08-04-09 ITEM09 PARTNERSHIP GOVERNANCE REVIEW

Microsoft Word - 08-04-09_ITEM09_PARTNERSHIP GOVERNANCE REVIEW.docAUDIT COMMISSION 8 APRIL 2009 PAGE 1 C:\DOCUME~1\LSUNG\LOCALS~1\Temp\08-04-09_ITEM09_PARTNERSHIP GOVERNANCE REVIEW.doc
PARTNERSHIP GOVERNANCE REVIEW
Contact Officer: John Moffoot, Head of Democratic Services – MK 252314
1. Purpose
1.1 To present a review of governance of the major strategic partnerships in which the Council is involved.
2. Recommendations
2.1 That the review of Partnership Governance be noted, and that the Action Plan be approved for implementation.
2.2 That a report on progress against the Action Plan be submitted to the Committee early in 2010.
3. Issues and Choices
3.1 At the meeting of the Audit Committee on 18 June 2008 (Minute AC08), the Committee noted the concerns expressed in the Corporate Governance Review about the governance arrangements in the Council’s key strategic partnerships. The Corporate Governance Review stated that partnership working should be explored across the authority as a whole, and a decision made on the definition of partnerships and the application of governance arrangements, with regard to partnerships across the organisation.
3.2 A comprehensive governance review of the thematic partnerships associated with the Local Strategic Partnership, and a number of key strategic partnerships, has been conducted over the last few months.
3.3 The outcomes of that review are contained in the attached Annex A, together with an Action Plan arising from the review’s funding.
3.4 The review has been conducted with the close co-operation of the Council’s lead officers on each partnership and with other partners. The findings have been agreed with the partner organisations in all but one case – the Arts and Heritage Alliance. In that case, discussions are continuing about the detail of the review’s findings, so the relevant section of the report has been withheld.
3.5 The Action Plan recommends:
- a closer business case for all partnerships involving the Council.
- a clear specification of the level of the Council’s involvement.
ITEM 9
AUDIT COMMITTEE
8 ARPIL 2009
AUDIT COMMITTEE 8 APRIL 2009 PAGE 2 C:\DOCUME~1\LSUNG\LOCALS~1\Temp\08-04-09_ITEM09_PARTNERSHIP GOVERNANCE REVIEW.doc
- a risk assessment of the Council’s involvement.
- a risk assessment of each partnership.
- a partnership register.
- training for officers and Members involved in partnerships.
3.6 The delivery of the Action Plan will rest with the new Strategy and Partnership Directorate.
3.7 The findings of the review are already being applied, as appropriate, to the Council’s involvement with other outside organisations.
4. Implications
4.1 Policy
The review addresses issues identified in the Corporate Governance Review.
4.2 Resources and Risk
Implementation of the Action Plan can be achieved within existing staff and financial resources. The Action Plan requires that the Council should assess its risks in relation to existing partnerships and as it embarks on new partnerships. The Plan also requires existing partnerships to conduct their own risk assessments across the whole partnership.
4.3 Carbon and Energy Management
The partnership toolkit will require partnerships to address carbon and energy management issues.
4.4 Legal
The risk assessments conducted in relation to the Council’s involvement with partnerships will need to ensure that the legal basis of the Council’s membership is clarified.
4.5 Other Implications
The partnerships toolkit will ensure that issues relating to equality, diversity, sustainability, human rights, e-government and crime and disorder are addressed for existing partnerships and before the Council enters into any new partnership.
Background Papers: None.
