Contact your Parish Council


Appendix A

Corporate level risk update

During December 2015 senior officers and Members from the Council took part in a risk identification workshop facilitated by Grant Thornton.  This resulted in the identification of risks that operate at a corporate level. 

In February 2017 we met with all risk owners to update and re-assess the risks, and to document any planned controls. 

The tables below outline the proposed updates, including further information on existing key controls and, where necessary, planned controls and the resulting mitigated risk.  The following is a summary of the changes made:

·         Corporate 1: Risk score adjusted to reflect action already taken by the Council and a clearer understanding of the likelihood.

·         Corporate 2: Risk score adjusted to reflect action already taken by the Council.

·         Corporate 3: Risk redefined from ‘significant commercial failure’ to more specifically relate to the commercial strategy.  The risk score is adjusted to reflect action taken by the council and a clearer understanding of the likelihood.

·         Corporate 4: Risk updated from ‘not agreeing the local plan’ to reflect the residual (decreased) risk of the plan not being adopted.

·         Corporate 5: Risk and associated score amended from ‘MKIP fails to develop a coherent vision for its’ future’ to reflect wider implications from the devolution agenda.

·         Corporate 6: Risk score adjusted to reflect action already taken by the Council and a clearer understanding of the likelihood.

·         Corporate 7: Changes to clarify risk description.

·         Corporate 8: Risk description clarified and score adjusted based on the wide ranging implications already being faced by the Council and anticipated for the future.

·         Corporate 9: Changes to clarify risk description.

·         Corporate 10: Changes to clarify risk description.

The risks have been plotted onto the risk matrix below. These show each risk (numbered 1-10) and the risk score in terms of impact and likelihood. The residual matrix shows the movement of risks scores after taking into consideration planned controls.

Likelihood

5

 

 

1

 

 

4

 

 

2, 8

3,  6

 

3

 

 

 

 

 

2

 

9

7

4

5

1

 

 

10

 

 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

 

 

Impact

Figure 1: Inherent risk scores                                     Figure 2: Residual risk scores

Likelihood

5

 

 

 

 

 

4

 

8

 

 

 

3

 

 

2, 6

3

 

2

 

9

7

1, 5

 

1

 

 

10

4

 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

 

 

Impact

 

 

 

 

 


 


Corporate risk register

Below is an extract from the risk register of the corporate risks for the Council. The register includes a detailed record of each risk, the assessment of impact and likelihood and the key controls in place to manage the risk: 

Ref

Risk (title & full description)

Risk Owner & lead

Key Existing Controls

Inherent rating

Rating change and key factors

I

L

COR1

Lack of progress on infrastructure delivery
As a result of needing to work with partners, the Council is unable to make adequate progress on infrastructure delivery

William Cornall & Rob Jarman

- Communication and liaison with partners including regular meetings
 - Development of Local Plan

- Escalation plan for handling a lack of partner cooperation

3

5

15

I ↓ from 4, L ↑ from 4

 

Key Impact: Reputation, Legal and Financial

 

Likelihood: almost certain based on current experience

COR2

Recruitment & Retention
As a result of economic pressures and external competition the Council is unable to recruit or retain specialist, technical or professional expertise necessary to deliver ambitions

Alison Broom & Steve McGinnes

- Workforce strategy

- Flexible and adaptive recruitment processes and packages in place to attract skill shortage areas

- Commitment to investing in learning, development and professional qualifications

- Embedded shared service arrangements offer resilience and news ways of working

- External accreditation and assessment – via IIP and Best Companies

3

4

12

I ↓ from 4, no change in L

 

Key impact: Service Delivery & Finance

 

Likelihood:

Probable based on real challenges faced over the last 12 months

COR3

Failure to deliver commercial strategy
As a result of restrictions in market opportunities, staff skills or changes in Member consensus the Council is unable to deliver its’ commercial ambitions

William Cornall

- Regular update reports to Policy & Resources Committee

- Corporate Projects team in place to ensure delivery of projects

4

4

16

I ↓ from 5, L ↑ from 3

 

Key Impact: Financial

 

Likelihood: Probable

 

