Department for Education and Skills - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Department for Education and Skills PowerPoint presentation | free to view - id: c3272-ZDc1Z



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Department for Education and Skills

Description:

A complete understanding and awareness of insurable ... the CDT rooms should be replaced by fixed wiring and sockets in the work benches. ... Weight premiums ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:25
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 34
Provided by: Capg150
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Department for Education and Skills


1
Department for Education and Skills
  • Risk Ranking

2
Proposition Summary Risk Ranking
  • Proposition Definition
  • A complete understanding and awareness of
    insurable risk at all levels from schools, LAs,
    up to DfES and the insurance market that will
    enable effective and informed risk management and
    insurance decisions to be made by all relevant
    stakeholders
  • Deliverables
  • Risk Ranking template and overview of a schools
    report
  • Applications of Risk Ranking for LAs and schools
  • Risk Ranking delivery model
  • Risk Ranking process and RACI
  • Risk Ranking Benefits Tracking and KPIs
  • Feedback from schools testing on Risk Ranking
  • Scope
  • The Risk Ranking addresses all classes of
    insurable risk, with focus on the main root
    causes of claims and key physical interventions
  • It applies to all Local Authorities and Schools
  • Who it is targeted at?
  • Risk Ranking will apply to every school. Each
    school will own their Risk Ranking score, but the
    results will be held centrally by each LA, and
    shared nationally. Schools will use it become
    aware of risks and plan what to do, and LAs will
    use the authority results to support their risk
    management decisions.
  • Prioritisation for Implementation
  • Ideally, high risk LAs and schools (often
    secondary) would be targeted first
  • How it links to the other propositions
  • The inherent risk section is used for the
    recommended budgeting process
  • The controllable risk and physical intervention
    sections are used for the recommended Weighed
    Premium calculation
  • The Risk Ranking categories are directly linked
    to the content on the toolkit if the Risk
    Ranking identifies a risk, schools will be able
    to find the relevant content on the toolkit to
    support them in addressing it
  • Dependencies
  • Adoption by the insurance market, all LAs and
    schools and commitment of necessary resources and
    funding
  • Capacity to deliver consistent and rigorous
    results in a continuous programme
  • Supports current assessment and review activities
    in schools
  • Creation of a strong link between Risk Ranking
    and the Toolkit

3
The objective of Risk Ranking is to improve the
visibility and understanding of risk
To have a complete picture and understanding of
risk across all schools over time, to enable a
number of risk management decisions to be taken
effectively
4
Risk Ranking will generate a number of benefits
to Local Authorities and Schools
Key benefits to Local Authorities
Key benefits to Schools
  • Identify risk priorities across all schools and
    all risks e.g. Schools X,Y and Z are my highest
    fire risk, and 60 of schools dont have bin
    compounds
  • Understand trends in risk over time and
    communicate this to the insurance market e.g. my
    LA has improved our liability risk by 20 over
    the last year
  • Understand how one LA compares to another e.g.
    our 10 worst schools are in the top quartile for
    the entire country
  • Targeting of LA (insurance team and other)
    resources and funding e.g. we will conduct our
    10 termly school visits to these schools because
    they need our help the most
  • Enables premiums to be weighted so that schools
    pay a price that is representative of their risk,
    and thus drives accountability of risk within
    schools
  • Raise awareness and understanding of prevalent
    risks within a particular school e.g. my
    schools bins are a big fire risk
  • Understand trends in risk within a school e.g.
    my schools fire risk has got progressively
    worse over the last 3 years
  • Understand how one school compares to another
    e.g. my school is the best comprehensive of this
    size in the region
  • Helps schools to prioritise resources and funding
    e.g. I will focus our school on fire risk
    because I know this is a priority and will give
    the greatest reward
  • Enables premiums to be weighted so that schools
    can be rewarded for positive risk management
    actions

The school benefits have been validated by the
testing visits
The LA benefits have been validated by members of
the Test Panel
The real value of doing Risk Ranking comes from
the way in which it is used to support decisions
and change behaviours in LAs and schools.
5
Risk Ranking could be managed slightly
differently in each LA, however, the core content
and principles will remain consistent
  • Key questions that could be answered differently
    by each LA
  • Who is accountable and responsible for Risk
    Ranking within the LA?
  • Is Risk Ranking part of an existing team members
    job, or is somebody new recruited?
  • How are the costs of Risk Ranking covered?
  • What additional information is captured beyond
    the core template? And how is this recorded in
    the database?
  • How will we update and validate the information
    in the annual update? (when it is not updated by
    risk consultants)
  • What weightings are given to the Risk Ranking
    areas for the purpose of weighted premiums?

