Working bettertogether?Managing local strategic partnerships
Cross-cutting
National report
April 2009
The Audit Commission is an independent watchdog, driving economy, efficiency and effectiveness in local public services to deliver better outcomes for everyone.
Our work across local government, health, housing, community safety and fire and rescue services means that we have a unique perspective. We promote value for money for taxpayers, auditing the £200 billion spent by 11,000 local public bodies.
As a force for improvement, we work in partnership to assess local public services and make practical recommendations for promoting a better quality of life for local people.
© Audit Commission 2009This document is available on our website at: www.audit-commission.gov.uk/lsp
If you require a copy of this document in large print, in Braille, on tape,or in a language other than English, please call: 0844 798 7070
If you require a printed copy of this document, please call: 0800 50 20 30or email: [email protected]
For further information on the work of the Commission please contact:Audit Commission, 1st Floor, Millbank Tower, Millbank, London SW1P 4HQ Telephone: 0844 798 1212 Fax: 0844 798 2945 Textphone (minicom): 0844 798 2946www.audit-commission.gov.uk
We welcome your feedback. If you have any comments on this report, are intending to implement any of the recommendations, or are planning to follow up any of the case studies, please do get in touch: please email [email protected]
Contents | Working better together? | 1
Contents
Summary 2Recommendations 5Introduction 71 Evolving collaboration 102 Can organisations work together? 173 LSP progress – transformational factors 284 LSP progress – transactional factors 485 Looking forward 85Appendix 1 Study method 88Appendix 2 Terms used in this report 90Appendix 3 Named partners 93Appendix 4 References 95
2 | Working better together? | Summary
Summary
Local agencies work together.
• Thereisnothingnewinlocalagenciesworkingvoluntarilytogethertodealwithcomplexchallenges.
• Governmentpolicyhasmovedfromencouragingpartnershipstowardsmandatingthem,eventhoughvoluntarismisthekeytoeffectivejointworking.
• Manylocalstrategicpartnerships(LSPs)haveenabledpartnerstodeliverlocaloutcomes,butpartnersmustensuretheygetthebenefitsofjointworkingwiththeminimumofcostsandadministration.
LSPs must bring a complex network of local agencies together to achieve common goals.
• LSPsarepartofacomplexlocalgovernancenetworkthatincludeslocalcouncils,otherstatutoryagencies(includinghealth,police,fireandrescue),andtheprivateandthirdsectors.LSPsinmanyareasbringdifferentagenciestogethertotacklelocalproblems.
• LSPsworkthroughthreemainlayers:
• strategic:oversight,vision,anddirection-setting;
• executive:resourceallocationandperformancemanagement;and
• operational:servicemanagementanddelivery.
• Localpartners,andcentralgovernment,donotalwaysunderstandhowtheselayerswork.
• AwholesystemsapproachcanhelpLSPsdevelopbothformalandinformalaspectsofcollaboration.
Summary | Working better together? | 3
LSPs work through leadership, culture, and relationship management.
• Effectivejointworkingneedsactiveleadershipandpurposefulrelationshipmanagement.
• Theleadershipstylesofthechair,andofthecouncil,affecthowothersseeanLSP.Councilsmustensurethatpartnersseelocalleadership:notdominationorcontrol.
• Socialnetworkanalysiscanstrengthenworkingrelationships.
• DeliverychainanalysiscanstrengthenthelinksbetweenLSPobjectivesandpartners’action.
• Partnershipworkingismorecomplicatedinmulti-tierareaswherethereisoftenlessexperienceofcollaboration.
• LSPsneedsystemstosupportacultureinwhichperformanceistestedandchallenged.
4 | Working better together? | Summary
Standards and systems must support LSPs’ layered roles.
• Partnersneedperformancemeasurementandreportingforsharedobjectives;commondataqualitystandardsandmechanismstaketimetodevelop.
• PerformancemanagementandinfluencehasdevelopedunevenlyacrossLSPactivities,weakeningjointworkingandcrowdingoutsomeobjectives.
• MostLSPslackmechanismsforassigningmainstreamresourcestowardsachievingthegoalsofthesustainablecommunitystrategy(SCS)andthelocalareaagreement(LAA).
• FewLSPshaveassessedthecostsandbenefitsofjointworking.
• Nationalfailuretoalignplanningandreportingcyclesmakesitdifficultforlocalagenciestoalignperformanceandresourcemanagementsystems.
• GovernancearrangementsshouldsupportLSPs’accountabilitiestomemberorganisationsandthroughthemtolocalpeople.
• ThereislittleevidencethatcouncilsareusingoverviewandscrutinyarrangementstoholdLSPs,andpartners,toaccount.
CAA will assess whether local public bodies and their partnerships are contributing to outcomes.I
• ComprehensiveAreaAssessment(CAA)willfocusonhowlocalserviceprovidersimprovelocaloutcomes,actingasacatalystforbetterpartnershipworking.
• CAAshouldhelpLSPsunderstandtheirownperformanceandlearnlessonsfromothers.
Summary
I TheAuditCommissionandtheotherlocalserviceinspectoratespublishedtheCAAframeworkdocumentinFebruary2009.Seehttp://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/caa/framework.asp
Recommendations | Working better together? | 5
Local authorities and their partners should:
• MonitorandreviewlocalachievementsagainstaregularlyupdatedSCSandtheLAA.
• Criticallyassessthecostsandbenefitsofjointworkingarrangements.
• Testtheircurrentarrangementsusing:
• notablepracticeexamples;
• awholesystemsmodel;
• deliverychainanalysis;and
• socialnetworkingtools.
• Ensurethatlocalarrangementssupportthestrategic,executive,andoperationallayersofjointworking.
• Reviewprogress,makedecisionsandchallengeoneanotherbasedonperformanceandresourceinformation.
• Engageelectedmembersthroughtraininganddevelopment,andstrongerpartnershipscrutiny.
Central government should:
• ProduceguidanceandadvicethatrecognisesandencouragesLSPs’voluntarystatusratherthanmakingthemanextralevelofbureaucracy.
• Avoidone-size-fits-allrecommendationsforlocalcollaborativeworking.
• Removeobstaclestocoordinatingstatutorypartners’activitiesbyaligningdepartments’performancereportingframeworks.
• Reviewnationalfinancialmanagementframeworkstoallowgreaterlocalflexibility.
Recommendations
6 | Working better together? | Recommendations
Recommendations
The Audit Commission will:
• WorkwithotherinspectoratestousethelessonsfromthisstudyinCAA.
• WorkwiththeImprovementNetworktohelpLSPstoimprovetheirperformance(www.audit-commission.gov.uk/lsp)anddeveloponlineimprovementtools(www.improvementnetwork.gov.uk/lsp).
Introduction | Working better together? | 7
Introduction
1 Localauthoritiesandtheirpartnersworkinacomplexeconomic,social,andphysicalenvironment.Theycandeliverbetteroutcomesbyworkingtogetherthantheycanseparately.Jointworkingcanhappenatthreelevels:
• strategic:settingavisionordirectionforanarea,discussingconcerns,agreeingcommongoalsandpriorities,andmonitoringprogress;
• executiveorboard:usingthevisiontoallocateresources,settargetsandoverseeperformance;and
• operationalorthematicgroup:managingperformanceanddeliveringservicestomeettheagreedgoals.
2 Councilshaveworkedwithoneanotherandwithotherlocalorganisationsforoveracentury.Overthelastthreedecades,governmentpolicyhasmovedfromencouragingjointworking,toeffectivelymakingitcompulsory.
3 LSPswererecommendedasawayoftidying-upjointworkingtosupportthelocalSCS(Ref.1).ITheLocalGovernmentandPublicInvolvementinHealthAct2007(LGPIH)reinforcedtheroleofLSPs,butdidnotmakethemcompulsory.ItintroducedstatutoryLAAsandadutyonnamedpartnerstocooperatewiththeLAA(butnottheLSP).LAAsfocusattentiononlocalSCSprioritiesthat:
• areagreedwithcentralgovernment;
• haveoutcomesthatcanbemeasuredbythenationalindicatorset;and
• canbeprogressedwithinthreeyears.
4 LGPIHalsointroducedCAAtoreviewhowlocalserviceprovidersworkedtogethertoimprovelocaloutcomes.
5 LSPsaredevelopingandeachhasitsownuniquehistoryandchallenges.Thereisnoonemodelthatwillguaranteefuturesuccess.
I Theabbreviationsusedinthisreportwillbefamiliartomostreaders.HoweveraglossaryisincludedatAppendix2.
8 | Working better together? | Introduction
6 TheAuditCommissionreportGoverning Partnerships(Ref.2),notedthreeissuesaboutlocalpartnerships:
• theybringrisksaswellasopportunities,andgovernancecanbeaproblem;
• theydonotguaranteevalueformoney,solocalpublicbodiesshouldquestionwhetherandhowtheyengageinpartnerships;and
• partnersmustbeaccountabletooneanotherandtothepublic.
7 Thisstudyreviewsarrangementsforperformance,resourcemanagement,andgovernance.SinceLSPsdonothaveindependentlegaloraccountablebodystatus,theirarrangementswillbedifferentfromthoseoftheirmembers.However,theprinciplesofgoodperformanceandresourcemanagementstillapply.
8 ThisstudyusesawholesystemsframeworktoassessevidencegatheredfromanationalsurveyofallLSPs(LSPmanagersandrepresentativesofpartners)and17casestudysitevisits.Theseprovidedacross-sectionoflocalauthorityexperience.Theframeworkincludesleadership,culture,skillsandsynergies(transformationalelements),aswellassystems,processesandstandards(transactionalelements).
9 Thisstudyaimsto:
• identifyhowwellLSPsandtheirpartnersmanagelocalpublicserviceperformanceandfinances;
• exploreopportunitiesfor,andchallengesto,improvement;and
• providepracticalguidanceforpartnersinLSPs.
10 ThisnationalreportandsupportingguidanceareavailableontheAuditCommissionwebsite (www.audit-commission.gov.uk/lsp)andImprovementNetworkwebsite (www.improvementnetwork.gov.uk/lsp).Theguidanceincludes:
• adviceonhowtoanalysedeliverychains;
• examplesofnotablepractice;
• achecklistforLSPimprovement;and
• briefingpapersongovernanceforLSPboardmembers,andonscrutinyofLSPsforcouncillors.
Introduction
Introduction | Working better together? | 9
11 Thekeymessagesinthisstudyarethat:
• LSPshavedifferenthistoriesandexperiences–theyareeachonauniqueimprovementjourney,butthereareimportantlessonstolearnfromoneanother.
• LSPsarevoluntary,unincorporated,associations,buttheymustrecognisetheirstrategic,executive,andoperationalrolesandorganisethemselvesappropriately.LSPsuccessdependsonthecooperationofpartnerswithdifferentinterests,resources,andresponsibilities.
• LSPsdonotcontrollocalpublicserviceresources;theyhavetoinfluencepartners’mainstreamspendingandactivity.
• LSPsneedtodevelopstrongpartnershipculturestoachievesharedgoals.
• LSPsinmulti-tierareasfacegreaterchallengesthanthoseinsingletiers.
• LSPsarevoluntary:governmentdepartmentsshouldnotplacebureaucraticburdensorexpectationsonthem.
12 Thisreporthasfivechapters:
• Chapter1discussestheevolutionofpartnershipworking.
• Chapter2introducesawholesystemsevaluationframeworkanddiscussesLSPs’goals.
• Chapter3reviewsthetransformationalelementsoftheframework.
• Chapter4reviewsthetransactionalelementsoftheframework.
• Chapter5looksforward.
10 | Working better together? | Evolvingcollaboration
1 Evolving collaboration
13 Collaborativeworkingbetweencouncils,otherpublicagencies,andtheprivate,voluntary,andcommunitysectorsisnotnew(Ref.3).ItisafeatureoflocalgovernmentintheUKandacrossEurope(Ref.4).Itisdrivenbyrecognitionthatsharedproblemsneedsharedsolutions.
14 Effectivecollaborationrequirescommongoals,agreementonhowtoachievethem,andsharedinformationaboutsuccessandfailure.Itisusuallyvoluntaryandtakestimetomature(Ref.5).Thischapterreviewskeystepsinlocalpartnershipdevelopment.
The local partnership environment 15 Governmentinfluenceoverlocaljoint
workinghasdevelopedoverthelastthreedecades(Figure1).
Figure 1
From focused response to common prescription
Someareashavethreedecadesexperienceofjointworking.
Inner urban areas(43 designated areas)
City Challenge(31 urban areas)
1979-82 1989 1992 19992000
Inner City TaskforcesNew Commitmentto Regeneration
20 LAApilots
LAA annualrounds 1-3
LAA becomes statutory (150single and county-tier LSPs)
Community strategyand LSPs (388 councils)
22 Pilots led to66 partnerships
20 LPSApilots
2001 2003 2008
Neighbourhood renewalfund (88 urban areas)
LPSA 2 extendsto partners
Source:AuditCommission,2008
Evolvingcollaboration | Working better together? | 11
16 Governmentpolicyonjointworkinginthe1970sfocusedonspecifiedareasandnarrowlydefinedeconomicregenerationoutcomes.Thistransformedduringthe1990sintoawiderfocusonsocialandeconomicissues.From2000,governmentattentionshiftedtowardslocalobjectivesandjointworkinginallareas.Differentcouncilshavedifferentexperiencesofjointworking.The43areasdesignatedinthe1978InnerUrbanAreasActnowhavethreedecades’experienceofjointworkingencouraged,incentivised,ormandatedbygovernment.
17 ThefirstLSPguidance(Ref1.2001)advisedcouncilstouseanLSPto:
• prepare,andfulfil,acommunitystrategy;I
• bringexistinglocalplans,partnerships,andinitiativestogether;
• developalocalpublicserviceagreement(LPSA);and
• developanddeliveralocalneighbourhoodrenewalstrategy.
18 ThegovernmentintroducedvoluntaryLAAsin2005(Ref.6).TheseprovidedthetemplateforthestatutoryLAAsin2008.LAAsfocusonpersonal,social,andcommunityoutcomesthatcanbeprogressedoverthreeyears.Thegovernmenthasremovedsomeobstaclestocollaborativeworking,butithasalsorequiredsomejointworking(Table1).
I TheSustainableCommunitiesAct2007replacedtheterm‘communitystrategy’with‘sustainablecommunitystrategy’.
12 | Working better together? | Evolvingcollaboration
Table 1
Whitehall enabling local partnerships
Removingobstaclestocollaborationandencouragingormandatingjointwork
Department ActionCommunitiesandLocalGovernment: LocalGovernmentAct2000•well-beingpowers •frameworksforpartnershipwork
LocalGovernmentandPublicInvolvementinHealth(LGPIH)Act2007
•SCS•LAAs
DepartmentofHealth: HealthAct1999(s.31)•removedsomeobstaclestojointworkingandpooledbudgets
NationalHealthServiceAct2006(s.75) LocalGovernmentandPublicInvolvementinHealthAct2007•enabledjointcommissioningandintegrated
provision•mandatedjointstrategicneedsassessment
DepartmentforChildrenSchoolsandFamilies: ChildrenAct2004•suggestedchildren’strustarrangementsI
•removedsomeobstaclestojointworkingandpooledbudgets
•enabledjointcommissioningandintegratedprovision
HomeOffice/MinistryofJustice: •localcrimeanddisorderreductionpartnerships(CDRPs)
CrimeandDisorderAct1998(asamendedbythePoliceReformAct2002andtheCleanNeighbourhoodsandEnvironmentAct2005)
HMTreasury •proposeddutytoprovideaneconomicneedsassessment
Devolvingdecisionmaking:deliveringbetterpublicservices:refiningtargetsandperformancemanagement(March2004)(Ref.7)Reviewofsub-nationaleconomicdevelopmentandregeneration(July2007)(Ref.8)
Source:AuditCommission
I TheAuditCommissionstudyAre We There Yet?questionedtheeffectivenessofchildren’strustarrangements.
1 | Evolving collaboration
Evolvingcollaboration | Working better together? | 13
19 Notallofthesegovernmentinitiativesfitneatlywiththeprinciplesofdevolveddecision-making(Ref.9).ThereisconfusionabouttheextenttowhichLSPsarevoluntary,theextenttowhichLSPsortheirpartnersmakedecisions,andtherelationshipbetweenstatutorypartnershipsandLSPs(Ref.10).
