1

Workforce Planning in the

Local Government Sector

September 2012.

2

Table of Contents

1. Overview and summary recommendations

1.1 Terms of reference

1.2 Study Influences

1.3 Data Analysis

2. Overview of Grades

2.1 Director of Service

2.2 Senior Executive Officer /Senior Engineer and Analogous

2.3 Administrative Officer and Analagous

2.4 Senior Executive Engineer and Analogous

2.5 Remaining grades

2.6 Timeframe for implementation

3. Span of control – Grading structure below Administrative officer

4. Outdoor Staff

5. Recruitment Retraining and Retention

Appendices

A. Workforce Planning Group Membership

B. Tabular Representation of Recommended Staff Numbers.

3

1. Workforce planning in the Local Government Sector - Overview and summary

recommendations

In the context of the national economic crisis, successive Governments have, since 2008, sought

to reduce public expenditure, and in turn public sector numbers in order to meet budgetary

targets agreed with our European and International funding partners. In essence, the National

Recovery Plan commits to a reduction in public sector numbers from 320,000 to 282,500 by

2015, and an associated reduction of €3.5bn in the public sector pay-bill.

In this context, the Government put in place an Employment Control Framework with sectoral

targets, including the Local Government sector, in addition to placing a moratorium on staff

recruitment and the introduction of incentivised early retirement and career break schemes, the

former being targeted at employees over the age of 50. The employment control framework for

the Local Government sector seeks to achieve a graduated reduction in numbers from the

37,243 employed in June 2008 to 29,480 by the 31st December 2015.

The aforementioned targets together with the moratorium obviously require substantial

reorganisation, restructuring, redeployment and reassignment of staff in order to ensure the

continued delivery of frontline and legally based local government services, ranging from basic

housing provision to emergency protection. Sectoral commitment to this process was

reinforced in the finalisation of the public sector agreement, which gave employees assurances

with regard to no further paycuts or forced redundancies in return for staff co-operation with

the aforementioned significant restructuring and reorganisation required to achieve the

significant Employment Control Framework (ECF) targeted reductions.

Separately, but in the same context, the Government, as part of the 2010 budgetary process

established the Local Government Efficiency Group to review the cost base, expenditure and

numbers employed in local authorities with a view to making specific recommendations to

reduce these costs. The Review Group reported in July 2010, and made specific

recommendations with regard to reductions in senior and middle management across technical

and administrative grades, together with reductions in planning, corporate service and outdoor

staff.

4

While the recommendations in this report are more specific than the overall reduction required

by the ECF, both are relevant in the context of this workforce planning exercise.

Progress to Date

Significant and credible progress has been made by the local authorities in the context of the

Employment Control Framework. The number employed across all 34 local authorities at the

end of June 2008 was 37,243 which at the 31st March 2012 stood at 28,811, being a reduction of

8,432 or 22.6%. This figure exceeds the ECF target for 2015 by 669 which in itself is a cause for

reflection.

The process to date, in the context of this very significant reduction, has been carefully managed

at local level through a continuous process of adjustment, restructuring, reassignment and

redeployment, with the full co-operation of staff, as envisaged in the Public Service Agreement.

In addition, the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government has judiciously

operated its delegated sanction from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform to

facilitate the targeted replacement of staff in key service areas such as Water and Fire Services

where specific exemptions are available subject to appropriate applications being made. This

delegated sanction process was assisted through the operation of a Transition Working Group

which acted as a point of reference for sectoral queries etc. Overall, the process, including the

exit of just under 1,000 staff from the sector in the first three months of 2012, was successfully

managed.

In terms of the recommendations of the Local Government Efficiency Review Group, a separate

implementation, review and reporting process is in place, but for the purpose of this particular

study, it is worth noting that:

This Report sets out specific recommendations with regard to achieving the target

envisaged for the reduction in the number of Directors of Service.

Targets are also set for senior and middle management that will both comply with the

ECF and exceed the expectations of the Local Government Efficiency Review Group in

monetary terms.

5

In order to achieve the LGER Report recommendation concerning the need to shrink the

span of control. Rather than simply replace middle management grades with staff at one

grade below, the Workforce Planning Group take the view that the overall grading

structure should be flattened with a gradual phasing out of the Senior Staff Officer

grade. This together with the overall reduction in staff numbers will deal with the span

of control issues and produce the optimum outcome.

In relation to outdoor staff numbers, while the monetary value of the reductions

envisaged by the Efficiency Review Group report have long been surpassed, this report

recommends a more detailed analysis of outdoor staff numbers in the context of serious

concerns with regard to the age profile of outdoor staff, and the capacity of individual

local authorities to meet statutory and frontline service obligations and expectations.

Need for Workforce Planning.

It was the view of the sector, that notwithstanding the successful management of the transition

process, and the apparent success of having exceeded ECF expectations, the entire process has

impacted significantly on the sector, and is likely to have an ongoing impact in capacity, morale

and delivery terms unless certain matters are addressed. It was in this context that on the 15th

September 2011, the Department of the Environment Community and Local Government and

the County and City Managers Association effectively mandated the Transition Working Group

to carry out this workforce study, bearing in mind the following:-

The departure of in excess of 8,000 staff from the sector over a three year period has

inevitably given rise to an unequal distribution of impacts in the context of the range,

age, capability and skill-set of staff leaving the various constituent organisations within

the sector.

The loss of human capital, with particular reference to the number of senior staff who

departed on foot of the incentivised early retirement scheme does give rise to issues in

the context of loss of corporate knowledge, experience and organisational capacity and

diversity.

While exceeding the ECF metric is a considerable achievement at one level, it must be

borne in mind that the extent of statutory based service provision and associated legal

obligations undertaken by local authorities has not diminished. While consumer

6

demand patterns may have relaxed in certain areas, the overall statutory responsibility

of the sector to provide coherent robust and safe public services remains.

