agenda - swansea - residents · summary: this is the agenda pack for a meeting of the local service...

a

City & County of Swansea Loc al Service Board Scrutiny Performance Panel

Date: 21st March 2016 Time: 4.00-5.30pm

Venue: Chamber Meeting Room, Civic Centre

Summary : This is the agenda pack for a meeting of the Local Service Board Scrutiny Performance Panel taking place on the 21 March 2016. The main items on the agenda are a Briefing on Public Services Board Well-being Assessment and a discussion on the Panel’s findings and recommendations from their work looking at the Local Service Board’s priority of Older People’s Independence.

Members of the Panel: Cllr Mary Jones (Convener) Cllr Paxton Hood-Williams Cllr Fiona Gordon

Cherrie Bija (SCVS representative) Andrew Davies (ABMU Health Board representative) Emily Warren (Police Commissioner representative)

Cllr Chris Holley

AGENDA No. Item

1. Apologies

2. Declarations of interest

3.

Meeting notes 22nd February and matters arising

4. Briefing on Public Services Board Well -being Assessment – including LSB Driver diagrams

Steve King, Information and Research Team Leader Tanya Nash, Sustainable Development Team Leader

5. Draft Convener’s letter to Chair of LSB /PSB

Discussion on Panel’s findings and recommendations from their work looking at the Local Service Board’s priority of Older People’s Independence

The evidence pack to accompany the findings letter is attached separately.

Rosie Jackson, Scrutiny Officer

Items for Information

6. Work plan

***Please note that Members should declare personal and prejudicial interests and party whipping in the usual manner***

Contact: Rosie Jackson, Scrutiny Officer. Tel: 01792 636292 Email: [email protected]

1

ITEM 3

Local Service Board Scrutiny Performance Panel

Meeting notes 22 February 2016

In attendance Panel Members: Cllr Mary Jones Cllr Paxton Hood-Williams Cllr Chris Holley Cherrie Bija Maggie Berry Also in attendance: Cllr Rob Stewart – Chair of the LSB/Leader of City & County of Swansea Officers: Mike Hawes Tanya Nash Brij Madahar Dave Mckenna

ACTION

1. Apologies Apologies from Cllr Fiona Gordon. Maggie Berry attended in place of Andrew Davies, as ABMU Health Board representative.

2.

Disclosure of Members’ personal interests: None

3 Matters arising from meeting notes 4th January Convener and Panel wished to express their thanks to Karen Bewen-Chappell for her support to the Panel during maternity cover.

4. Q & A session with Cllr Rob Stewart, Leader of the City & County of Swansea – Local Service Board & Older People’s Independence

The report provided a summary of the work the Panel has completed so far, as a basis for discussion with Cllr Rob Stewart, Chair of the LSB, about the difference the LSB is making. The report contained the views of the Panel so far, informed in particular by its work on older people. Panel shared some concerns about progress of the LSB. Reflected on their work and information gathered. Invited Cllr Rob Stewart to talk about progress both on

2

ACTION

Older People’s Independence objective and generally, and take questions.

RS: accepted progress has not been fast enough. Although priorities are agreed by LSB and partner commitment to objectives is there (as shown by a lot of good work on the ground), getting partners to commit actual financial resources is an ongoing topic of debate. As work to develop the PSB is happening this is being discussed, including both small contributions to administrative costs and pooled funding to work on objectives. Given the amounts being talked about it is disappointing that this is yet to be agreed by all partners. Panel shared concerns and encouraged the Leader to keep pushing this. Panel asked about the commitment to the LSB outside of funding. RS: Commitment is there but need to translate this into clear actions and outcomes, and money to support this should follow. Current the two are disconnected. Panel asked about the Ageing Well Plan and how it has been disseminated amongst and considered by partners since being approved by Cabinet in November 2015. It was also suggested that it should be reported to Council. Panel asked about progress with Local Area Coordinators (LACs). RS: Idea came from Australia and there is some evidence of success. Locally we don’t have enough experience yet to show evidence of success but the approach feels right and is a significant contribution to independence / prevention strategies. We don’t have the resources to expand the number of LACs but coordination with the Police has been discussed and there is agreement that the network of support could be expanded through the use of PCSOs. Hopefully we will have around 12-15 LACs or equivalent operating so that there is greater coverage across Swansea. Very happy to discuss with other partners, such as 3rd Sector, how they might be able to help increase the network. Panel asked about the evaluation of the LAC approach and RS confirmed that it was being evaluated. Panel talked about its letter to LSB members about Older People’s Independence and common theme from responses about lack of improvement / outcomes. Panel asked what effect the LSB is

RS undertook to respond in writing. To be included in convener’s letter

3

ACTION

having? RS: outcomes not as big as could have been – but takes time to bed in. Objectives are clear but accept that performance framework / monitoring of outcomes not so robust at moment. He added that we can’t go into silo mentality – that would be worse. We are trying to corral partners to buy in. Panel asked about evidence of improvement. DM stated that Driver Diagrams are an important part of this and link outcomes to the work on the ground. He added that at each LSB meeting it hears from coordinators about work carried out and progress, partners discuss what they’re doing beyond those action plans, and the LSB invites people with issues into the LSB meeting to share experiences. There is a constant conversation but it has not been easy to translate all the work into overall outcomes. Panel asked that as the LSB is coming to an end and a PSB is being established whether there is any evidence of members becoming less engaged. RS: No evidence of disengagement. At the moment transition work is happening and there is a need to consider membership / structure of PSB however I don’t anticipate a significant change in terms of partner involvement. Expect high degree of continuity, and no drastic change in direction. Panel asked about financial contributions from partners. RS: Still a talking point eg NRW have to serve on 22 PSBs and if each is asking for £10k then that adds up to a large financial commitment – so we need to take account of this. Of course smaller organisations may not be able to afford so much. Panel asked about the Older People’s Independence priority and whether priorities will continue under PSB. RS: LSB, which owns this priority, is regularly updated on this. The council is coordinating this work but everyone owns it. We are taking steps to develop the PSB and are discussion how it will operate and be funded. The process is about evolution not revolution so will be surprised to see the PSB ditch the 2 current priorities. Panel agreed that the 2 priorities are important local priorities (Older People’s Independence and Domestic Abuse). These are issues which people may not be clear where they can go for help and we may not know whether needs are being met.

