire, Preston and South Ribble desired to form a single unitary authority although Preston bid for it alone.  The City of Lancaster considered seeking unitary status on its present boundaries (having supported a merger with South Lakeland and Barrow-in-Furness to form a Morecambe Bay unitary authority during the referendums review).  Blackpool advocated a merger with the Fylde and Wyre districts, which they did not support.  Pendle and Burnley also tried to form a unitary authority with Rossendale; however Rossendale rejected this.

Further changes

The Boundary Committee for England has completed its structural reviews for Norfolk, Suffolk and Devon.

Initial draft proposals were published in July 2008 with further draft proposals published in March 2009. The committee was expected to make final recommendations by 31 December 2008, but these were delayed, due to legal challenges, and were then due in July 2009. A further legal challenge resulted in a further delay and has been appealed by the Boundary Committee. The appeal was heard in October 2009 and the judgment is awaited. If the appeal is successful, the Boundary Committee will submit its recommendations to the Secretary of State and, in theory, there is still time within the current parliament for the government to legislate for further structural changes that would come into effect in April 2011.

Draft Proposals for Devon

The further draft recommendations propose two unitary options:

 A Devon unitary authority comprising the existing county of Devon, with no changes to Plymouth and Torbay.  An Exeter and Exmouth unitary authority, and a unitary authority covering the remainder of Devon, with no changes to Plymouth and Torbay.

Draft Proposals for Norfolk

17 Chester City Council - Two new councils for Cheshire

Sector 46 The further draft recommendations propose two unitary options:

 A single Norfolk unitary authority comprising the existing county of Norfolk.  A two-authority structure with greater Norwich unitary authority and a rural Norfolk unitary authority for the rest of the county.

Draft Proposals for Suffolk

The further draft recommendations propose two unitary options:

 A single Suffolk unitary authority comprising the existing county of Suffolk.  A two-authority structure with a North Haven unitary authority consisting of Ipswich and Felixstowe, and a rural Suffolk unitary authority for the rest of the county.

Sector 47 Appendix E

Opportunity Matrix and Direction of Travel

Service area Description Opportunity Costs18 Cashable Create Quick wins21 Timescale22 Approach Recommended 19 23 Benefits resilience/ (Quick wins include - how long will it take to prioritisation 20 (L/M/H) (L/M/H) capacity savings and implement change (1-5 - 1 being highest (Y/N) activities that will (short term / Medium priority) boost credibility of term / Long term) change for the programme) (Y/N) Chief Executive Each council has one An opportunity exists for both councils L L No – in fact there Yes – This may Short To be agreed by 1 plus supporting Chief Executive and to share a Chief Executive. A single is a risk that one present quick Chief Executives office one support office (the Chief Executive will allow senior Chief Executive savings but it is and Leaders support offices include capacity to be optimised and savings would reduce dependant on two admin staff per to be released. Leadership under a capacity at this redundancy council who serve the single Chief Executive will provide level. It will mean costs that will management team). focused direction for the rest of joint that more need to be working transformation programme. capacity needs agreed at leader to be freed up at and CEO level. the next level down (Director level) and so on. Senior Both councils have two A joint senior management team will L M Yes – It is likely Some savings Long A review of roles 2 Management strategic Directors. enable the Chief Executive to set that as the could be made in and responsibilities and strategic direction for the two organisations. transformation the short term and ways of support to Chief Bringing the organisation under the programme but it is likely that working will ensure Exec (Initially leadership of a joint senior team will progresses capacity at this that the Chief Directors) optimise capacity. capacity and level will be Executive and