The sector has also gained new responsibilities through requirements under

environmental legislation, Environmental Protection Agency requirements and Health

and Safety requirements. The sector will also be expanding its work in certain areas e.g.

in local enterprise support through the new Local Enterprise Offices etc.

The retirement of senior staff and the absence of recruitment of any significance over a

five year period hastens the requirement to examine the present and future workforce

demographic in the context of organisational diversity, knowledge transfer,

upskilling/reskilling and succession planning, together with the issue of recruitment in

the short term.

The continued dedication and co-operation of staff remaining within the sector, while

anticipated should not be presumed, as the additional burden and workload associated

with re-organisation and consolidation of workloads in terms of impact on staff may be

further exacerbated in the absence of planning for the future. It must be remembered

that the continued delivery of the reform agenda will rest with, and remains the

responsibility of, these staff members.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the financial realities facing our economy means that

there is a continued likelihood of the need to do more with less, which in turn will give

rise to the need for further consolidation, restructuring, redeployment and remodelling

of how work is done. In this context, it is critically important that we have the right

people with the right skills in the right place to deal with this ongoing challenge.

Study Approach

With the assistance of the CCMA Programme Management Office, The Department of

Environment, Community and Local Government and Office of Local Authority Management

(OLAM) the Workforce Planning Group had available to it, extensive data on the make-up of

employment within the Local Authority Sector on a grade by grade basis, together with

substantial data on age profiles across the sector.

Notwithstanding the availability of this core data, it became very evident to the group from the

outset, that the diverse and dynamic nature of the sector would render specific

7

recommendations on employment numbers on a grade by grade basis (below middle

management level) meaningless. In particular the Group had regard to:

The dynamic operational environment that exists in the context of current economic

conditions which is likely to persist in the short to medium term.

Imminent plans for the publication of local government reform proposals, with specific

reference to structures and functions, will no doubt have implications for staff

structures and skill-sets into the future.

The ongoing reform agenda is consistently re-formatting, re-envisaging and delivering

on new models of service delivery, predicated around shared services, the exploitation

of ICT and procurement aggregation opportunities. The remodelling of service provision

within this context will have an ongoing impact on the design of supporting staff

structures.

The diverse nature of local government in terms of the existing structures involving

regional, county and town authorities has not surprisingly given rise to substantial

variations in staff numbers. These variations have been further exacerbated by the

existence of geographic variations, the nature and extent of capital investment

programmes, the extent of social infrastructure and associated staff provision,

dedicated regional solutions, pilot initiatives supported by the Department(s), and

specific services such as Parks Departments supported in the larger local authorities. In

addition, the larger local authorities, by virtue of the complexity of their operational

environments, or the extent to which they have posts justified by economies of scale,

such as legal departments, architectural departments, quantity surveying etc. further

adds to the diversity and variation of staffing complements throughout the sector.

While significantly reduced capital expenditure activity immediately suggests spare

capacity in this area, it is important to reflect on the need to retain core competencies in

these areas which remain fundamental to local authority service provision. The

augmentation of the skill-set associated with capital activity to meet current and future

challenges, while retaining the core competencies, will ensure that the capacity of the

sector is not further compromised.

Over the course of the last decade, a significant number of one-off/specialised positions

were created, particularly in the areas of community development and social inclusion

associated with specific government initiatives and pilot programmes. While the

8

ongoing work associated with these posts remains relevant and significant, it is not

sustainable to have these posts as stand alone, and their inter-changeability with main

stream functions must be addressed in the context of organisational capacity and

flexibility.

While the Workforce Planning Group has carried out a high level review of staff

numbers and made appropriate recommendations, it is mindful of the need to

incorporate flexibility in its recommendations to facilitate the role and responsibility of

local authority management in the context of Section 159 of the Local Government Act

2001. Ultimately, the legal responsibility for the delivery of local services rests with

local management, and a degree of flexibility in determining staff structures to support

that responsibility must be retained.

In the context of the foregoing, the Group saw little value in making specific rigid

recommendations on workforce numbers that might prove either over-ambitious or incapable

of implementation. Instead, the Group has set out targeted banded structures across middle

and senior management grades that local authorities must align themselves to over as short as

possible a timeframe in consultation with the Department of the Environment, Community and

Local Government.

The sectoral diversity previously referred to, and the need for local flexibility strongly suggests

to the Group that any evaluation and recommendation on numbers below that of

Administrative Officer would not be appropriate or effective. The Group is of the opinion that

each individual organisation conduct its own workforce planning exercise, bearing in mind the

core principles set out in this study. The Group is particularly concerned that there remains a

substantial number of outdoor workers likely to retire in the short term, and that a clear

“Generation Gap” is emerging due to the absence of recruitment which is referred to later in

this report.

Retraining and Recruitment

The issue of recruitment and retraining is dealt with in more detail in the body of the report, but

is a significant issue, if the sector is to manage and cope with ongoing organisational adjustment

and future requirements. In particular, immediate financial realities will give rise in the short

9

term to a continued need for retraining, upskilling and knowledge transfer to facilitate staff in

coping with rotation, redeployment, and reassignment. A comprehensive Training Needs

Analysis (consistent with corporate priorities, PMDS and competency framework) together with

an associated workforce planning exercise within each organisation will facilitate the

anticipation of future skills, and the deployment of training programmes, which will underpin

future flexibility and facilitate job rotation and deployment.

In addition it is recommended that the IPA be commissioned to produce a research paper on the

present and future capacity issues within the Local Government sector. The retention of quality

staff and the core competencies which they have developed and retained is a core issue for the

ongoing and future capacity of the Local Government sector. While certain elements of these

skills may not be in high demand at present, they should be supplemented and retained in the

full knowledge that the core functions of Local Government will remain into the future

Summary Recommendations.

The key recommendations of this report include:

1. The establishment by individual local authorities of appropriate timeframes for aligning

their organisation to the banded structure for senior and middle management as set out

in this report.

