Environmental Health is not immune from the financial pressures facing local government and it is prudent to consider the long term options available to within the MKIP partnership to sustain the regulatory responsibilities and local delivery needs they have. The models considered in this report are about taking a calculated leap of faith, anticipating developments in technology and this being provided to support the service. It is also about the organisation having an underlying trust in the professionalism of Environmental Health Practioners to be ‘Amicus Humani Generis’ or Friend of the Human Race.
Both the One Site and Two Site Models would divide the Mid Kent area into two team areas, a North and South, for both Environmental Protection and Food & Commercial (food, health & safety) team.
The Environmental Health Manager and four Team Leaders will form the management team.
The Environmental Health Manager will be responsible for the strategic development of the service, overall policy, and ensuring that the statutory responsibilities of each locality are met. This will include corporate management performance for functions and directing the service plan process with staff input. Initially, during the formation of the service the manager will ensure that the implementation plan is progressed, and various milestones are achieved.
The manager will be responsible for developing the staff structure, creating and instilling a common culture for the service. The manager will need to work with all stakeholders and provide leadership to ensure that the service has high performance standards, flexibility to meet the future needs of each authority in protecting public health. Staff development and succession planning will also be an integral part of the role, to ensure that the service needs are considered.
Each team leader will be responsible for the day to day management of officers within their teams, allocation of workload, advising and coordinating officers and monitoring performance in line with the Service standards and supervision of HR policies. Team Leaders will develop common procedures within functions. They will be responsible for collating statutory returns for the individual authorities, with sign off by the Manager.
Service Development
Environmental Health consists of a number of composite functions. Some are discrete and can be outsourced or delivered within the service, as reflected in the current complexity of functions within or outside the scope of the Shared Service Project. This is an opportunity to rationalise this situation and develop a cohesive approach to Environmental Health that works for the Partnership in delivering public health.
Early consideration of the strengths of the shared service should inform which functions can be outsourced and those that not only can be delivered within the service but those where the partnership has acknowledged strengths. Opportunities to expand the areas of functional excellence will be explored with neighbouring authorities and others wider afield. Examples may include specialist approved premises inspections, noise, planning and licencing consultations. This would give the more experienced officers opportunities for professional challenges that may not be available within Mid Kent. Joint procurement of some services will be carried out and the possibility of procuring within larger syndicate groups would also be explored to provide economies of scale.
Development of the service will focus on process efficiencies and identifying more accurate service demands through consistent data comparison between the three authority areas, the joint database will be the key driver for this process. National reviews of regulation will bring challenges and opportunities to rebalance work activity in some functions. There will be a programme of revising strategies and identifying how the service can enable businesses to improve their compliance will be central to the ethos of the service. The service will support strategic development for the public health and climate change agendas in line with the three authorities needs.
Success Criteria |
One Site |
Two Sites |
|
Resilience |
|
|
|
Management & Administration |
Centralising management and admin functions provides focus for staff.
Resilience will be improved by through extending the knowledge between environmental protection and food/commercial admin roles.
Increase from 2 full time (or 2 part-time plus corporate support) staff at each site to 6 staff at one site. More cover for sickness absences, holiday cover and available shared knowledge of systems.
Proposed that a Senior Admin Officer will lead on the database system, supporting the development of standard processes. This role would be responsible for undertaking appraisals for the admin team and report directly to the Environmental Health Manager.
|
Staff structure is similar to the one site model; one manager, four team leaders, and functional teams beneath. Teams would be divided between two sites which may influence the overall structure of the individual teams. The North teams (Environmental Protection and Commercial) will be based in either Sittingbourne or Maidstone. The good road connections and geographic proximity, either location could be suitable. The teams would cover the north half of the Mid Kent area.
