working better together? - international sport and culture...

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’.


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


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.


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).


22 LAAs,however,docreatelegalrelationships.WhentheSecretaryofStatesignsanLAA,itbecomesacontractwiththesingletierorcountycouncilasaccountablebodies(Ref.11).

23 The“dutytocooperatepartners”,includingdistrictcouncils,police,fireandrescueservices,andprimarycaretrusts(PCTs),haveadutytoagreeandhaveregardtotheLAAtargets.SomeLSPpartnershaveacloserinterestinachievingtheLAAtargetsthanothers(Ref.12).

I Thedifferentnamed,relevantanddutytocooperatepartnersinmid-2008arelistedinAppendix3.


• 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)


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.


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)


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



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.



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.


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).



Case study 3

Continuing high-level coordination

Derbyshire’sLSPCoordinators’GroupbringscountyanddistrictLSPrepresentativestogethereverythreemonths.Theydiscussissuesandshareexperience.ThegrouphelpsLSPstoavoidduplicationandmakethebestuseofresources.

Dorset’sStrategicPartnershipBridgingGroupinvolvesthecountyanddistrictLSPchairs,localauthorityrepresentatives,theDorsetTownandParishCouncilAssociation,andthethirdsector.Itmeetsquarterlytomanagethelinkbetweenlocalanddistrictlevelcommunityplanningandthecounty-widestrategy.Itensuresthatcommunityengagementandplanningwithindistrictsandparishesinfluencescounty-wideprioritiesandaction.


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)



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.


42 Housingandclimatechangeareissuesonwhichlocalauthoritiesandpartnersfeltapulltowardsnationalpoliciesratherthanlocalissues.Housingwasalocalpriorityinfiveofthe17casestudyareas;butthetwohousingindicatorsappearedin11ofthoseareas’LAAs.ClimatechangewasoriginallyintwoofthecasestudySCSs,but11oftheirLAAshaveaclimatechangeindicator.


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



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



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



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


Thirdsectorrepresentative

Independentofpartypolitics;concernforlocalpeople


Other Independentandabovepartisanpolitics




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


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.


I Between2002and2008councilshadregularComprehensivePerformanceAssessments.Thesedrewonperformanceindicators,assessmentsofcorporatecapacity,auditandinspectionreports,andstakeholderopinionstoreachasinglejudgementonperformance.ComprehensiveAreaAssessmentreplacedCPAin2009.



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


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.



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



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



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).


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.




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.


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



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).



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.’


‘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


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).


Case study 7

Derbyshire health and well-being partnership

TheDerbyshireSNAfocusedonanoperationalpartnershiptohelppeoplewithdisabilitiesgetemployment.

Acrossthecounty(andtheunitaryDerbyCityCouncil)thereare111potentialpartners.TheanalysisrevealedweaknessesintheconnectionsbetweenJobcentrePlusandthecityPCT,andbetweenthecountycouncilandthecountyPCT.SNAalsoidentifiedthepotentialisolationfromdecision-makingmechanismsoftheLearningandSkillsCouncil,andlocalfurtherandhighereducationinstitutions.

TheLSPusedtheanalysistostrengthenthepartnershipandimproveservicesacrossthecounty.ItnowusesSNAtotestpartnershipworkingarrangementsatalllevels.



Case study 8

Bolton community safety partnership

TheBoltonSNAfocusedonlinksbetweenthecommunitysafetypartnershipandtheanti-socialbehaviournetwork.

TheSNAidentified210peopleinvolvedinamature,well-ledpartnership.Therewassignificantnetworkingbetweenthepartners.

However,thereweresomekeygatekeeperswhocontrolledaccesstomemberorganisationsandwhokeptthepartnershiprelevantandresponsivetolocalneeds.Iftheyweretoleavetherewouldberealdamagetothepartnership.

Thenetworkusedtheanalysistodevelopsupportforthesegatekeepersandfuture-proofitselfagainstchanges.


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)


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)


82 Participants,whohadnotpreviouslymetinadeliberativeforum,completedself-assessmentsandthensharedtheirconclusions.Theythenagreedonhowtoremoveobstaclestoeffectivejointworkinganddevelopedanactionplantotacklepriorities.


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.