4

ACTION

RS: We know that we’ve got real pressures in Adult Social Services, and seeing increase in complex care needs. Prevention, early intervention and independence is a big part of the strategy – to prevent crisis situations. But it’s a long term programme, and we always have the issue of finding money for prevention work as well as providing a care service. Regarding the future of the PSB one of the challenges is to find something of communality for better joint working and we can corral people around it. We need to find the important initiatives which all share. Panel asked what is being done differently because of the LSB that otherwise would not be done? RS: It’s about the alignment of organisations to focus on the same outcomes. Without collaboration some may be doing something contradictory to the Council or duplicating work. Organisations working separately may be missing out on opportunities to complement each other’s work for similar activities. e.g. example of Council and Police coming together on the Local Area Coordination approach, Fire Service may be working on prevention as well as us or others. So it brings a sharing of information and alignment of efforts for a bigger impact. But accept there is a lack of evidence – however things are better from working together and progress is there but accept could be far more effective. But much does depend on the drive and money from partners. Panel members noted it was not just about money but using resources differently. Panel felt there was a need for more information on action plans. Remarks that the issues being talked about are same as those from years ago. Concern that nothing really tangible comes out of LSB. Perhaps asking people for money now is waking people up to some extent, to responsibility and importance of this work. Feeling that Panel needs better information from LSB / PSB about action plans, targets in order to assess achievements i.e. the commitment to a certain position within specific timescales. Perhaps LSB / PSB need to discuss this. Scrutiny Panel needs information so it can see how the LSB is moving forward. Panel has been information gathering more than ‘scrutinising’ to date. RS: The Plan and Driver Diagrams are very informative regarding the approach of the LSB. We can request specific actions at LSB which we get regular updates on. We can share the Driver Diagrams with you at the Panel. Panel Members also welcome to attend the next meeting of the LSB and ask questions as it is in public. (Panel pointed out it was something they recommended –

5

ACTION

5.

LSB opening up meetings to public) Panel reflected on previous LSB meeting observed (under previous chair) RS: The LSB is now more business like these days. I am very delivery focussed about what I / we require. Happy for you to turn up to the next LSB. Regarding Domestic Violence there is good evidence of collaboration and outcomes. Police not target DV around big events such as 6 Nations – early intervention to prevent abuse occurring. Panel agreed Domestic Abuse / Violence is a difficult topic, hence an issue for the LSB. Feedback from LSB Members re. Older Peoples Independence

Panel provided with a summary of the feedback from the LSB members in response to the Convener’s letter regarding the impact of the LSB in progressing its priority of Older People’s Independence, and generally. The Panel had put a number of questions to LSB Members (shown in para. 1.2 of the report), and the responses received were attached. Para. 4 (page 16) provided some conclusions drawn out from the responses and work completed. The Panel discussed the emerging conclusions. Noted small number of responses. Panel disappointed about lack of pooled funding. Urge all partners to engage. Some concern that there are not enough Local Area Coordinators to cover all areas in Swansea, but pleased to hear of proposed collaboration / joint working with Police which will see PCSOs delivering similar function / approach. Emerging conclusions agreed subject to change in g) - refer to Panel as the ‘Scrutiny Panel’. Noted that the final meeting of the LSB is taking place in March, before transition to the PSB. Panel acknowledged it was timely to present its conclusions from its work to date, informed by its specific work on Older People’s Independence.

Panel stated a letter would be sent to the Chair of the LSB on key points from discussion and to share conclusions of the Panel. Agreed formal letter be sent to the Chair of the LSB on the Panel’s conclusions, which should help influence the development of the new Public Services Board.

6

ACTION

6. Terms of Reference for the PSB

Dave McKenna – Overview & Scrutiny Manager Dave Mckenna presented a report on the Swansea Public Services Board in order to consult on the draft terms of reference and seek initial views on the role of scrutiny in the new arrangements. Panel noted first meeting of new PSB taking place in May when it will sign-off Terms of Reference. The LSB Executive Group is developing this. Terms of Reference: • Re. the principles the Board should sign up to - what would this

mean in practice? Noted that it would have an implication on all PSB partners in terms of awareness / training, monitoring processes etc as they would have to be signed up to these. Noted list at para. 7. Panel remarked absence of reference to Older People, Voluntary Sector Compact, or Armed Forces Covenant.

• Happy with para. 9 ensuring that Leader can only designate another member of the Council’s Cabinet to represent them.

• Some confusion about role / status of statutory invitees compared with statutory members. Noted they would not be deemed as members of the Board. Panel felt wording should be clearer on this.

• Re. Support: agree that each statutory member should contribute towards the cost of administrative support for the PSB.

• Some confusion with references to ‘members’ of the Board within the Terms of Reference. Does this refer to the statutory organisations, i.e. there are 4, or does it refer to the total number of individuals this would involve i.e. possibly between 5 - 7 people could be ‘the members’.