2. A fundamental re-evaluation of the roles of analogous grades/specialist posts needs to

be undertaken in the context of establishing their inter-changeability within the sector

in order to optimise opportunities for reassignment in the interests of organisational

flexibility.

3. Agreement should be reached on the gradual phasing out of the Senior Staff Officer

position in the interests of grading consolidation, optimisation of the span of control,

and achieving a more sustainable staffing structure into the future.

4. There is a need for further assessment and clear agreement on ongoing and future

workforce capabilities and capacity which will be greatly assisted by the proposed IPA

research paper referred to earlier.

10

5. To facilitate ongoing organisational flexibility, and allocation of responsibility, each

organisation needs to conduct a fundamental Training Needs Analysis to address

immediate skills needs.

6. Each constituent local authority needs to carry out a more detailed workforce planning

exercise, with particular reference to outdoor staff structures, bearing in mind the

continual need to provide essential frontline services and to fulfil legislative

requirements.

7. There is an urgent requirement for a quantum of graduate entry level recruitment in the

interests of organisational diversity, minimising inter-generational deficits, and a more

balanced workforce demographic.

8. The workforce plan should be reviewed in due course as the recommendations are

implemented. The initial review to take place in 1st quarter 2014.

1.1 Terms of Reference

The Group was mandated to analyse available data, draw conclusions and make

recommendations with regards to:

How the recommendations contained in the LGER report with particular reference to

senior and middle management might be addressed.

The impact on local authorities of the staff recruitment moratorium, the incentivised

early retirement scheme and the ECF.

The current and short term workforce demographics in the context of maintaining a

workforce equipped to meet ongoing organisational and sectoral requirements

including succession planning.

1.2 Study Influences

The diverse nature of local government in terms of structures, functions, socio – economic

backdrop, topography and financial capacity together with the dynamic operating environment

which currently prevails undermines any attempt at universal “one size fits all” type solutions to

work force planning within the sector. This position is supported the following additional

considerations

11

Notwithstanding the fact that staff numbers have already fallen by 22.6% further

progress is required in the context of the LGER recommendations and the prevailing

economic circumstances which will continue to influence employment patterns in the

medium term.

Imminent plans for the publication of local government reform proposals, with specific

reference to structures and functions, will no doubt have implications for staff

structures and skill-sets into the future.

The ongoing reform agenda is consistently re-formatting, re-envisaging and delivering

on new models of service delivery, predicated around shared services, the exploitation

of ICT and procurement aggregation opportunities. The remodeling of service provision

within this context will have an ongoing impact on the design of supporting staff

structures. In particular the sector under the guidance of the local government reform

oversight group and with the assistance of the project management office is

undertaking business case evaluations for 31 shared service projects. These initiatives

together with the ICT shared services agenda are expected to yield efficiencies, require

virtual or remote working and require redeployment to lead authorities. This is

envisaged by The Public Service Agreement 2010 to 2014 which seeks to maintain

excellence in public services in the context of reduced resources by maximising

efficiency and productivity in the use of resources through revised work practices. The

Agreement specifically states that “the public service will need to be re-organised and

public bodies and individual public services will have to increase their flexibility and

mobility to work together across sectoral, organisational and professional boundaries.”

(Section 1.1) The Agreement allows for ‘appropriate arrangements to redeploy staff

within and across each sector of the public sector’ (Section 1.7).

Within existing structures there are substantial variations in staff numbers determined

by geographic variations, the nature and extent of capital investment programmes, the

extent of social infrastructure and associated staff provision, dedicated regional

solutions, pilot initiatives supported by the Department, and specific services such as

Parks Departments supported in the larger local authorities. In addition, the larger local

authorities, by virtue of the complexity of their operational environments, or the extent

to which they have posts justified by economies of scale, such as legal departments,

12

architectural departments, quantity surveyors etc further adds to the diversity and

variation of staffing complements throughout the sector.

Over the course of the last decade, a significant number of one-off/specialised positions

were created, particularly in the areas of community development and social inclusion

associated with specific Government initiatives and pilot programmes. While the

ongoing work associated with these posts remains relevant and significant, it is not

sustainable to have these posts as stand alone, and their inter-changeability with main

stream functions must be addressed in the context of organisational capacity and

flexibility.

While the Group has carried out a high level review of staff numbers and made

appropriate recommendations, it is mindful of the need to incorporate flexibility in its

recommendations to facilitate the role and responsibility of local authority management

in the context of Section 159 of the Local Government Act 2001. Ultimately, the legal

responsibility for the delivery of local services rests with local management, and a

degree of flexibility in determining staff structures to support that responsibility must be

retained.

The Group also recognises that local authority staff numbers will also be influenced by

the Government decision to establish Irish Water as a state owned public utility within

the Bord Gáis Eireann Group.

In the context of the foregoing, the Group saw little value in making specific rigid

recommendations on workforce numbers that might prove either over-ambitious or incapable

of implementation. Instead, the Group has set out targeted banded structures across middle

and senior management grades that local authorities must align themselves to over as short as

possible a timeframe in consultation with the Department of the Environment, Community and

Local Government.

1.3 Data analysis

The Group used the most up to date data sets including the quarterly staffing returns submitted

by each local authority to the DOECLG. In order to make the detailed recommendations a

detailed staffing survey was carried out identifying the grade and job title of every staff member

within each local authority.

13

In addition the Office of Local Authority Management completed a detailed age profile analysis

which is fundamental to recommendations in relation to succession planning, short term

recruitment and outdoor staff.

The data available was used to inform the recommendations of the group with the following

exceptions:

Dublin and Cork City councils are not included in the analysis as they are the subject of

separate workforce planning exercises in accordance with the LGER report.

The recommendations for the ongoing and proposed merging of authorities in Limerick,

Tipperary and Waterford are based on pooled populations and should not be viewed as

prejudicial to ongoing independent assessments in each case.

