Dealing with the in-year budget challenge: a risk based approach

Previous articles I have posted on Room 151 have dealt with strategies and behaviours that local authorities can apply in setting their budgets; but this is only part of the challenge.  Setting a budget is one thing but achieving delivery is where the real hard work comes in.

If organisations are to achieve success in their financial management, budget setting needs to be realistic rather than aspiring and there also needs to be a strategy for in-year delivery.

When budgets are set, overspending is a key risk and some public-sector organisations struggle to balance the books in-year.

Trying to keep in-year spend within budget across organisations can be a herculean task and addressing all elements of a budget of £200m or more, may not get the desired result.   To achieve a successful outcome you may consider a risk-based approach that focuses on areas most likely to overspend.

This is not to say that rigour must not be applied to all areas of spend through the standard budget monitoring process but, this may not be in itself sufficient in a tight budgetary situation.

The alternative is to segment the budget savings by levels of risk.  Often there will be specific savings that have been identified when the organisation’s budget is set at the start of the financial year.  Taking these savings opportunities, they can be used as the basis for the undertaking of a series of specific steps.

1. Risk rate each savings opportunity: Establish a scoring mechanism (usually 1 to 10) then determine the level of risk of non-delivery of each savings item that has been identified in the budget.
2. Rank by level of risk: Sort the list of savings opportunities by the risk ranking and select the highest risk items for further scrutiny.
3. Establish a panel to scrutinise the high-risk savings: This can either be at political or official level (or both) but needs to consider the high-risk savings and hold the officers responsible to account for delivering on budget objectives.
4. Ensure that officers come up with proposals for the delivery of savings: It is important that the panel does not become a talking shop but is genuinely focused on ensuring that the high-risk savings are agreed – or replacements are found to mitigate the impact of non-delivery.
5. Review progress over a series of stage gates: This process is designed to address the high-risk areas but will only work if there is a structured journey throughout the year and if organisational leadership provides sufficient proactive momentum.

It is important to say that no amount of process can change the difficult situation that some public-sector organisations find themselves.  However, people in local government have already demonstrated how skilled they are in managing with a reducing resource base.

A simple methodology, where an organisation can be focused on the riskiest area of its budgets to limit and manage the impact of in-year spending pressures can be very effective. It is not without complication but as finance professionals we are bound to work within the legal and budgetary framework that sets the parameters that local authorities operate in.  This approach has proved to deliver in times of budgetary constraint. It is a difficult job but ultimately it must be done if financial sustainability is to be achieved!

Stephen Fitzgerald

Stephen Fitzgerald, interim finance director and chair of the ACCA Public Sector Panel.

@SHJFitzgerald