• Agenda items described in para 29 seem limited. Scrutiny arrangements: • Noted will now be statutory and designation to a scrutiny

committee. • Noted SPC will be considering a report on scrutiny

arrangements and discussion about delegation of responsibility. • Noted certain expectations on scrutiny – more structured. • Acknowledged that membership of any future Scrutiny Panel will

need to reflect make up of new PSB. Need to iron out issues regarding appropriate non-executive representation from external organisations.

7

ACTION

Panel informed of Wellbeing assessment which needs to be prepared will inform PSB objectives and well-being plan. Panel invited to have discussion on this at next meeting with assistance from Steve King, to help understanding of the PSB and its responsibilities.

7 Work plan

The Panel was happy to conclude its work on Older People’s Independence with the conclusions drawn so far on the information already considered to be included in letter to the chair of the LSB. However Panel felt session with Cllr Jane Harris which has originally been scheduled for January should be arranged. The 25 April meeting was identified for this. Invitation to be sent to Cllr Harris.

The Panel otherwise was happy to move on to focus on the development of the Public Services Board and associated work. One of the key activities for the PSB is to undertake and publish a Wellbeing Assessment. The Panel took up an invitation to discuss this at its next meeting. Agenda for next meeting on 21 March to include discussion on LSB Driver Diagrams, and upcoming Wellbeing Assessment. Steve King to be invited. Relevant papers to be circulated at the earliest opportunity. (Apologies from Cherrie Bija for next Scrutiny Panel on 21 March) NB – Leader invited Panel Members to observe next LSB meeting (15 March) – opportunity to ask question. Chair suggested a pre-meeting to discuss.

Scrutiny Officer to invite Cllr Jane Harris to attend the Panel’s meeting in April Scrutiny officer to arrange for Steve King to attend March meeting

8

ITEM 4

Report of the Information, Research & GIS Team Leader

Local Service Board Scrutiny Panel 21st March 2016

DRIVER DIAGRAMS AND THE WELL-BEING ASSESSMENT

Purpose To outline the driver diagrams previously developed for the One Swansea Plan / Strategic Needs Assessment, and update the Panel on the proposed process for preparing the Well-being Assessment for the Public Services Board and seek initial views.

Content The report includes background to the driver diagrams included in the One Swansea Plan and Strategic Needs Assessment and an outline of current thinking on the process of preparing the well-being assessment for Swansea’s new Public Services Board.

Councillors are being asked to

• Make comments and recommendations as necessary

Lead Councillor(s)

Councillor Mary Jones, Convener of Local Service Board Scrutiny Panel

Report Author Steve King, Information Research & GIS Team Leader / LSB Research Group Support Officer, 635710, [email protected]

1. Background 1.1 As part of the Welsh Government’s previous framework for SIPs –

single integrated plans ('Shared Purpose - Shared Delivery'), the annual Strategic Needs Assessment (SNA) has formed the evidence base for Swansea’s SIP since 2012. The LSB Research Group has been responsible for compiling each annual assessment – Swansea’s 2015 assessment was endorsed by the LSB in January 2016. However, this will be the final SNA produced under this framework.

1.2 The Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 creates Public

Services Boards as a replacement for Local Service Boards, and Swansea Public Services Board (PSB) will be established in May 2016. The Act also includes a requirement to produce a local Well-being Plan and (before that) a Well-being Assessment, which replaces the SNA.

1.3 This paper sets out the background to the creation of the driver

diagrams included in the 2015 SNA, and how these are likely to be taken forward as a key element of Swansea’s well-being assessment, which will be developed over the next year.

9

2. Development of Driver Diagrams 2.1 In conceptual terms, a driver diagram is a tool that helps translate a

high level improvement goal (or ‘population outcome’ in this case) into a logical set of underpinning goals (‘drivers’) and projects. The driver diagrams aim to show the factors that most contribute to the outcomes, what partners should focus on, and to illustrate how factors/issues (including the services and projects associated with them) link together. Locally, driver diagrams were recently used by ABMU Health Board / Public Health Wales in their latest Public Health Strategic Framework.

2.2 A series of driver diagrams were developed for each of the six

population outcomes included in the One Swansea Plan. As part of this process, a joint workshop (including members of the Research and Co-ordinators Groups) was held in June 2015 to refine the initial draft driver diagrams. These diagrams were included in the One Swansea Plan (approved July 2015), then used to structure the 2015 SNA.

2.3 The driver diagrams also provide a measurement framework for

monitoring progress, and the best available indicators associated with primary drivers were also included in the 2015 SNA. This contained analysis of 20 ‘key indicators’ in total across the six outcomes – which effectively replaced the ‘challenges’ included in previous SNAs.

2.4 The driver diagrams, which begin each chapter in the SNA, include:

• The population outcome that we want to see (outcomes A to F) • Primary drivers that describe what needs to be in place for the

outcome to happen • Secondary drivers – the most important things that we need to do to

achieve the primary drivers.

The current driver diagrams are included as Appendix A to this report. Across all outcomes, there are 18 primary and 63 secondary drivers.

2.5 It is anticipated that the diagrams will continue to be reviewed and

developed in subsequent years as part of the well-being plan and assessment process, and in future also potentially include ‘tertiary’ level drivers and a mechanism to map projects and activities to drivers.

3. Requirements of the Well-being of Future Generations Act 3.1 The Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, which

became law in April 2015, will establish Public Services Boards (PSBs) as a replacement for Local Service Boards in each local authority area by 2016. From May 2016, the LSB will become Swansea Public Services Board – a statutory body with legally defined membership.

