35 Shared Service - Integrated Support Team Manager PDF 85 KB
Report of the Corporate Director (Regeneration)
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Cabinet received a report from the Corporate Director (Regeneration). The report had two purposes:-
(a) To outline, and seek approval for, proposals for a shared service arrangement with Preston City Council for the management of the Integrated Support Team which currently delivers the Lancaster & Morecambe Worklessness Pilot Project and the Vulnerable Households Project.
(b) To seek approval for delegated authorisation for extensions to projects delivered through the Integrated Support Team
The options, options analysis, including risk assessment and officer preferred option, were set out in the report as follows:
The options for the shared service arrangement are summarised in the table below:
Option |
Advantages |
Disadvantages |
Risks |
1. Fill the vacancy by open recruitment |
Funder approval not required to fill existing post
New manager in post following recruitment period |
The limited timescale of committed funding for the projects would: i) make recruitment of a suitably qualified and experienced manager difficult; ii) increase the likelihood that the post would be vacated before projects are completed
No reduction in the proportion of project costs for project management (unless offered on a part time basis)
Potential recruitment costs |
Risk that post not filled.
Stability of management function at risk |
2. Enter a shared service arrangement with Preston City Council to provide the management role required |
Manager role filled on more flexible basis in terms of time commitments than would otherwise be possible leading to reduction in project costs for management function and possible extension of project timescale
Opportunities for service improvements through the application of the combined experience of the two authorities
Experience gained related to the potential to extend shared service arrangements in the context of the Mid-Lancashire MAA
|
Funder approval required for the new arrangement.
Staff time required to develop shared service arrangement |
Without funder approval the proposal could not be implemented, leading to the risk of further delay in provision of the management function
Risk of competing demands on manager time between the two authorities (Service Level Agreement to be in place) |
The options for opportunities to extend projects are summarised in the table below:
Option |
Advantages |
Disadvantages |
Risks |
1. Do not seek extensions to the projects |
None (except in limiting potential redundancy payments) |
Projects providing valuable services to deprived individuals terminated at the end of existing contracts.
Opportunities for continuing 100% external funding not taken up.
Loss of staff experience and expertise in delivering outreach work |
|
2. Approve extension already offered to December 2010 for the Vulnerable Households project and actively seek extensions to existing projects which are 100% externally funded |
Maintains and expands provision of valuable services to local residents, and especially deprived and vulnerable groups and individuals
Retains expertise of existing staff pending possible development of Mid-Lancashire MAA worklessness activity
Maintains integrity of the Integrated Support Team
|
Possible increase in redundancy payment liability as existing temporary posts extend beyond two years
Some manager time required in reprofiling projects and liaising with external funders |
|
Option 2 is the officer preferred option as the proposed shared service arrangement ... view the full minutes text for item 35