18 1 = Do it yourself, 2 = Detailed review requiring internal capacity, and 3 = Adding external requirements (i.e. procurement) 19 Low = £0 - £100K, Medium = £100K - £200K, High = £200K + 20 Yes/No 21 Yes/No - (Quick wins include savings and activities that will boost credibility of change) 22 Short Term = 0-6 months, Medium Term = 6-18 months, Long Term 18+ 23 1 = Highest Priority, 5 = Lowest Priority. 1 = Option 2, 1+2 = Option 3, 1+2+3 = Option 4, 4+5 = Other services to consider in the future Service area Description Opportunity Costs Cashable Create Quick wins Timescale Approach Recommended Benefits resilience/ (Quick wins include - how long will it take to prioritisation (L/M/H) (L/M/H) capacity savings and implement change (1-5 - 1 being highest (Y/N) activities that will (short term / Medium priority) boost credibility of term / Long term) change for the programme) (Y/N) resilience at this required to Senior Team have level will grow support the enough capacity to presenting the transformation lead the two opportunity to councils and that make more resources are savings. directed appropriately. Transformation . Both councils In order to achieve a strong strategic L None Yes –The Yes - It is not Short It will be critical that 2 and Change transformation teams core, the joint leadership team will councils would likely that there the transformation teams are currently stretched need one set of methodologies to have to will be and change team is in terms of capacity (i.e. ensure it moves forward with its reconsider how immediate central to any there is more work than change agenda in a coherent way. much time they savings made in future they can do). Both This team will be responsible for intend to this area (indeed transformation so teams are however driving and monitoring the dedicate to other further as a first step highly regarded in the transformation programme. The council specific investment may methodologies and organisations and combined transformation team will be transformation be required), but ways of working considered a valuable required to agree the transformation and change joint working is will need to be resource. Both councils methodology up front to set the projects. It would critical to the aligned. The joint work with similar (lean) foundation for the rest of the be advisable that overall approach to methodologies although programme. This should also one of the first programme and transformation and there does appear to be strengthen capacity and resilience tasks of the joint it will increase change will enable a difference in terms of transformation capacity and scoping, level of commitment to team would be to resilience. establishing and the methodologies and agree and monitoring the the extent to which they conduct a review emerging are applied. The new of current transformation transformation team will transformation programme. need to be responsible initiatives and for benefits tracking for agree a new the programme so it is priority and important that they are sequencing for working together from these. an early stage. In NBBC Transformation and

Sector 49 Service area Description Opportunity Costs Cashable Create Quick wins Timescale Approach Recommended Benefits resilience/ (Quick wins include - how long will it take to prioritisation (L/M/H) (L/M/H) capacity savings and implement change (1-5 - 1 being highest (Y/N) activities that will (short term / Medium priority) boost credibility of term / Long term) change for the programme) (Y/N) Change sits in Customer Services, in RBC it sits in Business Transformation under a temporary head of service Procurement The relationship with Joint working is already in progress. L L No - Joint Yes – in the Short term Existing work 2 NBBC and RBC for An agreed joint approach to working is respect that it should be brought procurement services procurement will ensure that already in can be brought under the new has evolved since 2007. opportunities to make further savings progress. under the transformation It is envisaged that in through economies of scale and to transformation programme to the future it will be align the council’s infrastructure are programme ensure it is aligned possible for other taken advantage of e.g. future IT quickly – no to those objectives Districts to join in and procurement infrastructure significant and outcomes and interest has already savings will be that benefits are been expressed from made tracked centrally. elsewhere to do so. immediately. Procurement offers Since January 2007 the councils have obtained cashable savings and anticipate that there will be further savings.

IT Both councils are Joint working is already in progress – L L Joint working is Yes – in the Short term The current 2 working towards joint there is an opportunity to derive already in respect that it direction of travel approach to IT as part further benefit from future and progress can be brought for IT will support a of a three-year existing joint working though brining under the wider programme transformation IT under the umbrella of the strategic transformation of joint working this programme. They are business case. This will ensure that programme work should be currently sharing an IT the common IT systems platform is quickly – no brought under the Associate Director who fully exploited when support joint significant new joint approach spends one day in RBC working within services. savings will be to ensure it is and four days in NBBC. made aligned to shared