3.2 Each PSB must improve the well-being of its area by working to

achieve the seven well-being goals in the Act, have regard to the sustainable development principle (via the five key ways of working),

10

and prepare and publish a local well-being plan setting out its local objectives and the steps it proposes to take to meet them. Before that, a PSB must produce an “assessment of the state of economic, social, environmental and cultural well-being in its area”. WG Ministers will review well-being plans and assessments and be able to refer either to the local authority’s overview and scrutiny committee.

3.3 In recent months, WG has issued statutory guidance to assist LSBs /

PSBs with their well-being plans and assessments. The Act and guidance sets out how PSBs should be established and how well-being assessments and well-being plans should be developed. WG have also issued additional non-statutory “Guidance on the use of evidence and analysis” – to assist the production of well-being assessments.

3.4 A PSB must prepare and publish its assessment a year before it

publishes its local well-being plan. It should provide “an accurate analysis of the state of well-being in each community and in the area as a whole.” At its February meeting, the LSB Research Group considered a paper (RG 16 03) which summarised the key aspects of the Act and guidance, together with a number of issues and questions that the LSB should consider before the assessment begins in earnest.

4. Swansea’s Well-being Assessment: emerging proposals

4.1 For the overall Well-being Plan / Assessment process, key milestones were set out in item 8 of the LSB meeting of 19 January 2016:

• First meeting of Swansea Public Services Board (17 May 2016) • Publish Well-being Assessment (February 2017) • Local Government Elections (May 2017) • 12 week consultation for Well-being Plan (September 2017) • Publish Wellbeing Plan (March 2018).

Within this wider frame, Table 1 below outlines the key overall stages initially identified specifically around the well-being assessment.

Table 1: Key stages towards the Well-being Assessment

Stage Timescale Scope well-being assessment Feb-Apr 2016 Undertake assessment of local well-being Apr-Jul 2016 Draft well-being assessment report Jul-Sep 2016

Consultation on draft well-being assessment Sep-Nov 2016 Redraft well-being assessment Dec 2016-Jan 2017

Publish well-being assessment Feb 2017 4.2 We are currently at the first of these stages. Of necessity, elements of

this work will have to begin before the first PSB meeting in May. As noted previously, there are a number of issues that should be considered during this initial scoping period, as outlined below.

11

4.3 The six current population outcomes , as established in the One

Swansea Plan and Strategic Needs Assessment, have been agreed by the LSB following considerable discussion. However, they no longer provide a direct match to the four ‘strands’ of well-being (economic, social, environmental and cultural) or to the seven national well-being goals as set out in the Act. Therefore, a ‘rapid review’ of the outcomes and primary drivers by LSB members is now underway, to ensure they are fit for purpose and consistent with the well-being goals, before work on the well-being assessment starts. This review will need to be completed in April, prior to the establishment of the PSB.

4.4 Driver diagrams are likely to remain a core component of the overall

process, in part setting the structure for the well-being assessment. The intention has been to review and develop the diagrams, both by refining existing drivers as necessary and (potentially) include tertiary level drivers and map out LSB/PSB partner projects and services. This work can continue as part of the well-being assessment process.

4.5 The statutory guidance states a requirement to identify ‘geographic

community areas ’ as the basis for local area analysis – these areas to be larger than wards, with a statistical geography ‘multiple LSOAs’ (Lower Super Output Areas) suggested by WG. However, statistical geographies will not always successfully reflect community identity.

4.6 The assessment must also consider the well-being of specific groups

of people , i.e. vulnerable or disadvantaged; people with a protected characteristic; children; young people looked after, accommodated or fostered; and people who need (or provide) care and support.

4.7 An outline structure for the well-being assessment needs to be

developed at an early stage, incorporating the requirements of the Act and guidance. For example, the ‘scorecard’ approach used in the SNA did provide a framework for contributors to work with, and gave a coherent overall look and feel to that document, but it is clear from WG guidance that substantial changes to the previous format and approach will be necessary. As a result, more detailed proposals for the well-being assessment will be developed by LSB Research Group and other LSB members, including a proposed half-day workshop (carefully planned and focused around an agreed set of objectives) prior to the establishment of the PSB in May.

Next Steps

• Panel members are asked to make comments and recommendations as necessary.

Appendices: Appendix A – Current Driver Diagrams (from One Swansea Strategic Needs Assessment 2015).

12

APPENDIX A: Current Driver Diagrams (from One Swansea Plan Strategic Needs Assessment 2015)

�� Population Outcome A: Children Have a Good Start in Life

Outcome Primary Driver (when...) Secondary Driver (so we need to...)

People learn successfully

Young people and adults have good jobs

People have a decent standard of living

People are healthy, safe and independent

People have good places to live and work

A1.1 Improve the health and safety of pregnant women

A1. Babies are born healthy

A1.2 Reduce the number of teenage pregnancies

A. Children have a Good Start in Life A2.1 Decrease the number of incidents of domestic abuse within families

A2. Children are safe from harm

A2.2 Provide effective child safety and protection

A3.1 Reduce levels of preschool obesity and increase the levels of healthy eating

A3. Preschool children are healthy

A3.2 Improve rates of immunisation against illness

A3.3 Ensure that parents and carers feel confident and well supported to improve child health

A4.1 Ensure parents and carers feel confident and well supported to prepare children for school