83 Thedeliverychainworkshopsbroughtpartnerstogether,someforthefirsttime,toidentifyimprovementpriorities.Participantsrecognisedthattheseworkshopsprovidedtherightenvironmentfordevelopingnewideasandchallengingreceivedwisdom.Adviceonrunningdeliverychainworkshopsisavailableatwww.improvementnetwork.gov.uk/lsp


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.



85 LSPscan:

• actasthecatalysttoencouragepartnerstoco-locatefrontlineandbackofficeactivities(Casestudy10);

• encouragepartnerstodevelopinformationsystemstosupportdecision-makingacrossaservicenetwork(Ref.35)(Casestudy11);and

• helppartnersmanageresourcestosecureperformanceimprovement(Casestudy12).


Case study 11

Synergies through shared performance mechanisms

Gateshead’sLSPsupportedthecouncil’sprocurementofanewperformancemanagementsystemanditsroll-outacrossstatutorypartners.Informationfromthenewsystemhelpsthepartnershiptofocusonlearningandimprovementplanning.Italsocontributestotheprogrammeofjointbestvaluereviewsofcross-cuttingissuesincludinghealthandequalities,andneighbourhoodservices.


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.



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


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.


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.


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


93 LSPsneedtodevelopmechanismsforinfluencingandsteeringmainstreamresources.Fewerthanhalfthecoordinators,andjustoverathirdofpartners,agreethatLSPsexertaninfluenceonfinancialresources(Figure12).


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


Neutral




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.



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.


‘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/


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


Neutral



100IfLSPsareto‘reviewandperformancemanage progress against the priorities andtargetsagreedintheLAAandensuredeliveryarrangementsareinplace’(Ref.11),theywillalsoneedtochallengeperformance.While75percentofpartnersagreethatanLSPshouldchallengetheirperformanceagainstlocallyagreedoutcomes,only41percentsaytheirLSPdoes.


Commissioning101Theopportunityforjointcommissioning

isoneofthesynergiesthatshouldarisefromlocaljointworking.WhilemanyLSPshavedevelopedservicecommissioningplans,therearesignificantgaps(Figure15).MetropolitandistrictandLondonboroughLSPshavemostexperienceofjointcommissioning.


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



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.


Decommissioning104Decommissioningasapartnership

activityfirstappearedinsupportingpeopleguidance(Ref.39).Decommissioningisthedecisiontostoporcutbackonservices.LSPs’roleininfluencingdecommissioningisimportantinensuringthat:

• partnerstakeaccountofLAAtargetsandSCSobjectivesbeforedecommissioningservices(Table6);

• onepartner’sdecisionsdonotundermine,orplaceextraburdenson,otherpartners;and

• thereisenoughlead-intimetoenablepartnersandserviceuserstoprepare.


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.



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.


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.



Accountability and information (systems)106LSPsneedthesupportofdifferent

systemsthatmaintaintheiraccountabilityandensuredecisionsaresupportedbydata.ThemostimportantLSPsystemscover:

• accountability;

• performanceandfinanceinformation;

• reporting;and

• planning.

ThesesystemsworkthroughthedifferentLSPlayers.


Accountability107Accountabilityhasthreeelements:giving

anaccount,beingheldtoaccount,andcomplaintsandredress(Table7).


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.



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.’


‘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.



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.


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.



Performance information112 Thenationalindicatorsforlocal

authoritiesandtheirpartners(Ref.42)andinternalperformancereportingsystemsarearichsourceofinformationforassessingpartners’contributionsandforgivingaperformanceaccounttolocalandnationalstakeholders.TheAuditCommissionstudyIn the Know (Ref.43)recommendsthattheCOUNT(countonceusenumeroustimes)principlecanreduceduplicationindatacollection.Failuretocoordinatedoesnotjustleadtoduplication:overhalf(55percent)ofLSPcoordinatorsforsingle-tierorcountycouncilsareconcernedthatmisalignmentofperformancereportingsystemswillreduceoverallLSPeffectivenessindeliveringLAAtargets.