Sector 50 Service area Description Opportunity Costs Cashable Create Quick wins Timescale Approach Recommended Benefits resilience/ (Quick wins include - how long will it take to prioritisation (L/M/H) (L/M/H) capacity savings and implement change (1-5 - 1 being highest (Y/N) activities that will (short term / Medium priority) boost credibility of term / Long term) change for the programme) (Y/N) At the time of this immediately. objectives and business case (Dec 09) outcomes. The Councils were just about to enter stage 2 of the programme. In addition to the centralised IT team, in both Councils other IT resources are embedded within service areas (these resources are currently out of scope of the current transformation programme). Staff from both councils has noted that in their own organisations the operational IT service is not performing as well as they would expect. Finance The council’s budget Finance is a key support function to M L/M Yes No Medium term Detailed business 2 (accounting setting and accounts the organisation and aligning financial case as a core function) closing processes processes are important to aligning support services. operate in a different the rest of the organisations. Working Under a joint way. There is a to an aligned annual cycle and approach the common ICT system financial reporting standards allows Councils can bring that would support leadership to achieve efficiencies by together their steps to closer bringing two sets of operations finance functions alignment. together into a single process of through an aligned financial control and direction setting. annual cycle that sees them set financial priorities, and carry out

Sector 51 Service area Description Opportunity Costs Cashable Create Quick wins Timescale Approach Recommended Benefits resilience/ (Quick wins include - how long will it take to prioritisation (L/M/H) (L/M/H) capacity savings and implement change (1-5 - 1 being highest (Y/N) activities that will (short term / Medium priority) boost credibility of term / Long term) change for the programme) (Y/N) reporting and monitoring in a similar way. Strategic alignment will facilitate joint management and release capacity at senior level. At the operational level, differences are likely to persist for some time and a detailed operational review will be required to complete a move to one set of financial processes should this be required. HR NBBC’s HR payroll is There are two HR streams which are M L Yes No Support to In establishing the 2 outsourced to the critical to this project: transformation joint transformation county and they are  HR as an immediate support to programme should team the Councils considering outsourcing the transformation programme happen should consider the recruitment too. RBC’s (including aligning things such as immediately (but requirement for a HR department is staff remuneration, terms and does not HR work stream. A delivered in house. conditions, carrying out robust necessarily need to detailed business NBBC has 16 people in workforce planning and happen as a joint case should their HR department redundancy strategies (if team) consider HR within and RBC has 6. appropriate); This function could Other HR joint the core support be established as part of the joint working – medium service areas transformation and change team term. and  HR as the support function that supports the workforce strategy

Sector 52 Service area Description Opportunity Costs Cashable Create Quick wins Timescale Approach Recommended Benefits resilience/ (Quick wins include - how long will it take to prioritisation (L/M/H) (L/M/H) capacity savings and implement change (1-5 - 1 being highest (Y/N) activities that will (short term / Medium priority) boost credibility of term / Long term) change for the programme) (Y/N) for the future organisation and supports people performance at an operational level. Legal and RBC has a smaller Legal services are the third of the M L/M Yes  Yes – legal Medium term The legal teams 2 Democratic team with less internal three key support functions (along services can share capacity capacity and as such with to Finance and HR). This could be a and expertise by buys in more external department is critical in managing the potential identifying gaps support. At the moment council’s risk and a high performing quick win and using NBBC is examining legal services department will operate depending on resources more shared services with critical support to the Chief Executive. the outcome flexibly. A business Leicestershire Councils. As legal work is not council specific, of the case needs to be The business case is i.e. it requires application of the law; business considered to expected January 2010. there are a number of options case with include RBC in available to joint working. Leicestershir NBBC’s long term Opportunities for joint working e Councils. plans to provide include: legal services  Joint capacity around planning externally. Sharing and joint procurement of legal services  Possibly some opportunity to should consider the increase resilience around outcome of the committee support NBBC shared  Possibility of using joint working to service business increase resilience of election case with the team moving round supporting Leicestershire different elections in the same authorities. year  Legal admin support