A4.2 Improve the rate at which all children reach their development milestones

A4. Children are ready for school

A4.3 Improve health and wellbeing services to preschool children

13

�� Population Outcome B: People learn successfully


Children have a good start in life





B1.1 Improve attendance in low attendance schools

B1.2 Improve attendance for groups who are known to have poor attendance, including adults

B1. Children, young people and adults attend school and other provision

B1.3 Ensure schools maintain good policies, systems and processes around attendance

B1.4 Ensure schools know and tackle the reasons why children and young people do not attend school regularly

B2.1 Ensure children, young people and adults can take up learning opportunities most appropriate for them

B2.2 Ensure that providers of education and training keep improving to a good quality standard

B2. People develop the skills and qualifications they need and are able to learn throughout life

B2.3 Improve literacy in English and Welsh, numeracy skills and the use of technology for learning

B2.4 Improve learners' wellbeing by providing the right support to meet their needs and removing barriers to learning

C1 Young people and adults are sk illed and qualified

C2 Barriers to Employment and Training are removed

B. People Learn Successfully

14

�� Population Outcome C: Young people and adults have good jobs







C1.1 Increase access to tailored support/ mentoring to raise aspirations and eliminate barriers/ inequalities

C1.2 Improve work readiness/ employability skills

C1.3 Increase opportunities for employment and training

C1.4 Increase availability of high quality, affordable childcare

C1.5 Create affordable transport services to access employment and training

C2.1 Increase inward investment

C2.2 Increase self employment/ entrepreneurship

C2.3 Grow and retain existing employers

C2.4 Increase high value, skilled jobs

C2.5 Capitalise on future opportunities and growth industries

C2.6 Develop Swansea as a significant tourism destination

C1. Barriers to Employment and Training are removed

C. Young People & Adults Have Good Jobs

C2. Good job opportunities are created

15

�� Population Outcome D: People have a decent standard of living







D1.1 Support people to identify any financial support for which they are eligible and overcome barriers to claiming it

D1.2 Encourage local employers to pay the Living Wage

D1. Households achieve the Minimum Income Standard

D1.3 Young people and adults have good jobs (Outcome C) and affordable childcare and transport

D2.1 Ensure all people have good quality, affordable homes (also F2.1)

D. People Have a Decent Standard of Liv ing

D2. Households are not subject to the Poverty Premium

D2.2 Ensure people on low incomes do not pay more than people on higher incomes for equivalent goods and services

D3.1 Ensure a broad range of opportunities for people to make their money go further are available and used successfully

D3. People get the most for their money

D3.2 Improve Financial Capability to reduce the proportion of household income spent on debt

16

�� Population Outcome E: People are healthy, safe and independent







E1.1 Reduce obesity in all age groups

E1. People are physically healthy and equipped for a healthy, long life

E1.2 Reduce smoking, alcohol and drug misuse in all age groups

E1.3 Increase physical activity in all age groups

E2.1 Ensure that children and young people are supported to develop emotional resilience and able to access services

E2.2 Support people to live in resilient and sustainable communities

E3.1 Support Age Friendly Communities

E3.2 Develop Dementia Supportive Communities

E3.3 Prevent falls by older people

E3.4 Maximise older people’s opportunities for learning and employment

E3.5 Reduce loneliness and isolation among older people

E4.1 Reduce violence against women and children

E4.2 Reduce anti social behaviour and all crime

E4.3 Improve road safety

E. People are Healthy, Safe and Independent

E2. Children, young people and adults have good mental health and wellbeing

E3. Older people age well and are supported to remain independent

E4. People are safe and feel safe

17

�� Population Outcome F: People have good places to live and work


Children have a Good Start in Life

People Learn Successfully

Young People and Adults have Good Jobs

People Have a Decent Standard of Living

People are Healthy, Safe and Independent F1.1 Protect and enhance biodiversity

F1.2 Improve and maintain water quality

F1.3 Improve and maintain air quality

F1.4 Improve the sustainable management and use of natural resources and the services they provide

F1.5 Develop and maintain a network of multifunctioning natural and public open spaces

F2.1 Ensure people have good quality, resource-efficient, flexible and affordable housing

F2.2 Create a safe, attractive and distinctive built infrastructure that supports health, employment, training, culture and heritage

F2.3 Improve physical and digital connectivity with access to a range of sustainable, good quality transport options

F2.4 Create a vibrant and viable city centre

F3.1 Encourage sustainable energy generation and use

F3.2 Maximise sustainable waste management

F3.3 Improve resilience to climate change

F3.4 Increase community participation and capacity

F3.5 Improve environmental awareness and understanding

F1. The natural environment is healthy and resilient

F: People Have Good Places to Live and Work

F2. People have a good quality built environment and supportive infrastructure

F3. People live in resilient and environmentally sustainable communities

18

ITEM 5

Report of the Convener

Local Service Board Scrutiny Panel 21st March 2015

Purpose To enable the Panel to discuss its findings and

conclusions arising from its in-depth work looking at the Older People’s Independence Priority of the Local Service Board.

Content This report, and the separately attached evidence pack, set out the evidence gathered by the Panel, the emerging conclusions and recommendations and the next steps for the Panel’s work.

Panel Members are being asked to

Discuss the findings and conclusions and make any amendments necessary so that a Convener’s letter can be sent to the Chair of the Local Service Board.

Lead Councillor(s)

Councillor Mary Jones, Convener of Local Service Board Scrutiny Panel

Report Author Rosie Jackson, Scrutiny Officer Tel: 01792 636292 E-mail: [email protected]

1. Background 1.1 The Local Service Board Scrutiny Panel agreed that its preferred

approach to its work plan for 2015/16 would be to select a Local Service Board challenge to look at in-depth. The intention behind this was that the Panel’s findings on this topic could be extrapolated to form views on the effectiveness of the Local Service Board more generally.