6
Department for Education and Skills
  • Risk Ranking Template and Schools Report

7
The Risk Ranking template has been designed with
a number of principles in mind
  • The template will address all the main areas of
    risk, identifying the key root causes of claims
    within each school
  • LAs will have the flexibility to add additional
    questions for their locality if required
  • Schools will receive points for risks that are
    prevalent in their school and be rewarded for
    positive physical interventions that address
    those risks e.g. fencing
  • We will minimise the burden of Risk Ranking by
    only asking for information that is required, and
    only as frequently as we need to
  • We will seek to re-use information that is
    already collected wherever possible
  • We will only ask questions once, but may use the
    information to score across different categories
    of risk, where appropriate
  • We will clearly distinguish between risk that is
    within schools control, and risk that is inherent
    in the building and/or out of schools control
  • This will be seen by the insurance industry as
    the tool for assessing risk in schools
  • We will ensure that the questions and answers are
    worded and defined clearly, and provide a
    supporting guide for those completing the
    template, so that questions and answers are not
    open to interpretation across schools and LAs
    (N.B. The template guide will be a phase 3
    deliverable)

8
On that basis, the template is structured such
that it is clear to schools what they are
accountable for
Scoring Categories
Question Categories
Questions Answers
Fire and Building
Security
Visitor Control
Liability
Info Risk
1. Risk Factors
  • Q1
  • Q2
  • Q3
  • Q4
  • Q5
  • 0
  • 3
  • 4
  • 1
  • 0
  • 1
  • 2
  • 0
  • 3
  • 1
  • 4
  • 0
  • 0
  • 2
  • 6
  • 0
  • 0
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0

1a. Inherent
  • Q6
  • Q7
  • Q8

External support required
Schools aware of what is inherent, and what is
within their control, and where they are likely
to need support
Questions only asked once but scored more than
once as appropriate
1b. Controllable
Controllable by Schools
  • Q9
  • Q10
  • Q11
  • Q12
  • Q13
  • Q14

2. Physical Measures to Reduce Risk
External support required
Scores totalled by appropriate categories to be
used for weighted premiums
Clear differentiation between risk factors and
physical interventions that could address those
risk factors
2a. Controllable
  • Q15
  • Q16
  • Q17

Controllable by Schools
Fire TOTAL
Security TOTAL
VC TOTAL
Liability TOTAL
Info TOTAL
9
The questions in the template were reviewed and
refined by the test panel
  • Sample of the template

How this could be progressed in the next phase
  • Engage wider stakeholders to review and sign off
    the template e.g. other insurers via the ABI
  • Produce training material and guidance for those
    delivering Risk Ranking, to ensure a consistency
    in the response and completion of the template
  • Complete the template for a sample of schools,
    review and refine, before rolling out to all
    schools

There is more work to do in defining how the
template should be completed but the questions
themselves are at a stage where we can start
using them.
10
Shortly following the completion of the Risk
Ranking, schools will receive their results and a
report
  • What schools will see following the Risk Ranking
    exercise