PARTNERSHIP GOVERNANCE REVIEW
John Moffoot: Head of Democratic Services Paul Robinson: Policy Manager Tina Butterwick: Strategic Partnerships Officer Colin Wilderspin: National Management Trainee Rebecca Purnell: National Management Trainee January 2009
AUDIT COMMITTEE - 8 APRI L 2009 ANNEX TO ITEM 9
Partnership Governance Review 2
Partnership Governance Review
Contents 1.) Intro: Page No. 1.1 Background 3 1.2 Purpose 3 1.3 Methodology 4-5 1.4 Evaluation Form Guidance 6 2.) Thematic Partnership Evaluations
2.1 Children’s Trust 7-22 2.2 Community Belonging 23-34 2.3 Community Safety 35-51 2.4 Health and Wellbeing 52-63 2.5 MK Economy and Learning 64-77 2.6 Transport 78-90 3.) Strategic Partnership Evaluations
3.1 Arts and Heritage Alliance 91-104 3.2 Central Milton Keynes 105-122 3.3 Community Local Infrastructure 123-136 3.4 Early Years Development and Childcare
137-149
3.5 Local Strategic Housing 150-161 3.6 Strategic Environmental 162-175 3.7 Sport and Physical Activity Alliance
175-186
4.1. How effective are the governance arrangements of our partnerships?
187
188-192
Partnership Governance Review: Introduction
1.) Introduction
1.1) Background Partnership working has become increasingly important for Milton Keynes Council and has brought significant benefits to the local area in terms of taking a joined up approach to solving problems, encouraging innovation and flexibility. However there are also risks to working in partnership such as a potential for weakened accountability and poor value for money: ‘The public needs assurance that public money is spent wisely in partnerships and it should be confident that its quality of life will improve as a result of this way of working’ (Governing Partnerships- Bridging the Accountability Gap, Audit Commission, 2005) This partnership governance review came about as a result of the internal Corporate Governance Review which identified a number of weaknesses concerned with partnership governance and recommended that: ‘partnership working (should be) explored across the authority as a whole, and a decision made on the definition of partnerships and the application of governance arrangements, with regard to partnerships across the organisation.’ (Corporate Governance Review, March 2008, pg 9) This review will also support improvements in the council’s use of resources as outlined by the Audit Commission in the Key Line of Enquiry 2.3: Does the organisation demonstrate the values and principles of good governance?
1.2) Purpose Due to the varied nature of partnership activity a ‘one size fits all’ approach to partnership governance would not be appropriate, instead this review will evaluate the best practice and weaknesses within the governance arrangements of the six thematic and seven strategic partnerships on the Local Strategic Partnership (LSP), to learn from best practice and to highlight problem areas. The thematic partnerships relate to the six core themes agreed by the LSP, Children’s Trust, Community Belonging, Community Safety, Economy and Learning, Health and Wellbeing and Transport. These partnerships are responsible for agreeing major thematic strategies and ensuring their implementation. Further information on the role of the individual thematic partnerships can be found in Section 2. The strategic partnerships have a specific focus relating to the main themes above, the strategic partnerships currently on the LSP are: the Arts and Heritage Alliance, Central Milton Keynes Partnership, Community Local Infrastructure Partnership, Early Years, Childcare and Development Partnership, Local Strategic Housing Partnership, Strategic Environmental Partnership and the Sports and Physical Activity Alliance. Further information on the role of the individual strategic partnerships can be found in Section 3.
Partnership Governance Review: Introduction 4
This partnership governance review evaluates the governance of individual partnerships and explores the implications of this more broadly for Milton Keynes Council’s partnership governance arrangements. The findings of the partnership evaluations will form the basis for the recommendations to individual partnerships (section 2 and section 3) and recommendations to the council (section 4 and 6.)
1.3) Methodology The review focuses on the six thematic and seven strategic partnerships on the LSP as these partnerships are varied in terms of size and focus and are often the coordinating point for smaller partnerships, making them a valuable evidence base on which to assess governance arrangements of partnerships across Milton Keynes more broadly. The review has been primarily internal in its focus as its aim has been to understand how the council can take steps to address the weaknesses in partnership governance outlined in the Corporate Governance Review, to ensure that the council is an effective partner and gets the most value form working in partnership. Lead Officers, partnership staff or key partners from each of the partnerships were interviewed and provided information on the partnership’s governance, resources, operations and structure. These interviews along with key partnership documents such as the terms of reference, business plans, and action plans form the evidence base for the evaluations. This evidence base was then used to ‘health check’ the partnerships in terms of how they meet the CIPFA/ Solace governance framework and best practice identified by the Improvement and Development Agency (IDEA) in the ‘growing trust and confidence; governance and partnership behaviour benchmark and health check’ (April 2008). As a quick reference guide the 6 principles for partnership governance are outlined:
CIPFA/ SOLACE Governance Framework:
These are the 6 core themes that all partnerships were evaluated against. The partnership ‘health checks’ form the basis for the recommendations to improve Milton Keynes Council’s Corporate Governance, in terms of effective governance of partnerships.