1.2 The Panel identified Older People’s Independence as its in-depth topic

and agreed that the key question it is seeking to address is ‘What difference is the Swansea Local Service Board making for citizens?

2. Summary of evidence gathered 2.1 Over the past six months the Panel has collected evidence from a range

of sources including: • A briefing on Older People’s Independence and the Ageing Well Plan:

Chris Sivers (Corporate Director People) and Euros Owen.

• A briefing on the Wellbeing & Future Generations Act: Tanya Nash (Sustainable Development Team Leader)

19

• Cllr Mark Child: Cabinet Member for Wellbeing & Healthy City. An overview of his portfolio’s contribution to the Older People’s Independence priority and the links to Healthy Cities.

• Healthy Cities (phase VI 2014-2018 specifically referring to the theme of Older People): Sharon Miller (ABMU)

• Premature mortality rates: Dr Nina Williams (Public Health Wales)

• Cllr Andrea Lewis: Cabinet Member for Next Generation Services. A briefing and overview of the Next Generation Services portfolio contribution to the Older People’s Independence

• Written submissions from Local Service Board members providing their views on the effectiveness and achievements of the Local Service Board.

2.2 The evidence gathered is collated separately in an evidence pack. It

contains the presentations and reports received by the Panel and also the summary discussion notes from each session.

3. Emerging findings and conclusions 3.1 Conclusions

Following an analysis of the evidence gathered the following conclusions have emerged and are presented here for the Panel’s discussion. Please refer to the letter at appendix A for full details:

a) The Local Service Board has been successful in clarifying and promoting the top priorities for Swansea.

b) The Local Service Board has demonstrated its effectiveness in strategic planning.

c) We have found that the Local Service Board is less effective at monitoring outcomes.

d) We are concerned by the failure of the Local Service Board to agree pooled funding for activities.

e) We believe that work needs to be done to develop a wide understanding of the Public Services Board’s purpose and role.

3.2 Recommendations

As a result of the conclusions the following recommendations are presented for the Panel’s discussion. Please refer to appendix A for full details:

a) Ensure wider reporting of the Ageing Well Plan, including a report to

Council, in order to highlight the successful partnership approach.

b) Consult with the scrutiny panel as part of the review of the Ageing Well Plan (due July 2016).

c) The Public Services Board needs to clearly state how it will address the issue of pooled funding to tackle priorities.

20

d) Clear arrangements need to be put in place to monitor the outcomes of the Public Services Board’s work.

e) Consult with the scrutiny panel about the format of future performance monitoring reports for the work of the Public Services Board and ensure that the panel receives regular performance monitoring reports.

f) Develop a communications plan for all partners of the Public Services Board to ensure that its work, objectives and outcomes are widely understood within all organisations. Ensure that all partners report regularly on the efforts they are making to disseminate this information.

4. Next steps 4.1 The Panel is asked to consider the emerging findings and conclusions and

reflect on whether they are an accurate representation of your views and whether you are happy with the proposed recommendations.

4.2 This will mark the end of the Panel’s work looking at the Older People’s

Independence Priority, with the exception of a session with the Cabinet Member for Adults and Vulnerable People, Councillor Jane Harris. This was postponed from the Panel’s January meeting. A date needs to be arranged for this.

4.3 The Panel’s recommendations will be presented to the Local Service

Board in the form of a letter from the Panel’s Convener to the Chair of the LSB. The intention is that the Panel’s findings and recommendations will help inform the transition of the Local Service Board to the Public Services Board, from April 2016.

4.4 The next stage in the Panel’s work will be to focus on how it needs to

adapt to the new Public Services Board and to develop its future performance monitoring role.

21

Overview & Scrutiny / Trosolwg a chraffu

City and County of Swansea / Dinas a Sir Abertawe Civic Centre, Swansea, SA1 3SN / Canolfan Ddinesig, Abertawe, SA1 3SN

C I T Y A N D C O U N T Y O F S W A N S E A

———————————————————————————————————————————————

Dinas A Sir Abertawe

Dear Councillor Stewart, Thank you for your attendance at the Local Service Board Scrutiny Performance Panel on 22 February. We wanted to explore with you our findings so far around our work looking at Older People’s Independence. We are writing to you in order to reflect on what we learnt from the discussion and share the Panel’s findings, which we intend to be useful to help influence the development of the new Public Services Board. Panel’s approach The Panel was set up to look at the effectiveness of the Local Service Board and in particular address the question: ‘What difference is the Swansea Local Service Board making for citizens?’ Over the past six months our approach has been to look in depth at one of the Local Service Board’s priorities for 2015/16 in order to extrapolate findings on how well it is working as a whole. We selected the Older People’s Independence Priority and

Councillor Rob Stewart Chair of the Local Service Board BY EMAIL

Please ask for: Gofynnwch am:

Scrutiny

Direct Line: Llinell Uniongyrochol:

01792 636292

e-Mail e-Bost:

scruti [email protected]

Our Ref Ein Cyf:

Your Ref Eich Cyf:

Date Dyddiad:

Xx/xx/2016

Summary: A Convener’s letter to the Chair of the Local Service Board outlining the Panel’s findings and recommendations following their work to look at “What difference is the Swansea Local Service Board making for citizens?”

Appendix A – draft findings letter

22



commenced our work with an overview of the priority from Chris Sivers (Corporate Director for Place) in July 2015. Evidence gathered We have gathered evidence from a range of sources, which included: • Briefing on Older People’s Independence and the Ageing Well Plan: Chris Sivers

(Corporate Director People) and Euros Owen.