20 Governmentguidancein2008(Ref.11)addedmoreexecutiverolesforLSPs,sayingtheyshould:
• identifytheneedsandambitionsoflocalcommunities,andresolve,orarbitratebetweencompetinginterests;
• coordinatetheconsultationandengagementactivitiesofpartners;
• produceanSCSwithasharedlocalvisionandprioritiesforaction(basedondataandevidencefromthelocalareaanditspopulation);
• produceasingle-tierorcounty-wideLAAbasedontheprioritiesidentifiedinthelocalSCS(s);
• overseelocalresourceplanningandalignmenttoachievemoreeffectivecommissioningandbetteroutcomes;and
• reviewandmanageprogressagainsttheprioritiesandtargetsagreedintheLAA,andensuredeliveryarrangementsareinplace.
21 Despitetheseactivitiesfromcreatingavisiontoreviewingandmanagingprogress,LSPsremainacollectionoforganisationsandrepresentativesworkingtogethervoluntarily.TheLGPIHAct2007doesnotcreatelegalrelationshipsordutiesbetweencouncils,LSPs,orLSPpartners(Ref.11).I
I In2006thereweretwoLSPsconstitutedascompanieslimitedbyguarantee.Onehundredandeighty-eightLSPs(91percent)werevoluntarypartnershipsand17(8percent)wereundecided.
14 | Working better together? | Evolvingcollaboration
LSP membershipThedecisionaboutLSPmembershipisalocalone.Councilsshouldensureinvolvementoftherelevantsectorsattherightlevels.Earlyguidance(Ref.1)listedpotentialLSPmembers:butmissedoutsignificantlocalagencies,includingregisteredsociallandlords.Laterguidancestressestheprincipleofengagingrepresentationfromthepublic,private,andthirdsectorsatthestrategiclevelandintherelevantthemeoroperationalgroups(Ref.11).EachLSPshouldalsoconsiderhowitwillengagewithcommunityandneighbourhoodrepresentatives.Representativesattheexecutivelevelshouldhavedirectordelegatedauthoritytosupportagreedactions.
24 TheconnectionbetweenLAAsandLSPsisnotsimple.AllcouncilshaveadutytoprepareanSCS.TheyarerecommendedtodoitthroughtheirLSP.Butonlysingle-tierandcountycouncilsareaccountablebodiesfortheLAA.TherearealsootherlevelsofcomplicationintheLAA/LSPsystem:
• SomeofthethematicpartnershipscoordinatedbyLSPshavetheirownstatutorybasis.CDRPshaveadutytoworkwithnamedpartnerstotacklecrimeanddisorder(Ref.13).Localauthoritiesandpartnershaveadutytocooperatetoimprovethewell-beingofchildrenandyoungpeople(Ref.14).Somelocalagencieshaveadutytocooperateintheirpartnership,butnotwithLSPs.
• CountycouncilshavetoworkwiththecountyanddistrictLSPstodeliverthecountywideLAA.Atypicalcountyhassixorsevendistricts,butsixhavetendistrictsormore:eachwithanLSPanditsownSCS.
• Countiesarelikelytohavepartners(police,fireandrescue,andhealth)withdifferentgeographicalboundaries.
• LondonboroughsmusttakeaccountoftheMayor’sstrategiesindevelopingtheirSCSs(Ref.15).
1 | Evolving collaboration
22 LAAs,however,docreatelegalrelationships.WhentheSecretaryofStatesignsanLAA,itbecomesacontractwiththesingletierorcountycouncilasaccountablebodies(Ref.11).
23 The“dutytocooperatepartners”,includingdistrictcouncils,police,fireandrescueservices,andprimarycaretrusts(PCTs),haveadutytoagreeandhaveregardtotheLAAtargets.SomeLSPpartnershaveacloserinterestinachievingtheLAAtargetsthanothers(Ref.12).
I Thedifferentnamed,relevantanddutytocooperatepartnersinmid-2008arelistedinAppendix3.
Evolvingcollaboration | Working better together? | 15
• Somecouncilshavedrawnupmulti-areaagreements(MAAs)thatfocusoneconomicdevelopmentissuesthatcrosscouncilboundaries (Ref.7).MAAsarevoluntary,andcouncilsnegotiatefundingflexibilities(includingpooling)fromcentralgovernment,todeliverregeneration.
Working together25 Voluntarypartnershipsworkthrough
fourstagesfromnetworkingandcoordination,throughtocooperationandcollaboration(Figure2).
Figure 2
Stages in partnership development
Eachstagebuildsonpreviousexperience
Networking Coordination Cooperation Collaboration
Loose network ofinformal relationships
Limited agreement toshare information
Resource alignmentand pooling
Development of formalconstitution
Development of formalgoverning boardJoint activity
Source:Working Across Boundaries: Collaboration in Public Services(Ref.5)
16 | Working better together? | Evolvingcollaboration
26 Voluntarypartnershipsforhousingregeneration,skillsdevelopment,infrastructureprojects,andotheractivitiesinthecasestudyareasallfollowedthefourstages.
27 FundingarrangementsandLAAnegotiations make it almost impossible foranareanottohaveanLSP,despiteLSPsvoluntarystatus.SomeLSPshavenothadthetimetodevelopthelinksandmechanismsnecessaryforeffectivejointwork(Ref.12).Inthese,thelocalauthorityandotherstatutoryagenciesarelikelytoexerttoomuchcontrol.Membersfinditdifficulttochallengeeachother’sperformance,thenon-statutorypartnersfeelexcludedfromdiscussions,andthereisinadequateinformationtosupportdecision-making.
28 Theevidenceforthisstudywascollectedin2007/08(seeAppendix1),whensingle-tierandcountycouncilswerenegotiatingtheirLAAs.ThefollowingchaptersreviewthestrengthsandweaknessesofLSPworking.
1 | Evolving collaboration
Canorganisationsworktogether? | Working better together? | 17
2 Can organisations work together?
29 Jointworkingacrossorganisationsandsectorsisharderifpartnersdonothavetimetobuildrelationshipsordecidehowtoworktogether.MembersofLSPshavedifferentinterestsinpartnershipgoalsanddifferentcontributionstomake.Twoanalyticalapproachescanhelplocalpartnersimprovethewaystheywork:
• LSPscanuseawholesystemsframeworktoassessthebalancebetweenpersonalandorganisationalelementsofpartnershipworking.
• LSPscanreviewthelinksbetweenstrategic(directionsetting),executive(resourcesharing),andoperational(servicedelivering)actions.
30 Thischapterintroducesawholesystemsframeworkandthedifferentlayersofcollaborativeworking.ThefollowingchaptersusethemtoassessLSPprogress.
The public sector 7S framework31 LSPscanusethepublicsector7S
framework(Figure3)toassessstrengthsandweaknessesintheirmethodsfordeliveringSCSandLAAoutcomes.Theframeworkwasoriginallyabusinessstrategytool(Ref.16).Ithasalsobeenusedtoassessadultsocialcarepolicy(Ref.17).
32 The7Sframeworkstressestheinterconnectionsbetweenthedifferentpartsofpartnershipworking.Forexample,itencouragesmemberstoreviewtheconnectionsbetweenstyleofmeetings,themechanismsthatprovideperformanceinformation,andthestandardsthatensuretheycantrustinformation.Forpartnershipstobeeffective,eachelementoftheframeworkmustcontributetotheSCS.
18 | Working better together? | Canorganisationsworktogether?
Figure 3
A framework for assessing local partnership working
Hardandsoftaspectsofcollaborationsupportthehigh-levelgoalsoftheSCS
2 | Can organisations work together?
Sustainable community strategy
SystemsGuiding local
decision making
SynergiesWorking acrossboundaries
StyleWays of working
Staff and SkillsLeadership, cultureand development
SteeringEnabling
StandardsRegulation
Source:AdaptedfromModernising Adult Social Care: What’s Working(Ref.17)
Canorganisationsworktogether? | Working better together? | 19
33 Theframeworkbalancessofteraspectsofjointworking(staffandskills,synergies,andstyle)withharderaspects(steering,standards,andsystems).Table2identifiesandexplainstheseforLSPsandlinksthemtotheissuesdiscussedinChapters3and4.
Table 2
The 7S elements
Effectivepartnershipsmustunderstandallsevenelements
LSP context Examples 7S elementThelong-termobjectivesofanLSP
SCSoutcomesandgoals SCS
Softeraspe
ctsofpartnership
working:transform
ational
LSPleadershipandculture
Abilityandcompetenceofpoliticalandofficerleaders LSPsupportstaffskills
Staffandskills
ManagementandroleofLSPmeetings
AnLSP’sapproachtojointworking
Chair’sleadershipstyle
Meetingarrangements
Relationshipsbetweenindividualpartners
LSPprofileandpromotion
Style
Thebenefitsofjointworking
Informalandformalsocialnetworks
Sharedservicesandefficiencyprojects
Synergies
Harde
raspe
ctsofpartnership
working:transactional
LinksbetweenLSPobjectivesandpartners’activity
Influenceonmainstreamspend
Pooledoralignedfunding
Performanceandfinancesub-groups
Steering
Systemsforunderstandingandinfluencingperformance,resources,andrisks
Levelsofaccountability
Sharedsystems
Performance,riskandfinancialreporting
Systems
Rulesformanagingthepartnershipanditsimpact
Performanceandresourcemanagementmechanisms
Dataqualitystandards
Standards
Source:AuditCommission,2008
20 | Working better together? | Canorganisationsworktogether?
34 TheAuditCommissionreportsGoverning Partnerships(Ref.2)andWorld Class Financial Management(Ref.18)reviewedhowthesesoftandhardfactorsinfluenceeffectiveorganisationalandpartnershipgovernance.
‘The quality of financial governance and leadership within an organisation, the tone from the top, is critical to achieving world class financial management. Clearly, good basic systems, processes and controls are also important, but it is the overall financial culture of the organisation that really makes the difference.’
World Class Financial Management, Page 11
‘Hard characteristics include reliable financial data, performance data and risk assessments, which are generated by robust systems and processes which produce timely and appropriate information for decision makers. The soft factors encompass leadership, which sets the overall objectives, the roles, and responsibilities required to achieve them and cultural attributes like openness, honesty and integrity.’
Governing Partnerships, Paragraph 51
35 Academicstudiesofpartnershipsstresstheimportanceofthebalancebetweenhardandsoft,andthepotentialforanimbalancetounderminejointworking(Ref.21).LSPscanusethe7Sframeworktocomparetheirownapproacheswithothers,andassessthecostsandbenefitsoftheirgovernanceandmanagementarrangements.
Long-term objectives (SCS objectives)36 SCSsshouldprovideasummaryoflong-
termobjectivesthatreflectlocalsocial,environmentalandeconomicambitions(Ref.19).EachSCSshouldhavefourkeyingredients:
• anoutcome-led,long-termvision;
• anactionplanfocusedonimmediateprioritiesandactionsforachievinglong-termoutcomes;
• asharedcommitmentto,andproposalsforfulfilling,theactionplan;and
• arrangementsforcheckingperformance,reviewingtheSCS,andreportingprogresstolocalpeople.
2 | Can organisations work together?
Canorganisationsworktogether? | Working better together? | 21
Case study 1
Narrowing the gap across a county
Warwickshire’slocalpublicserviceboard(LPSB)aimstonarrowthegapbetweenthemostdisadvantagedpeopleandcommunitiesandtherestofthecounty.ItuseddatafromtheWarwickshireObservatorytoidentifygapsatadistrictandwardlevel.I
Gettingpartnerstoagreetoageographicalshiftinresourceallocationwasthebiggestchallenge,butithaspaidoff.
‘You can see the commitment to narrowing the gap in the decisions that have now been made. The LPSB decision to put money into the shared vision…and to focus a disproportionate amount of resource on the north of the county will force greater scrutiny of…the outcomes that have been achieved.’
District council corporate director
£500,000wasredirectedin2008/09.TheLSPinthedistrictwiththehighestlevelsofdeprivationtakestheleadroleacrossthecounty.ItusesthecountyLPSBtoinfluencetheallocationofresourcesandtheWarwickshireObservatorytoprovidedataonprogresstowardsdeliveringoutcomes.
Source:AuditCommission,2008
I TheWarwickshireObservatoryisoneofthedata,researchandintelligenceobservatoriesthathavedevelopedatregionalandlocallevelduringthelastdecadetocollateandinterpretsub-nationalstatistics:http://www.warwickshireobservatory.org/
37 EachSCSshouldreflectlocalissues,buttherearecommonthemes.Morethanhalfofthe17casestudiesreferredtoimprovinghealth(ninesites),developingthelocaleconomy(ninesites),andcommunitysafety(eightsites).Thephysicalenvironment,andlearningandskills(sevensiteseach)werealsocommon.SomeLSPsdevelopedcross-cuttinggoalssuchasnarrowingthegapbetweenthepoorestandwealthiestneighbourhoods(Ref.20,Casestudy1).
22 | Working better together? | Canorganisationsworktogether?
2 | Can organisations work together?
Case study 3
Continuing high-level coordination
Derbyshire’sLSPCoordinators’GroupbringscountyanddistrictLSPrepresentativestogethereverythreemonths.Theydiscussissuesandshareexperience.ThegrouphelpsLSPstoavoidduplicationandmakethebestuseofresources.
Dorset’sStrategicPartnershipBridgingGroupinvolvesthecountyanddistrictLSPchairs,localauthorityrepresentatives,theDorsetTownandParishCouncilAssociation,andthethirdsector.Itmeetsquarterlytomanagethelinkbetweenlocalanddistrictlevelcommunityplanningandthecounty-widestrategy.Itensuresthatcommunityengagementandplanningwithindistrictsandparishesinfluencescounty-wideprioritiesandaction.
Source:AuditCommission,2008
39 GovernmentguidanceonSCSs(Ref.1)andLAAs(Ref.22)stressesanevidence-basedapproachforobjectivesandtargets.Partnersshoulduseknowledgeaboutcurrentissuesandperformance,andresearchaboutfuturechallenges,tohelpmeetLAAtargets,keeptheSCSup-to-date,andunderstandandmanagerisks.I
I SeeChapter4.
38 Multi-tierareasfaceaddedchallengesindevelopingagreedlong-termobjectives.Therearescale(populationandgeographical)factors,aswellasdifferentaccountabilitiesandresponsibilities.CountyanddistrictLSPsmustestablishrelationshipsandthencoordinateactivities(Casestudies2and3).
Case study 2
Agreeing SCS priorities in multi-tier areas
Along-termsharedvisionwithlocalimplementationplans.
ThesixlocalauthoritiesandLSPsinEastSussexworkedtogetherduring2007toproduceanintegratedSCS,Pride of Place,for2008to2026.Thepartnersagreedasharedvisionandworkedonplanstoachieveittogether.Theintegratedstrategysetsthedirectionforfuturejointwork.
Inchildren’sservices:
‘One of the biggest determinants of life chances for children and young people is the ability of family and carers to support them emotionally and practically. The LSP intends to address these challenges by shifting more resources to early identification and prevention.’
Pride of Place, 2007 (Ref. 21)
Source:AuditCommission,2008
Canorganisationsworktogether? | Working better together? | 23
40 RecentnationalpolicydevelopmentsrequireLSPstodeveloptheirevidencebaseintwofurtherways:
• PCTsandlocalauthoritieshavetoproduceajointstrategicneedsassessment(JSNA)ofthehealthandwell-beingoftheirlocalcommunity.TheJSNAmustberefreshedatleasteverythreeyearsandfeedintotheLAA.TheJSNAshouldsupportlonger-termstrategicplanning,commissioning,andtheSCS(Ref.23).
• Theproposedlocalauthorityeconomicassessmentdutywillcommenceduring2010/11(Ref.24).Countyandsingle-tiercouncilswillhavetoassesstheeconomicconditionsoftheirlocalareaswhendevelopingstrategiesandtargets.
41 AstrongevidencebaseshouldsupportthelinksbetweentheSCSandtheLAA(Figure4).Overtwo-thirds(70percent)oftheLAAtargetsagreedin2008wereconsistentwithlocalSCSpriorities.Theremaining30percentwereevidenceofthetensionsbetweenlocallyandnationallydrivenpriorities,andthefailureofnationalgovernmenttorecogniselocalpoliticalandenvironmentalissues (Ref.25).Insomeofthecasestudyareastherewasaconcernthatgovernmenthadpushedtargetsthatwerenotlocalconcerns.
24 | Working better together? | Canorganisationsworktogether?
42 Housingandclimatechangeareissuesonwhichlocalauthoritiesandpartnersfeltapulltowardsnationalpoliciesratherthanlocalissues.Housingwasalocalpriorityinfiveofthe17casestudyareas;butthetwohousingindicatorsappearedin11ofthoseareas’LAAs.ClimatechangewasoriginallyintwoofthecasestudySCSs,but11oftheirLAAshaveaclimatechangeindicator.