1.4) Health Check Evaluation Guidance Traffic Light System The evaluation form uses a traffic light system to assess each of the six principles of partnership governance. The same system is used for each sub- question of the 6 core principles, allowing for each to be individually evaluated and assessed ensuring feedback to partnership is specific and relevant. The traffic light system is as follows:
Partnership is ineffective in this area. Immediate review required. Partnership needs to improve in this area, review required within an appropriate time scale. Partnership is effective in this area. Although some minor recommendations may be required.
Partnership Governance Review: Children’s Trust
2.) Thematic Partnerships Evaluations
2.1) Children’s Trust Partnership Health Check Evaluation November 2008 Contributor: Trish Hunter
Partnership Information: It has recently become a requirement for every Local Authority to have a Children’s Trust partnership. The Milton Keynes Children’s Trust pre-dates this requirement and has responsibility for all National Indicator and Local Area Agreement Targets relating to Children and Young People. The Milton Keynes Children’s Trust launched on 28th March 2008 having grown out of the M.K Strategic planning group which had been in place for a number of years. The Children’s Trust is responsible for the following Local Area Agreement National Indicators and Sustainable Community Strategy Actions: NI 51: Effectiveness of child and adolescent mental Health services (CAMHS) NI 57: Children and young people’s participation in high quality PE and sport. NI 63: Stability of placements of looked after children, length of placement. NI 72: Achievement of at least 78 points across the Early Years Foundation Stage with at least 6 in each of the scales in Personal Social and Emotional Development and Communication, Language and Literacy NI 73: Achievement at level 4 or above in both English and Maths at Key Stage 2 (Threshold) Key Stage 2 is the stage of the National Curriculum between ages 8 and 11 years NI 74: Achievement at level 5 or above in both English and Maths at Key Stage 3 (Threshold) Key Stage 3 is the stage of the National Curriculum between ages 11 and 14 years NI 75: Achievement of 5 or more A*-C grades at GCSE or equivalent including English and Maths NI 83: Achievement at level 5 or above in Science at Key Stage 3. Key Stage 3 is the stage of the National Curriculum between ages 11 and 14 years.
Partnership Governance Review: Children’s Trust 8
NI 87: Secondary school persistent absence rate NI 92: Narrowing the gap between the lowest achieving 20% in the Early Years Foundation Stage Profile and the rest NI 93: Progression by 2 levels in English between Key Stage 1 and Key Stage 2 NI 94: Progression by 2 levels in Maths between Key Stage 1 and Key Stage 2 NI 95: Progression by 2 levels in English between Key Stage 2 and Key Stage 3 NI 96: Progression by 2 levels in Maths between Key Stage 2 and Key Stage 3 NI 97: Progression by 2 levels in English between Key Stage 3 and Key Stage 4 NI 98: Progression by 2 levels in Maths between Key Stage 3 and Key Stage 4 NI 99: Children in care reaching level 4 in English at Key Stage 2 NI 100: Children in care reaching level 4 in Maths at Key Stage 2 NI 101: Children in care achieving 5 A*-C GCSEs (or equivalent) at Key Stage 4 (including English and Maths) NI 112: Under 18 conception rate NI 114: Rate of permanent exclusions from school NI115: Substance misuse by young people NI 117: 16 to 18 year olds who are not in education, training or employment (NEET) SCS 1.3.1 Increasing the number of children and young people participating in high quality PE and sport. SCS 2.3.1 Ensuring that services for children, young people and their families are better integrated and more effective and focus on their needs rather than administrative convenience. SCS 2.3.4. Promoting social inclusion and to narrow the educational and health inequalities that exist between different parts of the borough. SCS 3.2.1 Raising the aspirations of our population to embrace the learning culture and gain the skills required to meet the future needs of our businesses.