The particular historical evolution of the Cork County organisational model was

discussed at length and given the scale of operation and the size of the county the group

concluded that it did not have an appropriate comparator and as such figures contained

herein were arrived at following direct discussions with Cork County.

Dun-Laoghaire Rathdown County Council was until the 2006 census grouped with Fingal

and South Dublin and would have had similar staffing compliments determined at the

time of the break-up of Dublin County . Its’ subsequent grouping with Meath and Kildare

gives rise to distortions in comparison which the group concluded was capable of

misinterpretation. In this context an average between the two bands is deemed more

appropriate.

As outlined above the group opted for a series of recommendations around banded

arrangements to allow flexibility and give recognition to the inherent variations around the

country for the reasons already outlined.

The banded structure used is the long standing grouping structure used for management

purposes

14

Local Authorities are categorised as follows:

Level 5 Local Authorities:

Carlow County Council, Cavan County Council, Laois county Council, Leitrim County Council,

Longford County Council, Monaghan County Council, Offaly County Council, Roscommon County

Council, Sligo County Council, North Tipperary County Council, Waterford County Council,

Galway City Council and Waterford City Council.

Level 4 Local Authorities:

Clare County Council, Donegal County Council, Galway County Council, Kerry County Council,

Kilkenny County Council, Limerick County Council, Louth County Council, Mayo County Council,

SouthTipperary Council, Westneath County Council, Wexford County Council, Wicklow County

Council and Limerick City Council.

Level 3 Local Authorities:

Cork City Council, Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown (DLR) County Council, Kildare County Council and

Meath County Council.

Level 2 Local Authorities:

Cork County Council, Fingal County Council and South Dublin County Council.

Level 1 Local Authorities:

Dublin City Council.

2. Overview of Grades

2.1 Director of Service: (See Appendix 2)

Local authority senior management is generally made up of the City or County Manager,

Directors of Service and a Head of Finance (at Director of Service level). At the peak of local

authority numbers in mid-2008 there were 262 Directors of Service (there were some atypical

15

posts in Dublin City Council and Cork County Council). During the intervening period the

numbers have contracted considerably to 203 Directors of Service (DoS) at present.

The reduction has been achieved through the consolidation of DoS numbers and the associated

consolidation in local authority organisational structures i.e. fewer directorates. In effect the

work of departing directors has been absorbed by those remaining.

The members of the Group work in a range of local authorities throughout the Country and have

experience of working in many other local authorities. The Group is representative of local

authorities at all levels and across the rural and urban divide. After careful analysis of the data

on an individual and group basis the group concluded that:

Given the size of financial budgets dealt with and the reporting and governance

requirements each local authority generally may require a Head of Finance, unless other

local arrangements are agreed,

Given the complexity and diversity of the functions carried out by local authorities the

potential to amalgamate directorates such as housing, environment (water and waste),

planning, community, enterprise/economic development, emergency services, charge

collection, heritage, franchise, motor tax etc. two is the minimum number of Directors

of Service required i.e. two Directors plus a Head of Finance is generally the minimum

requirement.

1. In relation to level 5 local authorities currently they employ between 2 and 4 Directors

with the main grouping at 3. The group has concluded that between 2 and 3 Directors

(plus a Head of Finance) would be optimal for this level of local authority.

2. For level 4 local authorities the numbers at Director range from 2 to 6 with the main

grouping at 4 to 5. The Group concluded that between 3 and 4 Directors (plus a Head of

Finance) would be optimal for authorities in this category.

3. In the case of Level 3 - Meath and Kildare have 4 Directors, Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown

has 7 and Cork City has 7 at Director level. The Group recommends that generally

16

between 4 and 5 Directors (plus a Head of Finance) is optimal for this category of local

authority.

4. The current position at Level 2 is South Dublin and Fingal have 6 Directors. The Group

concluded that between 5 and 6 Directors (plus a Head of Finance) was optimal for both

South Dublin and Fingal given the scale of the operations and the large urban elements

of their functions.

5. Cork County Council has 11 at or above Director level. The particular historical evolution

of the Cork organisational model was discussed at length and given the scale of the

operation and the size of the County it was concluded that the reduction of 3 (based on

the LGER Report figures) was appropriate.

In relation to amalgamations, ongoing and proposed, in Limerick, Tipperary and Waterford the

Group has calculated the potential number of Directors based on the recommendations in

relation to local authorities of equivalent size. This is essentially a pending position and should

not be viewed as prejudicial to ongoing discussions in all three cases.

In conclusion the Group is satisfied that the recommendation of the LGERG with reference to

the number of Director of Service posts (Target 190) can be achieved. This target reduction

should almost be reached even if all local authorities sought the maximum recommended

number – which the Group deems highly unlikely. Under current circumstances the timeframe

for the achievement of the target reduction is a function of the age profile of Directors of

Service and the associated retirement profile.

2.2 Senior Executive Officer/Senior Engineer and Analogous:

The Group, in coming to conclusions, on this cohort had regard, in particular to those influences

set out in section 1.2 of the report.

1. The group concluded, taking the above into account, that the following ranges should

apply in respect of the different levels of local authorities as follows:

o Level 4 and 5:– between 9 and 13 (currently the range is between 8 and 17).

17

o Level 3:- Meath and Kildare between 11 and 15 (currently 12 and 23), Dun-

Laoghaire Rathdown between 17 and 20 (currently 25).

o Level 2:- South Dublin and Fingal between 20 and 24 (currently 32 and 29) Cork

County between 25 and 35 (currently 45).

2. These ranges should have at their core a number of Senior Executive Officers, Senior

Engineer and Analogous and Financial/Management Accountant posts.

3. In determining the posts that each local authority requires within the specified ranges

due regard should be had to the potential for shared services in areas such as, inter alia,

Fire Services, Library, ICT, HR (incl. payroll and superannuation), Finance, Planning and

Procurement. In this regard, the sectors shared services action plan will be of assistance.