2 | Can organisations work together?
Figure 4
Overlaps and tensions between the SCS and the LAA
LAAtargetswerenotalwaysconsistentwithSCSobjectives
Centralgovernmentpriorities
Sustainablecommunitystrategypriorities
Overlap70%
Local area agreementUp to 35 designated targets
Local targets(if included)
Outcome delivery
Pull fromgovernment
Pull fromLSP
Partners’actions
Source:AuditCommission,2008
Canorganisationsworktogether? | Working better together? | 25
43 HousingandclimatechangealsoshowdifferentaspectsoftherelationshipbetweentheSCSandtheLAA,andbetweenlocalandnationalgovernment.Intervieweesincasestudyauthoritiesspokeofpressuretoincludehousingtargets,butacceptedthatnewclimatechangetargetsillustratedhowLAAnegotiationsstimulatedareviewofSCSpriorities.OtherresearchonLAAnegotiationsconfirmsthe‘tensionsbetweenstrikingthebalancebetweenlocallyandnationallydrivenpriorities’insomeareas(Ref.25).
I Chapter4discussestheproblemsthatarisewhenthedifferentsetsofrolesandresponsibilitiesarenotclearlyunderstood.
Layers of governance and management44 Eachofthethreelayersofjointworking
(strategic,executive,andthematic/operational)hasdifferentrolesandresponsibilities(Figure5).PerformancedatafromthecasestudyareassuggeststhatLSPsthatrecognisethethreelayersaremorelikelytodelivershort-termoutcomes.I
26 | Working better together? | Canorganisationsworktogether?
2 | Can organisations work together?
Figure 5
Each governance layer has different roles and responsibilities
AneffectiveLSPrecognisesthedifferentactivitiesandpeopleinvolved
Focus Activity Governance layer
Transformational
Transactional
Vision and directionRepresentationand involvementLeadershipand influencePartnership culturePerformance culture
StrategiccommissioningResource influenceand alignmentPerformance influenceand alignmentChallenge
Commissioning andprocurementPoolingResource management Performance andfinance reporting
Executive
Strategic
Theme /OperationalPartnerships
LSP guidance
Board
Forum
Sub-group
Source:AuditCommission,2008
Canorganisationsworktogether? | Working better together? | 27
Summary45 LSPgoalsshouldreflectlocalpriorities
andbeevidencebased.Anup-to-dateSCSthathasalong-termvisionorstoryofplaceshouldexpressthosepriorities(Ref.1).TheSCSisthenthebasisforagreeingLAAtargetswithcentralgovernment(Ref.12).LSPmembersshouldknowwhattheyarecontributingtolocalprioritiesandhowtheycanworkwitheachothertomaketheircontributionsmoreeffective.PartnersneedtobeawareofthedifferentlayersoftheirengagementwithanLSPanditsobjectives,sotheycancontributeappropriately.
28 | Working better together? | LSPprogress–transformationalfactors
3 LSP progress – transformational factors
46 Thischapterexploresthethreetransformationalelementsofthe7Sframework:
• LSPleadershipandculture(staff);
• managementandroleofmeetings,andanLSP’sapproachtojointworking(style);and
• thebenefitsofjointworking(synergies).
Leadership and culture47 Competentleadershipiscriticaltothe
successofjointworkingarrangements(Ref.26).Councilsshouldprovidethatleadership(Ref.1).
48 CouncilleaderschairmostLSPs.ThishasbecomemorecommonsincetheintroductionofstatutoryLAAs.Theexecutive(cabinet)oftherelevantlocalauthorityformallyagreesthechair’sappointment(Ref.12).
49 Thechoiceofchaircansendpositiveornegativemessagestolocalstakeholders(Table3).LSPsshouldconsiderhowtomitigatenegativemessagesbypromotingthepositivereasonsfortheirchoiceandbybuildingbalancingarrangements(strongoverviewandscrutinybythelocalcouncilforexample)intoaccountabilityarrangements.
LSPprogress–transformationalfactors | Working better together? | 29
Table 3
Choosing a chair
DoesthechoiceofchairsendtherightorwrongmessageaboutLSPstyle?
LSP chair Positive interpretation Negative interpretationCouncilleaderorelectedmayor
Democraticaccountability Councildomination
Othercabinetmember Democraticaccountability Councildomination,butnotimportantenoughfortheleaderormayor
Councilofficer Strongcommitmenttogettingthingsdone
Councildominationbutnotimportantenoughforanelectedrepresentative
Otherpublicsectormanager
Notcouncildominated;generalcommitmentoflocalpublicservices
Publicsectordomination
Privatesector Independentofpartypolitics;businesslike
Lackofpublicaccountability
Faithrepresentative Independentofpartypoliticsconsensusbuilding
Lackofpublicaccountability
Thirdsectorrepresentative
Independentofpartypolitics;concernforlocalpeople
Lackofpublicaccountability
Other Independentandabovepartisanpolitics
Lackofpublicaccountability
Source:AuditCommission,2008
30 | Working better together? | LSPprogress–transformationalfactors
3 | LSP progress – transformational factors
50 Anotherpotentialbalancingmechanismisinthechoiceofmembersandchairsofexecutiveandthemegroups.CouncilsinsomeLSPsshareleadershipbyappointingcabinetmemberstothemegroups,butnotnecessarilytochairthem.Inmostmulti-tierareasthepoliticalleadersofdistrictcouncilsaremembersofthecounty-wideLSPboard.
51 AnimportantmessagetolocalstakeholdersisthatLSPsaredemocraticallyaccountabletolocalpeoplethroughcouncillors’rolesin:
• theLSPandinpartnerorganisations(policeauthorities,regionaldevelopmentagencies,andpassengertransportauthoritiesforexample);
• representingcommunitiesandneighbourhoods;and
• overviewandscrutinyofLSPsandpartners(Ref.12).I
52 Localauthoritychiefexecutivesplayacrucialroleinthestrategicandexecutivelevelsofmanagementandgovernance.Theymustdeveloppartnershipcultureandnegotiatecommitmentfromothers.
53 LSPscannotmakeanimpactacrosstheirobjectiveswithoutpartners’senior-levelcommitmenttojointdecision-makingandaction.Inhalfthecasestudyareasthiscommitmentwasweak.Inonearea,thepolicewereonlyinterestedintheCDRP,andinothersthePCTs’involvementwaspatchy.Incontrast,theDerbyCityPartnershipBoardexpectspersonalcommitmentanddoesnotallowsubstitutesatmeetings(Ref.27).PCTsintwocasestudyareas(HammersmithandFulham,andBolton)emphasisedtheirexpectationthatnewlyrecruitedchiefexecutiveswouldsupporttheirLSPs.
54 Partnershipstaketimetomature.DerbyshireCountyCouncil’scommitmenttoaninclusivepartnershipwasrecognisedinaninspectionreportasearlyas2000.
‘The Authority’s Chief Executive, together with the County’s political leadership, is giving a high priority to developing an inclusive Derbyshire Partnership Forum. The development of an active, inclusive partnership underlines the importance given to effective partnership working by the Council as a means of working across boundaries to produce more effective service delivery.’ Ref. 28, Page 58
I Asetofmodeloverviewandscrutinyquestionsisavailableatwww.audit-commission.gov.uk/lsp
LSPprogress–transformationalfactors | Working better together? | 31
55 Successfullonger-termpartnershipshaveusedanoverarchingvision(nowexpressedastheSCS)tounderpinpartners’commitmenttojointworkingthatdeliversbenefitstolocalpeopleandleadstoaction.BoltonVision(Casestudy4)isoneexample.
Challenge56 Willingnesstochallengeisasignof
personalandorganisationaltrustandofpartnershipmaturity(Ref.4).Itisimportantforeffectivejointworking (Ref.26).
57 TheextentofchallengeinLSPsisunclear.Overhalfofcoordinators(58percent)thinkmemberschallengeeachother’sperformance,butonly44percentofthemembersagree.Therearealsodifferencesbetweentypesofauthority.Coordinatorsincounties,metropolitandistricts,andLondonboroughs(80percent)aremorelikelytosaythereisperformancechallengethanthoseindistrictcouncilsorunitaries(50percent).
58 PerformancechallengeismorelikelyinLSPswherethecountyorsingle-tiercouncilhadastrongCPAcorporatecapacityscore.ITheirpartnerssaytheyaremorelikelytogetinformation,tounderstandit,andfeelconfidentinusingittochallengeperformance.
Case study 4
Vision and impact
Boltonwasoneofthefirstareastosetupabroad,multi-agency,cross-sectorpartnership.TheVisionPartnershipstartedin1995.Thecouncilknewthatitwasunabletosolvecross-cuttingproblemsalone.Itrecognisedthepotentialforapartnership,basedaroundasharedvision,toaccessfundingstreamsandnegotiatewithregional,national,andEuropeanagencies.
Thecouncil,withpartners,usesitsAccessPointsprogrammetocoordinatesharedphysicalassets.TheprogrammeincorporatesthelocalNHSLocalImprovementFinanceTrust,extendedservicespartnerships,neighbourhoodpolicingarrangements,socialcareandneighbourhoodcentres,andthirdsectorinvolvement.
Boltonhas21area-basedextendedservicespartnershipsusingschools,healthcentresandotherbuildingsasaccesspoints.TheBreightmetHealthCentre,forexample,includesanewlibrary,fundedwithaBigLotteryFundgrant,alongsideadultcareservices,mental-healthservices,apharmacyandafullrangeofGPservices.
Source:AuditCommission,2008
I Between2002and2008councilshadregularComprehensivePerformanceAssessments.Thesedrewonperformanceindicators,assessmentsofcorporatecapacity,auditandinspectionreports,andstakeholderopinionstoreachasinglejudgementonperformance.ComprehensiveAreaAssessmentreplacedCPAin2009.
32 | Working better together? | LSPprogress–transformationalfactors
3 | LSP progress – transformational factors
59 Mostcoordinators(72percent)andmostpartnerrepresentatives(62percent)agreetheremustbehonestandchallengingdiscussionsaboutmoney.YetfinancialchallengeonlyoccursinaquarterofLSPs.Therearethreemainbarriers:partnersdonotunderstandeachother’sfinancialplanningprocesses,theydonotunderstandtheavailabledata,ortheydonothavegoodrelationships(Figure6).
Figure 6
Barriers to financial challenge
Immaturerelationshipsandalackoffinancialunderstandingarebarrierstoeffectivechallenge
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Relationships are notsufficiently established
Partners do not understandthe available financial data
Partners do not have a goodunderstanding of each other'sbusiness and financial planning
Stronglydisagree
Disagree AgreeStronglyagree
Neutral
Percentage of respondents
Source:AuditCommissionLSPsurvey,2008
LSPprogress–transformationalfactors | Working better together? | 33
60 JointworkingrequirestrustandsharedcommitmentateverylevelofanLSPandintherelationshipwithgovernmentoffices.
‘There is a language of partnership; there are expected behaviours and lists of things to do. But in my experience a lot of it is often down to key people.’
Council chief executive
‘We have good relationships with the government office which is very important. They need to be a key player and supporter of the LSP and the LAA.’
Council director
‘The relationships are excellent in terms of scrutiny and challenge and they genuinely support each other where there are areas of common ground.’
Government office locality manager
61 Trustandchallengerequirestability;organisationalrestructuresareaparticularproblem.
‘If the Department of Health starts playing around with boundaries again and moving everything around, you can destroy all those partnerships overnight by suddenly merging a load of PCTs and having to re-establish.’
Council finance director
‘Still a concern generated by the existence of the unitary debate. The districts and borough councils have a strong concern that their identity and position is going to be jeopardised in some of these joint working relationships.’
District council corporate director
Overcoming obstacles to collaboration62 Allpartnershipsfaceobstaclesto
jointworking:thatiswhyeffectivepartnershipstaketimetodevelop.Someofthoseobstaclesareareaspecific(Table4).LSPsinmulti-tierareasandthoseareaswithlessexperienceofcollaborationmustworktoidentifyandovercometheseobstacles.
34 | Working better together? | LSPprogress–transformationalfactors
3 | LSP progress – transformational factors
Table 4
The impact of external factors on relationships
External factor ImpactGeography ‘Weareafairlysmallandcompactlocalauthority;it’seasytomake
partnershipswork.’ Councilmanager‘It’sveryconfusingforpeoplewheretheyfitinandhowtheyneedtoberepresentedatlocalandcountylevel.’ DistrictLSPmanager
Numberofpartners ‘Foranypartnership,youhavetolookatrelationships.Oursissmallenoughforittobepersonal.Wegetbusinessdone.Thewholepartnershipisverygood.’ Policechiefsuperintendent‘Wehavetheleadersofeachofthesixdistrictcouncils[ontheboard],andinevitablyonegetsabitofthemulti-tiertensionscarryingovertotheboard.’ Councilchiefexecutive
Coterminous boundaries
‘Thelevelofpartnershipworkingisnoticeablewhenyouwalkintotheplaceandpartofthatisco-terminosity.’ PCTchiefexecutive‘WehavebeenlookingathowweinterlinkwiththethreeLSPsthatweserveand…that’sbecomingincreasinglyimpossible.’ PCTchair
Source:AuditCommission,2008
LSPprogress–transformationalfactors | Working better together? | 35
Meetings and joint working (style)63 ThestyleofanLSPisdemonstrated
through:
• thechair’sapproachtoleadership;
• thephysicalorganisationofstrategicandboardmeetingsandtheissuesdiscussed;
• theapproachtomulti-tierworking;
• relationshipsbetweenthepartners;and
• profileandpromotionoftheLSPanditsactivities.
Figure 7
Partners can work together to create a positive style
PositiveLSPstyle
• Thechairexplainsaclearvisionandencourages:
-networkingbetweenpartners;
-acultureofperformancechallenge;
-trustandpartnershipbehavioursbymembers;and
-asenseofequalityamongpartnershipboardmembers.
• Thelocalauthoritysupportsdiscussionanddebatebutdoesnotdominate.
• BoardmembersarerolemodelsforbehavioursacrosstheLSP.
• Boardmeetingshavestrategicandambitiousdiscussions.
• ThereareclearcommunicationchannelsbetweenLSPmembersandwiththepublic.
• Partnerspromotejointworkingandlocalprofile.
Source:PascaleandAthos(Ref.16)adaptedbyAuditCommission,2008
36 | Working better together? | LSPprogress–transformationalfactors
3 | LSP progress – transformational factors
64 LSPsshouldconsidertherightmeetingstyleforeachofthethreelayers.Strategicforumsinthecasestudyauthoritieshadbetween30and100members.Thismakesthemtoolargefordetailedexecutivedecision-making (Ref.29)butnotfordevelopingthestrategicvision,encouragingjointworking,andreviewingprogress.
65 Thepracticalarrangementsfordifferentmeetingscancommunicateunintentionalmessagesaboutstyleandpartners’inabilitytotakealayeredapproach.InsomecasestudyLSPs:
• thelocalauthorityrepresentativessatataseparate‘toptable’;
• communityrepresentativeswerenotallowedtositatthemaintablealongsideotherLSPmembers;
• localauthorityrepresentativesdominatedthediscussion;or
• themeetingwasorganisedandrunlikeatraditionalcouncilcommitteedespitehavingaprivatesectorchair.
66 TherearealsoLSPswhere:
• privateandvoluntarysectororganisationsproposevicechairs;
• theagendaensuresbalancebetweendifferentstrategicactivities;
• forummeetingsareorganisedasconsultativeconferences;
• astrategicboardlinkstheinclusivecommunityforumandtheperformance-focusedexecutive;and
• thereisfrequentelectronicconsultationwithforummembersaswellasanannualforumevent.
67 InmostcasestudyLSPs,astrategicmeetingofpartnersbalanceddiscussionsaboutlocalambitionwithassessmentsof,andchallengesto,overallperformance.Buttherewereexceptions:inonesite,performancereportsappropriatefortheexecutivelayercrowded-outwiderdiscussion(Casestudy5).
LSPprogress–transformationalfactors | Working better together? | 37
Case Study 5
Excessive performance monitoring squeezes out strategic discussion
OneLSP’sstrategicmeetingstartedwithdetailedperformancemonitoringreportsfromeachofthethemegroups.Oralpresentationofthesereportstookoverthreehoursofafour-hourmeeting.LSPmembersdidnotengagewiththesereports:therewasnodiscussionortimeforchallenge.Membersdidnotofferhelporadvice.Therewasnoassessmentofprogressordiscussionofcurrentissues.Overhalfofthemembersmadenocontributionotherthanattending.