Organisation Outline: The Children’s Trust membership is as follows: Milton Keynes Council, Milton Keynes PCT, Thames Valley Police, Community and Voluntary Sector, Milton Keynes Safeguarding Children Board, Learning and Skills Council, English Partnerships, Housing, Secondary and Primary/Special Schools, General Practitioners/Health:MK, Milton Keynes General Hospital, PCT/ MKC Provider Representative(s) The key functions of the Children’s Trust are to:
Act as a ‘champion for children’ by engaging partner organisations and local communities, in the definition and promotion of improved life experiences for children and young people.
Set strategic direction for the development of children’s services in Milton Keynes. Operate as the governing body for interagency interaction planning and commissioning arrangements for children’s
services. Define the priorities and standards for children’s services and sign off the Children and Young People’s Plan, the
children’s block of the Local Area Agreement and other strategies. Establish an outcomes focused performance framework to monitor the success of its commissioning activity.
Milton Keynes Council Partnership information: Accountable Body: Milton Keynes Council Lead Officer: Amanda Farr Councillor Representation: Cllr Sandra Clark, Cllr Andrew Dransfield and Cllr Norman Miles.
1.)Focusing on the purpose of the partnership, outcomes for the community
and creating and implementing a vision for the local area. Indicator Evidence/Comments
(i)Aware of the targets of the partnership and prepared to compromise organisational agenda and ensure that plans and priorities reflect the needs of the whole community.
Clear targets, plans and priorities are in place through the Trust’s Framework agreement and the Children and Young People’s Plan.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A
(ii)Committed to working together positively and with enthusiasm to actively participate in the shaping of the partnerships strategy.
The Children’s Trust Board has a sign off role for the annual Children and Young Peoples Plan. This ensures that all partners are involved in shaping the plan.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (iii)Communicates effectively ambitions and goals to local people and different partner organisations.
The Children’s Trust communicates well with the public through an informative website: www.mkchildrenstrust.org
The Children’s Trust has a communications officer and a communications plan.
Informative newsletters are published containing articles from Children’s Trust members; these can be downloaded from the website.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (iv)Willing to commit resources for partnership activities.
Partners commit their time to attend partnership meetings and to progressing agreed actions within their own agency or sector, and through associated partnerships.
At this stage a move towards pooled budgets and the
sharing of resources has yet to be achieved. However a report recently completed has identified the overall spend, and division of this, on children and young people’s services across the partnership and this will inform future development around pooling of resources.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (v) The partners’ plans truly reflect those of the partnership.
The member organisations of the Children’s Trust have a shared aim to ensure that, ‘all children and young people in Milton Keynes thrive and prosper’.
The Children’s Trust sign off the annual Children and Young People’s Plan which ensures that partners’ plans are reflective of the partnerships.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (vi)The organisation is open and honest about its own issues and priorities.
Priorities for the Children’s Trust are included in the Trust’s Framework Agreement and in the Children and Young People’s Plan.
The Children’s Trust publishes all information including minutes from meetings on the website. The only exception to this is confidential information.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A Overview of this section of Good governance: The Children’s Trust has created a clear vision for the local area which all partners are signed up to through the Children’s Trust Framework Agreement. The implementation of this vision is managed through the annual review of the Children and Young People’s Plan, which must be approved by the Trust to ensure it is supported by all partners. Overall Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A
Recommendations: (i)It is important for the Children’s Trust members to compromise on organisational agenda to meet the needs of the whole community; this could include a move towards pooling of resources where appropriate to ensure the best outcomes for children and young people.
2.) Engaging with local people and other stakeholders to ensure robust public accountability. Indicator Evidence/Comments
(i)Willing and committed to engage with local people and stakeholders to develop the community vision.
The Children’s Trust is proactive in engaging with local people and stakeholders to develop the community vision. This can be evidenced through the ‘Parenting Matters’ strategy which recognises that parents make the most significant contribution to their children’s upbringing and focuses on ways to tailor services to the needs of families in Milton Keynes.