 

Ref

Risk (title & full description)

Risk Owner & lead

Key Existing Controls

Inherent rating

Rating change and key factors

I

L

COR4

Not having an adopted local plan
As a result of judicial review, the Council’s Local Plan is not adopted

William Cornall & Rob Jarman

- Local Plan external examination

- Regular monitoring by CLT and the Strategic Planning Committee

4

2

8

No change in I, L ↓ from 3

 

Key Impact: Service, Financial and Reputational

 

Likelihood:

Unlikely as plan has successfully passes external examination

COR5

Shared Services / Combined Working
As a result of the Central Government devolution agenda and/or other new initiatives, external developments could cause our current shared services to be dissolved or broken up.

Alison Broom & Steve McGinnes

- Strong governance practices over existing shared service arrangements

- Legal safeguards provided through collaboration agreements for shared services

- Active participation in devolution discussions across Kent at the Leader and Chief Executive level

- Awareness of Kent Districts shared cross partner working proposals

5

2

10

I ↑ from 4, L ↓ from 3

 

Key impact:

Service Delivery, Finance & Legal

 

Likelihood:

Unlikely given no known government or other plans for changes to local government arrangements in Kent

COR6

Financial restriction / pressure
As a result of uncertainty about Central Government funding of local government, the Council is forced to find savings or cutbacks outside of those already planned.

 

Instability or volatility of Business Rates cause the Council to seek further savings outside of those already identified 

Mark Green & Ellie Dunnet

- Adopted efficiency statement / savings plans

- Robust MTFP and realistic forecasting / assumptions
- Embedded budget setting and monitoring processes

- Protected Council reserves

- Budget risks identified and monitored – scrutinised by AGS Committee

4

3

12

I ↓ from 5, L ↑ from 2

 

Key impact:

Service Delivery & Finance

 

Likelihood:

Probable based on Autumn 2016 decision of Central Government

 

 

Ref

Risk (title & full description)

Risk Owner & lead

Key Existing Controls

Inherent rating

Rating change and key factors

I

L

COR7

Over cautious administration
As a result of having Election by thirds the Council is unable to maintain momentum with taking and implementing key decisions in pursuit of strategic priorities

Alison Broom & Angela Woodhouse

- The Committee system is becoming more embedded and better understood

- Regular Member, Group and Officer engagement and communication

- Strong Governance process  and constitution to support decision making processes

- Elections process remain high on the Councils agenda

 

3

2

6

No change in scoring

 

Key impact: Reputation and Finance

 

Likelihood: Unlikely based on past 12 months

COR8

Growing Population
As a result of a growing population the Council is unable to provide or maintain the level of quality front line services to the residents of the Borough

Alison Broom & WLT

- Comprehensive and robust strategies and policies – Local Plan, MTFS, Economic Development Strategy

 - Clear understanding of population growth provided through statistical data from Office of Notional Statistics, census and Resident Survey

- Population growth data incorporated into Waste Service provision

3

4

12

I ↑ from 2, L ↑ from 2

 

Key impact:

Reputation & Finance

 

Likelihood:

Probable as already a challenge for the Council 

COR9

Informed Decision Making
As a result of poor or inaccurate information, the Council makes the wrong decision or is unable to make a timely decision

Mark Green & Angela Woodhouse

- Sound guidance and framework for decision making provided through the Constitution and overseen by Democracy Committee

- Good levels of Member and Officer engagement via work programme, agenda setting and Chairman’s briefing,  prior to decisions being made

- Clearly defined process of escalation and quality checking of reports through Modern.gov, CLT and Statutory Officers

- Failsafe processes within the Governance process to enable call-in and scrutiny of decisions

2

2

4

No change in scoring

 

Key impact: Reputation, Legal and Financial

 

Likelihood: Unlikely based on last 12 months of operating

 


 

 

Ref

Risk (title & full description)

Risk Owner & lead

Key Existing Controls

Inherent rating

Rating change and key factors

I

L

COR10

Technology
As a result of financial pressures the Council is unable to invest in the technology (ICT) necessary to deliver its ambitions

