Partnership Development and Performance Group

Item 7

Partnership Development and Performance Group

3 November 2010

HERTFORDSHIRE PARTNERSHIP ARRANGEMENTS

2011 AND BEYOND

Author: Keith Shephard (01992 555368)

)

1. Purpose

To enable partners to explore the changing circumstances, and drivers, for partnership working in the County, with specific reference to the countywide partnership structure and associated processes, and for PDPG to make high level recommendations to the Hertfordshire Forward Core Group on 6 December.

This paper raises issues and ideas. It is not framed as a ‘proposal’ at this stage, inviting challenge and alternative perspectives, framed in the final section, which poses questions for PPDG discussion.

2. Background

On 15 September Caroline Tapster presented to the Core Group the post election landscape in the context of partnership working, setting out new flexibilities

( abolition of CAA ( and subsequently LAA) and the National Indicator set,as well as elements of various sector changes being pursued as part of the Coalition Government programme ( such as NHS , Policing, planning ) dismantling of regional structures etc)

This strategic context is well known to PDPG members and therefore not all rehearsed here – though the whole picture will be presented to the Core Group as part of the December paper, via PDPG on 24 November.

The Group endorsed Caroline’s analysis, and have asked PDPG to bring forward a strategic view of what the future partnership map should be like.

In sponsoring the review the Core Group formed a strong consensus that

• We must take the opportunity to develop a Hertfordshire response
• The current Hertfordshire Forward arrangements – whilst appropriate for 2009 – are not ‘fit for future purpose’
• Lifting much of the weight of bureaucracy, and top down process is welcome
• We must take a robust approach to reducing the number of permanent and formal partnership groups, and thereby cutting the meetings, paperwork and processes associated with the current structure, and former regimes.

It was also emphasised that this whole system change does not indicate that partnership working and inter agency collaboration as such is less important than hitherto. Indeed there are aspects of the programme (such as the phasing in nationally of Community Based Budgets) that re-enforce the need for collaboration and targeted effort. Through successful delivery of LAA, and many other multi - agency initiatives Hertfordshire is well placed to step up to the challenges ahead.

3. Significant Changes required torespond to the Coalition Programme

In addition to major reductions in externally imposed processes, referred to briefly in paragraph 2, there are two very specific and new elements which will, in any event, form the bedrock of future partnership work.

3.1 Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP)

On 28 October the Business Secretary announced that the Hertfordshire LEP bid had been approved along with 23 others nationally.

Work will now begin on further developing the constitutional arrangements, including terms of reference, and membership, with a view to the LEP being operational from 1 April 2011, with a possible brief life in shadow form before then.

Whilst the Government has indicated that it would not be prescriptive about the exact nature of the ‘legal personality’ of LEPs they will ‘probably have company status in legal terms’.

Where LEPs have grant funding (such as Regional Growth Funding and/or Regional Development Funds) ‘they will be subject to normal (governmental) appraisal and evaluation arrangements’

Details of new powers will be set out in the imminent Sub-Regional economic development whitepaper ‘Local Growth: Realising Every Place’s Potential ‘

For Hertfordshire at countywide level this may emerge as the strategic partnership for ‘place’ and could evolve in a way that consumes much of the territory currently covered by a range of groups. (areas such as infrastructure, housing , sustainability, economy and market renewal )

Jan Hayes- Griffin will be attending PDPG and will be able to elaborate on this fast moving picture, and offer headlines from the whitepaper .

3.2 Health and Wellbeing Board

As with all County and Unitary areas of local government Hertfordshire will have a statutory Health and Wellbeing Board emerging from the current whitepaper ‘Equity and Excellence: Liberating the NHS’ , consultation on which has just concluded.

A Joint Executive Group, chaired by Caroline Tapster, and including Chief Officers from the PCT, Adult Care, and Childrens services, will be developing the Hertfordshire model.

This will feature the consideration of how HCC and its partners will need to review the roles and responsibilities of the Children’s Trust partnership and consider the extent to which these need to continue and how they might link into or transfer to the Health and Wellbeing Board.

In Hertfordshire this may emerge as the strategic partnership for ‘people’ – if so the scope will require fleshing out.

Mark Lobban, who has a lead role in this work, will be attending PDPG and will be able to update the Group on any developments.

3.3 Community Based Budgets - and other transformation

The Comprehensive Spending Review included reference to the first phase of 16 ‘single community budgets’ – ‘pooling resources to provide a single funding stream to enable areas to tackle families with multiple problems’ – and rolling out that concept more widely from 2013 – and to cover all areas by 2015. Evidence from the first phase will be used to explore the case for bringing in more funding and more places.

The Government has indicated that developing the governance and accountability for these budgets forms a key part of the work that will be carried out between the CSR and April 2011, when the first phase commences.

It is evident that each area will need to negotiate what any future Community Based Budget (CBB) comprises, and determine ‘who holds the budget. According to Government -‘This will need to be a statutory body that can deliver democratic and financial accountability’.

Depending on how this issue emerges, and the response of partners to the opportunities ahead, it is likely that Hertfordshire will need specific and clear arrangements for CBBs. This could be in the form of an LSP, but it is possible that a smaller group of resource holders/decision makers will be required. Much of the resource is likely to reside in the Health and Wellbeing Board, and possibly the LEP.