• Briefing on the Wellbeing & Future Generations Act: Tanya Nash (Sustainable Development Team Leader)

• Cllr Mark Child: Cabinet Member for Wellbeing & Healthy City. An overview of his portfolio’s contribution to the Older People’s Independence priority and the links to Healthy Cities.

• Healthy Cities (phase VI 2014-2018 specifically referring to the theme of Older People): Sharon Miller (ABMU)

• Premature mortality rates: Dr Nina Williams (Public Health Wales)

• Cllr Andrea Lewis: Cabinet Member for Next Generation Services. A briefing and overview of the Next Generation Services portfolio contribution to the Older People’s Independence

• Written submissions from Local Service Board members providing their views on the effectiveness and achievements of the Local Service Board.

Our work has led us to a number of findings with some resulting recommendations which we hope will influence the development of the Public Services Board.

The Local Service Board has been successful in clarifying and promoting the top priorities for Swansea.

The Local Service Board is important because it has been effective in bringing key stakeholders together and agreeing joint priorities through the production of the One Swansea Plan and the Strategic Needs Assessment. This has encouraged organisations to align their priorities and focus on the same outcomes. Without collaboration some may be working contradictory to each other or duplicating work. Organisations who work separately may be missing out on opportunities to complement each other’s work for similar activities. Financial cuts across all sectors mean that the need to explore opportunities for closer collaboration is greater than ever. The key role of the Local Service Board, as we see it, is to focus on building on the strengths of organisations and allowing them to pool resources, avoid duplication and through this maximise their impact on improving outcomes for residents of Swansea. The evidence we have collected and our discussions with Local Service Board partners have indicated that it has had mixed success in doing this, we discuss this view further in the following paragraphs.

23



The Local Service Board has demonstrated its effectiveness in strategic planning.

The One Swansea Plan has been a useful tool to raise the profile of the Local Service Board’s priorities for Swansea. In particular, examples provided to us by health representatives included: raising the profile of early years and premature mortality and contributory factors like smoking cessation; the profile of older people and premature mortality; the tobacco action plan and early years programme under Healthy Cities is gaining momentum; and support from the cabinet lead as a champion has been excellent in reducing premature mortality and increasing prevention aspects of older peoples independence. Health representatives told us that the Local Service Board has been able to disseminate a wider understanding of the Healthy City initiative and this is attributed to the partnership working that it has facilitated. In terms of the Older Peoples Independence priority, the development of the Ageing Well Plan as the over-arching strategy for multi-agency work is a positive outcome which has strengthened the partnership working in this area, and the development of the five work streams has provided a clear strategic focus. However, we suggest that wider promotion of the Plan should take place, including a report to Council, following its agreement by Cabinet in November 2015. We believe that this will help to highlight the work of the Local Service Board.

We have found that the Local Service Board is less effective at monitoring outcomes.

We have been provided with some evidence of on the ground work where the Local Service Board has built on existing strategic developments such as making Swansea a Dementia Supportive City – for example as a result police officers are now fully aware of the issues and have now received dementia awareness training. The Local Service Board has also supported the work of Local Area Co-ordinators. However it is not clear to us how important a part it has had in the development of the role. Nevertheless, we were pleased to hear of further collaborative work with the Police in order to look at ways to expand this approach but within existing resources. We feel that this is a positive example of the partnership approach fostered by the Local Service Board. We have found it difficult to gather information on the effectiveness of outcome monitoring and we were advised the work is on-going to develop qualitative measures in order to more robustly monitor progress on the outcomes for the Older Peoples Independence priority. As a result we believe that when the annual review of the Ageing Well Plan takes place in July 2016 the scrutiny panel should be consulted as part of the process in order to help us understand how effective the Local Service Board is at monitoring outcomes. The low level of response to the Panel’s request for information from Local Service Board partners is disappointing and we hope it is not indicative of the level of their

24



engagement with review and evaluation generally. We expect that the enhanced statutory role for scrutiny as part of the Well-being and Future Generations Act will encourage a greater level of engagement in the scrutiny process from all partners. The Public Services Board must ensure that it sets clear tasks with tangible outcomes and a robust monitoring plan. Going forward, regular progress reports should be made to the scrutiny panel, so that we can develop an active role in performance monitoring. We recognise that developing meaningful, robust outcomes is not an easy task therefore we would be prepared to assist and be consulted on the development of any performance monitoring framework.

We are concerned by the failure of the Local Service Board to agree pooled funding for activities.

Pooled funding is a key area which will demonstrate the commitment of partners to achieving the outcomes; therefore we consider that a lack of funding commitment shows a lack of commitment to the partnership working process. We were advised that work is on-going to try to address this issue, both in terms of small contributions to administrative costs and pooled funding to work on objectives. Going forward we recommend that addressing the issue of pooled funding should be a priority for the Public Services Board. Partners need have shared and clearly defined outcomes, objectives and strategies that enable them to sign up to a clear formal agreement, which sets out the activities to be delivered via the pool. Therefore it will be important for the Public Services Board to gain an understanding what partners feel are the barriers to this.

We believe that work needs to be done to develop a wide understanding of the Public Services Board’s purpose and role.

Positive steps have been taken to improve the transparency and accountability of the Local Service Board by opening its meetings to the public and publishing its agendas and minutes on-line. However, we were unable to establish evidence to show how well individual organisations are cascading information about the work of the Local Service Board internally. The work of the new Public Services Board will be more effective if staff are aware of its aims, objectives and outcomes. We believe that communications plan needs to be established for all partners of the Public Services Board to ensure that its work, objectives and outcomes are widely understood within all organisations. All partners need to report regularly on the efforts they are making to ensure this information is disseminated.