Date of Visit 26th November 2002 Name of
School High School Person interviewed
position Bursar Telephone No. School
Number 4602
  • A copy of the completed Risk Ranking template
    with scores and comments
  • A summary report, containing
  • The purpose of the exercise, whats in it for
    them and how the results will be used
  • The strengths of the school
  • What they need to do now Prioritised areas for
    improvement
  • A simple business case for addressing the
    priority areas
  • Points of contact and further information e.g.
    the toolkit where they can find out more
  • What will happen next how this will be updated
    and when it will be reviewed
  • Recommendations for how the schools should use
    this
  • Our Surveyor visited your school on the above
    date in order to complete this assessment which
    is part of an exercise being carried out at
    schools in the Council area.
  • We should like to express our appreciation of the
    courtesy extended to us on our visit and for the
    assistance provided by the school.
  • The primary purpose of the exercise is to carry
    out a site inspection related to fire, security
    and visitor control features in order to provide
    risk ranking tables showing the comparative
    exposure of every school to the risks under
    consideration.
  • However, for the specific benefit of your school,
    within the limitations of the relatively short
    time available on site, there are two other
    important aims in connection with these visits.
  • One is to comment constructively on favourable
    aspects of good risk preventative and
    precautionary measures and good management
    practice. This clearly benefits not only the
    school but will also be of interest and
    assistance to other schools in Norfolk facing
    similar threats and challenges.
  • The other is to draw your attention to any areas
    of concern, or features of hazard immediately
    apparent to us, and provide recommendations for
    improving these risks.
  • Good features for controlling risks at your
    school include the following measures-
  • Rural Location with reasonably good loss
    experience
  • The school has the benefit of partial automatic
    fire detection.
  • PCs are all prominently and permanently security
    marked
  • Extensive intruder alarm protection
  • Well sited reception with an internal lobby
    preventing callers entering the main part of the
    building without authorisation by the
    receptionist
  • The areas of concern have been prioritised for
    your guidance as follows
  • Priority 1 (P1) Urgent, those which should be
    implemented in the short term
  • Priority 2 (P2) Desirable those which should be
    implemented in the medium term
  • Priority 3 (P3) Those for longer term planning or
    which can be incorporated into future alterations
  • Areas of concern noted included the following
    points-
  • External storage bins to be located at least 8m
    from the school building (P1)

Example report
A template for the report needs to be developed
in the next phase.
11
Department for Education and Skills
  • Applications of Risk Ranking

12
Principles for the use and applications of Risk
Ranking
  • Data and information should be collected once and
    used many times
  • All data and information should be relevant and
    of use to LA insurance team and/or schools
  • Risk Ranking data should be used to support LA
    insurance team and/or school risk management
    decisions
  • Risk Ranking data should be used as a
    communication tool with other stakeholders and
    the insurance market

The real value of doing Risk Ranking comes from
the way in which it is used to support decisions
and change behaviours in LAs and schools.
13
LAs can conduct a series of analyses on the Risk
Ranking data to support their decision making
14
For schools, the Risk Ranking can be used as a
basis to plan their risk management actions
There are many other applications of Risk Ranking
for a wider group of stakeholders e.g. LEA, LA,
Police, Fire Brigade etc.
15
Department for Education and Skills
  • Risk Ranking Delivery Model

16
Risk Ranking needs to be delivered in a cost
effective but consistent way
  • Risk Ranking delivery principles
  • We need to deliver Risk Ranking in a cost
    effective way i.e. minimal cost to deliver the
    required standards and information
  • We need to allow for the different resource
    levels and schools within each LA
  • The information is collected in a consistent and
    rigorous way to enable benchmarking and is of use
    to insurers
  • We need to ensure those delivering Risk Ranking
    have adequate capability and capacity to deliver
    what is required
  • The Risk Ranking results must be auditable by a
    3rd party
  • Risk Ranking should be positioned as Schools own
    their Risk Ranking but are supported by experts
    to complete it and provide appropriate advice
  • Risk Ranking should be delivered with minimal
    impact to the school
  • Risk Ranking should be a continuous improvement
    process, with regular informal and formal updates
  • In the longer term, we should look to join up
    Risk Ranking with the delivery of other property
    visits and surveys e.g. AMP

17
There are capacity and capability barriers to
delivering Risk Ranking in all schools
  • There is a resource constraint across the entire
    country to deliver this as a continuous process
    across all schools
  • It will take time to build capacity and
    capability
  • This is akin to building a whole new industry
  • The majority of Local Authorities do not have the
    capability or capacity to deliver risk ranking,
    but this could be built over time
  • Schools are not well placed to deliver Risk
    Ranking they dont have the capability, results
    would be inconsistent and inaccurate, it provides
    little value without expert input and it is an
    unreasonable resource constraint
  • There would be value in asking schools to review
    results and update existing information that
    could be independently validated
  • The current pool of external risk consultants is
    limited but could be grown over time. They would
    provide the necessary capabilities and
    consistency to make the results comparable across
    LAs and of use to the insurance market. They
    already survey a number of LAs and schools
  • If there are initial capacity constraints, we
    should focus efforts where most claims occur i.e.
    secondary schools and property claims