The South teams will be based in Tunbridge Wells and would cover the south half of the Mid Kent area from this base. Divided between two sites. Two Team Leaders would be based at each site (for the Food/Commercial and Environmental Protection functions). Administration would be provided at each site, resilience provided through ICT, common database accessible to all officers across the service plus universal communications systems. The Environmental Health manager would be mobile between both sites. There is no central focus for officers with two sites. |
|
Administration Roles
|
There is no proposal to reduce the number of team administration officers in the shared service. Their part in providing central support is important enabling officers to be out on the district working. Administration posts in both Environmental Protection and Commercial teams gain technical insight into the work undertaken by officers and provide a first line of informed contact for the public, businesses and other stakeholders |
|
|
Common Culture |
Establishing joint professional values and beliefs and a ‘one service’ ethos All teams develop a common culture through sharing and understanding professional values and beliefs, the process occurs much faster with all staff on one site.
The manager and team leaders will be able to develop their leadership styles more easily on one site and officers develop personal relationships between individuals previously working in three separate teams.
Joint team meetings (North & South Food/Commercial and Environmental Protection) held at regular intervals.
Regular service wide training and development seminars particularly when new procedures and policies where implemented. These events are essential in term of team development and well as maintaining professional development |
Establishing joint professional values and beliefs and a ‘one service’ ethos for a Two site model presents greater challenges purely by having two Offices. It is achievable, through hard work and commitment by the Manager, Team Leaders and officers if a positive approach is adopted.
Joint team meetings (North & South Food/Commercial and Environmental Protection) held at regular intervals at either site.
Regular service wide training and development seminars particularly when new procedures and policies where implemented. These events are essential in term of team development and well as maintaining professional development. |
|
Reduced Team Leader Posts & Increasing Front line Officers |
Achieved through the deletion of the current vacant posts at Maidstone (retirement) and Tunbridge Wells (resignation). Posts reduce from six to four creating two teams to cover the Mid Kent area. The number of front line officer posts increase by 0.5 FTE in both environmental protection and commercial. Resilience of frontline officers is increased to deal with programmed and reactive work. Increasing frontline officers lessens the impact of the loss of operational activity carried out by the reduction in Team Leader posts (inspection work by Food/Commercial Team Leaders) and supports both teams during the formation of the shared service. The increase in 0.5 FTE to Environmental Protect allows potential recruitment of student EHO to enable attendance at University and work experience.
|
Two sites would marginally reduce resilience in comparison to the one site model, in that there are 2 rather than 4 Team Leaders at each site. This could be off set through technology and clear reporting structure for absence situations. Would be the same as the current arrangement, but with the addition of the Environmental Health Manager.
The increase in number of front line staff as for one site comments. |
|
Team and Team Leaders |
Operationally each of the four Team Leaders will have 5-8 posts reporting to them (depending on part-time officers). Boosting the frontline posts by 0.5 FTE to both functional teams recognises the increase in managerial responsibility and time required to carry out these tasks (appraisals, one –to-one meeting).
|
As for one site (may have slight imbalance between north & south teams depending on functional alignment between teams or concentrating functions across whole service. |
|
Succession Management - Change Senior EHO post to EHO |
The Food team the proposal is to change the current vacant Senior EHO post to an EHO grade. This will expand the range of experience in the team, and strengthens succession management to allow less experienced/newly qualified officers into the service.
New post will be supported by the more senior members of the teams (coaching, mentoring and training).
|
As for one site. North & South teams will be balanced as far as possible in terms of experience and competency. There will be an underlying principle of mutual support between each site. |
|
Resilience contd.
Pooling Experienced Officers/Increasing team size |
Experienced officers would support the whole service and be used to target most complex case work rather than each local authority or the two site model Changing three teams into two for each function will enable sharing of expertise and competency within and between the North/South teams. Mixing experienced officers from three authorities into one site will enable resilience for situations like investigation of fatal accidents, food poisoning outbreaks, legal prosecutions and (capacity for sickness absence, emergencies).
|
Use of experienced officers within the two sites is more supportive than the current three local authority arrangements but not as resilient as having all the officers based at one site. Team size increases from the current level, less direct access to the wider pool of expertise and competency that one site allows.
