Download original attachment
(Word document)
This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request 'Register'.

Risk Area

Owner

Impact

Controls

Likelihood of Failure

Residual Risk

Further Controls

Planned

Previous

May 2008

Current July 2008

1. Maximise value and impact on services

Stakeholders: central government; local government and its associations; the advisory sector; our staff

  1. Our complaint decisions/ recommendations are considered sound, relevant, consistent and appropriate by the Council.

Os

4

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

1

  1. Our complaint decisions are timely.

Os

4

1, 2, 3

2

  1. Our recommendations are followed by the Council.

Os

3

4

2

Improve follow up procedures

  1. Our advice publications are considered relevant/well communicated.

Os

5

14

2

Introduce control 11

  1. Our council complaints training is considered relevant/well delivered; it impacts on local practices.

DCE

3

5

1

  1. We identify/pursue opportunities to positively influence developments in local/central government/ advisory sector. Our contribution is valued.

Ch

4

4

3

Current threats and opportunities

  • Our ability to participate in opportunities is limited by the Head of Policy and Research vacancy (item 6).

  • We are committed to maintaining the production of special reports although none are currently in the pipeline (item 3).

Current response (including major development projects)

  • Deputies are organising greater AO involvement in responding to consultation materials (item 6).

  • We are currently meeting the time targets for our work so this risk has diminished (item 2)

  • We have recently assessed the impact of our training of LAs in a survey; we also get feedback on each training event.(Item 5)

Risk Area

Owner

Impact

Controls

Likelihood of Failure

Residual Risk

Further Controls

Planned

Previous May 2008

Current

July 2008

2. Accessibility and customer focus

Stakeholders: the public; advisory sector; central government; media; the courts; our staff

  1. The public are aware of us when they need our services, and consider us worth using.

DCE

DOs

3

11

3

  1. Our services are widely accessible.

DO (D)

4

11, 16

2

  1. Our services and employment practices respect diversity and address needs appropriately.

DOs

DCE

3

5, 16

1

  1. Our service delivery matches reasonable customer expectations of outcome (thoroughness/fairness/ sound decisions/ appropriate remedy).

DOs

4

5, 11

4

  1. Our service delivery matches reasonable expectations of enquiry and case handling (timeliness, politeness, helpfulness, clarity, contact).

DOs

4

5, 11

3

Current threats and opportunities

  • Work has taken place with advisory sector to increase awareness and willingness to use our service, but our capability to maintain this work is now in doubt because of funding (items 1 and 2).

  • Funding issue may lead to backlog and impact on case handling (item 5).

  • Ombudsmanwatch acts as a focus for critics of our independence, fairness and thoroughness (items 4 and 5). They have recently focussed on challenging our ability to conduct investigations in private (item 4)

  • We are unaware of the demographic background of our work, so we are unclear about accessibility/knowledge (item 3).

  • MORI survey indicates low level of satisfaction with outcomes and some concerns about handling (items 4 and 5).

Current response (including major development projects)

  • LGOAT is proving a major success in terms of attracting calls from the public - between 800 and 1000 per week.(items 2-5) So this risk has been reassessed (Item 2)

  • Redesigned literature (now being distributed) and the website (launch in September) should increase awareness: (items 1 and 2).

  • We have introduced a new supplier to assist us in dealing with callers/complainants who have special needs compliance with equalities legislation (item 3).

  • The results of the MORI.survey are being referred to in the current budget review exercise and in reviewing the performance of LGOAT after six months (items 4 and 5)

Risk Area

Owner

Impact

Controls

Likelihood of Failure

Residual Risk

Further Controls

Planned

Previous March 2007

Current

May 2008

3. Quality and efficiency

Stakeholders: central government; local government and its associations; the courts; our staff

  1. Good governance is in operation, including legal compliance.

Ch

5

4, 8

1

  1. We manage our resources well, including VFM achieved.

Ch

4

6, 8, 9, 12

2

  1. We manage major change well (including communications).

Ch

4

13, 15

4

  1. We address external threats/opportunities well.

Ch

4

7, 9

4

  1. We actively manage our reputation to maintain a positive image.

DCE

5

14

2

Current threats and opportunities

  • Our grant has been reduced by 15% over three years. The impact is yet to be determined (items 2 and 4).

  • Staff are very concerned over the budget implications for jobs (item 3).

  • Indications that some MPs do not have a positive impression of our organisation (item 5).

  • We will have closer links to Parliament and a Select Committee (items 1 and 5).

  • Our funding will be by direct grant which provides greater flexibility (items 2 and 4).

  • the government has announced a major new service area (Self-funders) which will mean further organisational change. Other possible areas of new/additional work are identified in the horizon scanning area (education, planning, social services and parish/neighbourhood councils) (items 3 and 4). Our resources to plan and assess the impact of change are very limited (items 2 and 4)

Current response (including major development projects)

  • 2008/09 budget produced with low impact on services and staff (item 2).

  • 2009/10 and 2010/11 budget will required major change in organisation and may impact on service delivery (items 3 and 4).

  • External communications plan will propose a focus on MPs (item 5).

R:\WORK\risk management\Strategic Risks Register July 08.doc

9 July 2008


The Risk Evaluation Framework for the Strategic Risk Register

Risk Assessment Ratings

Rating

Impact (stakeholder confidence)

Likelihood (of occurrence)

Very High (5)

Most consider service is poor/should be replaced

51%> likelihood within 2 years

High (4)

Most consider service requires major improvements

26 - 50% likelihood within 2 years

Medium (3)

Most consider service requires moderate improvements

10 - 25% likelihood within 2 years

Low (2)

Most consider service requires minor improvements

5 - 10% likelihood within 2 years

Very Low (1)

Most consider service requires very little or no improvements

<5% likelihood within 2 years

Strategic Risk Assessment Residual Risk Ratings

Impact

1 (Very Low)

2 (Low)

3 (Medium)

4 (High)

5 (Very High)

Likelihood

5 (Very High)

4 (High)

3 (Medium)

2 (Low)

1 (Very Low)

The overall residual risk rating is based on the highest combination of probability and impact under the four criteria of impact

Strategic Risk - list of controls

  1. Written guidance to employees (eg Investigation Handbook)

  2. Selection and induction

  3. Training and development

  4. Performance regularly assessed, monitored and reported

  5. Quality control procedures (eg file sampling, reviewing comebacks)

  6. Audit

  7. Insurance cover

  8. Finance Regulations

  9. Business planning systems

  10. Check implementation

  11. Customer feedback collated and surveys conducted

  12. Sound contract letting and management practices in place

  13. Internal communications systems

  14. External communications strategy

  15. Project management disciplines in place

  16. External professional advice


0x01 graphic

Register of Strategic Risks - July 2008

5