Under these constraints and the principles by
which we want to deliver Risk Ranking, it is
clear that external support from risk consultants
is required.
18
Risk consultants will establish the baseline with
initial visits, followed by a 5-year rolling
programme
Overview of the Role of Key Stakeholder Groups
Risk Consultants
LA Insurance Team
Schools
  • Conduct initial visits to all schools to set up
    risk ranking and identify initial priorities. The
    timeframes for this are resource dependent but we
    would aim for 3 years
  • Conduct follow up visits every 5 years to audit
    existing information and provide updated
    recommendations
  • Share learnings across Local Authorities and
    provide advice on how to adapt the template as
    risk priorities change
  • Potential coaching role with LAs and schools to
    transfer skills, such that they become more
    independent over time
  • Arranges visits, owns database containing
    information across LA, and feeds back results and
    recommendations
  • Owner of the overall risk ranking template for
    the LA
  • Owner of the relative weighting of questions
  • Where possible, conducts annual visits to
    all/priority schools to review information/progres
    s and plan subsequent activities
  • Validates changes communicated from school, where
    possible
  • Communicates results back to insurance market and
    other stakeholders
  • Owner of the risk ranking template for their
    school
  • Works with experts (risk consultants and LA) to
    complete the template and agree actions
  • Reviews results and progress annually, to inform
    subsequent plans
  • Builds results and recommendations into annual
    planning processes and action plans
  • Seeks information from the Toolkit and LA
    insurance team to act on results
  • Feeds back changes/updates to the LA for
    validation

In the longer term, LAs can look to join up and
utilise other departments to update elements of
the template
Its important that schools own the template in
their school, yet are given the necessary
independent support to ensure national
consistency and rigour.
19
The costs of doing this are not prohibitive,
especially when compared to schools total
insurance costs
  • Key Assumptions
  • Using risk consultants to visit all schools will
    cost 100k per LA (on average)
  • Risk consultants will cover all schools in the
    first 3 years and then commence a 5-year rolling
    programme across all schools
  • The administrative burden on LAs will cost an
    average of 5k per LA

Starts from the year of the first Risk Ranking
visits i.e. year 1,2 or 3
At the start of phase 1, there would need to be
some further work to validate the template and
develop the supporting training and communication
materials.
20
It is anticipated that Local Authorities will be
able to fund these costs through monies raised
from schools
Potential funding options open to Local
Authorities
  • Add the costs of Risk Ranking to the annual
    management charge made to schools with their
    premium
  • Risk Ranking then acts as an additional service
    that comes with insurance cover taken through the
    LA

Added charge to school premiums
Invest reserves
  • Use LA insurance reserves for future claim
    payments/ a rainy day, to invest in Risk Ranking
    on behalf of schools
  • Any benefits that come from investing to save,
    could then be fed back into the reserves

Invest risk management budget
  • Assign some of the risk management budget raised
    by the LA to Risk Ranking

Critical to engaging LAs with Risk Ranking, is
getting strong direction and consensus that this
is the right thing to do. LAs can then explore
the best funding option for their circumstances.
21
Department for Education and Skills
  • Risk Ranking Process and RACI