Reduced resilience can be overcome through closer working between officers between the two sites due to standard systems and procedures to enable mutual support, training. |
|
Geographical Coverage - Remote Working |
The use of technology to work smarter and facilitate home working for officers will overcome many of the difficulties of enforcing over a large geographical area.
Culturally although many officers currently choose to work this way, this is based on individual rather than a service need. It will take time to establish a culture shift and should be a short to medium goal balanced against the development of a new cultural need. |
This model provides is more resilient providing wider geographical spread for responsive work.
Particularly relevant for the reactive work in Environmental Protection teams at Swale and Tunbridge Wells. Remote working would again be utilised in the short to medium term using technology to work smarter and facilitate home working for officers. It will take time to establish and should be a short to medium goal balanced against the development of a new cultural need. |
|
Financial Flexibility |
Primarily covered by Cost Criteria. Allow the three authorities to manage resources through economies of scale for procurement and contract renewal. Contracts for food hygiene inspection and IPPC can reviewed for 2014. Consideration given to outsourcing or bringing within the service |
As for One site. Budgets and will be centrally controlled. |
|
Functional Flexibility |
With a broad range of expertise and competency the shared service will provide a consistent response across the three authorities to regulatory changes made at a national level. The current functional complexity will be reduced within the medium term.
Sovereignty will be maintained by processing the policy through individual local authority democratic processes, but the core information and agreed approach will be provided by one/two officers supported by the relevant team leaders and Environmental Health Manager.
|
As for One site model. |
|
Quality |
|
|
|
Communication |
One site provides better communication between proposed North and South teams for overlapping team interaction and awareness. Officers would be expected to use the main office as their base. The other Local Authority sites would be used on an operational need only basis. Ease of communication will influence the speed relationships can be developed between officers and establishing culture |
Communication between officers split between two sites provides more of a challenge than one site. Joint team meetings and professional development events will be integral to the model. Two sites will influence the speed that relationships can be developed between officers and in establishing a ‘One Service’ culture |
|
ICT communications systems |
Central to an effective one site model, use remote connections to the systems, smart phone, tablet and other mobile systems would be used to overcome professional isolation and lone working procedures |
As with One Site this is critical to maximise the effectiveness of new ways of working. Particularly using remote connections to the systems, smart phone, tablet and other mobile systems to overcome professional isolation and lone working procedures. |
|
Communications with other Corporate services |
(Planning, Licensing, Legal) –More of a challenge for officers covering the other two authority areas. It can be overcome through good management and work planning with the development of video and teleconferences, emails and expedient use of hot desk facilities |
(Planning, Licensing, Legal) – More effective in the two site model as more on site officers accessible across wider number of planning, licensing and legal officer. Also see comments for Environmental Protection below.
Good management and work planning plus communication can be used to overcome reduced access (video and teleconferences) emails and expedient use of hot desk facilities and meetings between officers |
|
Sharing Best Practice |
Facilitating common procedures and processes will enable officers to work across teams and areas to assist with work load pressures. Measured by professional and appropriate corporate objectives. Access to specialist officer expertise will be coordinated by Team Leaders and the Environmental Health Manager. |
As for One site model. |
|
Shared Database |
Opportunity for consistent information and data inputting standards across the three local authorities. This will regulate monitoring and performance management to enable more accurate service demand monitoring. It allows officers to work across teams when necessary |
As for One site model. |
|
Officer Development Opportunities |
In a larger organisation there are more opportunities for officers, career development, training and enforcement experience
|
As for One site model. Management would ensure that opportunities were open to new and junior members of the wider service. |
|
Enforcement Consistency |
Businesses and other partner organisations benefit from the three authorities having consistent enforcement processes and standards. This would meet the aims of national agencies and government (FSA, HSE and CLG).
|
As for One site model. |
|
Cost |
|
|
|
Staff |
The proposed model for both one site/ with two satellites and the two site model are the same.