4. The Group accepts that outside the recommended specified ranges for this cohort there

may exist, in certain local authorities, posts which require further discussion with the

Department on a bi-lateral basis. These include, inter alia, Legal Advisor, Senior Parks

Superintendent, Senior Quantity Surveyor, County Architect and Senior Resident

Engineers.

5. Where, at local authority level, retirements give rise to a disproportionate distribution

of disciplines in the short term, this will be considered in the context of any

consequential request to cover/fill vacancies on a short to medium term basis.

6. It was agreed that posts in individual local authorities in respect of existing shared

services such as NRDO Offices, River Basin Managers, County Coroners, Directors of

Regional Authorities and Regional Communications Managers should be excluded from

the numbers of the employing local authority for the purposes of this analysis. Likewise

consideration will have to be given to the future of existing water project teams.

2.3 Administrative Officer and Analagous.

The Group dealt with Senior Executive Engineers and Analogous separately as the Group

concluded that the grades were not as inter-changeable as those at SEO and SE.

18

The Group, in coming to conclusions, on this cohort had regard, in particular to the current work

load and operating environment including the number and scale of town councils, the

prevalence of area management structures, the prospect for shared services and the need for

inter changeability of posts:

1. The group concluded, taking the foregoing into account, that the following ranges

should apply in respect of the different levels of local authorities as follows:

a. Level 5:– between 7 and 10 (max 15) (currently the range is between 12 and

24).

b. Level 4:- between 11 and 15 (max 20) (currently the range is between 19 and

34).

c. Level 3:- Meath and Kildare between 16 and 20 (max 25) (currently 26 and 27)

Dun-Laoghaire Rathdown between 20 and 25 (max 32) (currently 42).

d. Level 2:- South Dublin and Fingal between 25 and 32 (max 40) (currently 50 and

42) Cork County between 25 and 35 (max 40) (currently 50).

2. In determining the posts that each local authority requires within the specified ranges

due regard should be had to the potential for shared services in areas such as, inter alia,

Fire Services, Library, ICT, HR (incl. payroll and superannuation), Finance, Planning and

Procurement. In this regard, the sectors shared services action plan will be of assistance.

3. The Group notes that outside the recommended specified ranges for this cohort there

currently exist in local authorities posts which while required at present may not be

required at all or in such numbers in the future, particularly if shared services are to be

achieved.

4. The Group also recognises that numbers required at this level will also be influenced by

proposed reforms to the number and structure of Town Councils.

5. The Group accepts that outside the recommended specified ranges and the posts

identified above there may exist, in certain local authorities, posts which require further

discussion with the Department on a bi-lateral basis. These include, inter alia, Planning

19

Policy and Research Officer, Partnership Facilitator, Housing Social and Community Co-

ordinator, Rapid Co-ordinator, Facilities Manager, Archivist, Museum Curator and Arts

Manager, Tourism Officer, Communications Officer, Sports Coordinator, Environmental

Awareness Officer and Recreation Officer.

6. For the foregoing reasons the Group recommends that there be a normal range of

optimum recommended numbers in each local authority and also a maximum that takes

account of the aforementioned variations but still sets an overall limit.

7. Where, at local authority level, retirements give rise to a disproportionate distribution

of administrative support at grade vii in the short term this will be considered in the

context of any consequential request to cover/fill vacancies on a short to medium term

basis.

.

8. If a local authority is above the maximum optimum level it will need to examine the

numbers above the maximum in conjunction with the Department.

9. A fundamental requirement in arriving at sustainable level of employment will be that

all posts will need to become Inter-changeable.

2.4 Senior Executive Engineers and Analogous:

The Group, in coming to conclusions, on this cohort had regard, in particular to the number and

scale of town councils, the number of engineering areas, the extent of the capital programme,

the geographical mass of counties and issues such as coastline.

1. The group concluded, taking the above into account, that the following ranges should

apply in respect of the different levels of local authorities as follows:

a. Level 5:– between 7 and 10 (max 12) (currently the range is between 8 and 22).

b. Level 4:- between 12 and 15 (max 18) (currently the range is between 13 and

24).

c. Level 3:- Meath and Kildare between 18 and 22 (max 25) (currently 22 and 33)

Dun-Laoghaire Rathdown between 25 and 30 (max 35) (currently 50).

20

d. Level 2:- South Dublin and Fingal between 30 and 35 (max 40) (currently 22 and

44) Cork County between 35 and 50 (max 56) (currently 78).

2. It was agreed that posts in individual local authorities in respect of existing shared

services such as NRDO Offices and temporary professional staff carrying out specific and

discreet capital projects should be excluded from the numbers of the employing local

authority for the purposes of this analysis.

3. Once again the group recommends that there be a normal range of optimum

recommended numbers in each local authority and also a maximum that takes account

of the aforementioned variations but still sets an overall limit.

2.5 Remaining Grades

The sectoral diversity previously referred to, and the need for local flexibility strongly suggests

to the Group that any evaluation and recommendation on numbers below that of

Administrative Officer would not be appropriate or effective. Given the recommendation in

terms of the phasing out of the SSO grade the Group recommends, that each individual local

authority, conduct its own workforce planning exercise, bearing in mind the core principles set

out in this study for all grades below Administrative Officer and SEE and analogous.

2.6 Timeframe for implementation

The group is conscious that while the targeted reductions are achievable the age profile and

distribution of staff is likely to give rise to variable timeframes and uneven impacts if left to

natural retirements alone.

It may be necessary to fully explore the potential to redistribute the numbers of directors and

other senior grades across the system through redeployment. This arrangement has been

successfully utilised in the sector. However, given the geographical constrains on the

redeployment mechanism it is unlikely that sectoral anomalies can be corrected using this

mechanism alone. Each local authority will in discussion with the DoECLG determine how best to

meet the targets set out in this plan and in the shortest possible time frame.