Mark Green & Chris Woodward

- Well embedded governance arrangements provided via the Shared Service Boards with regular budget and performance reporting

- Active ICT Commissioning Groups across all three partner Councils

- Well integrated ICT services enabling service needs and requirements to be captured and assessed

- Transformation Challenge Award (TCA) project making investment funds available achieve major ICT improvements in key areas

3

1

3

No change in scoring

 

Key impact:

Service and Financial

 

Likelihood:

Rare based on past 12 months of operating

 

Planned controls

Following from the assessment of the risk, a number of planned actions and controls have been identified for those risks that are of a higher impact and likelihood level. Risk actions and planned controls are designed to manage risks to an acceptable level to ensure that the consequences of risks are being appropriately considered and where possible mitigated.

The table below shows a number of key planned actions and controls for the corporate risks. The original assessment scores have been included to illustrate the effect on the impact and likelihood scores of the risks.

Overall there is a reduction in either impact or likelihood for all of the higher level risks. One risk (COR3 – Commercial strategy) remains with an overall score of 12 and will continue to be monitored on a regular basis. However, due to very nature of the corporate level risks it is important that these risks are regularly reported and reviewed and so will continue to be reported to CLT quarterly and to P&R Committee every six months.

 

Ref

Planned Controls

Residual

(Mitigated) rating

 

Inherent rating

I

L

 

I

L

COR1

 

-          Use of planning enforcement regulations to encourage partner cooperation

4

2

8

 

3

5

15

COR2

 

- Actions will be taken to implement findings from the 2016/17 IIP assessment

- Regular monitoring and reporting of workforce strategy by CLT

- Appointment of permanent MKS Director role to provide strategic direction and vision for shared services

3

3

9

 

3

4

12

COR3

-          Develop a more detailed delivery plan for approval of Policy & Resources Committee

-          Provide training for relevant officers

4

3

12

 

4

4

16

COR4

-          Ensure due process is followed

-          Provision of adequate support and advice to Members

-          Agree a budget for annual reviews of the Local Plan to ensure a continuous process

Have a ‘critical friend’ review of the Planning department

4

1

4

 

4

2

8

COR5

 

- Improve information provided to Members and Officer

- Review and appraisal different governance options and possibilities

- Keep devolution on the CLT agenda and keep aware of Kent discussions

4

2

8

 

5

2

10

COR6

- Rolling out of budget management / monitoring training programme in 17/18

- Unspent transition grant available

- Delivery of income generation programmes will help the Council to become more financially resilient / sufficient

3

3

9

 

4

3

12

COR7

No additional controls needed

3

2

6

 

3

2

6

COR8

- Communication and circulation of growth information across Council service areas

- Integrating service planning with growth information

- Improved planning through better population evidence collection and collation

2

4

8

 

3

4

12

COR9

No additional controls needed

2

2

4

 

2

2

4

COR10

No additional controls needed

3

1

3

 

3

1

3


 


Next Steps

We have made substantial progress since the initial review in January 2015, particularly over the last year, to improve the risk management arrangements. This wouldn’t have been possible without the great deal of positive engagement and support of Senior Officers, Managers and Members of the Council.

We know that risk management is a continuous process, and to be valuable it must be updated and maintained. We will therefore continue to build on this work to embed and improve the arrangements for 2017/18 focussing on the following areas:

·         Update the corporate risk register to align with the updated strategic plan – June 2017

·         Review updated operational risks and ensure all services have reconsidered their risks - Upon completion of service planning

·         Adoption and publication of risk appetite statement – June 2017

·         Ongoing monitoring in accordance with the risk management framework

·         Ongoing work with Policy & Information to adapt Covalent to reflect the Risk Management Framework and upload all identified risks into the system

·         Follow-up and reporting of risk actions to CLT quarterly and P&R six monthly

 

 

 

 

 


Appendix B

Maidstone Risk Management Process: One Page Summary


Appendix C

Impact & Likelihood Scales

 

 

 

 

Our A-Z

If you cannot find what you are looking for in our search facility, you can use our A-Z index to find the service you require.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T

U

V

W

X

Y

Z