AuditCommission,2008
68 MostLSPcoordinatorsrecognisetheroleofstrategicdiscussionsincreatinganenvironmentforeffectivejointworking.Overhalf(56percent)agreetheirboardsarebecomingstrategic,butjustoveratenth(13percent)thinkthestrategiclevelisbecomingmoreexecutive.
69 Strategicdiscussionsarenotonlyamatteroftakingreportsonperformance.Theyalsoprovideanopportunityforwiderdebatesaboutachievingoutcomesthroughinwardinvestmentandeconomicgrowth(Casestudy6).
Case Study 6
Derby’s Partnership Board
TheDerbyCityPartnershipBoard(alinkbetweenthestrategicforumandtheexecutivegroup)commissionedahotelandtourismstudyfollowingdiscussionsoftheDerby Cityscape Masterplan.ItsdiscussionaboutinvestmentandtransportledtothemembersaskingtrainoperatorsandNetworkRailtoimprovetimesandfrequenciesofservicestoDerbytomeetprojecteddemand.Membersalsoagreedtoworkwithprivatesectordeveloperstoimprovethevisualimpactofsitesawaitingdevelopment.
Theboard,whichincludescommunityandprivatesectormembers,alsodiscussedtheEuropeanRegionalDevelopmentFundoperationalprogrammeandtheCityGrowththemegroup’sinvestmentprioritiesforDerby.
Source:AuditCommission,2008
38 | Working better together? | LSPprogress–transformationalfactors
3 | LSP progress – transformational factors
70 Over-emphasisonthedetailofpublicsectorperformanceandLAAactivityinstrategicboardmeetingscandeterprivateandvoluntarysectorpartners;goodwillcanquicklyevaporate.
‘The CEO of the local bus company was an enthusiastic contributor to early partnership meetings. He made things happen: bus routes were reorganised to encourage different communities to mix with each other. But he stopped coming to meetings, he said he had better things to do than listen to other people’s performance reports.’
Government office official
71 Multi-tierLSPsfaceaddedchallenges.Theyhavetodevelopastylethat:
• recognisesthedistinctiverolesofdistrictLSPs;
• overcomesaviewoflocalauthoritydominationwheneachdistrictcouncilhasaplaceonthecountyLSPand;
• dealswithpartners’confusionabouttherelationshipbetweencountyanddistrictLSPs.
72 ManyLSPcoordinators(56percent)andpartners(57percent)considerthatcountyanddistrictLSPsdonotcollaborateeffectively.Nearlyhalfofdistrictcouncilrepresentatives(42percent)andoverhalfofpartners(55percent)agreethatcountycouncilsdominateLSPsandignoredistricts’views.
LSPprogress–transformationalfactors | Working better together? | 39
Figure 8
Promoting joint working and local profile
DerbyLSPpromotestheimageofthecityexternallyandworkswithinthecitytoengagelocalpeople.
‘We are trying to get information out and that’s why Derby City Partnership Week is helpful. We are trying to get into schools and talk about what we are – and what the city’s about really – and how they can contribute to it.’
Political leader
BoltonVisionhasinvestedinabrand‘TheBoltonFamily’todevelopasharedcultureandunderstanding.Partnersusethebrandontheirproducts.
‘When we put out consultation documents, we put the Bolton brand on. When we put out our public health report, the Bolton brand goes on it.’
PCT chief executive
ThebrandrecognisedcommitmenttoBolton.
‘There was research done about Bolton, where we are going, and this is how we have ended up with the branding. We have got people signed up to it, being part of the whole Bolton family.’
Council partnerships lead
Source:AuditCommission,2008
40 | Working better together? | LSPprogress–transformationalfactors
73 SomeLSPshavedevelopedadistinctbrand,oridentity,toreinforceandmakeapublicstatementaboutlocaljointworking(Figure8).Asenseofplaceandthedegreeofidentitydisplayedbypartnerscanbeafactorinpartnershipsuccess.
‘The high level ambitions of the Bolton Vision partnership are very clearly defined and understood and act as the key drivers for the ambitions and plans of key partners. The strategy conveys a strong sense of place, local strengths, and inclusiveness.’
Audit Commission (Ref. 30)
74 NinecasestudyLSPshadwebsites.Butnoneofthem(byDecember2008)hadevaluatedwhethertheresourcesspentoncommunicationsandbrandingsupportedasenseofplaceorcreatedfurtherconfusionaboutlocalpublicservices(Ref.31).
75 LSPsshouldreviewtheextenttowhichthestyleofmeetingsandotherarrangementssupportorhinderjointworking.Theyshouldalsobeclearabouttheextenttowhichmoneyspentonpartnershipbrandingandwebsitesaddsvalue.
The benefits of joint working (synergy)76 Partnershipscreatesynergies:theLSP’s
contributiontolocaloutcomesshouldbe greater than members’ separate activity.Manysynergiesaresoftbecausethey rely on the intangible elements ofpartnershipworking(Ref.32).Theydevelopfromthetrustthatcomesfromcommitmenttocommongoalsandmutualrespect(Figure9).
3 | LSP progress – transformational factors
LSPprogress–transformationalfactors | Working better together? | 41
Figure 9
Building on trust
‘The success of our partnership is because we have very much concentrated on the things that we can do together and where we can add value together. If you concentrate on the things that you agree on, those things that you don’t agree on become solvable because you create a feeling of trust.’
Council chief executive
‘It’s not always about funding and resources; it’s about working better together. As we’ve got areas of common interest if we can just coordinate our services better and share information better, then we can improve things for people locally.’
Borough fire commander
Source:AuditCommission,2008
77 Synergycannotbetakenforgranted.LSPscanusesocialnetworkanalysis(SNA),deliverychainanalysis(DCA),andothertechniques,totestwhetherthepartnershipisrealisingitspotential.
‘We look how different partners and theme groups can contribute to each other’s results. That is going to be much more robust as we move into this new statutory LAA.’
LSP director
Social network analysis78 SNAhelpsLSPstounderstandand
strengthenthelinksbetweenpartners.Itprovidespartnerswithamapthatcanhelpthemidentifyweaklinks,supportkeygatekeepers,andidentifygaps.SNAenablespartnerstoseehowwelltheirorganisationsworkwithoneanotheratdifferentlevelsandacrossdifferentthemes.
79 TwocasestudyLSPsranSNAexercisesin2008:
• anewlydevelopedhealthandwell-beingpartnershipinDerbyshire(Casestudy7),and
• amorematurecommunitysafetypartnershipinBolton(Casestudy8).
42 | Working better together? | LSPprogress–transformationalfactors
Case study 7
Derbyshire health and well-being partnership
TheDerbyshireSNAfocusedonanoperationalpartnershiptohelppeoplewithdisabilitiesgetemployment.
Acrossthecounty(andtheunitaryDerbyCityCouncil)thereare111potentialpartners.TheanalysisrevealedweaknessesintheconnectionsbetweenJobcentrePlusandthecityPCT,andbetweenthecountycouncilandthecountyPCT.SNAalsoidentifiedthepotentialisolationfromdecision-makingmechanismsoftheLearningandSkillsCouncil,andlocalfurtherandhighereducationinstitutions.
TheLSPusedtheanalysistostrengthenthepartnershipandimproveservicesacrossthecounty.ItnowusesSNAtotestpartnershipworkingarrangementsatalllevels.
Source:AuditCommission,2008
3 | LSP progress – transformational factors
Case study 8
Bolton community safety partnership
TheBoltonSNAfocusedonlinksbetweenthecommunitysafetypartnershipandtheanti-socialbehaviournetwork.
TheSNAidentified210peopleinvolvedinamature,well-ledpartnership.Therewassignificantnetworkingbetweenthepartners.
However,thereweresomekeygatekeeperswhocontrolledaccesstomemberorganisationsandwhokeptthepartnershiprelevantandresponsivetolocalneeds.Iftheyweretoleavetherewouldberealdamagetothepartnership.
Thenetworkusedtheanalysistodevelopsupportforthesegatekeepersandfuture-proofitselfagainstchanges.
Source:AuditCommission,2008
Delivery chain analysis80 DCAreviewsandimprovesthe
processesthatlinkstrategicobjectivestooperationalaction(Casestudy9).
‘A delivery chain refers to the complex networks of organisations, including central and local government, agencies, and bodies from the private and third sectors, that need to work together to achieve or deliver an improved public sector outcome.’
National Audit Office and Audit Commission (Ref. 33)
LSPprogress–transformationalfactors | Working better together? | 43
81 SixofthecasestudyareasorganisedDCAworkshops.EachworkshopexaminedthedeliverychainsforasingleLAAoutcome.Eachinvolved12-15partnersfromoperationalandstrategicbackgrounds.Theworkshopsuse12deliverychainquestions(Table5).
Table 5
Delivery chain questions
Istheoutcomeclearlydefined?Istheevidencebaserobust?Isthereenoughcapacity,includingavailableresources,todeliver?Isthereashared(crossagency)operationalplandescribinghowservices/interventions willbeprovided?Aretheobjectivessupportedbyafundingstrategy?Dothedifferentagenciescommunicateregularly,usingreliableinformation,andatthe rightlevels?Areleversandincentivesfitforpurpose?Aretheriskstothedeliverychainwellmanaged?Doperformancemanagementsystemsenabletrackingofdelivery?Istherestrongleadership,accountablethroughcleargovernancestructures,atalllevels ofthedeliverychain?Aremechanismsinplaceforregularfeedbackandreviewsupportingcontinuouslearning?Havesystemstoachieveefficiencybeenbuiltintothedeliverychain?
Source:NationalAuditOfficeandAuditCommission,2006(Ref.33)
44 | Working better together? | LSPprogress–transformationalfactors
82 Participants,whohadnotpreviouslymetinadeliberativeforum,completedself-assessmentsandthensharedtheirconclusions.Theythenagreedonhowtoremoveobstaclestoeffectivejointworkinganddevelopedanactionplantotacklepriorities.
3 | LSP progress – transformational factors
Case study 9
DCA helps LAA planning
InDorset,theLSP’scross-sectorAffordableHousingTaskGroupusedaDCAworkshoptodevelopandagreeanactionplantoimprovetheeffectiveuseoflocallandforaffordablehousing.
Theagreedactionplan,whichpartnersstartedtodelivershortlyaftertheworkshop,included:
• aresourceandcapacityaudit;
• acampaigntoencouragepublicandprivatelandownerstosupporttheaffordablehousingtarget;
• alanddisposalprotocolforLSPmembers;
• afeasibilitystudyforasharedlanddatabase;
• anapprovedlistofleversandincentives;
• consultationwiththelargerprivateandpublicsectorlandownersnotinvolvedintheLSP;and
• appraisalsofhousingandpropertystafftoassesstheircontributionstoLAAoutcomes.
TheDorsetLSPnowusesDCAworkshopstoimproveoutcomesforitsotherLAAtargets.
TheLSPinGatesheadusedDCAtodevelopachildhoodobesityactionplanthatincluded:
• strongercommunityinvolvement;
• healthylivingcoursesforyoungpeopleandtheirparents;
• stafftrainingforfamilyliaisonpartners;
• improvedinformationsharingbetweenpartners;
• mappingandevaluatingexistingactions;and
• buildinganevidencebasetofocusinvestmentonchildhoodobesitywork.
GatesheadLSPwillusedeliverychainworkshopstoreviewallitsLAAobjectives.
Source:AuditCommission,2008
83 Thedeliverychainworkshopsbroughtpartnerstogether,someforthefirsttime,toidentifyimprovementpriorities.Participantsrecognisedthattheseworkshopsprovidedtherightenvironmentfordevelopingnewideasandchallengingreceivedwisdom.Adviceonrunningdeliverychainworkshopsisavailableatwww.improvementnetwork.gov.uk/lsp
LSPprogress–transformationalfactors | Working better together? | 45
Efficiency and service improvement84 SomeLSPsaredevelopingmutual
orsharedserviceapproachestosupportmembers’ambitionstoachieveefficiencies(Ref.34).LeicestershireLSPmembershaveagreedthatcashreleasingefficiencygainswillbeanLAAtarget.TheDerbyshirePartnershipisachievingsynergiesthroughitsaccesstoservicesprogramme(Casestudy10).
Case study 10
Derbyshire Partnership access to services programme
TheDerbyshirePartnershipprogrammeincludes:
• asharedcallcentreforcouncilandotherpublicservices;
• linkedweb-sitestoincreasetherangeanddepthofservicesavailableonline;
• face-to-faceserviceaccesspointsindistrictcounciloffices,libraries,andotherconvenientlocations;
• jointservicecentresthatcombineserviceaccesspointswithfrontlineservices;
• Smartphones,tabletcomputers,orPDAsformobileworkersfrompartnerorganisations;
• jointpublicitycampaignsaboutavailableservicesandaccessroutes;and
• asharedcustomerservicestrainingprogrammetoensureahigh,commonstandardofresponse.
Source:AuditCommission,2008
46 | Working better together? | LSPprogress–transformationalfactors
85 LSPscan:
• actasthecatalysttoencouragepartnerstoco-locatefrontlineandbackofficeactivities(Casestudy10);
• encouragepartnerstodevelopinformationsystemstosupportdecision-makingacrossaservicenetwork(Ref.35)(Casestudy11);and
• helppartnersmanageresourcestosecureperformanceimprovement(Casestudy12).
3 | LSP progress – transformational factors
Case study 11
Synergies through shared performance mechanisms
Gateshead’sLSPsupportedthecouncil’sprocurementofanewperformancemanagementsystemanditsroll-outacrossstatutorypartners.Informationfromthenewsystemhelpsthepartnershiptofocusonlearningandimprovementplanning.Italsocontributestotheprogrammeofjointbestvaluereviewsofcross-cuttingissuesincludinghealthandequalities,andneighbourhoodservices.
Source:AuditCommission,2008
Case study 12
Derbyshire Partnership combined resources to reduce anti-social behaviour
TheBigDerbyshireCleanUpemergedfromconsultationwithCitizens’Panelrepresentativesaboutanti-socialbehaviour.ItisnowpartofDerbyshire’sSaferNeighbourhoodsprojecttoimprovetheenvironment,reducethefearofcrime,andboostcommunityspirit.
The£747,000budgetincludes£247,000fromLPSA2pump-priming,£100,000eachfromDerbyshireCountyCouncilandDerbyshireConstabulary,and£300,000fromtheDerbyandDerbyshireEconomicPartnership.
TheCountyCouncil’scommunitysafetyunitworkswithdedicatedteamsofpolice,districtcouncil,communitysafetypartnershipstaffandcommunitygroupstosupportresidentinvolvement.
TheBigDerbyshireCleanUpcontributedtoa35percentreductionintheperceivedlevelsofanti-socialbehaviourinDerbyshirebetween2006and2008.
Source:AuditCommission,2008
LSPprogress–transformationalfactors | Working better together? | 47
Summary86 Thethreetransformationalelementsof
the7Sframeworkarestaffandskills,style,andsynergy.TheyprovidedifferentperspectivesonthewaysinwhichLSPpartnerscancollaboratetoimprovelocalservicesanddeliveroutcomes.Theyalsohelptoidentifytheimportanceofchallengeandtrustinovercomingobstaclestojointworking.
87 Thenextchapterreviewsthetransactionalelementsoftheframework.
48 | Working better together? | LSPprogress–transactionalfactors
4 LSP progress – transactional factors
88 Thischapterappliesthethreetransactionalelementsofthe7SframeworktoLSPs:
• managingthepartnership(steering);
• accountabilityandinformation(systems);and
• commonframeworks(standards).
89 LSPsworkattheboundariesoftheirmembers’managementandgovernancearrangements.Theyareunincorporatedassociationswithoutemployeesorresourcesoftheirown.Theyneedtoinfluencepartners’behaviouriftheyaretodelivertheoutcomesagreedintheSCSandthetargetsintheLAA.
Managing the partnership (steering) 90 Steeringmechanismsinfluencepartners’
allocationofresourcesforachievingobjectives.ThesemechanismshavedevelopedunevenlyacrossLSPs.TheLAAfocusonperformancehasencouragedexecutive-levelperformancesub-groupstocoordinatepartners’activity.Financesub-groups,tomonitorfinancialinformationandinfluenceresourceallocation,however,arelesscommon(Figure10).