Strategic policy RBC has a high The two councils will continue to want Yes Yes – Potential Short term A joint approach 3 planning performing team who to plan for local spatial and economic for quick wins in could be achieved (spatial have a good reputation development but as much of this work terms of having as a quick win planning and in the region. NBBC has is done regionally and sub-regionally a joint approach. through identifying economic faced a number of there are advantages to sharing areas of mutual development) political challenges over capacity. Potential for joint working in benefit. A business

Sector 53 Service area Description Opportunity Costs Cashable Create Quick wins Timescale Approach Recommended Benefits resilience/ (Quick wins include - how long will it take to prioritisation (L/M/H) (L/M/H) capacity savings and implement change (1-5 - 1 being highest (Y/N) activities that will (short term / Medium priority) boost credibility of term / Long term) change for the programme) (Y/N) the past twelve months the following areas: case should be in regards to the Core  Support services and admin brought to identify Strategy.  Building control how far this could  Shared planning policy be extended. Customer There is a common The organisation and set up of M H Yes. Opportunistic Long term Joining customer 3 Services Customer Service customer services often determines quick wins could services requires infrastructure due to the the configuration of the rest of the be made such as the organisations to Warwickshire Direct organisation. However, there are also non realisation of have a common partnership work. There complexities as it is on the front line vacancies. service delivery are notable differences of ‘localism’ and needs to meet the However, the strategy and in approach to needs of the two populations. It is joint working critically a common transformation and also often the highest staffed service agenda around view of Customer services area and presents significant customer transformation. A which will need to be opportunities for savings through services are review and worked through prior to achieving economies of scale. Due to invested in the business case for joint working in this the size, complexity and requirement Warwickshire sharing customer area. Both councils for pre-work on change, this direct services should be customer service teams opportunity is a lower priority. partnership any completed. house an admin move to joint function and NBBC and working between Carry out a review Bedworth are currently the two councils and business case considering centralising is likely to be for sharing (and all appropriate council politically indeed centralising) admin under this complex. the admin function. function. Environmental NBBC currently This is the largest area in the councils H H Yes  Long term A full review should 3 services. (not outsource their park and there are multiple opportunities be undertaken to including maintenance to for joint working in this service area identify the regulation) Glendale where they and in some areas it is likely to business case for: have saved 400k. Both generate quick wins. Environmental  Specific Councils have a client services in RBC and Public Amenities areas for joint side function. in NBBC are the biggest service working at NBBC currently run an areas with the largest budgets in the team operation once a week councils. Due to size and complexity, member

Sector 54 Service area Description Opportunity Costs Cashable Create Quick wins Timescale Approach Recommended Benefits resilience/ (Quick wins include - how long will it take to prioritisation (L/M/H) (L/M/H) capacity savings and implement change (1-5 - 1 being highest (Y/N) activities that will (short term / Medium priority) boost credibility of term / Long term) change for the programme) (Y/N) compared to RBC’s two this area is a lower priority. However, level; and - there could save circa there are a number of opportunities  Shared 400k by moving to for joint working that cross management alternate week procurement and other partnerships. where collection but members appropriate. do not support this at present. NBBC is investigating a joint depot site with NWBC and Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council along the A5 corridor. Revs and Bens RBC has taken There is significant scope for M M Yes Opportunistic Medium to Long Conduct full review 3 significant steps to slim efficiencies savings to be made in quick wins could of Revs and Bens down their Revs and Revs and Bens but a thorough be made such as and produce a Bens department assessment is the required to non realisation of business case for through the end-to-end determine the resource requirement vacancies. joint working. reviews and they are at NBBC. However, a full pleased with the current merger of team performance. NBBC’s and Revs and Bens is larger management and it appears that would be there is scope for complex and service improvement likely to take and savings. The NBBC time. Revs and Bens manager will retire next year. Planning and NBBC has a successful In theory, there are few barriers to a L M Y Opportunistic Medium Following the 3 building control building control service joint building control service. quick wins could strategic business in partnership with Development control requires a be made such as case, a detailed NWBC. RBC has some number of officers familiar with the non realisation of business case issues with capacity. local policy framework. This area vacancies. would need to be