Participation of children and young people in decision making is a strength of the partnership evidenced through the Youth Cabinet, a range of consultations e.g. ‘My Place’ survey and the recent Annual Performance Assessment judgement which rated this aspect of activity as ‘Good’.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (ii)Put collective time, effort and resources into planning and implementing consistent and robust consultation which is accessible to everyone.
The Children’s Trust has consulted with key stakeholders and the public on the ‘Parenting Matters’ strategy and the ‘Children in Care’ Strategy. Both consultations were publicised on the Children’s Trust’s website and the newsletter.
(iii)Show genuine regard to what local people and stakeholders have to say and offer by taking every opportunity to listen and respond to them.
Key stakeholders for children and young people from the public and voluntary sectors are members of the Children’s Trust Board. The public are involved through consultation on key strategies and are kept informed of progress on consultations through the newsletter and the website.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (iv)Attempts to consult and communicate to a diverse range of people.
The Children’s Trust consults widely and its broad range of members allows it to reach out to a diverse range of people.
The Children’s Trust is working towards encouraging regular participation of young people within the Trust’s framework by conducting regular joint meetings with the Youth Cabinet.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (v)Transparent about what the organisation within the partnership is accountable for and finding meaningful ways for people to challenge and question what it is doing.
The Children’s Trust members have equal responsibility for working towards their shared aims and objectives through the partnership but some partners such as the police and PCT have specific statutory responsibilities for children and young people.
The performance of the Children’s Trust is monitored and challenged through the LSP performance group.
Contact details are published on the Children’s Trust website to enable members of the public to contact the Trust directly.
(vi)Keeping people informed with up to date, open and honest feedback on decisions actions and progress.
People are kept informed via the Children’s Trust website and newsletter.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A Overview of this section of Good governance: The Children’s Trust brings together key stakeholders in children and young people’s services to ensure effective joint working and communication. The Trust is open and transparent, publishing partnership information on the web and through the newsletter to all as well as consulting with local people on key strategies. Overall Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A Recommendations: No recommendations for this area.
3.)Partners working together to achieve a common purpose with clearly defined functions and roles.
Indicator Evidence/Comments (i)Roles and responsibilities are clearly defined and understood along with accountability for own and the partnerships role.
The Children’s Trust Board is the key partnership through which the Annual Performance Assessment, National Service Frameworks and local targets for children and young people are monitored. Formal accountability rests with individual members of the board. (ToR5.1.8)
The framework agreement outlines the roles and responsibilities of the Children’s Trust Board, the executive group, the policy development committee, commissioning federation and the Milton Keynes Safeguarding Children Board.
The responsibilities of the Lead Member and Director of Children’s Services and of all Children’s Trust members are included within the terms of reference. (ToR 13-14)
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (ii)Protocols and terms of reference have been agreed and implemented.
The Framework agreement includes Terms of Reference and governance arrangements; these have been agreed and implemented by the Children’s Trust.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (iii)Actively co-operates, participates and communicates with each other in the partnership.
The members of the Children’s Trust actively co- operate to approve the Children and Young People’s Plan and to implement joint projects such as Contact Point and integrated youth support services.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (iv)Understands the role, aims and expectations of the partnership and feels other partners work cohesively in the partnership.
The role, aims and objectives of the partnership are made clear through the framework agreement.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (v)Makes and uses resources available through partnership.
The partnership has a dedicated communications
officer. Currently the duty to service the Children's Trust lies
with the local authority. Therefore the partnership is funded through the Children and Young People’s Service i.e. provision of venues, administration and associated costs
See 1 (iv) Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (vi)Feels supported and supports other organisations within the partnership, and has confidence in all partners.
All partners of the Children’s Trust are committed to the vision of ensuring all children and young people
thrive and prosper. Partners work together to achieve the actions
identified in the Children and Young People’s Plan.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (vii)Empowering cross cutting teams and agencies to deliver priorities and robustly holding them to account for their performance.
The Children’s Trust brings together a broad spectrum of organisations to promote joined up working towards priorities.
Planning implementation groups report to the full partnership.