LSPprogress–transactionalfactors | Working better together? | 49
Figure 10
LSPs are more likely to steer performance than resources
ButmanyLSPsaredoingneither
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Countycouncils
Performance sub-group
Districtcouncils
Londonboroughs
Metropolitandistricts
Unitaryauthorities
Finance sub-group
Perce
ntag
e resp
ond
ent with
a perform
ance
or fin
ance
sub
-group
Source:AuditCommission,2008,survey
50 | Working better together? | LSPprogress–transactionalfactors
91 LSPswithoutperformanceorfinancesub-groupsshouldreviewwhethertheyhaveeffectivearrangementstosteerperformanceandallocateresourcesacrossthepartnership.Financegroupscandeveloprulestocovertheuseofareabasedgrant(ABG)andperformancerewardgrant(PRG)(Casestudy13).
Case study 13
LSP finance sub-groups should add value
Leicestershire’sLSPfinancesub-group’sstrategyhasfivecoreprinciples:
• cooperationinaligning,pooling,andefficientuseofresources;
• cooperationinensuringthatpublicservicesaredeliveredinthemostcost-effectiveway(Leicestershire’sLAAincludesanefficiencytarget);
• poolingoraligningareabasedspending(ABGandPRG);
• planningservicedecommissioningwithreasonableleadtimes;and
• cooperationinmedium-termfinancialplanning.
Source:AuditCommission,2008
4 | LSP progress –transactional factors
Influencing mainstream resources92 OneofthebiggestchallengesforLSPs
ishowtheyinfluenceandsteertheuseofpartners’mainstreamresources.LSPsaremostlikelytoinfluenceABG,andPRG.Butthisisasmallpart(lessthan2percentinFigure11)ofmainstreampublicservicerevenuespending.I
I Themapdoesnotincludedirectspendingbygovernmentdepartments(MinistryofDefence,DepartmentoftheEnvironment,Farming,andRuralAffairs),byothernationalagencies(HighwaysAgency,NetworkRail)orpublicsectorcapitalspending.
LSPprogress–transactionalfactors | Working better together? | 51
Figure 11
Mapping area resources
Partnershipresourcesinonecountyareafractionofmainstreamspending
‘Partnership’ resources Mainstream spend
ABG in 2008/09:£22m + £11m Supporting Peoplefrom 2009/10
Of which:£5.7m allocated to PSBto deliver LAA and £1.9m tonarrow the gap (rest committed)
PRG:£10m estimated
Of which:£5m payable in 2009/10
Total:£1.57bn
+ other public resources+ capital budgets+ influence over private money
County council:£672m
PCT:£653m
Districts and boroughs:£170m
Police:£77m
M42
M42
M69
Polesworth
Atherstone
Coleshill
Bedworth
Rugby
Dunchurch
Southam
Leamington Spa
Kenilworth
WarwickHenley
Alcester
Bidford-on-Avon
Stratford-upon-Avon
Stratford-upon-Avon
Warwick
Shipstonon Stour
Wellesbourne
NorthWarwickshire
Nuneaton andBedworth
Rugby
Coventry
Kinston
M40
M40
M6
M6
Nuneaton
Source:WarwickshireCountyCouncil
52 | Working better together? | LSPprogress–transactionalfactors
93 LSPsneedtodevelopmechanismsforinfluencingandsteeringmainstreamresources.Fewerthanhalfthecoordinators,andjustoverathirdofpartners,agreethatLSPsexertaninfluenceonfinancialresources(Figure12).
4 | LSP progress –transactional factors
Figure 12
LSPs do not significantly influence financial resources
PartnersarelessconvincedthanLSPcoordinators
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
LSP partners
LSP coordinators
LSPs influence partners'allocation of financial resources
Stronglydisagree
Disagree AgreeStronglyagree
Neutral
Percentage of respondents
Source:AuditCommission,2008
LSPprogress–transactionalfactors | Working better together? | 53
94 Thestartingpointforsteeringisknowledgeabouttheresourcesavailable.Only14percentofthesingle-tierandcountyLSPshavemappedresourcesintheirareas.Butresourcemappingmustbeproportionalandcost-effective(Figure13).OnecasestudyLSPabandoneditsfirstmappingexercise,asitwastooambitious:anotherdecidednottorepeattheexercise.
Figure 13
LSPs working to understand and coordinate resources
Oldham’sLSPusedtheLAAdryruntohelppartnersmapmainstreamfunding,Europeanfunding,LAAgrant,andothermoneyandidentifyopportunitiesforsupportingLSPstrategicpriorities.Partnersidentified£45millionoverthreeyearstofocusonthedeliveryofLAAtargets.Derby’sLSPreviewedinformationonpartnerspendandotheractivitythatcouldcontributetoachievingLAAtargets.ThereviewhelpedwithLAAnegotiation.ItprovidedanoutlineofDerby’slocalpublicservicebudgetandenabledmoreeffectivefinancialplanning.
Source:AuditCommission,2008
54 | Working better together? | LSPprogress–transactionalfactors
95 Section6oftheSustainableCommunitiesAct2007requirestheSecretaryofStatetomakearrangementsfortheproductionoflocalspendingreports.Thesereportsshouldhelpcouncilsandtheirpartnerstounderstandlocalpublicservicespendingintheirarea(Ref.36).LocalspendingreportsshouldhelpLSPstomapthemainstreamresourcestheycouldinfluence.
Area based grant 96 TheWhitePaper,Strong and Prosperous
CommunitiesdescribedABGasanenabler:allowingcouncilstofocusresourcesonlocalpriorities(Ref.35).Itbringspreviouslyring-fencedgrantsintoasinglepotforeachcouncil.IABGisallocatedonathree-yearbasis(Ref.37)andcanbecarriedacrossfinancialyears(Ref.38).ThetotalamountofABGfor2008to2011is£4billion.
97 ABGisnotnewmoney.Itisalocalauthoritygrantandthecouncilcabinetmustapprovespending.CouncilsdecidewhethertoallowtheLSPtoinfluencehowall,orpartof,ABGisspent.Thismayleadtosomepartners’disappointment.
4 | LSP progress –transactional factors
‘There is the area based grant. But council colleagues will tell us that most of that is actually already committed to keep existing services going. So there isn’t really…any sort of flexibility on how the LSP can particularly influence that.’
Director, third sector
98 MaturepartnershipsaremorelikelytoagreetoshareABG.TheOldhamPartnershipshares£15millionofABGacrossfivethemesinlinewithlocallyagreedpriorities.
Influencing performance99 LSPpartnershavedifferentviewsabout
theroleofperformancesteering.OverhalfofLSPsdiscussperformanceagainstlocallyagreedoutcomes,butonlyaquartermanageperformance(Figure14).
I AfulllistofthegrantsincorporatedintoABGisathttp://www.communities.gov.uk/localgovernment/localgovernmentfinance/areabasedgrant/
LSPprogress–transactionalfactors | Working better together? | 55
Figure 14
Most LSPs discuss performance: a minority are managing performance
Asignificantminoritydonotevendiscussperformance
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
LSPs manage performanceagainst local outcomes
LSPs discuss performanceagainst local outcomes
LSP partners
Stronglydisagree
Disagree AgreeStronglyagree
Neutral
Percentage of respondents
Source:AuditCommission,2008
100IfLSPsareto‘reviewandperformancemanage progress against the priorities andtargetsagreedintheLAAandensuredeliveryarrangementsareinplace’(Ref.11),theywillalsoneedtochallengeperformance.While75percentofpartnersagreethatanLSPshouldchallengetheirperformanceagainstlocallyagreedoutcomes,only41percentsaytheirLSPdoes.
56 | Working better together? | LSPprogress–transactionalfactors
Commissioning101Theopportunityforjointcommissioning
isoneofthesynergiesthatshouldarisefromlocaljointworking.WhilemanyLSPshavedevelopedservicecommissioningplans,therearesignificantgaps(Figure15).MetropolitandistrictandLondonboroughLSPshavemostexperienceofjointcommissioning.
4 | LSP progress –transactional factors
Figure 15
LSP commissioning experience
CountyanddistrictLSPshavelessexperienceofcommissioningthroughanLSP
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Londonboroughs
Metropolitandistricts
County councils
Council types
Per
cent
age
of
resp
ond
ents
wit
h co
mm
issi
oni
ng e
xper
ienc
e
Districtauthorities
Source:AuditCommission,2008
LSPprogress–transactionalfactors | Working better together? | 57
102Statutorypartnersinvolvedinestablishedthemegroups(childrenandyoungpeople,communitysafety,health,supportingpeople),arelikelytohaveexperienceoftwo-wayorthree-wayjointcommissioningarrangements.I
‘The community safety group has a budget of about £0.5 million of LAA pooled funding and it operates a commissioning framework.’
Council manager
‘The ones that have had funding for longer through the LAA have set up commissioning approaches [and] recruited staff. That’s been the Children and Young People’s Partnership, and the Safer and Stronger Communities Group.’
LSP manager
103Involvementincommissioningshouldreflectthelayersofpartnershipgovernance.Thestrategiclayersetsoveralldirectionandreviewsoverallprogress.Attheexecutiveandoperationallayers,thereareopportunitiestoinfluencedetailedcommissioningdecisionsbyothers.Accountability,however,remainswiththecouncilandthepartnersinvolved:
‘All target-setting, and consequent financial, commissioning, or contractual commitments proposed by LSPs, must be formalised through the relevant local authority, or through one of the other LSP partners (for example, if policing, or health resources are involved).’
Ref. 11, Page 15
I TheAuditCommissionwillpublishastudyonhealthandsocialcarecommissioningin2009.
58 | Working better together? | LSPprogress–transactionalfactors
Decommissioning104Decommissioningasapartnership
activityfirstappearedinsupportingpeopleguidance(Ref.39).Decommissioningisthedecisiontostoporcutbackonservices.LSPs’roleininfluencingdecommissioningisimportantinensuringthat:
• partnerstakeaccountofLAAtargetsandSCSobjectivesbeforedecommissioningservices(Table6);
• onepartner’sdecisionsdonotundermine,orplaceextraburdenson,otherpartners;and
• thereisenoughlead-intimetoenablepartnersandserviceuserstoprepare.
4 | LSP progress –transactional factors
Table 6
Six decommissioning questions
Do we need to do this? Theactivitycanbeafrontlineserviceoraninternaladministrativeorsupportactivity.Theevidenceofneedmustbeclear.
Does the activity support our objectives?
AnyactivitythatdoesnotsupportcurrentLAAororganisationalobjectivesshouldbeacandidatefordecommissioning.
Do we need to do the activity this way?
Theremightbeamoreefficient,cash-releasing,waytodoit.
Do we need to do this amount of activity?
Reviewthevolumeofactivitytoidentifywasteorunsuitableuseofpublicfunds.
What is the likely impact on partners?
Willotherlocalpublicbodieshavetoincreasespendingasaresult? HowcantheLSPmitigateriskstootherpartnersandtoserviceusers?
Is there an alternative? Thesame,orequivalent,servicecouldbeavailablefromotherproviders.Ifdecommissioningisaresponsetopoorperformancethereshouldbeenoughtimetocommissionalternatives.
Source:AuditCommission,2008
LSPprogress–transactionalfactors | Working better together? | 59
105DecommissioningcanalsobeapproachedfromthebroadperspectiveofimproveduseofABG(Casestudy14)orfromafocusedperspectiveonLAAorSCStargets(Casestudy15).
Case study 14
Using ABG to support SCS outcomes in Bolton
Bolton’sLSPreviewedtheABGallocation.Thereviewexamined:
• thenatureofthespendingforeachoftheformergrants;
• theuseofABGresources;
• whetherthefundinghelpstodeliverstatutoryrequirements;
• howthefundingstreamscontributetoSCSdelivery;
• thepotentialforefficiency;and
• scopetousefundingmoreflexiblyinthefuture.
ThereisnowachallengeandappraisalforABG.ThisprioritisestheprojectsthatclearlycontributetotheLAAanddecommissionsthosethatdonot.Breakclausesincontractsenabledecommissioningifoutsourcedservicesfailtocontributetooutcomes.
Source:AuditCommission,2008
Case study 15
Decommissioning in Portsmouth
PortsmouthCityCouncilanditspartnersreviewedservicesforexcludedgroups.Thiscoveredhomelesspeople,ex-offenders,peoplewithsubstancemisuseproblems,youngpeople(16-25),teenageparents,survivorsofdomesticviolence,refugees,travellers,andpeoplewithmentalhealthproblemsorlearningdisabilitiesnoteligibleforstatutoryservices.
Thereviewlookedatdecommissioningandserviceremodelling.Theresultwasthat:
• thirty-threeservicesremainedunchanged;
• fiveservicesweremademoreresponsiveandeffective;
• sixteenservicesweredecommissionedbecauseoflowprioritisation,lowdemand,orservicerationalisation;and
• fournewserviceswerecommissionedtofillgapsinprovision.
Thereviewproducedasavingof£0.9million.
Source:AuditCommission,2008
60 | Working better together? | LSPprogress–transactionalfactors
Accountability and information (systems)106LSPsneedthesupportofdifferent
systemsthatmaintaintheiraccountabilityandensuredecisionsaresupportedbydata.ThemostimportantLSPsystemscover:
• accountability;
• performanceandfinanceinformation;
• reporting;and
• planning.
ThesesystemsworkthroughthedifferentLSPlayers.
4 | LSP progress –transactional factors
Accountability107Accountabilityhasthreeelements:giving
anaccount,beingheldtoaccount,andcomplaintsandredress(Table7).
LSPprogress–transactionalfactors | Working better together? | 61
Table 7
Levels and types of accountability
LSPsandtheirpartnerscanrespondtoaccountabilitychallenges
Challenge Strategic Executive OperationalGivinganaccount
Reportonactivities,successesandfailurestothe partner organisations andtothepublic.
•Reporttotheexecutiveonhowpartnersusetheir resourcestomeetLSPgoals. •Councilsgiveanaccounttocentralgovernmentfor LAAperformance. •Councilsandotherpartnersalsogiveaccountsto thepublic,regulators,andgovernmentforavariety ofmeasures.
Beingheldtoaccount
Respondtooverviewandscrutiny.
Challengebetweenpartners.
•Accountforday-to-dayperformancethroughthe partnerorganisations’managementstructures. •Respondtooverviewandscrutinyandpartnership challenge. •Respondtoauditors,inspectors,andother stakeholders.
Complaints andredress
Reviewcomplaintsandredressinformation.
•Usecomplaintsandredressdatatomanageperformanceandreporttostrategiclayer.
•Ensurethatcomplaints aredealtwithand suitableredressoffered. •Usedatatoimprove services.
Source:AuditCommission,2008
62 | Working better together? | LSPprogress–transactionalfactors
108Statutorypartnersareaccountabletodifferentgovernmentdepartments.Thepolicereporttheirperformancethroughassessmentsofpolicingandcommunitysafety(APACS)(Ref.40),andhealthpartnersreportthroughVitalSigns(Ref.41).TheseaccountabilitiessitoutsidetheLAAframework.Partnerscanseethemasobstaclestocloserintegrationofperformancesystems:
‘We have tried to get involved, but I think the police have three main targets, we have 139, and accountability for us to the Department of Health is more complicated.’
PCT chief executive
‘It’s harder for me to be in partnership with the PCT because they’re always driven by a slightly different agenda.’
Council chief executive
‘Some partners are happy with the LAA, but sometimes people find there is a tug between their own government department and what CLG hopes to get out of partnerships.’
LSP director
‘Certain government departments are finding it very difficult to let go of control.’
Government office locality manager
109OverviewandscrutinyenablescouncilstoholdLSPstoaccountforlocalactionandlocalpublicspending.TheLGPIHAct2007andthePoliceandJusticeAct2006givecouncilspowertoscrutinisetheactivitiesofLAAnamedpartners(Ref.11).
110OverviewandscrutinyofanLSPcan:
• focusonone-offactivitiesorevents;
• reviewsystemsandrisks;
• assessperformanceindifferentthemes;and
• reviewperformancedatafromLSPsandpartners.
111 CouncilsneedtobeclearabouttheirobjectivesforoverviewandscrutinyoftheirLSP.Someareashavedevelopedscrutinyprocessesthatreinforcethedemocraticoversightofthedifferentlayersofcollaborativeworking(Casestudy16).Overviewandscrutinycanalsoovercomesomeofthechallengesofmulti-tierworking(Casestudy17).TheCityPartnershipinDerbyhasjointlytrainedpartnerrepresentativesandscrutinymemberssotheycanimproveLSPperformanceandriskmanagement.
4 | LSP progress –transactional factors
LSPprogress–transactionalfactors | Working better together? | 63
Case study 16
Oldham’s scrutiny of partnerships
CouncillorsinOldhamreviewedtheiroverviewandscrutinyarrangementsin2006.TheyagreedthatpreviousarrangementswereinwardlookingandhadnolinkstotheLSP.
