LOCAL STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP – EXECUTIVE DELIVERY BOARD
Minutes
DATE 15 June 2009
VENUE Garden Room, York Central Library
PRESENT ExDB Members: Helen Christmas, Healthy City Board
Pete Dwyer, Joint Chair Lifelong Learning Partnership
Julia Massey, Manager, Learning City York
Roger Ranson, Economic Development Partnership
Mike Slater, York Environment Partnership Chair
Colin Stroud, Chair, Inclusive York Forum
Cllr. Andrew Waller, Chair
In Attendance: Andy Hudson, AD Neighbourhood Services
Alan Humphries, Audit Commission
Peter Lowe, CYC Corporate Performance
Secretariat: Nigel Burchell, Head of Strategic Partnerships
Denise Simms, Senior Partnership Officer
APOLOGIES Rachel Johns, Chair, Healthy City Board
Jane Mowat, Safer York Partnership
Jacqui Warren, Sustainability Officer, Environment Partnership
1 WELCOME AND APOLOGIES
Apologies were received from Rachel Johns, Jane Mowat and Jacqui Warren.
2 MEETING MINUTES AND MATTERS ARISING
The minutes of the meeting held on 1 April 2009 were agreed.
Without Walls Communication Strategy
Partners were informed that Stone Soup, the communications agency that developed the website, would be starting to make contact regarding content for the partnership e-newsletters. This followed agreement at the meeting in April that newsletters would be produced twice per year for each delivery theme which would be distributed in December and end June /early July.
Partners were keen to ensure that there was moderation of the newsletters and consistency checks.
Action 1: It was agreed that the Secretariat would take on the role of moderator for e-newsletter content.
3 LAA PERFORMANCE REPORT – END YEAR 2008/09
It was explained that the year end position provided 2008/9 outturn data for nineteen LAA indicators and estimated year end performance for a further ten. In terms of updates from each theme representative present, comments included:
Thriving -
· NI 152 was currently on track to meet the target, however the number of JSA claimants was on the increase. Targets for this indicator were not formally ‘locked down’ with GOYH and it may be necessary to review them at the next refresh.
· NI 165 & 166 were performing well against regional and national data.
· NI 171 – there were concerns about take up of Enterprise funding.
In general there was a great deal of funding to assist with hitting targets and it was critical to raise the profile of this in order to increase take-up. Skills week had been successful in attracting 209 people from a mixture of backgrounds, with 64 potentially interested in the Norman White Fund. On the whole people were looking for a career change or business start-up rather than more of the same career.
Inclusive –
· NI 1 – the Community Cohesion Strategy could not be funded via the LAA Delivery Fund therefore, it had been rated red. Steps were being taken to address this within the council, who were already in correspondence with the bidders regarding sourcing alternative funding.
· NI 4 – was linked to NI 1 but had been left as amber rated.
· NI 6 & 7 – Both had been successful in receiving LAA delivery funding for projects aimed at improving performance, therefore left as amber. The police were appointing a volunteer coordinator, which could hopefully be linked in to existing networks.
· NI 116 – There were still issues regarding the definition for this indicator.
· NI 155 – the impact of the recession on the housing market was being discussed with GOYH and could impact on targets at the next refresh.
The Learning Partnership would be running top team workshops with 3 third sector organisations. Partners agreed that it would be important to log this type of event as part of reporting on progress.
YorOK –
· NI 116 - The recent Child Poverty Bill had renewed the profile around this issue.
· NI 54 – Services for disabled children – Thirty local authorities took part in a pilot survey of parents with disabled children. The 350 parents surveyed in York, gave the highest rating of all of the participating authorities.
· NI 110 – Positive activities for young people - We were given the baseline for this indicator (mean of our statistical neighbours) because too few of our own schools had taken part in the Tell Us 3 survey to be viable. Tell Us 4 would take place in the Autumn and 60% of York schools had agreed to take part.
· NI 112 – Teenage pregnancy rates for the last quarter showed a drop. Unfortunately there was a long lag in receiving national data which meant there was a need to develop local proxy targets which would give a better idea of progress.
Commissioning budgets (£19 million) were soon to transfer to the local authority. It was being made clear to providers who the priority groups were in order to ensure that the right funding strategies were in place to make a difference. In addition, European Social Funding had been used to develop progression routes for young people with physical and learning disabilities at York College (in developing customer service skills).
Sustainable -
· NI 188 – work was progressing to develop a Climate Change Strategy for York, despite their unsuccessful LAA Delivery fund bid.
· LI4 – the local target for conservation area appraisals would not be met this year.
Healthy -
· NI 56 - There had been a small increase in year 6 childhood obesity, which had been anticipated. A local delivery partnership had now been set up to coordinate action and it was hoped new social marketing tools would be by the group to curb the rise. In contrast weight data for reception age children had shown a decrease. This year parents had been notified of their child’s results, giving rise to the potential that some parents would recognise their weight as an issue. Unfortunately, the letter of notification followed a poorly worded national template which had up upset some parents.
· NI 135 – there had been a significant improvement in the number of carers receiving needs assessment and although the target had been missed it was important to recognise the huge amount of progress that had been made.
Action 2 – It was agreed that the Head of Strategic Partnerships would establish how the Community Cohesion Strategy was being taken forward in terms of NPI 1.