21

Given Ireland’s commitment under the EU-IMF programme to reducing the overall size of the

public service, the Government has decided that targeted voluntary redundancy schemes, as

provided for under the Public Service Agreement, may be considered when other options such

as redeployment have been fully examined. In this regard, in order to reach optimum

recommended staffing levels, as quickly as possible, consistently across local authorities,

targeted exit mechanisms may be required. Importantly, this could also serve to support the

merging local authorities (e.g. Limerick local authorities and Tipperary local authorities) in the

achievement of optimum staffing structures and numbers as part of the unification process in

the shortest timeframe possible.

Each local authority will in discussion with the DoECLG determine how best to meet the targets

set out in this plan and in the shortest possible timeframe.

4. Span of control - Grading structure below Administrative officer

The group is satisfied that the above recommendations will achieve the recommended LGER targets

for senior managerial and managerial grades within the sector.

A further recommendation of the LGER related to the span of control which it considered not

sufficiently stretching and suggested “a shift over time from middle management levels to more

junior management levels would be in keeping with a drive towards greater efficiency”

In examining this point the group considered the following:

The first report to the LGER implementation group (March 2012) confirmed that 55% of the

target for admin staff and senior management and 53% for middle management had been

achieved.

Work carried out by the Programme Management Office confirms that the ratio of staff

reporting to supervisors in the different grades taking into account projected retirements at

grade 6 and 7 level to the year 2026 will not materially alter the shape and hierarchical

nature of current reporting relationships as per Figure 1 below.

22

Figure 1

It is the view of the Group that the early retirement scheme and the moratorium on

recruitment has resulted in significant erosion of corporate knowledge and will together

with other factors impact on succession planning. Among the most significant other factors

is the knowledge that 36% of all senior managers are over the age of 56, and only 3% are

under 40 as illustrated by table 1 below. In this context the group feels that further dilution

of middle management through, for example, the proposed refilling of all grades with the

grade below would exacerbate this problem

Table 1.

Age Category <20

21

–

25

26

– 30

31

– 35

36

– 40

41

– 45

46

– 50

51

– 55

56

– 60

61

- 65 65

+

Total Managers 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 9% 25% 28% 30% 6% 0%

Total Professional 0% 1% 3% 11% 14% 14% 15% 18% 17% 8% 0%

Total Outdoor 0% 1% 3% 6% 9% 13% 18% 22% 19% 12% 2%

Total Clerical 0% 0% 6% 17% 19% 16% 16% 16% 10% 3% 0%

Retained FF 0% 2% 10% 16% 16% 20% 19% 13% 4% 1% 0%

Full Time FF 0% 0% 8% 16% 24% 25% 16% 12% 1% 1% 4%

Total Staff 0% 1% 5% 13% 15% 15% 16% 17% 13% 6% 1%

Senior Management

4.6%

Management

11.2%

Clerical / Admin

21.2%

Director

0.8%

23

The group is also of the view that the existing grading structure is unduly hierarchical and

crowded with insufficient distinction between grades at middle management in the context

of supervisory responsibility and management duties.

In the context of the foregoing the group has considered how best to achieve the LGER report

recommendation of reducing the span of control. In this regard, it is recommended that this can

best be achieved through the phasing out of the senior staff officer (Grade 6) level posts. This

approach, when taken with the associated recommendations below, can be managed in terms

of maintaining service and succession planning. The reduction of the grading structure will also

create a more realistic distinction between the Grade 5 and Grade 7 posts. It is also worth

noting that this proposal is in keeping with the Programme for Government.

There are currently 1304 staff remunerated at Grade 6 level. An age profile analysis confirms

that if the moratorium alone were relied upon that only 387 would have retired by 2026. In

order to make the proposal more meaningful it is recommended that:

The DoECLG in discussion with DoPER approve an appropriate targeted voluntary exit

mechanism(s) for this grade.

That proposals be agreed sectorally for the partial replacement of the grade 6 positions with

a number of grade 5 posts to be filled by competition within the sector. This will assist in the

redistribution of the workload and provide the added advantage of some limited

promotional opportunities at a time when the labour market is largely stagnant.

In the case of the replacement posts the quantum will be dictated by the need to balance

the net savings generated by the retirements and costs associated with the upgrading of

posts on promotion .Clearly due consideration will also have to be given to the initial cost of

the retirements which will be borne by the sector.

4. Outdoor staff

The analysis of the “outdoor” staff shows that there is very significant variation across local

authorities in terms of numbers, job title etc. The variation is a product of geographical and

policy differences throughout the system.

24

The labour intensive citizen centered and highly visible nature of the workload carried out by

outdoor workers is critical to the meaningful orderly and proactive delivery of local government

services. At a time when local charges are being introduced it is the view of the group that these

services need to be maintained albeit delivered in the most efficient manner possible. It is

critical that workforce numbers are not reduced to levels where capacity is eroded to the point

where essential services are undermined and/or legislative requirements cannot be fulfilled.

To date outdoor numbers have reduced by 20% (from 15,089 to 12,076) or 3013 which

represents 35% of the overall reduction in staff in the sector. The age profile of outdoor staff

shows that 32% are over the age of 56 with 12% due to retire in the next 5 years and 33% over

the next 10 years.

Figure 2 below shows the variation across local authorities with 20% over 56 in Wicklow while

the corresponding figure in Leitrim is 40% and 37% in Kerry, Kildare and South Dublin.

Figure 2 % of outdoor workers aged 56 and over

25

The group is particularly concerned with the implications of this analysis which points clearly to

the view that the moratorium will require relaxation in the short term to protect the basic

workforce and the services it provides. It is recommended that each local authority immediately

prepare a workforce plan to determine the short to medium term outdoor staff structure

necessary to sustain basic services. In preparing the plan detailed consideration needs to be

given to measures necessary to maximise operational efficiency including restructuring

workforce deployment, reconfiguration of operational areas, rationalisation of depots and other

reductions in fixed costs.