Sector 55 Service area Description Opportunity Costs Cashable Create Quick wins Timescale Approach Recommended Benefits resilience/ (Quick wins include - how long will it take to prioritisation (L/M/H) (L/M/H) capacity savings and implement change (1-5 - 1 being highest (Y/N) activities that will (short term / Medium priority) boost credibility of term / Long term) change for the programme) (Y/N) Both councils have presents a good opportunity once the However, a full carried out seen a drop in income strategic core has been established. merger of team exploring the as a result of the and opportunities for recession. management joint working in would be planning and complex and building control. likely to take time. Environmental RBC has sizeable team. Regulatory services require the L L/M yes Yes, some small Medium Conduct full review 3 protection/Regu Councils have already application of national or local areas for quick of regulatory latory Services begun exploring regulations. As a result, there is wins for services and opportunities for joint opportunity for increasing resilience example: produce a business working through car or making efficiency savings  Parking case for joint parking and dog  Dog warden working. wardens. section Gypsy traveller sit management Housing Both councils have their Housing is a large and complex M M Yes There are Long A full review should 3 own housing stock. service. Once the council has agreed opportunities for be undertaken to Currently RBC has a joint approach to transformation and joint working in a identify the major capacity issues has set strategic direction through lot of areas in business case for: as a number manager joint leadership, the opportunities for this service  Specific areas level staff are on long- sharing functions common to however moving for joint term sick leave. RBC is maintaining housing stock e.g. repairs joint working working at currently reviewing their and maintenance present would be team member property maintenance opportunities to achieve savings complex. Some level; and department using the through economies of scale. areas where Shared end-to-end systems quick wins may management review - the first phase be possible where appropriate. of which will be include: complete by February  Joint 2010. procurement Sheltered housing is  Admin currently under a support

Sector 56 Service area Description Opportunity Costs Cashable Create Quick wins Timescale Approach Recommended Benefits resilience/ (Quick wins include - how long will it take to prioritisation (L/M/H) (L/M/H) capacity savings and implement change (1-5 - 1 being highest (Y/N) activities that will (short term / Medium priority) boost credibility of term / Long term) change for the programme) (Y/N) Countywide review for both councils. NBBC housing service area has recently undergone various reviews to strip out waste and most of the teams are at capacity now and operating effectively. There are many opportunities for joint working across the teams particularly within admin support services. Both councils have agreed to a review of their Home Improvement Agencies with a view to combining them in a countywide service. Culture Leisure In RBC Borough Consider at a later date (as this is A detailed business 4 and Sport Council these functions potentially complex and the benefit is case would need to sit under the ‘Planning likely to be lower than other be conducted into and Culture’ service opportunities) the benefits of joint area and in NBBC they working including sit under ‘Public joint outsourcing Amenities’ service area. where appropriate. In NBBC the Civic Hall continues to make a large loss – but members are not keen to reduce the service in anyway. Both councils

Sector 57 Service area Description Opportunity Costs Cashable Create Quick wins Timescale Approach Recommended Benefits resilience/ (Quick wins include - how long will it take to prioritisation (L/M/H) (L/M/H) capacity savings and implement change (1-5 - 1 being highest (Y/N) activities that will (short term / Medium priority) boost credibility of term / Long term) change for the programme) (Y/N) have museum and art galleries and experience expensive maintenance costs for public buildings. There may be opportunity for joint approach to facilities/ property management. There may also be opportunities for externally funded schemes such as positive futures and sports development offers opportunities to gain efficiencies through economies of scale. At NBBC the leisure centres are operated by an external leisure trust under contract until 2019. Asset In RBC Asset Consider at a later date (as this is A detailed business 4 management management is carried potentially complex and the benefit is case would need to out in the ‘Resources’ likely to be lower than other be conducted into service area. – In NBBC opportunities) the benefits of joint it is carried out in ‘Asset working. Management’ service area. There may be opportunities to share admin.

Sector 58 Sector 59