113 Commonperformancesystemsneedtimeandmoneytosetup.AreasthatreceivedNeighbourhoodRenewalFunding(NRF)havebettersystemsthanotherareas,andCDRPshavebettersystemsthanotherthemegroups.Sharedperformancesystemsdonotjustcontributetogivinganaccountupwards:theycanhelppartnersrecogniseandassesstheirowncontributionstojointworking.Theyareinvestmentsinlocalcollaborativeworking.Butlikeallinvestmentstheyneedproperappraisalagainstbusinessplanobjectivesandaffordabilitycriteria.

Performance reporting 114 Systemstocollectandreporton

partners’performanceshouldmeetthedifferentneedsoftheLSPgovernancelayers(Table8).


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)


115 LSPsprovideanopportunityforstatutorypartnerstobenchmarktheirperformanceagainstoneanother.SomeLSPsuseperformanceinformationfromotherareastohelptheminterpretlocalperformance(Casestudy18).


Case study 18

Benchmarking in Derby

DerbyCityPartnership’sperformancemanagementgroupreviewedtheopportunitiesforperformancebenchmarkingwithintheLSP.

Thefirststageofthereviewidentifiedpartners’existingbenchmarkingarrangements.Thegroupalsoidentifiedactivitiesforbenchmarkingacrossthepartnershipandwithotherorganisations.

TheLSPcontinuestousebenchmarkingdatatoassessprocesseswithinpartnerorganisationsandtocomparelocaloutcomeswiththoseinotherLSPs.


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).


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’.


Figure 16

Poor quality of information and intelligence are barriers to success


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


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).


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.




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.



126Localrulesandstandardsforperformancemeasurement,reportingandmanagementoftenreflectthehistoryoflocalcollaborativeworking.AreasthatreceivedNRFfundsandthoseinvolvedinthesecondroundoflocalpublicserviceagreements,hadincentivestodevelopabetterunderstandingoflocalperformancesuccessfactors(Ref.46)andaremorelikelytohavesharedsystems.

LSP support teams127LSPsareunincorporatedassociations

withnoemployees:buttheystillneedpeopletodevelopandmanagetheirsystems.AlmostallLSPshaveasupportteamthatsupportspolicyandstrategydevelopment,organisesmeetings,andprovidesfinance,resourceandperformancedatatopartners.SupportteamsalsodoresearchandcommissionprojectsfortheLSP.


128Councilsemploymostofthepeopleworkinginthesecoreteams.Itisonlyinthemetropolitandistrictsthatthemajority(72percent)ofcoreteamsincludesstafffromotherpartners.Themoneyavailableforresearchandcommissionedprojectsisusuallylessthan£50,000ayear.Budgetsarelargerwhencouncilsandpartnershaveasharedcommitment:oneintenjointlyfundedbudgetsisgreaterthan£500,000.

129Mostlocalcouncils,andtheirLSPpartners,areunawareofthecostsoftheirsupportteams(Figure17).


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



130LSPsthatknowtheirsupportcostscanmakeinformeddecisionsaboutvalueformoney(Table9).Theyarealsoinastrongerpositiontoagreeaboutdifferentpartners’contributions,incashorkind,totheLSPsupportteam’swork.


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?



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).


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).



I NHSAct2006section75,thisreplacesHealthAct1999section31.Pooledfundsareoftenreferredtoas‘section31agreements’.ThespecifiedNHSbodiesarePCTs,strategichealthauthorities,NHStrusts,andfoundationtrusts.


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.



136LSPswillhaveamixtureofpoolingandaligning.Whetherpartnerschoosepoolingoraligning,theyshouldbeclearaboutthestandardsthatgovernresourceandperformancematters.Table12outlinesthemainissuesthatpartnersshouldconsiderinsettlingthetermsofagreementforaligningorpooling.


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



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


138Oneeffectoftheseobstaclesisthatfewerthanhalfoftherespondentstothe2008surveycouldidentifybudgetstheirorganisationshadalignedwithLAAorLSPpriorities.


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



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


Figure 19

Business and financial plans are aligning with the LAA

Partnersarelessconfidentthancoordinatorsthatthisisthecase


-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0%


20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

LSP Coordinators

LSP partners

LSPs partners are aligning businessand financial planning with the LAA

Stronglydisagree


Neutral



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


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

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

Price£15Stockcode:GNR3516

08_001

4

working better together? - international sport and culture...

Documents