5. Recruitment, Re-training and Retention

The age profile analysis available to the Workforce Planning Group clearly points to a significant

loss of staff at senior level associated with the moratorium on recruitment and particularly the

incentivised scheme for early retirement. This loss of human capital at senior level has

significant implications for loss of corporate knowledge, and specific expertise built up over a

period of 30 years or more. This together with the fact that 37 % of senior managers are over 56

strongly suggests that in the absence of reskilling and more focused succession planning the

sector faces capacity challenges at senior level.

Conversely, the moratorium on staff recruitment has now given rise to a significant “Generation

Gap” with the percentage of remaining staff within the sector under 30 in single figures, and in

the case of some organisations, non-existent.

Table 2: % of all staff by Age Category

Category Total

%

Total <20 75 0%

21 – 25 378 1% 26 – 30 1593 5% 31 – 35 4139 12% 36 – 40 5023 15% 41 – 45 4905 15% 46 – 50 5269 16% 51 – 55 5493 16%

26

56 – 60 4298 13% 61 - 65 2005 6%

Over 65 282 1% Total 33459 100%

The continuation of these trends at either end of the employment spectrum is likely to have

significant implications for the local government sector in the context of organisational diversity,

skills mix, knowledge transfer, intergenerational learning, as well as intergenerational

understanding. There is little doubt that graduates of the last decade have a whole range of

skills, outlooks and attitudes which are new and current and are unlikely to be fully replicated

through re-skilling or re-training programmes for existing staff. In addition, the longer the time

lag between new entrants coming into local authorities, the more likely the possibility of

intergenerational understanding deficits to arise in the context of variations in cultural norms

and understandings with regard to the latest trends and technologies, work practices, attitude in

the workplace, work-life balance patterns etc.

In the context of the foregoing, it is the recommendation of the Workforce Planning Group that

an immediate assessment be undertaken, and agreement reached, on a level of new

recruitment at graduate level to reinforce the skill requirements of the sector, address

intergenerational issues, and help cope with the ongoing unequal workforce demographics and

the continuing departures from the sector. The group recommends that the initial duration of

these recruitments be on a two year basis. The assessment will identify the number of graduates

required but an indicative figure of 200 would be recommended by the Group.

While a level of recruitment has been recommended, in the context of our inability to grow all

our own skills, we must nevertheless ensure that the current core competencies of existing

workforce are refreshed and updated with ongoing training programmes identified through

training needs analysis, the development of the competency framework, and the roll-out of the

next phase of PMDS. These re-skilling programmes are fundamental to a flexible organisation

which will require ongoing staff rotation and reassignment in the interests of organisational

efficiency.

27

In the current economic climate, staff are not as inclined to move due to fear of the unknown,

the depressed housing market, and the desire for workplace and domestic security. Staff

retention should not be based on these insecurities, but developed on the basis of a stricture

and meaningful HR Strategy which will support the building of staff morale.

28

APPENDIX 1

Group Membership

The workforce planning Group is made up as follows:

a. Barry Quinlan (DECLG)

b. Daniel McLoughlin (Manager – Westmeath County Council)

c. Hubert Kearns (Manager – Sligo County Council – then Chair of CCMA)

d. Conn Murray (Manager – Limerick City and County Council)

e. Peter Caulfield (Director of Service – Fingal County Council)

f. Frank Curran (Director of Service – Waterford County Council)

g. Mary Pyne (Assistant Manager – Dublin City Council)

h. John Flynn (Director of Service – Kerry County Council)

i. Paul Dunne (Local Government Management Agency)

The group wishes to acknowledge the assistance of Pat Lonergan in the Project Management

Office and Ronan Murphy in OLAM for their statistical research in terms of workforce data and

age profiling.

29

Appendix 2 – Tabular representation of recommendations - Directors of Service:

Local Authority Quarterly Return - December 2009 – DoS and Hof. (LGERG baseline)

WF Group Recommendations (Max Numbers) DoS plus HoF.

Taking account of Ongoing and Proposed Joint Authorities (DoS and HoF)

Quarterly Return - Dec 2011 - DoS incl HoF

Quarterly Return - Mar 2012 - DoS incl HoF

***Cork City 11 7 8 10 8

Dublin City 49 38.8 38.8 41.8 35.8

DoS 27.8

Below DoS 14

Galway City 3 4 4 5 5

Waterford City 4 4 4 4

Waterford 5 4 5 5

****Joint Waterford 5

Carlow 5 4 4 5 5

Cavan 4 4 4 4 4

Clare 5 5 5 4 4

Cork 15 12 12 13 12

Donegal 5 5 5 5 5

Dun Laoghaire 9 6 6 8 8

*Fingal 8 7 7 6 6

Galway 5 5 5 5 5

**Kerry 7 5 5 5 5

Kildare 5 6 6 5 5

Kilkenny 4 5 5 4 4

Laois 5 4 4 3 3

Leitrim 5 4 4 5 5

Limerick 6 5 5 6

Limerick City 5 5 4 4

****Joint Limerick 6

Longford 2 4 4 4 4

Louth 7 5 5 5 5

Mayo 6 5 5 6 5

Meath 7 6 6 5 5

Monaghan 4 4 4 3 4

Offaly 5 4 4 4 4

Roscommon 5 4 4 4 4

Sligo 5 4 4 4 3

South Dublin 7 7 7 7 7

Tipperary North 4 4 4 4

Tipperary South 6 5 7 6

****Joint Tipperary 6

Westmeath 4 5 5 3 3

Wexford 5 5 5 4 4

Wicklow 8 5 5 7 7

LA TOTAL 240 206.8 197.8 213.8 203.8

Total discounting DCC staff below DoS 192.8 182.8 199.8

30

*Fingal and **Kerry have acting Directors that are not included in Quarterly figures at present.

***In the case of Cork City the figure of 8 is a reference to the current number of directors (incl. HoF) and not a

potential outcome of the ongoing review.