Redundancy costs for the one site model may be greater than the two site model. The posts most affected by the proposal to move to one site and centralising administration, will be Team Admin Assistants with home commitments, or may not drive or access direct public transport easily.
|
The proposed staff structure for both one site/ with two satellites and the two site model are the same.
Potential redundancy costs for two sites model may be less than the one site model. Maintaining administration across two sites impacts on fewer officers but will have some affect for at least one local authority. Similar personal considerations apply. |
|
Travel Costs
|
More staff are impacted the re-numeration for additional home-to-work mileage is higher for the one site model. |
Additional home-to -work mileage will be reduced, as less staff affected by the change in place of work.
Additional work based mileage has been factored in to the costs to accommodate additional journeys between sites for team and development meetings. |
|
Culture |
|
|
|
|
All officers have to make a ‘mind-set’ transition from being Swale, Tunbridge Wells, or Maidstone to serving the public and members of ‘Mid Kent’. Previous allegiances will have to be superseded with new loyalties and this will be an individual journey as much as a mutual one. There is an emotional transition to a new organisational culture
|
As for one site. |
|
|
The impact on the current staff of moving to a one site model cannot be fully predicted. The emotional transition to an organisation and structure different to the old organisation will have a bearing on the service, in the initial forming phases. The effect is more significant in a one site model, in terms of numbers of people affected and potential disruption, as two local authorities will bear the greater change |
There will be an impact on the current staff having to change work base.
Less staff will be affected with a two site model than the one site.
|
|
|
One site will allow the process of developing a new culture to occur at a faster speed although the initial cost, in terms of negative effect (redundancy, moral, performance) on staff will be greater. But the teams are likely to establish and reach the ‘performing’ phase quicker |
Cultural development in a two site model may be slower to form but will be influenced by staff attitudes and the impact of team changes (redundancy, moral, performance, personal feelings). The impact of two sites on culture may be influenced by reduced numbers of staff being impacted by site moves.
|
|
|
Common values and beliefs can be established in principle at the outset, living those values and beliefs takes time both in terms of developing trust in leadership and between officers |
As for One Site Model |
|
Satellite Offices or Touch Down Points |
The one site model requires office facilities at the other two local authorities, predominantly for the delivery of reactive work within the Environmental Protection teams. As Swale and Tunbridge Wells deliver reactive work for noise and other nuisances; if the main office is not situated at one of these local authorities, satellite office facilities will be required.
No administrative support will be available at the satellite office. Provision of desks, ICT database integrated systems, and other office facilities. Arrangement for duty officers could be adopted to enable the service to meet the needs of reactive work and flexibility will be expected from teams in emergency situations. The duty officer role will be rotated within the team over the working week and to ensure that no one officer was isolated from the main team.
In addition the offices would be utilised for; · Meetings with officers from other services (licensing, planning, Community Safety Partnership) · Deliver corporate project working (Ice rink, Safety Advisory Groups) · A base from where officers would work before site meetings
|
Applicable to one site only. |
|
Environmental Protection
|
|
Reactive functions are retained within Environmental Protection at Swale and Tunbridge Wells and the teams need to have some presence in the locality, whereas Maidstone’s reactive work is carried out by the Environmental Response team. Maidstone still need to liaise with other services such as Planning, Licensing and Environmental Response, but this could be achieved through the resilient communication systems (see below).
|
|
Remote Working
|
Remote working and working from home is widely used by many officers but it is not customary for all. This method of working would be supported by the shared service, subject to central and satellite office needs and demands of work. Where personal circumstances are not suitable; no broadband, young pre-school children, or work need,this will be taken into consideration. Moving from a voluntary approach to remote working to a systematic adoption will need the creation of service standards that encompass HR and H&S considerations and training and ICT support.
Improved mobile working would be implemented through investment and provision of new generation mobile phones, tablets together with digital imaging technology |
|