In2007Oldhamestablishedthreeelectedmemberscrutinybodies(ScrutinyManagementBoard,PerformanceandValueforMoneySelectCommittee,andaProjectBoard).TheScrutinyManagementBoarddecidesontheissuestocoveranditsremitincludestheLAAandtheOldham
Partnership(theLSP).ThechairoftheOldhamPartnershipisamemberoftheScrutinyManagementBoard.
The2007/08workprogrammeincludedascrutinyreviewoftheimpactofvacantandderelictlandonneighbourhoods.Itrecommendedalandbankofvacantandderelictlandandbuildings;andthetransferofcouncil-ownedsitestosocialorcommunityuse.
Thenewstructurecostsabout£42,000ayeartorun–thesameasthepreviousarrangements.Localstakeholdersthinkitisfarmoreeffective.
Source:AuditCommission,2008
Case study 17
A county approach to partnership scrutiny
InDorsetthechairsandvicechairsofthescrutinycommitteesofthecountycouncilandthesixdistrictcouncilsmeetasaninformalnetworkinggroup.In2006thegroupjointlyscrutinisedtheDorsetStrategicPartnership(DSP).Thecountycouncil’sAuditandScrutinyCommitteeledthescrutiny:allsixdistrictcouncilsparticipated.Thegroupmetmonthlytoscrutinisethe:
• supportanddevelopmentoftheDSP;
• performancemanagementarrangementsoftheDSPandtheLAA;
• communitystrategyimplementation;
• DSPgovernanceanduseofresources;and
• thefutureroleofscrutinytomonitoranddevelopthepartnership.
Thereviewrecommended:
• aDSPcommunicationsstrategytoraiseitsprofileandachievements(includingregularinformationtoallelectedmembersinthecounty);
• trainingforDSPboardmemberstoincreasetheirunderstandingofresources;
• aperformanceframeworkforthethematicpartnerships;and
• aprogrammeofreviewsofeachdistrictLSPanditscommunityplanningcapacity.
TheLSPandpartnersacceptedtherecommendations.TheLSPhasacommunicationsstrategyandaperformanceframework.
Source:AuditCommission,2008
64 | Working better together? | LSPprogress–transactionalfactors
Performance information112 Thenationalindicatorsforlocal
authoritiesandtheirpartners(Ref.42)andinternalperformancereportingsystemsarearichsourceofinformationforassessingpartners’contributionsandforgivingaperformanceaccounttolocalandnationalstakeholders.TheAuditCommissionstudyIn the Know (Ref.43)recommendsthattheCOUNT(countonceusenumeroustimes)principlecanreduceduplicationindatacollection.Failuretocoordinatedoesnotjustleadtoduplication:overhalf(55percent)ofLSPcoordinatorsforsingle-tierorcountycouncilsareconcernedthatmisalignmentofperformancereportingsystemswillreduceoverallLSPeffectivenessindeliveringLAAtargets.
4 | LSP progress –transactional factors
113 Commonperformancesystemsneedtimeandmoneytosetup.AreasthatreceivedNeighbourhoodRenewalFunding(NRF)havebettersystemsthanotherareas,andCDRPshavebettersystemsthanotherthemegroups.Sharedperformancesystemsdonotjustcontributetogivinganaccountupwards:theycanhelppartnersrecogniseandassesstheirowncontributionstojointworking.Theyareinvestmentsinlocalcollaborativeworking.Butlikeallinvestmentstheyneedproperappraisalagainstbusinessplanobjectivesandaffordabilitycriteria.
Performance reporting 114 Systemstocollectandreporton
partners’performanceshouldmeetthedifferentneedsoftheLSPgovernancelayers(Table8).
LSPprogress–transactionalfactors | Working better together? | 65
Table 8
Performance reporting layers
Arepartnersmeetingattherightfrequency–andaretheydiscussingtherightthings?
Governance layer
Frequency of performance data
Type of performance data Purpose
Strategic Threetofourtimesayear.
Keychanges,reportableperformanceindicators(outputsandoutcomes) LAAindicatorsandotherLSP-relateddata.
Challengeperformance:examineandrespondtotrends,steerpartneractivity. Giveanaccounttopartners.
Executive Sixtotwelvetimesayear.
Managementdata(processandoutput).
Monitorperformance;adjustactivitytobringitbackontrack. Reportexceptionstoplan. Giveanaccounttostrategiclevel.
Operational Twelveto52timesayear.
Performancedata(inputandprocess).
Takeimmediateaction. Reportexceptionstoplan. Giveanaccounttoexecutivelevel.
Source:AuditCommission(1998)Performance Review in Local Government: Action Guide (adaptedAuditCommission,2008)
66 | Working better together? | LSPprogress–transactionalfactors
115 LSPsprovideanopportunityforstatutorypartnerstobenchmarktheirperformanceagainstoneanother.SomeLSPsuseperformanceinformationfromotherareastohelptheminterpretlocalperformance(Casestudy18).
4 | LSP progress –transactional factors
Case study 18
Benchmarking in Derby
DerbyCityPartnership’sperformancemanagementgroupreviewedtheopportunitiesforperformancebenchmarkingwithintheLSP.
Thefirststageofthereviewidentifiedpartners’existingbenchmarkingarrangements.Thegroupalsoidentifiedactivitiesforbenchmarkingacrossthepartnershipandwithotherorganisations.
TheLSPcontinuestousebenchmarkingdatatoassessprocesseswithinpartnerorganisationsandtocomparelocaloutcomeswiththoseinotherLSPs.
Source:AuditCommission,2008
Common frameworks for collecting and sharing performance information (standards) 116 Commonframeworksfitintothe
standardsandregulationelementofthe7Sframework.Theycancover:
• governance;
• performanceinformation;
• dataquality;
• coreteamsanddevelopment;and
• joining-upresources(aligningandpooling).
Governance117 Thelayeredapproachtopartnership
governanceandmanagementrecognisesthatpartnershavetheirowngovernancearrangementsandstakeholders.TheoriginalLSPguidancewasclearthatpartnersremainaccountabletotheirownstakeholders(Ref.1).
118 LSParrangementsforgovernanceandaccountabilityalsohavetoallowforthepositionofCDRPsandchildren’strustarrangementsandtheirstatutoryaccountabilityandgovernanceneeds(Ref.10).
LSPprogress–transactionalfactors | Working better together? | 67
119 TheAuditCommissionandtheImprovementNetworkpublishedanonlineself-assessmentofLSPgovernancealongsidethisreport.I Theself-assessmentisatwww.improvementnetwork.gov.uk/lsp
Performance information120Performanceinformationframeworks
provideafocusforstandardisationacrossLSPpartners.Shareddataandcommonapproachestoperformancehelptojoin-upthemegroupactivity.TheAuditCommission’sdiscussionpaperonusinginformationtomakedecisionssetsoutsixprinciplesthatshouldguideLSPs(Ref.44):
• Localservicesimprovewhendecisionmakersuseinformationwell.
• Informationmustberelevanttothedecision.
• Goodqualitydataarethefoundationofgoodqualityinformation.
• Thepresentationofinformationisimportantforaccurateinterpretation.
• Analystsanddecision-makersneedparticularskillstouseinformationwell.
• Peopleneedtothinkcarefullyabouttheinformationtheyusewhenevertheymakedecisions.
121FailuretofollowtheseprinciplescreatesbarrierstosuccessfuloutcomesinmanyLSPs(Figure16).
I TheImprovementNetworkisapartnershipwebsitesponsoredbytheAuditCommission,CIPFA,IDeA,theLeadershipCentre,andtheNHSInstitute.Itspurposeis‘capacitybuildingforpublicsectormanagersandpractitioners;andthepromotionofitssponsors’collectiveknowledge,expertiseandexamplesofcross-sectoralimprovement’.
68 | Working better together? | LSPprogress–transactionalfactors
Figure 16
Poor quality of information and intelligence are barriers to success
4 | LSP progress –transactional factors
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Countycouncil
Quality of performance information
Quality of local intelligence
Districtcouncil
Londonboroughcouncil
Metropolitandistrictcouncil
Unitaryauthority
Agree strongly
Perce
ntag
e of resp
ond
ents
Council type
Agree
.Source:AuditCommissionLSPsurvey,2008
LSPprogress–transactionalfactors | Working better together? | 69
122Casestudyinterviewsidentifiedthreemainobstaclestoeffectiveinformationsharing:
• incompatiblesystems;
• incompatibledataformats(duetodifferentgovernmentreportingrequirements);and
• partnersunwillingtoshareinformation.
123SomeLSPshaveovercometheseproblems.TheWarwickshireLSPusesthelocalobservatorytodeveloptheevidencebasethatlocalpartnersusetoagreepriorities,keeptheSCSup-to-date,andmonitorprogressonSCSandLAAoutcomes.
’The Warwickshire Observatory is really helpful in terms of actual evidence to back up what you’re trying achieve.’
District council director
124DerbyshireusesareaandneighbourhooddatatoprovidetheevidencebaseforLAAprioritiesandtargetsandtomonitorperformance(Casestudy19).
70 | Working better together? | LSPprogress–transactionalfactors
Case study 19
Derbyshire LSP uses the Quilt to help it agree priorities
Derbyshire’sLSPcommissionedthecountycounciltodevelopareaprofilesbasedonthetenAuditCommissionqualityoflifethemes(Ref.44):
• peopleandplace;
• communitycohesionandinvolvement;
• communitysafety;
• cultureandleisure;
• economicwell-being;
• educationandlifelonglearning;
• environment;
• healthandsocialwell-being;
• housing;and
• transportandaccess.
TheprofileforeachofDerbyshire’s42communitieshasmorethanahundredpiecesofinformation.Derbyshirealsoproducesasummaryprofile,theQuilt,with33keystatisticsforeachcommunity.Colour-codingofperformanceandoutcomesgivesLSPmembersandlocalmanagersanat-a-glancecomparisonofalltheareasandperformanceissues(seeillustration)supportedbyunderlyingstatisticsandmoredetailedanalysis.
TheQuiltenablestheDerbyshirePartnershiptoredirectfundingtoareaswithgreaterneed:in2008ChesterfieldandtheHighPeakreceivedadditionalcommunitysafetyresources.
Source:AuditCommission,2008
4 | LSP progress –transactional factors
LSPprogress–transactionalfactors | Working better together? | 71
125DerbyCityPartnershipdevelopedashareddataqualitypolicyinresponsetopartners’concernsaboutobstaclestodatasharing(Casestudy20).TheoriginalfocuswasontheLAA:thepolicynowcoversSCSperformanceandothersharedmeasurementandreportingactivity.
Case study 20
Derby City Partnership’s shared policy for data quality
TheLSP’sdataqualityframeworkcoverstheperformancemeasurement,reporting,andriskarrangementsfortheSCS,LAA,themegroupplans,partnerstrategiesandplans,andserviceandbusinessplans.ItfollowsthesixAuditCommissiondataqualitydimensions(accuracy,validity,reliability,timeliness,relevanceandcompleteness)(Ref.43).
Thepolicydescribestherolesandresponsibilitiesofcompilingofficers,accountableofficers,performanceleads,assistantdirectorsorseniormanagers,directors,andleadmembers.
ThepolicyalsousestheAuditCommissionstandardsforbetterqualitydata(governanceandleadership,policies,systemsandprocesses,peopleandskills,anddatauseandreporting)(Ref.45).Thestandardssupportthepartnership’sactionplanforimplementingthepolicy.Thereisareviewofthepolicyandtheactionplaneverysixmonths.
TheLSPhasacommitmenttocommondataqualitystandards.IthasarrangedtrainingondataqualityforLSPboardandelectedmembers.Thereisalsoadataqualityself-assessmentforeachorganisation.Thereareplansforpeerspotchecks.
ThedataqualitypolicyhasimprovedtheconsistencyofperformanceriskassessmentsandmadeauditingofthesecondroundofLPSAseasier.Thepartnershipnowusesaself-assessmentofdataqualitycompliance.
Source:AuditCommission,2008
73 | Working better together? | LSPprogress–transactionalfactors
126Localrulesandstandardsforperformancemeasurement,reportingandmanagementoftenreflectthehistoryoflocalcollaborativeworking.AreasthatreceivedNRFfundsandthoseinvolvedinthesecondroundoflocalpublicserviceagreements,hadincentivestodevelopabetterunderstandingoflocalperformancesuccessfactors(Ref.46)andaremorelikelytohavesharedsystems.
LSP support teams127LSPsareunincorporatedassociations
withnoemployees:buttheystillneedpeopletodevelopandmanagetheirsystems.AlmostallLSPshaveasupportteamthatsupportspolicyandstrategydevelopment,organisesmeetings,andprovidesfinance,resourceandperformancedatatopartners.SupportteamsalsodoresearchandcommissionprojectsfortheLSP.
4 | LSP progress –transactional factors
128Councilsemploymostofthepeopleworkinginthesecoreteams.Itisonlyinthemetropolitandistrictsthatthemajority(72percent)ofcoreteamsincludesstafffromotherpartners.Themoneyavailableforresearchandcommissionedprojectsisusuallylessthan£50,000ayear.Budgetsarelargerwhencouncilsandpartnershaveasharedcommitment:oneintenjointlyfundedbudgetsisgreaterthan£500,000.
129Mostlocalcouncils,andtheirLSPpartners,areunawareofthecostsoftheirsupportteams(Figure17).
LSPprogress–transactionalfactors | Working better together? | 74
Figure 17
Most LSPs don’t know their support team costs
0
20
40
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f LS
P c
oo
rdin
ato
rs (%
)
Unitary councilMetropolitandistrict council
London boroughcouncil
Type of authority
No
District councilCounty council
60
80
100
Yes
Source:AuditCommissionLSPsurvey,2008
75 | Working better together? | LSPprogress–transactionalfactors
130LSPsthatknowtheirsupportcostscanmakeinformeddecisionsaboutvalueformoney(Table9).Theyarealsoinastrongerpositiontoagreeaboutdifferentpartners’contributions,incashorkind,totheLSPsupportteam’swork.
4 | LSP progress –transactional factors
Table 9
Reviewing the LSP support
Self-assessment questions•WhataretheLSPsupportcostsfor:-policyandstrategysupport?-researchandintelligence?-informationgatheringandpresentation?-conferences,meetingsandevents?-websitecommissioningandmaintenance?
•HowdodifferentpartnerscontributetotheLSPsupportcosts?-IstheLSPmakingthebestuseofcontributionsinkind?-Docontributionsreflectpartners’involvementinLAAandSCSoutcomes?
•DoestheLSPhaveabudgetforpolicydevelopment?-Howdopartnerscontributetothedevelopmentbudget?-HowhastheLSPplannedandrevieweditsdevelopmentbudget?
•DoestheLSPgettherightbalancebetweenresearch,development,andadministrationfromitsspending?
•DoesthesupportteameffectivelysupporttheLAAandSCS?-Isinformationfordecision-makingaccurate,valid,reliable,timely,relevant,andcomplete?-Istheevidencebasetosupportprioritisationkeptup-to-date?-DoesLSPadministrationrepresentgoodvalueformoney?
Source:AuditCommission,2008
LSPprogress–transactionalfactors | Working better together? | 76
Joining up resources131Partnerscancontributehuman,capital
andfinancialresources:theyneedconfidencethattheseresourcesareallocatedproperlyandusedeffectively.
132LSPsusefivemainarrangementsforfinancialresources:
• pooling;
• aligning;
• grantsortransfers;
• procurement;and
• partnershiparrangements.
133PoolingandaligningbothallowpartnerstoapplyfinancialresourcestoLAAandSCSpriorities.
‘The money in the LAA ‘pot’ comes from existing funds. Occasionally the money is pooled into a central fund managed by the top tier authority. The LSP allocates the money to meet the LAA priorities.
In other cases, LSP partners have agreed to align funds, which means that each organisation still administers its own money but it will agree to use it to achieve the targets in the LAA.’
Police finance officer
134Pooledbudgetsallowpartnerstobringfundstogethertoachieveeconomiesofscale(particularlyadministrationcosts)fromresourcesthatwouldbetoosmalltomakeadifferencebythemselves.Thepooledbudgetmanagercanusethecombinedresourcestocommissionservicesorgoods.Butpooledfundarrangementsaresubjecttoconstraints(Table10).