****The figures for - Tipperary, Limerick and Waterford - are based on the pooled populations in each case and are

not to be viewed as prejudicial to the independent assessments ongoing in each case

31

2 – Senior Executive Officer/Senior Engineer & Analogous

Local Authority WF Group Recommendations. (Min umbers) SEO/SE & Analogous

WF Group Recommendations. (Max Numbers) SEO/SE & Analogous

LGER Return Mar 2012 – SEO/SE & Analogous (exc Acting & Temp Positions)

LEGER Return - Mar 2012 – SEO/SE & Analogous (inc Acting & Temp Posts)

Cork City *

Dublin City*

Galway City 9 13 7.5 13.5

Waterford City 9 13 10 11

Waterford 9 13 9 12

Carlow 9 13 9 11

Cavan 9 13 7.8 9.8

Clare 9 13 12 14

Cork 20 35 40.65 44.65

Donegal 9 13 12 16

Dun Laoghaire 17 20 19.9 24.9

Fingal 20 24 26.9 28.9

Galway 9 13 14.5 15.5

Kerry 9 13 12 16

Kildare 11 15 19 23

Kilkenny 9 13 11 13

Laois 9 13 9 11

Leitrim 9 13 10 10

Limerick 9 13 14 14

Limerick City 9 13 8 8

Longford 9 13 8 8

Louth 9 13 15 15

Mayo 9 13 13 15

Meath 11 15 9 12

Monaghan 9 13 8.6 9.6

Offaly 9 13 12 12

Roscommon 9 13 10 11

Sligo 9 13 9 14

South Dublin 20 24 22 32

Tipperary North 9 13 9 10

Tipperary South 9 13 11 13

Westmeath 9 13 8 9

Wexford 9 13 12 12

Wicklow 9 13 12 17 LA TOTAL

Total discounting DCC staff at SEO Level

332 471 410.85

485.85

* Dublin & cork City Stats are excluded.

32

3 - Administrative Officers (excluding SEE and Analogous)

Local Authority WF Group Recommendations. (Min Numbers) AO

WF Group Recommendations. (Max Numbers) AO

LGER Return Mar 2012 – AO (exc Acting & Temp Positions)

LEGER Return - Mar 2012 – AO (inc Acting & Temp Posts)

Cork City *

Dublin City*

Galway City 7 10 (15) 13.5 15.3

Waterford City 7 10 (15) 13.2 15.3

Waterford 7 10 (15) 8 12

Carlow 7 10 (15) 14.8 16.8

Cavan 7 10 (15) 13 17

Clare 11 15 (20) 19.6 25.6

Cork 25 35 (40) 47.77 49.77

Donegal 11 15 (20) 30.8 32.8

Dun Laoghaire 20 25 (32) 30 42

Fingal 25 32 (40) 34.3 42.3

Galway 11 15 (20) 21.8 23.8

Kerry 11 15 (20) 31.7 33.7

Kildare 16 20 (25) 25 27

Kilkenny 11 15 (20) 18.8 21.4

Laois 7 10 (15) 15 15

Leitrim 7 10 (15) 10.7 11.7

Limerick 11 15 (20) 23.8 23.8

Limerick City 11 15 (20) 13.19 18.19

Longford 7 10 (15) 17.9 18.9

Louth 11 15 (20) 18.8 20.8

Mayo 11 15 (20) 17 19

Meath 16 20 (25) 22.4 26

Monaghan 7 10 (15) 13.8 15.8

Offaly 7 10 (15) 16.6 18.4

Roscommon 7 10 (15) 14.72 16.72

Sligo 7 10 (15) 19.8 23.8

South Dublin 25 32 (40) 33.4 50

Tipperary North 7 10 (15) 13 14.8

Tipperary South 11 15 (20) 23 25

Westmeath 11 15 (20) 19 20

Wexford 11 15 (20) 20.8 21.8

Wicklow 11 15 (20) 19.25 25.25 LA TOTAL

Total discounting DCC staff at AO Level

361 489 (657) 654.43

759.73

* Dublin & Cork City Stats are excluded.

33

4 - Senior Executive Engineers and Analogous

Local Authority WF Group Recommendations. (Min Numbers) SEE & Analogous

WF Group Recommendations. (Max Numbers) SEE & Analogous

LGER Return Mar 2012 – SEE & Analogous (exc Acting & Temp Positions)

LEGER Return - Mar 2012 – SEE & Analogous (inc Acting & Temp Posts)

Cork City *

Dublin City*

Galway City 7 10 (12) 6 12

Waterford City 7 10 (12) 7 10

Waterford 7 10 (12) 11 14

Carlow 7 10 (12) 8 8.2

Cavan 7 10 (12) 16 18

Clare 12 15 (18) 14 19

Cork 35 50 (56) 66.31 78.31

Donegal 12 15 (18) 31 39

Dun Laoghaire 25 30 (35) 44.6 49.6

Fingal 30 35 (40) 38.6 43.6

Galway 12 15 (18) 19.5 23.5

Kerry 12 15 (18) 23 32

Kildare 18 22 (25) 31 33

Kilkenny 12 15 (18) 9 14

Laois 7 10 (12) 12 12

Leitrim 7 10 (12) 11 11

Limerick 12 15 (18) 15 16

Limerick City 12 15 (18) 8 10.8

Longford 7 10 (12) 8 10

Louth 12 15 (18) 18 21

Mayo 12 15 (18) 16 20

Meath 18 22 (25) 18 22

Monaghan 7 10 (12) 11 11

Offaly 7 10 (12) 6 13.8

Roscommon 7 10 (12) 14 17

Sligo 7 10 (12) 11.5 20.5

South Dublin 30 35 (40) 28.6 35.6

Tipperary North 7 10 (12) 7 9

Tipperary South 12 15 (18) 12 14

Westmeath 12 15 (18) 13 13

Wexford 12 15 (18) 18 18

Wicklow 12 15 (18) 18 23 LA TOTAL

Total discounting DCC staff at SEE Level

403 519 (611) 570.11

691.91

* Dublin & Cork City Stats are excluded.