4 WOW PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
Partners received the first draft of a Performance Management Framework for Without Walls for discussion and refinement. New CYC scrutiny arrangements were linked to the fact that the SCS was now reflected in the council’s corporate strategy. The new arrangements could involve both statutory and voluntary partners in scrutiny reviews. The council’s Democratic Services Team was to run an informal briefing session on 30 July to explain the new system to Partnership Chairs.
Comments from Partners on the draft included:
· All partners and the voluntary sector need to understand performance monitoring arrangements;
· The document was welcomed as a tool to help understanding of Without Walls working arrangements for members of the wider network.
· Informal cross partnership networking opportunities were useful in broadening out the silo approach that was sometimes taken.
· Infrastructure that supported the partnership, such as training and a system for data, were important to include within the framework.
· A web based PM system would be procured by CYC soon, following a wider review of business intelligence.
Action 3 – it was agreed that each Partnership would take the appropriate consultation within their group on the draft Performance Management Framework and feedback views by 31 August.
5 LAA2 DELIVERY FUND
Partners were informed that all successful and unsuccessful bidders to the LAA Delivery Fund had now been contacted. Grant terms and conditions had been issued and unsuccessful schemes were being offered assistance to find other funding sources. It was noted that Partnership could assist in linking projects to funding.
Action 4 – it was agreed that the Secretariat would circulate details of the unsuccessful LAA Delivery Fund bids, broken down by theme, for Partners to consider the possibility of alternative funding sources.
6 CAA SELF ASSESSMENT
Partners received a first draft Area Self-Assessment, which would inform Without Walls’ development and feed the CAA inspection process. It had previously been agreed that the Executive Delivery Board would be the forum that developed the Area Assessment and consequently the CAA inspection team were to feed back their initial assessment to an extraordinary meeting of the group at the end of July. The meeting would involve EXDB members plus Partnership Chairs, WOW Chair and statutory partner Chief Execs.
It was explained that, through the process, Partners would make an assessment of progress against SCS aims. The Economic Development Partnership were piloting the template and the plan was to work through the these for each theme.
It was explained that from the Audit Commission’s perspective this would be an iterative process and, should be first and foremost, helpful to Without Walls (Since there was no formal requirement to produce one). The aim was to develop a shared inspectorate / partnership view on progress. It would be important for AC inspectors to understand where pockets of deprivation are, how delivery of actions is making a difference to narrow the gap. Indicative red and green ‘tags’ would be revealed in July.
Action 5: it was agreed that the date for the extraordinary ExDB meeting in July would be circulated as soon as possible.
7 SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES ACT
Partners received details of 46 proposals, submitted by the public, which fell within the scope of the Sustainable Communities Act 2007. The Act aimed to improve the powers of the local authority in order to make improvements to the local area, in line with residents wishes. The ultimate aim was to narrow the suggestions down to no more than six, since each proposal submitted to the LGA would require extensive research (approximately 2,500 words per proposal).
Comments from the Executive Delivery Board and a Citizen’s panel, which was due to take place on 18 June, would be taken back to the council’s Executive in July. These comments would be used to inform the final decision on those that would be put forward to the LGA by 31 July.
Partners were asked to identify from the proposals those that showed the greatest support for SCS aims and would result in the biggest impact on LAA targets.
Action 6: Partners were asked to feedback views on the SCA proposals most likely to impact on the SCS / LAA to Andy Hudson by 18 May.
8 ANY OTHER BUSINESS
None
There being no other business, the meeting ended at 4:00pm
Dates of next meetings:
· 29 July - Extraordinary meeting – 2pm in Committee Room 3 at the Guildhall
Regular meetings all to take place 2-4pm
· 7 Sept 2009
· 9 Dec 2009
· 8 Mar 2010
· 7 June 2010
Strategic Partnerships Team
June 2009
Annex 1: Summary Table of Actions
No. / Action / Lead1 / It was agreed that the Secretariat would take on the role of moderator for e-newsletter content. / SPT
2 / It was agreed that the Head of Strategic Partnerships would establish how the Community Cohesion Strategy was being taken forward in terms of NPI 1. / NB
3 / It was agreed that each Partnership would take the appropriate consultation within their group on the draft Performance Management Framework and feedback views by 31 August. / All
4 / It was agreed that the Secretariat would circulate details of the unsuccessful LAA Delivery Fund bids, broken down by theme, for Partners to consider the possibility of alternative funding sources. / SPT / All
5 / It was agreed that the date for the extraordinary ExDB meeting in July would be circulated as soon as possible. / SPT
6 / Partners were asked to feedback views on the SCA proposals most likely to impact on the SCS / LAA to Andy Hudson by 18 May. / All
Annex 2: Table of Meeting Papers (double click on icon to open document)
Agenda Item / Meeting paper / DocumentAgenda /
2 / Minutes of Meeting and Matters Arising /
3 / LAA Performance Report – End Year 2008/09 /
Annex A / Year End Performance Report 2008/09 /
4 / WOW Performance Management Framework – Briefing Paper /
Annex A / WOW Performance Management Framework /
5 / LAA Delivery Fund – Briefing Paper /
Annex A / LAA Delivery Fund Schemes /
6 / CAA Self Assessment – Briefing Paper /
Annex A / Draft Area Self- Assessment /
7 / Sustainable Communities Act – Briefing Paper /
Annex A / Sustainable Communities Act - Suggestions /
Page 5 of 7