77 | Working better together? | LSPprogress–transactionalfactors
Table 10
Constraints on pooled budgets
Some constraints reflect different government department’s rules
Membershipofthepoolcanbelimited:
•tolocalauthoritiesandNHSbodiesforhealthandsocialcarepools(Ref.47);I or
•tochildren’sserviceauthoritiesanddutytocooperatepartnersforchildren’sservicepools(Ref.48).
TherearedifferentVATrulesforlocalauthoritiesandtheNHS.IfthepoolhostisintheNHSthenlimitedornoVATcanbereclaimed,butifthehostisalocalauthoritythenfullorpartialVATreclamationispossible.Healthandsocialcarepoolsmustbesupportedbyawrittenagreementbetweentheparties.TheagreementmustincludemandatedcontentanditmustberegisteredwiththeDepartmentofHealth.TheagreementmustshowthatpoolingisthemosteffectiveuseofNHSresources(Ref.47).Pooledfundshavenoseparatelegalexistence.Fundhostsmustensurethatpooledfundincomeandspendingisproperlyaccountedfor,thatperformanceisreportedon,andthatendofyearunder(orover)spendingisproperlyreportedinpartners’accounts(Ref.49).
Source:AuditCommission,2008
4 | LSP progress –transactional factors
I NHSAct2006section75,thisreplacesHealthAct1999section31.Pooledfundsareoftenreferredtoas‘section31agreements’.ThespecifiedNHSbodiesarePCTs,strategichealthauthorities,NHStrusts,andfoundationtrusts.
LSPprogress–transactionalfactors | Working better together? | 78
135LSPmembersmustbeclearwhytheyhavechosenaparticularfinancialarrangement.Table11suggestsfactorsthatshouldinformchoicesbetweenpoolingandaligningfinance.
Table 11
Aligning and pooling
Aligning is more suitable when: Pooling is more suitable when:•LSPobjectivesarebettersupportedbyorganisationsredirectingtheirmainstreamactivityratherthanbyfundingadiscreteserviceoractivity.
•Thereisaclear,discreteserviceoractivitythatoneorganisationcandelivermosteffectively.
•Therearesignificantdifferencesbetweenthecontributionsmadebydifferentmembers(andsomemembersmaynotmakefinancialcontributions).
•Allpartiestothearrangementmakeproportionatefinancialcontributions.
•ThearrangementincludesprivatesectorandthirdsectormembersofanLSP.
•ThearrangementincludesonlythestatutorymembersofanLSP.
•Arrangementsneedtokeepahighdegreeofoverallflexibility.
•Arrangementsneedtokeepahighdegreeofserviceresponsiveness.
•Partiestotheagreementcontinuetoprovideseparatefrontlineservices.
•Thehostwillprovidefrontlineservicesforallthemembers.
•PerformancemonitoringandreviewsystemsinthememberorganisationscanprovideenoughconfidencethatLSPobjectiveswillbeachieved.
•Thehost’sfinancialandperformancemonitoringandreviewarrangementscanprovideconfidencethatLSPobjectiveswillbeachieved.
•Theadministrationandothercostsofpoolingwouldexceedthebenefits.
•Thebenefitsofpoolingexceedtheadministrativeandothercostsofsettingupandmaintainingthepool.
•Legalorotherconstraintsmakepoolingdifficultorimpossible.
•Therearenolegalconstraintstopooling.
Source:AuditCommission,2008
79 | Working better together? | LSPprogress–transactionalfactors
136LSPswillhaveamixtureofpoolingandaligning.Whetherpartnerschoosepoolingoraligning,theyshouldbeclearaboutthestandardsthatgovernresourceandperformancematters.Table12outlinesthemainissuesthatpartnersshouldconsiderinsettlingthetermsofagreementforaligningorpooling.
4 | LSP progress –transactional factors
Table 12
Issues to settle before aligning or pooling resources
Twelveself-assessmentquestionstounderpintermsofagreement
Self-assessment question Aligned PooledWho are the parties to this agreement? 3 3
Whatoutcomesarewetryingtoachieve? 3 3
Whatarewegoingtodo? 3 3
Whowillbenefit,andhowwilltheybeinformed,consulted,andinvolved? 3 3
Howwillwemonitorandreportonperformance? 3 3
Howmuchmoneywilleachpartnercontribute? 3
Howwillwevarypaymentsifweneedto? 3
Whatotherresourceswillwecontribute? 3 3
Howwillwevarycontributionsifweneedto? 3
Whatwillwedotomakesurethatoverorunderspendisproperlyaccountedfor?
3
Whoisthenamedhostaccountableforthisagreement? 3
Howlongwillthisagreementlast–andhowwillweendorextendit? 3 3
Source:AuditCommission,2008
LSPprogress–transactionalfactors | Working better together? | 80
137LSPpartnersperceivelocalobstaclestopoolingoraligning(Table13).
Table 13
Perceived local obstacles to aligning and pooling
LSPsmusttackletheseobstaclesifresourcealignmentistobecomeareality
Obstacle to aligning (%)
Obstacle to pooling (%)
Differentorganisationalcultures 74 (notrecorded)Poorunderstandingofothers’financialplanningandgovernancearrangements
59 60
Internalfinancialpressures 56 52Confusingofaccountabilitytogovernmentdepartments 44 48
Source:AuditCommission,LSP2008survey
81 | Working better together? | LSPprogress–transactionalfactors
138Oneeffectoftheseobstaclesisthatfewerthanhalfoftherespondentstothe2008surveycouldidentifybudgetstheirorganisationshadalignedwithLAAorLSPpriorities.
4 | LSP progress –transactional factors
Figure 18
Fewer than half of local agencies align budgets with agreed priorities
0Local
authoritiesPrimarycaretrusts
Police JobcentrePlus
Learningand SkillsCouncil
Partners
Fire andrescue
NHS Trusts Regionaldevelopmentagencies
Thirdsector
10
20
30
40
50
Per
cent
age
alig
ning
bud
get
s
Source:AuditCommissionLSPsurvey,2008
LSPprogress–transactionalfactors | Working better together? | 82
139Localpartnersexpect,though,thatstatutoryLAAswillcreatestrongerincentivestoresourcealignment(76percentofLSPcoordinatorsand60percentoflocalpartnersagree).
140Thereareotherways,usuallyattheexecutiveoroperationallayer,thatpartnerscanbringfinancialresourcestogether:
• Grants, or transfers between LSP members.OneorganisationdeliversaseamlessservicefortheLSP.One-offgrantscansupportspecificinitiativesorprojects.
• Grants to representative groups. Thesegrantsoftenenablelocalbodiesrepresentinglocalbusiness,thevoluntarysector,andcommunityorganisationstotakepartintheLSP.
• Trading services between partners. WherepartnershavethepowerstotradewithoneanothertheycanusetheLSPtosupportthecreationofjointandsharedservices(Ref.47).
• Partnership arrangements. Companies,jointcommittees,orcommunityinterestcompaniescanprovideaformalframeworkforparticularaspectsoflocaljointworking.
Planning141 OnewayofbringinganLSP’ssteering
andstandardsrolestogetheristhroughthealignmentofpartners’planswitheachotherandwiththeLAA.ThisishappeninginmostLSPs(Figure20).
‘The whole process aligns itself with the council’s budget setting process and ideally the health budget setting process and other significant partner budget setting processes, including police, fire and Connexions. We are in a very strong position to really start driving the partnership forward under the new LAA arrangements.’
Council director
‘Our annual operating plan for the first time this year has been aligned with the LAA which is a great step forward.’
PCT chief executive
83 | Working better together? | LSPprogress–transactionalfactors
Figure 19
Business and financial plans are aligning with the LAA
Partnersarelessconfidentthancoordinatorsthatthisisthecase
4 | LSP progress –transactional factors
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0%
Percentage of respondents
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
LSP Coordinators
LSP partners
LSPs partners are aligning businessand financial planning with the LAA
Stronglydisagree
Disagree AgreeStronglyagree
Neutral
Source:AuditCommissionLSPsurvey,2008
LSPprogress–transactionalfactors | Working better together? | 84
142Two-thirdsofLSPcoordinatorsthinkpartnershaveagoodunderstandingofoneanother’sbusinessandfinancialplanningprocess,buttwo-thirdsofpartnersdisagree.Andthereisa50:50splitbetweenpartnerswhothinktherearegoodrelationshipsacrosstheLSPandthosewhodon’t.Strongeralignmentofplansshouldhelptoovercomethesedisparitiesinperceptionsbetweenpartners,andbetweenpartnersandLSPcoordinators.
143SomeLSPshaverespondedtothechallengebymakingfinancialplanningmoreopen.TheLondonBoroughofHammersmithandFulhamhasopeneditsmedium-termfinancialstrategyprocesstopeerchallengebythepoliceandPCT.
Summary144Thischapterhasdiscussedthethree
transactionalelementsofthe7Sframework:steering,systems,andstandards.Theseelementsaremostcloselyassociatedwithrunningformalorganisations.LSPs,aspartnerships,needtoadapttheseelementstotheparticularneedsofcollaborativeworking.
145Thenextchapterlooksforwardtoissuesthatneedactionbythegovernment,theAuditCommission,andLSPs.
85 | Working better together? | Lookingforward
5 Looking forward
146TheprevioustwochaptersanalysedLSPprogress.ThischapterlooksforwardtothefutureforLSPs.
LSPs should serve an important local purpose147 Complicatedlocalproblemsneedthe
coordinatedactionsoflocalagencies.LSPscanprovidestrategicdirection,executivedecision-making,andoperationalactiontodealwithlocalpriorities.Theycanalsoprovideaninclusiveforumforlocalstakeholders.ButLSPsrelyontrustbetweenpartners,effectivesupportsystems,andclarityofpurposefromcentralgovernmentdepartments.
148LAAsareanopportunitytostrengthenLSPs.AnLAAshouldbearealincentiveforlocalpartnerstodevelopamorematureapproachtocollaboration.ButthereremainsthedangerthatfocusontheLAAcancrowdoutattentiontothelonger-termSCSobjectives.
Partnership working is evolving, but effectiveness varies 149LSPsareevolvingandmaturing,local
andnationalpartnersstillneedtorecognisethekeydynamicsthatsupportpartnershipworking(Ref.50):
• clearpoliticalgeographybasedonsettledboundaries;
• sharedidentityandcommonpurpose;
• ahistoryofpreviousinitiatives;
• recognitionthatproblemschangeovertime,andthatpartners’abilitytodealwiththemwillchangetoo;and
• therearepeoplewhowanttomakecollaborationwork.
150ToofewLSPstakeanarea-wideapproachtoperformanceandresourcemanagement.SomeLSPshavewell-developedperformancearrangements,butlessdevelopedresourcemanagement.AndmostLSPshaveprogresstomakeontheirimprovementjourneyiftheyaretodeliverSCSoutcomes.
Partners do not manage the costs and benefits of joint working151FewLSPs,andfewpartners,have
assessedthecostsandbenefitsofjointworking.Thisleavespartnerswithoutanimportantsourceofinformationforassessingrisks,choosingbetweenalternativeapproachestocollaboration,andevaluatingthevalueofactivitiesthatcreateapartnershipidentity.
Lookingforward | Working better together? | 86
Councils and their partners can use this report to help them work better together 152Thepublicsector7Sframeworkcan
helpcouncilsandtheirpartnersbuildonLSP’sstrengthsandidentifyanddealwithweaknesses.
153Thethreegovernancelayers(strategic,executive,andoperational)provideaframeworkfortestinganddevelopingarrangementsforaccountability,decision-making,andreporting.
154CouncilsandtheirpartnersmustensuretheobjectivesoftheSCS,andtheLAAalignwitheachotherandreflectlocalpriorities.
155DeliverychainworkshopscanimprovethedeliveryplanningofLAAandSCStargets.LSPscanruntheirownworkshopsusingthetoolat www.improvementnetwork.gov.uk/lsp.
156Socialnetworkanalysiscanhelppartnershipsidentifythestrengthsandweaknessesoftheirexistingnetworks(www.improvementnetwork.gov.uk/lsp).
157Partnershipmemberscanusethetwelvecasestudiespublishedalongsidethisreportasbenchmarks.Thesecasestudiesareat www.audit-commission.gov.uk/lspandlinktotheself-assessmenttoolat www.improvementnetwork.gov.uk/lsp
158Councilsandtheirpartnersmustimproveperformanceandresourceinformationandintelligence.Thisisessentialforeffectiveperformancechallenge.ItisalsoessentialifLSPsaretoinfluencemainstreamresourcesacrossthelocalarea.
159SuccessfulLSPsneedcommittedpartnersatalllayers.Councilsandtheirpartnersshouldensurethatstafftraininganddevelopmentstressescollaborativeworking.
160Councillors’involvementin,andscrutinyof,LSPsisfundamentaltothedemocratichealthoflocalgovernance.Overviewandscrutinyincludespolicydevelopmentaswellastestingperformance.
Joint inspection will stimulate area-based improvement161CAAwillpromptLSPstoimprove
standardsbyfocusingonlocallyagreedoutcomesdeliveredbypartners.Itwillalsoanalysethecontributionthatdifferentpartnersaremakingtothoseoutcomes.
162CAAwillenablefollow-uprisk-basedinspectionswherethereareproblemsindeliveringoutcomes.TheseinspectionsmightfocusononeormorepartnersacrossthewholeLSP,orevenbeyondtheLSPtootherlocalpublicservices.
87 | Working better together? | Lookingforward
163LSPsthathavegood,sharedsystemsforperformancemanagement(withperformancereporting,resourceallocation,andriskmanagement)willfinditeasiertoshowthattheyareontracktoachieveagreedoutcomesthanthosethatdonot.
Central government has enabled partnership working, but cannot simply force it to happen164Centralgovernmenthasdeveloped
significantpartsofaframeworkforeffectivelocalpartnershipworking.Butitcoulddomorebyremovinginconsistencyinguidanceissuedbydifferentgovernmentdepartments,clarifyingtherelationshipsbetweenanLSPandlocalstatutorypartnerships,andrecognisingthateffectivepartnershipworkingisvoluntary.
5 | Looking forward
165Localagenciescannotbeforcedtoworkinpartnership:collaborativeworkingtakestimeandsupporttodevelop.
The Audit Commission will provide tools and use the lessons from this study166TheAuditCommissionwillworkwiththe
ImprovementNetworktomakeanonlineimprovementtoolavailable.ItwillenableLSPstoself-assesstheirperformanceandtolearnfromnotablepractice.
167TheAuditCommissionwillworkwithotherlocalinspectoratestousethelessonsfromthisstudyinapplyingCAA.Itwillcontinuetoworkwithpartnerstospreadgoodpractice.
Appendix1Studymethod | Working better together? | 88
Appendix 1Study method
168Thisstudyusedamixedmethodsapproachthatincluded:
• Apolicyandliteraturereview.
• Desk-topquantitativeanalysisofexistingresearchaboutthe388LSPsandthe150LAAs.
• Asurveyofthe388LSPs:191LSPcoordinatorsand282LSPboardpartnerscompletedthesurvey.
• Twelvenotablepracticecasestudiesrepresentingdifferentlocalities,localauthoritytypes,geographicalregions,urbanandruralareasandLAArounds.Visitstoeachauthoritytookplaceoverthreetofourdays.Thesevisitsincluded:
- onehundredandeighteensemi-structuredinterviews(withlocalauthoritychiefexecutives,politicalleaders,LSPchairsandmanagersandarangeofseniorpartners);
- sixdeliverychainworkshops;Iand
- observationsoftenLSPmeetings.
• Fivelightertouchcasestudiesenabledsitecomparison.Therewere23interviewsintheseauthorities.
• SocialnetworkanalysesintwonotablepracticeLSPstounderstandtheformalandinformalnetworksandtherelationshipsenablingLSPsuccess.
169Thecasestudycouncilswere:BlackburnwithDarwen,Bolton,Derby,Derbyshire,Dorset,EastSussex,Gateshead,HammersmithandFulham,Leicestershire,MiltonKeynes,Oldham,Oxfordshire,Sandwell,Sheffield,Stoke-on-Trent,Sunderland,andWarwickshire.TheCommissionthanksallthosewhohelpedtheresearch.
170FieldworktookplacebetweenOctober2007andMay2008.
171 JaneKennedy,PaulSeamer,AmieBrownandRogerSykesundertookresearchforthisstudy.AlisonParkerprovidedtheteamwithresearchsupport.MichaelHugheswasthestudydirector.
I AuditCommissionregionalperformancestafffacilitatedthedeliverychainworkshops.