22
Risk Ranking Process and RACI Initial set up and
delivery
5
1
2
3
4
Set up and delivery of Risk Ranking
6
Set up database to hold and analyse results
Review template, agree additional questions and
applications
Develop internal and external resource and
delivery model
Identify funding to support exercise
Finalise delivery framework and commercials with
risk consultants
Inform schools and other stakeholders of
objectives, process and requirements
A Insurance Manager R Insurance team
A Insurance Manager R Insurance team
A Insurance Manager R Insurance Manager
A Insurance Manager R Insurance Manager
A Insurance Manager R Insurance team
A Insurance Manager R Insurance team
10
11
8
9
7
Set up visit dates with schools
Conduct school visits
Write schools specific report with results and
actions
Feedback report and results to schools
Enter data onto database
A Insurance Manager R Insurance team
A Insurance Manager R Risk Consultants
A Insurance Manager R Risk Consultants
A Insurance Manager R Risk Consultants
A Insurance Manager R Insurance team
13
12
Calibration of scores across schools population
Share school position relative to others
LA Risk Management Strategy and Awareness work
A Insurance Manager R Insurance team
A Insurance Manager R Insurance team
23
Risk Ranking Process and RACI Ad-hoc updates
from schools and within LA
1
2
3
4
Ad-hoc updates from schools
Feedback updates and changes
Validate updates and changes
Update information on database with dates and
comments
Confirm revised Risk Ranking scores with school
A head Teacher R School
A Insurance Manager R Insurance team
A Insurance Manager R Insurance Team
A Insurance Manager R Insurance Team
1
2
3
4
Ad-hoc updates by LA
Observed change/ update communicated to insurance
team
Validate updates and changes
Update information on database with dates and
comments
Confirm revised Risk Ranking scores with school
A Insurance Manager R LA departments
A Insurance Manager R Insurance team
A Insurance Manager R Insurance Team
A Insurance Manager R Insurance Team
24
Risk Ranking Process and RACI Annual update
2
3
4
5
1
Annual Update with internal surveyor resource
Select schools/ questions to be updated
Decide what schools will complete and what LA
will complete
Communicate visits objectives, process and
timescales to schools
Send data request to schools
Set up and conduct visits
A Insurance Manager R Insurance team
A Insurance Manager R Insurance team
A Insurance Manager R Insurance Team
A Insurance Manager R Insurance Team
A Insurance Manager R Insurance Team
6
8
9
10
7
Enter updated data
Write schools specific report with results and
actions
Feedback report and results to schools
Calibration of scores across schools population
Share school position relative to others
LA Risk Management Strategy and Awareness work
A Insurance Manager R Insurance Team
A Insurance Manager R Insurance Team
A Insurance Manager R Insurance team
A Insurance Manager R Insurance Team
A Insurance Manager R Insurance Team
Annual Update without internal surveyor resource
2
3
4
5
1
Select schools/ questions to be updated
Communicate objectives, process and timescales to
schools
Send data request to schools
Complete update and send back results
Enter updated data
A Insurance Manager R Insurance team
A Insurance Manager R Insurance team
A Insurance Manager R Insurance Team
A Head Teacher R Schools
A Insurance Manager R Insurance Team
6
8
9
7
Write schools specific report with results and
actions
Feedback report and results to schools
Calibration of scores across schools population
Share school position relative to others
LA Risk Management Strategy and Awareness work
A Insurance Manager R Insurance Team
A Insurance Manager R Insurance Team
A Insurance Manager R Insurance team
A Insurance Manager R Insurance Team
25
Department for Education and Skills
  • Benefits Tracking and KPIs

26
During phase 1 of implementation, it is important
to track the benefits of the propositions
Reasons why we need to track benefits
The challenges in tracking benefits in the next
phase
  • Understand if implementation of the propositions
    is working and to what extent
  • Inform LAs how best to refine the propositions
    and their use to have the greatest impact on
    costs
  • Identify successes
  • Communicate successes and lessons learned to all
    stakeholders, including LAs who we would want to
    encourage to deploy the propositions in the
    future
  • Understand the impact by stakeholder group e.g.
    LAs and schools
  • Financial benefits will occur with a lag and not
    within the timescales of the next phase
  • Premiums will not be reduced in the short term
    and the impact on claims will not be measurable
    in these timescales
  • Many risk management actions identified will take
    time to plan and implement
  • We need to understand and measure the enablers to
    these financial benefits and better risk
    management e.g. changes to actions, levels of
    information, attitudes and behaviours etc.
  • There is no scientific link between risk
    management and claims
  • Many adverse (uncontrollable) factors can
    influence claims and premium