The Policy Development Committee monitors the work of the Children’s Trust.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A Overview of this section of Good governance: Partners of the Children’s Trust are committed to their shared vision, however at this stage there has not yet been a move towards pooling of resources. Functions and roles are clearly defined within the framework agreement. Overall Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A Recommendations: See (i)
4.)Promoting values for the partnership and demonstrating the values of good governance through high
standards of conduct and behaviour. Indicator Evidence/Comments
(i)A suitable system to give courage and confidence to challenge conduct and behaviours and deal with them effectively.
There is no formal system in place to challenge conduct and behaviours.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (ii)Promoting the partnership standards and protocols and role modelling the right behaviours in the way you interact with the community, stakeholders and people from your own organisation.
The Children’s Trust is proactive in communicating with the community and key stakeholders to encourage more joined up service provision for children, young people and their families.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (iii)Understanding and recognising the ethics and obligations of other organisations and the implications of these for the partnership.
The partnership has a shared vision which enables organisations with different ethics and obligations to work together effectively.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (iv)Promotes the principles and practices of equality and diversity across the partnership.
The Children’s Trust identifies specific vulnerable groups based on inequitable outcomes and targets these groups through the Children and Young People’s Plan in order to promote equality and diversity in children’s services.
Six vulnerable groups are identified in the Children and Young People’s Plan: children in care, young carers, white working class young people, teenage parents, black and minority ethnic children and young people, children and young people with learning difficulties and disabilities.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (v) Attendance of meetings is recorded and a suitable system is place to manage non-attendance.
Children’s Trust meetings are well attended, the average attendance was 79% for 2008.
A record of attendance at meetings is kept via the minutes which are published on the website following approval at the subsequent meeting.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (vi)What protocols and ground rules does the organisation have for conducting its routine business?
The Children’s Trust acts as a strategic commissioning body, as there are provider organisations on the membership of the Trust, the terms of reference requires that they are excluded from any decisions where there could potentially be a conflict of interest. (ToR 3.1)
Members of the Children’s Trust Board must be sufficiently senior to secure a mandate from their own agency or the agencies they represent to make decisions regarding the planning and commissioning of children’s services.(ToR 9.3)
Meeting dates are aligned with key decision dates of partner organisations to enable financial decision making to be ratified by each partner agency. (ToR 9.4)
Meetings are chaired by the lead member for Children’s Services. The Director of Children’s Services acts as vice chair and the meetings are held in public. (ToR 12.1)
Decisions are reached on a consensus basis as far as is possible and where a vote is necessary, by a majority of votes. (ToR 12.2)
The board is quorate when both MKC and MK PCT are represented at either Director or member level. Members are not able to vote on any matter where they stand to benefit personally. (ToR12.3)
Agendas and papers are circulated at least 7 days before the meeting. Minutes of meetings are published on the
Children's Trust website. Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A Overview of this section of Good governance: The Children’s Trust interacts positively with the community and key stakeholders. The work of the partnership, through the Children and Young People’s Plan, has a clear focus on equality and diversity by seeking to address inequitable outcomes for children and young people. Meetings are well attended and effective ground rules are in place to support them. However there is no process in place to resolve conflict within the partnership. This could potentially result in a failure to resolve any underlying issues or the escalation of conflicts which could jeopardise the work of the partnership. Overall Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A Recommendations: (ii) The Children’s Trust needs to agree a process for challenging behaviour and resolving conflicts between partners and this should be incorporated within the framework agreement.
5.)Taking informed and transparent decisions which are subject to effective scrutiny and managing risk.
Indicator Evidence/Comments (i)How open and transparent is the partnership’s decision making processes to people outside?
The Framework Agreement states that decisions will be made on a consensus basis as far as is possible and by a majority vote where a consensus is not achieved (ToR 12.2).
Partnerships decisions are published via the website. Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (ii)Prepared to publicise and answer questions on the partnerships proposals and decisions.
Partnership proposals and decisions are published on the website.
Contact details for the Children’s Trust are provided on
the website so it would be possible to address a question to the partnership directly without going through the LSP.
Children’s Trust meetings are held in public. Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (iii)Understands and fully debates all issues within the partnership before making a decision.