89 | Working better together? | Appendix1Studymethod
172 Anexternaladvisorygrouphelpedwithdevelopingtheresearchframeworkandinterpretingthefindings.TheAuditCommissionthanksallthoseconcerned.Theexternaladviserswere:
MatthewBooth,HeadofPolicy,LondonBoroughofEaling
MikeChambers,HeadofPartnerships,GovernmentOfficeNorthWest
SandraCullen,Children’sTrustsPolicyAdviser,DCSF
ProfessorMikeGeddes,LocalGovernmentCentre,WarwickUniversity
OliverGoode,LSPFuturesNetwork
AndrewJordan,LAAPolicyAdviser,CLG
LauraJulve,LSPPolicyAdviser,CLG
MarkKenyon,LeadAdviser,IPF
HenryPeterson,Consultant,LGA
ProfessorHilaryRussell,LiverpoolJohnMooresUniversity
SueStevenson,ChairLSPFuturesNetworkandDirectorofCumbriaStrategicPartnership,CumbriaCountyCouncil
RachelThompson,NationalAdviser,IDeA
ChrisWobscall,AssistantDirector,PolicyandTechnical,CIPFA
173TheviewsexpressedinthisreportarethoseoftheAuditCommission.
Appendix 1Study method
Appendix2Termsusedinthisreport | Working better together? | 90
Appendix 2 Terms used in this report
ABG:ThewhitepaperStrong and Prosperous Communitiessuggestedthatareabasedgrant(ABG)wouldenablecouncilstousemainstreamresourcesforlocalpriorities.ABGisallocatedonathree-yearbasisaccordingtopolicycriteria.ABGbringspreviouslyring-fencedgrantsintoasinglepot(atleast£4billionovertheCSR07period).Itisnotnewmoney.
APACS:Assessmentsofpolicingandcommunitysafety.APACSappliestoallpoliceforcesinEnglandandWalesfromApril2008.Itcoverskeyservicesdeliveredbythepoliceworkingontheirownorinpartnership.
CAA:ComprehensiveAreaAssessment.Thisnewjointinspectionapproachwillprovideindependentassessmentsoftheprospectsforlocalareasandthequalityoflifeforlocalpeople.Itwillassessandreportonhowwellpublicmoneyisspentandwillensurethatlocalpublicbodiesareaccountableforthequalityandimpactoftheiractions.
CDRPs:Crimeanddisorderreductionpartnerships.Section5oftheCrimeandDisorderAct1998gaveresponsibleauthorities(Appendix3)astatutorydutytoensurethatlocalagenciesworkinaCDRPpartnership.Thepartnershipauditslevelsoflocalcrime,disorder,andmisuseofdrugseverythreeyearsandusesthisinformationandcommunityconsultationtodevelopitsstrategyforreducingcrimeanddisorder.
Designated targets:LocalimprovementtargetsagreedbytheSecretaryofStateasbeingofnationalimportance.Thesearethe35,orfewer,LAAtargets.Theresponsibleauthorityanditspartnersmustreporttothegovernmentontheirprogresstowardsachievingthesetargets.
JSNA:Jointstrategicneedsassessment.TheLGPIHActrequiresPCTsandlocalauthoritiestoproduceajointstrategicneedsassessmentofthehealthandwell-beingoftheirlocalcommunityfromApril2008.
LAAs:Localareaagreements.From2005to2008,LAAswerevoluntary.TheLGPIH(2007)introducedstatutoryLAAsandadutyonnamedpartnerstocooperatefrom2008.AnLSPanditsGovernmentOfficenegotiatetheLAA.TheLAAfocusesattentiononthoselocalSCSprioritiesthatareagreedwiththegovernment,measuredbythenationalindicatorset,andthatcanbeprogressedwithinthreeyears.WhentheSecretaryofStatesignsanLAA,itbecomesacontractwiththesingle-tierorcountycouncil.
LIFT:LocalImprovementFinanceTrust.ThisNHSschemeintendstodevelopanewmarketforinvestmentinprimarycareandcommunityhealthfacilitiesandservices.LocalLIFTcompaniesinvolvethelocalNHS,aprivatesectorpartner,andthenationalPartnershipsforHealthastheirmainshareholders.
LITs:Localimprovementtargets.ThisisthelegaltermthatreferstoalltargetsintheLAA.ThedutytocooperateappliestoalltheLITsintheLAA.
91 | Working better together? | Appendix2Termsusedinthisreport
LGPIH:LocalGovernmentandPublicInvolvementinHealthAct2007.ThisActintroducedstatutoryLAAsandthedutytocooperate.
LPSA:Localpublicserviceagreement.LPSAbeganwithpilotsin2000.Eachpilothadathree-yearagreementbetweenacouncilandthegovernment.TheLPSAdescribedthecouncil’scommitmenttoimproveperformanceandthegovernment’scommitmenttorewardimprovement.Councilshadtomeettwelvespecifictargetsthatrequiredthemto‘stretch’performance.LocaltargetshadtoreflectthenationalPSAtargetssignedbetweengovernmentdepartmentsandtheTreasury.ThesecondroundofLPSAstartedin2003.Theseagreementsencouragedcouncilsandlocalpartnerstoagreelocalprioritiesforimprovement.
LPSB:Localpublicserviceboard.TheAuditCommissionreportPeople Places and Prosperityrecommendedpublicserviceboardsasawayofjoining-uplocalpublicservicedelivery.InmanyareastheLPSBistheexecutivelayeroftheLSP.
LSP:localstrategicpartnership.LSPsarenotstatutorybodiesandthereisnothingintheLocalGovernmentandPublicInvolvementinHealthActthatcreatesalegalrelationshipbetweencouncilstheirpartnersandanLSP.LSPsareacollectionoforganisationsandrepresentativescollaboratingforthebenefitofthelocalarea.
MAAs:Multi-areaagreements.MAAsarevoluntary,andthecouncilsinvolvednegotiatefundingflexibilities(includingpooledfundingstreams)fromcentralgovernmentinreturnforachievingoutcomesoverthethree-yearLAAperiod.Theyaddresseconomicdevelopmentneedsthatcrosscouncilboundaries.
NIS:Nationalindicatorset.Strong and Prosperous Communitiescommittedgovernmenttointroduceastreamlinedsetofindicatorsthatwouldreflectnationalpriorityoutcomesforlocalauthorities,workingaloneorinpartnership.
NRF:Neighbourhoodrenewalfund.NRFwasaspecialgranttoEngland’smostdeprivedareas.Itenabledcouncils,workingwiththeLSP,toimproveservices,narrowingthegapbetweendeprivedareasandtherestofthecountry.NRFwasreplacedbytheWorkingNeighbourhoodsFundinNovember2007.
PCT:Primarycaretrust.PCTscoverallpartsofEngland.TheyreceivebudgetsdirectlyfromtheDepartmentofHealth.SinceApril2002,PCTshavetakencontroloflocalhealthcarewhilestrategichealthauthoritiesmonitorperformanceandstandards.
PRG:Performancerewardgrant.PRGwasintroducedwithLPSAs.Councils,andtheirpartners,receivedPRGiftheirperformanceagainsttheirLPSAtargetswasoveraspecifiedthreshold.LAAsalsohaveaperformancerewardelement.
Appendix 2Terms used in this report
Appendix2Termsusedinthisreport | Working better together? | 92
SNA:Socialnetworkanalysis.Thisisamethodthatmapstheconnectionsbetweenpeopleandorganisationsinapartnershipacrosssevendifferentthemes(work,innovation,expertise,informal,improvement,strategy,anddecision-making).
SCS:Sustainablecommunitystrategy.TheSCSsetsthestrategicdirectionandlong-termvisionfortheeconomic,social,andenvironmentalwell-beingofalocalarea–typically10-20years–inawaythatcontributestosustainabledevelopment.Ittellsthestoryoftheplace,thedistinctivevisionandambitionofthearea,backedbyclearevidenceandanalysis.
Unincorporated Association:Thisisanorganisationofpeopleorcorporatebodieswithanidentifiablemembership(possiblychanging).Membersworktogetherforacommonpurposewithinanidentifiableconstitutionorrules(whichmaybewrittenororal–andarenotnecessarilylegallybinding).Theformofassociationisnotonethelawrecognisesasbeingsomethingelse(forexample,anincorporatedbodyorapartnership).Theunincorporatedassociationmusthaveanexistencedistinctfromitsmembers.LSPsareunincorporatedassociationsfortaxandaccountingpurposes.
Vital Signs:VitalSignsaremeasuresofprogressagainstnationalhealthpriorities.TheyaimtohelpPCTsmakelocalchoicesandsetlocalpriorities.
93 | Working better together? | Appendix3Namedpartners
Appendix 3Named partners
Organisations Local strategic partnershipsI
Crime and disorder reduction partnershipsII
Children’s trust relevant partnersIII
Localauthorities 3 3 3
Primarycaretrusts 3 3 3
NHS health trusts 3
Policeauthorities 3 3 3
Chiefofficerofpolice 3 3 3
NHSfoundationtrusts 3
Fireandrescueauthorities 3 3
LearningandSkillsCouncil 3 3
Regionaldevelopmentagencies 3
Probationtrustsandotherprovidersofprobationservices
3 3
Jointwasteauthorities 3
Jointwastedisposalauthorities 3
Youthoffendingteams 3 3
JobcentrePlus 3
Connexions 3
Strategichealthauthority 3
Metropolitanpassengertransportauthorities/TransportforLondon
3
Nationalparksauthorities/TheBroadsAuthority
3
EnvironmentAgency 3
HighwaysAgency 3
HealthandSafetyExecutive 3
NaturalEngland 3
SportEngland 3
I LocalGovernmentandPublicInvolvementinHealthAct(2007)s104.IICrimeandDisorderAct1998(asamendedbythePoliceReformAct2002andtheCleanNeighbourhoodsandEnvironmentAct2005).
IIIChildrenAct2004.
Appendix3Namedpartners | Working better together? | 94
Organisations Local strategic partnershipsI
Crime and disorder reduction partnershipsII
Children’s trust relevant partnersIII
Museums,Libraries,andArchivesCouncil
3
ArtsCouncil 3
EnglishHeritage 3
Organisationsaddedbyanorderundersection104(7)oftheLGPIHAct2007
3
Source:AuditCommission,2008
95 | Working better together? | Appendix4References
Appendix 4 References
1 DepartmentoftheEnvironmentTransportandtheRegions,Local Strategic Partnerships: Government Guidance,DepartmentoftheEnvironmentTransportandtheRegionsMarch,2001.
2 AuditCommission,Governing Partnerships: Bridging the Accountability Gap,AuditCommission,October2005.
3 JohnStewart,The Nature of British Local Government,PalgraveMacmillan,2000.
4 R.J.Oakerson,The Study of Metropolitan Governance in Feiock, R.C. (Ed) Metropolitan Governance: Conflict, Competition and Cooperation,WashingtonDC:GeorgetownUniversityPress,2004.
5 HelenSullivanandChrisSkelcher,Working Across Boundaries: Collaboration in Public Services,PalgraveMacmillan,Hampshire,2002.
6 ODPM,Local Area Agreements: A Prospectus,ODPM,July2004.
7 HMTreasury,Devolving Decision Making: Delivering Better Public Services: Refining Targets and Performance Management,HMTreasury,March2004.
8 HMTreasury,Review of Sub-national Economic Development and Regeneration(Chapter6)HMTreasury,July2007.
9 HMGovernmentandLocalGovernmentAssociation,Central-Local Concordat,HMGovernmentandLocalGovernmentAssociation,December2007.
10 AuditCommission,Are we There Yet? Improving Governance and Resource Management in Children’s Trusts,AuditCommission,October2008.
11 CommunitiesandLocalGovernment,Creating Strong, Safe and Prosperous Communities Statutory Guidance,CommunitiesandLocalGovernment,July2008.
12 CommunitiesandLocalGovernment,LAA Negotiations in 2008: Lessons Learnt,CommunitiesandLocalGovernment,September2008.
13 CrimeandDisorderAct1998.
14 ChildrenAct2004.
15 GreaterLondonAuthorityAct1999asamendedbytheGreaterLondonAuthorityAct2007.
16 Pascale,RT,andAthos,AG,The Art of Japanese Management,AllenLane,London,1982.
17 JanetNewmanandMichaelHughes,Modernising Adult Social Care: What’s Working,DepartmentofHealth,June2007.
18 AuditCommission,World Class Financial Management,AuditCommission,November2005.
Appendix4References | Working better together? | 96
19 RuthFindlay-Brook,WayneVisserandThurstonWright,Cross-Sector Partnership as an Approach to Inclusive Development,UniversityofCambridgeProgrammeforIndustryResearchPaperSeries4,2007.
20 CommunitiesandLocalGovernment,Preparing Community Strategies,CommunitiesandLocalGovernment,2000.
21 EastSussexStrategicPartnership,Pride of Place: Working Towards a Better Future for Local People and Communities,EastSussexStrategicPartnership,2006.
22 CommunitiesandLocalGovernment,Negotiating New Local Area Agreements,CommunitiesandLocalGovernment,September2007.
23 DepartmentofHealth,Guidance on Joint Strategic Needs Assessments,DepartmentofHealth,December2007.
24 CommunitiesandLocalGovernment,Local Authority Economic Assessment Duty: Impact Assessment,CommunitiesandLocalGovernment,December2008.
25 CommunitiesandLocalGovernment,LAA Negotiations in 2008: Lessons Learnt,CommunitiesandLocalGovernment,September2008.
26 SueGoss,Leadership in Local Strategic Partnerships,OfficeoftheDeputyPrimeMinister,December2005.
27 DerbyCityPartnership,Constitution,DerbyCityPartnership,February2007.
28 SocialServicesInspectorateandAuditCommission,A Report on the Joint Review of Social Services in Derbyshire County Council,SocialServicesInspectorateandAuditCommission,November2000.
29 C.NorthcoteParkinson,Parkinson’s Law or the Pursuit of Progress,JohnMurray,London,1957.
30 AuditCommission,Corporate Assessment of Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council,AuditCommission,December2007.
31 SirMichaelLyons,Inquiry into Local Government,TheStationeryOffice.2007.
32 JörgSydow,Understanding the Constitution of Inter-organisational Trust(inLane,C.andBachman,B,Trust Within and Between Organisations,OxfordUniversityPress,2000.
33 NationalAuditOfficeandAuditCommission,Delivering Efficiently: Strengthening the Links in Public Service Delivery Chains,March2006.
34 AuditCommission,Back to Front: Efficiency of Back Office Functions in Local Government, Audit Commission,October2008.
Chapter | Working better together? | 9797 | Working better together? | Appendix4References
35 CommunitiesandLocalGovernment,Strong and Prosperous Communities: The Local Government White Paper,CommunitiesandLocalGovernment,October2006.
36 DCLG,Sustainable Communities Act 2007: Local Spending Reports: Consultation Document,DCLG,February2009.
37 CIPFA,Councillors’ Guide to Local Government Finance,CIPFA,2008.
38 CommunitiesandLocalGovernment,Area Based Grant: General Guidance 2008,CommunitiesandLocalGovernment,February2008.
39 OfficeoftheDeputyPrimeMinister,Focus on the Future,OfficeoftheDeputyPrimeMinister,February2005.
40 HomeOffice,APACS 60 Second Brief,HomeOffice,2008.
41 DepartmentofHealth,Operational Plans 2008/08-2010/11: National Planning Guidance and “Vital Signs”, Department of Health,January2008.
42 CommunitiesandLocalGovernment,The New Performance Framework for Local Authorities and Local Authority Partnerships: Single Set of National Indicators,October2007.
43 AuditCommission,In the Know: Using Information to Make Better Decisions: A Discussion Paper,AuditCommission,February2008.
44 AuditCommission,Local Quality of Life Indicators: Supporting Local Communities to Become Sustainable,AuditCommission,August2005.
45 AuditCommission,Improving Information to Support Decision Making: Standards for Better Quality Data,AuditCommission,March2007.
46 CommunitiesandLocalGovernment,National Evaluation of Local Public Service Agreements: Final Report,CommunitiesandLocalGovernment,July2008.
47 NHSBodiesandLocalAuthoritiesPartnershipArrangementRegulations,2000.
48 ChildrenAct2004section10.
49 CIPFA,Pooled Budgets: A Practical Guide for Local and Health Authorities,CIPFA,2001.
50 DepartmentofTransportLocalGovernmentandtheRegions,Collaboration and Co-ordination in Area Based Initiatives,DepartmentofTransportLocalGovernmentandtheRegions,2002.
Appendix 4References
PrintedintheUKfortheAuditCommissionbyTrident PrintingDesignandproductionbytheAudit Commission Publishing Team