Measuring benefits will be a challenge throughout
implementation, however, due to the timescales
involved, demonstrating success in phase 1 will
be especially difficult.
27
The benefits logic of the business case, shows 3
key levers that we need to impact to reduce costs
Propositions
Benefit lever
Impact on costs
Additional capital funding for risk Management
Reduction in claims (LA retained/ school retained)
Risk ranking
More effective use of Risk Management capital
funds
Reduction in External Premium
Weighted premiums
Additional and more effective RM that does not
require funding
Risk management toolkit
During phase 1 of implementation, we need to
measure what we have done that will start to
impact these 3 levers both immediately and in the
future (post implementation).
28
By exploring the enablers to these benefit
levers, we can measure successes in phase 1
Aware of risks to be addressed
Benefit lever
Aware of need to invest
Aware of options to mitigate risk
Can justify additional spend
Additional capital funding for risk Management
Understand costs/benefits
Invest in the right schools/ interventions
Understand priority
More effective use of Risk Management capital
funds
Use expert advice
Successfully implement
Appraise options
Better procurement
Additional and more effective RM that does not
require funding
Aware of what can go wrong/ how best to implement
Remove duplication of work/ do it quicker
Aware of what to procure and best suppliers
We can measure the pink enablers qualitatively
and quantitatively, via school and LA
questionnaires before, during and after to
identify the impact of the propositions.
29
Beyond phase 1, we can use KPIs to measure
coverage and adoption of the propositions
30
In the longer term, KPIs can determine whether
the propositions are feeding through to the
bottom line
31
Department for Education and Skills
  • Feedback on Risk Ranking from the School Testing
    Visits

32
Schools believe that Risk Ranking will increase
their awareness of risk and the ability to
prioritise
Things that schools like about the concept of
Risk Ranking
  • Risk Ranking will reaffirm what schools already
    suspect and open their eyes to risks that
    wouldnt have otherwise seen
  • It draws attention to areas I may be blind to
  • By simply conducting a regular exercise as part
    of a formal exercise will raise the schools
    general awareness of risk
  • Otherwise we wouldnt focus on insurance risk
  • Having access to an expert will make schools more
    aware
  • Very good to have someone walk us through it

Raises Awareness
Schools Specific
  • Schools like the fact that the Risk Ranking
    generates results and recommendations that are
    specific to their school
  • Good to be able to answer questions and make
    comments as some things are school specific
  • Schools like the fact that this can differentiate
    between primary and secondary schools, and
    identify those that have high/low levels of
    inherent risk
  • The template and scoring system would help
    schools to identify their priorities
  • I really like it it points out the areas we
    need to concentrate on
  • A good idea. It helps prioritise our risk

Prioritises Risk
Risk Ranking will add value to schools current
risk activities, especially if it is delivered by
an expert who can provide a fresh pair of eyes
and specific actions for the school.
33
The testing also raised some top tips for how
Risk Ranking can be delivered and implemented
  • Schools want to ensure that the template is
    completed in the same way by every school and
    that the results are fair, consistent and
    validated
  • How will there be quality control? How will you
    measure and compare between schools and check
    schools are doing what they say?
  • How are you going to prove they have adequate
    lighting?

Make it fair and consistent
  • Risk management can be seen as an unwelcome
    distraction to Schools, and so it is important to
    minimise the impact of Risk Ranking
  • Could be time consuming may need to hunt down
    the answers
  • Where possible, we should strive for a joined up
    approach with other Local Authority property
    services
  • Id like to see a more joined up approach on
    property

Ensure it has minimal impact
  • Schools would like to make sure that Risk Ranking
    highlights factors that are out of their control
  • It needs to recognise things that are outside of
    schools control

Make it clear what schools can control
  • The value of the exercise is reduced if it merely
    identifies what the issues are. i.e. we need to
    ensure this is joined up with the Toolkit and any
    funding
  • It would be frustrating to identify issues and
    not be able to fund interventions
  • If I need to do it, I then need to know how

Make sure issues identified can be addressed
  • Schools would prefer to see the template online
    so that it can be referred to and updated over
    time
  • Id like to see it all online, including the
    Risk Ranking

Make it online
We have responded to these top tips in our design
of the delivery and implementation model.
About PowerShow.com