Recommendations

Following the discussions and evidence gathered by the Panel to date, we have made the following recommendations which we intend to assist the development of the Public Services Board. Some relate specifically to the Older People’s Independence Priority and some relate to the development of the Public Services Board:

25



Older Peoples Independence Priority

a) Ensure wider reporting of the Ageing Well Plan, including a report to Council, in order to highlight the successful partnership approach.

b) Consult with the scrutiny panel as part of the review of the Ageing Well Plan (due July 2016).

Public Services Board

c) The Public Services Board needs to clearly state how it will address the issue of pooled funding to tackle priorities.

d) Clear arrangements need to be put in place to monitor the outcomes of the Public Services Board’s work.

e) Consult with the scrutiny panel about the format of future performance monitoring reports for the work of the Public Services Board and ensure that the panel receives regular performance monitoring reports.

f) Develop a communications plan for all partners of the Public Services Board to ensure that its work, objectives and outcomes are widely understood within all organisations. Ensure that all partners report regularly on the efforts they are making to disseminate this information.

Next steps

Whilst we are now happy to conclude our work looking at the Older Peoples Independence priority, we plan to meet with Councillor Jane Harris (Cabinet Member for Adults & Vulnerable People). This is because her portfolio covers the issue of Older People’s Independence and she also sits on the Local Service Board, therefore we feel our work would be incomplete if we did not take the opportunity to discuss our findings with her and to gather her views on the effectiveness of the Local Service Board. Aside from this, going forward, our main focus will be to monitor the development of the Public Services Board and to develop the role of scrutiny within this. We also plan to address the issue of our own membership in order to ensure that we reflect the new make-up of the Public Services Board.

Your response In your response we would appreciate your comments on any of the issues raised in this letter. We would be grateful however if you could specifically refer to the recommendations outlined above. As part of our work plan for 2016/17 we plan to review progress on the recommendations we have made.

Please could you provide your response by xx/xx 2016.

26



Yours sincerely,

Councillor Mary Jones Convener, Local Service Board Scrutiny Performance Panel �� [email protected]

27

ITEM 6

Loc al Service Board Scrutiny Performance Panel Work plan 2015/16

Date Item to be discussed

Meeting 1 27th July

• Overview of the Older People’s Independence priority Chris Sivers – Director of People

• Work Plan 2015/16 Cllr Mary Jones, Convener of the Local Service Board Scrutiny Performance Panel

• Future meeting dates

Meeting 2 14th September

• Overview of Healthy Cities (phase VI 2014-2018) – specifically referring to the core theme of Older People)

Dr Nina Williams – NPHS Local Public Health Director or Sharon Miller – unable to attend

• Briefing on the Wellbeing & Future Generations Act

Tanya Nash – Sustainable Development Team Leader

• Scrutiny Improvement Outcomes – Cllr Mary Jones (chair)

• Next steps for scrutiny of the Older People’s Independence –Cllr Mary Jones

Meeting 3 19th October

Workshop session 1

• Update on the work of the Local Service Board

Dave McKenna – Overview & Scrutiny Manager

• Scrutiny Improvement Outcomes

Convener of the Panel - Cllr Mary Jones

Workshop session 2

• Workplan, Recap, Way Forward • The Wellbeing & Future Generations Act

Convener of the Panel - Cllr Mary Jones

Meeting 4 7th December

• Overview of Healthy Cities (phase VI 2014-2018) – specifically referring to the core theme of Older People)

• Premature Mortality Rates

Sharon Miller – Head of Primary Care ABMU

Dr Nina Williams – NPHS Local Public Health Director

28

Date Item to be discussed

Meeting 5 4th January

• Q & A session with Cllr Andrea Lewis, Cabinet Member for Next Generation Services – Older People’s Independence

Meeting 6 22nd February

• Q & A session with Cllr Rob Stewart, Leader of the City & County of Swansea – Local Service Board & Older People’s Independence

• Terms of Reference for the PSB

Dave McKenna – Overview & Scrutiny Manager

Meeting 7 21st March

• Briefing on Public Services Board Well-being Assessment – including LSB Driver diagrams

Steve King – Information and Research Team Leader Tanya Nash – Sustainable Development Team Leader

• Discussion on Panel’s findings and recommendation re. Older People’s Independence

Rosie Jackson – Scrutiny Officer

Meeting 8 25th April

• Discussion with Cllr Jane Harris, Cabinet Member for Adults & Vulnerable People re. LSB Priority: Older Peoples Independence

• Future membership of the Public Services Board (PSB) Scrutiny Panel To ensure that the membership of the scrutiny panel reflects the statutory membership of the PSB

Rosie Jackson – Scrutiny Officer

Meeting 9 23rd May

TBA

Further possible evidence gathering activities – to be decided if required

• Aging Well Strategy – Jane Whitmore. To discuss the development and

implementation of the strategy and understand what the barriers to delivery are. To include updates from the leads of the 4 planning groups that are part of the LSB Older People’s Strategy Partnership Group.

• Cabinet Member for Adults and Vulnerable People – Councillor Jane Harris. Gain the Cabinet Member’s view on the effectiveness of the Aging Well Strategy and understand what the barriers to delivery are.

• Good practice examples on effective partnership working from Wales/UK.

29

agenda - swansea - residents · summary: this is the agenda pack for a meeting of the local service...

Documents