To date the LSP (Core Group) has not been the body for major resource allocation debate, was unable to make inroads to Area Based Grant, and the process for allocating Performance Reward Grant is long winded.

4. Where does this lead us?

We have a Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS)) to 2021 with no indication nationally that this will not continue as statutory. We also have LAA to see through to April 2011, and related outcomes which HF will wish to track.

In addition we have an SCS revision which has been developed with stakeholders

-and which we will want to feed into new arrangements.

Papers on the SCS review and shaping up a new era performance framework will be brought to PDPG in November, and both should dovetail with this paper to form a single Core Group debate.

This paper suggests that the countywide architecture for partnership work will have two significant pillars – 3.1 and 3.2

The attached ‘Indicative Structure 2011’ illustrates how the remit of current countywide groups might be absorbed, without the weight of process hitherto encountered.

The current Safer and Stronger partnership is perhaps the trickiest one to take a view on at this point. Aspects of its work may fall to the Health and Wellbeing Board but much will not. It may also be argued that the essence of that partnership’s remit is very local (eg community cohesion, anti-social behaviour etc) and should simply be vested at local level. The outcome of ‘Policing in the 21st Century ‘– and related elected Commissioners (and scrutiny thereof) will influence how that agenda is managed in due course.

Beyond the formal structures and processes it is argued that web presence and communications generally (eg from LEP and HWB) need to be first class. The message being that partnership work remains important but that ‘you do not need to be at the table to be involved in the issues’.

There also needs to be a means of articulating the linkages between ‘people’ and ‘place’ to ensure that the two major partnerships are not perceived as working as large silos. That linking could be a key purpose of the SCS and space for a) a Hertfordshire Forward LSP or Board, and b) a focus for Annual partnership events.

5. Capacity

This opportunity to reduce the totality of ‘governance’ activity brings with it an opportunity to make significant cost savings, from reduced groups, meetings, reporting and so on. Further work on defining leadership and funding arrangements will follow on from determining the form of emerging arrangements, though it is certain that HCC will be required to play a major role in the LEP and HWB, as well as infrastructure for SCS and possibility of CBB in due course, including communications and web presence.

Within HCC the current Strategic Partnerships Unit is to be reviewed to reflect the scale of change.

Meanwhile two of the current countywide partnerships (Transport and Sustainable Development and Better Places to Live) are supported by part time posts funded through PRG. Following the 50% reduction in PRG this Group (as endorsed by Core Group) has agreed that this funding will cease on 31 March 2011.

Partners may have to seek solutions outside of the slimmed down structure to resolve specific issues (task and finish activity) – such as those associated with the planning and housing issues raised as part of the 2009 ‘red flag’.

Stevenage Borough Council has continued to lead the SSC Executive, resourcing of which is becoming increasingly difficult for them

6. Transition and Timing

Much of the context is evolutionary in nature, and reliant on Parliamentary process. There is also a collective understanding and desire within Hertfordshire to ensure that form follows function. In a sense there will never be a ‘right time’ for a whole system change.

Nevertheless, there is also a significant degree of certainty and a mood to press on with change. It is argued therefore that current partnerships should continue to 31 March 2011 where those partnerships need to /wish to continue, and that new arrangements formally commence at that point. This is unlikely to be a ‘big bang’ transition – but would be symbolically important as heralding the new era.

If this approach is favoured and endorsed by Hertfordshire Forward then the County Council will work with partner agencies on detailed arrangements. As indicated elsewhere in the paper, work on LEP and HWB is proceeding and that ‘independent’ development is encouraged. These developments will need to be addressed in respect of their place in the ‘whole system’, as that picture is joined up.

Some change will flow through beyond April 2011 (such as policing reform, aspects of NHS change, possible Community Based Budgets) and Hertfordshire will want to be nimble in implementation of these adjustments.

7. Conclusion and Next Steps

All areas in England are working on their own ‘partnership solution’ based on the national scene, and on local circumstances. The analysis here is in step with what others are saying/doing. Whilst it is critical that we develop something that suits Hertfordshire it is wise to keep a watchful eye on other areas, to import ideas and to learn lessons, and indeed to share with others what we are doing.

This paper does not cover the ten local LSPs or other local arrangements – such as Community Safety Partnerships. A number of local LSPs are reviewing their own arrangements.

Following on from today’s PDPG discussion a paper will be shaped for Core Group on 6 December, and will be brought to PDPG on 24 November in draft form.

Developing that paper will require a number of conversations with key partners, including PDPG members.

8. Areas identified for PDPG discussion:_

PDPG consideration, and steer, on the following will help shape high level proposals to the Core Group:-

8.1 Is the broad approach to the ‘Indicative Structure 2011’ in the right territory?

8.2 Is the timeline of April 2011 right in terms of signalling step change?

8.3 Do we endorse the contention that we need to be robust (collectively) in scaling down total activity – and will hold that line?

8.4 Do we agree that annual partnership events, and continuous improvement on communications, remain key features of the Hertfordshire Forward approach?

8.5 How, and where, will we ensure democratic mandate for decision making through partnerships?

8.6 What is the relationship between local LSPs at District level and the emerging countywide arrangements?

8.7 What are initial thoughts on the capacity required to ensure that new arrangements are successful? Where does that capacity reside?

who funds that activity ?

KS 1/11/11

1

Indicative structure 2011

1