All issues would be discussed at a full Children’s Trust meeting before a decision is reached.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (iv)How open is the partnership to public scrutiny? The partnership is scrutinised through the LSP
performance group. The partnership also has a system of internal scrutiny
through the Policy Development Committee and the Executive i.e. Multi Agency Working Group.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (v) Risk assessments of partnership activity have been carried out and effective risk management procedures are in place.
The terms of reference includes a requirement for members of the Children’s Trust to identify risk and scrutinize risk management processes in partner organisations relevant to key children’s services. (ToR 9.2)
A risk assessment is carried out around the Children and Young People’s Plan which is the focus of Children’s Trust activities.
Risk assessment is currently underway in respect of core activities associated with the Children's Trust e.g. performance management.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (vi) MKC have carried out a risk assessment of their involvement with the partnership and adopted risk management procedures to minimise any risks associated with the
MKC have not carried out a specific risk assessment of their role on the partnership and there are no risk management procedures in place to minimise any risks
partnership. associated with membership.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A Overview of this section of Good governance: The Children’s Trust has an open and transparent decision making process, proposals and decisions made by the partnership are published on the website and issues are discussed at a public full partnership meeting, before a decision is reached. Scrutiny arrangements are in place both within and outside of the partnership. Overall Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A Recommendations: (iii) MKC should carry out a risk assessment of their involvement in this partnership and put in place risk management measures to minimise any risks associated with membership.
6.)Developing the capacity and capability of partners to be effective Indicator Evidence/Comments
(i)Promotes training and development within the partnership. The Children's Trust promotes training and development
through facilitating away days for the partnership. Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A
(ii)Commits the time and resources to make sure all partner organisations have the capacity, capability and motivation to achieve partnership priorities.
All partners are involved in approving the Children and Young People’s Plan through the Children's Trust which ensures that partnership priorities are aligned with partners’ priorities.
Away days encourage communication and cooperation within the partnership.
(iii)Networks outside to learn about new ideas and alternative ways of working.
In the early stages of the partnership’s development the Children's Trust networked outside to other Children's Trust partnerships from Beacon authorities and used best practice examples from elsewhere to support their own development.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (iv)A system is in place for an induction and support system for new partners when they join, and when partners wish to leave the partnership.
There is no induction system in place for new members.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (v) Review process in place for evaluating partnership performance.
Partnership performance is monitored by the LSP Performance Group, Policy & Development Committee and reviewed by the full partnership on a quarterly basis.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A Overview of this section of Good governance: The Children’s Trust has networked outside of the partnership to discover best practice in the early stages of its development and encourages the development of partners through group away days. However there is no induction system in place for this partnership. Overall Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A Recommendations: (iv)The Children’s Trust needs to develop a comprehensive induction programme for new members to ensure that if a new organisation joins or an existing organisation sends a new representative they are aware of their role and responsibilities as well as the aims and objectives of the Children’s Trust.
Partnership Governance Review: Community Belonging Partnership 23
2.2) Community Belonging Partnership (CBP) Health Check Evaluation
November 2008 Contributors: Abid Hussain
Partnership Information: Community Belonging is one of the six thematic partnerships which form part of the LSP. This partnership is not yet operational; it has only had one meeting and is due to have two more meetings in December 2008 and January 2009. The development of CBP began in December 2007, and officially named Community Belonging in the minutes of LSP 7th February 2008. Once operational CBP will help achieve a number of the national indicators from the Local Area Agreement (LAA) these are: NI 1 %of people who believe people from different backgrounds get on well together in their local area. NI 5 Overall/general satisfaction with area NI 11 Engagement in the Arts. CBP will have further responsibilities outlined in the Sustainable Community Strategy 1.1.1 Taking an active role in the newly reformed planning system, preparing the new Local Development Framework (LDF) and Statement of Community Involvement (SCI 1.3.1 Increasing the number of adults participating in sport. 1.3.2 Enhancing the level of engagement and participation in the arts 1.4.1 Delivering the Safer Neighbourhoods Programme and Community Development Programme 3.1.1 Re-engaging citizens in the public decision making processes that affect their lives 3.3.1 Providing a strong infrastructure to give effective support to our third sector organisations and creative approaches to financial sustainability 3.4.1. Championing and supporting the delivery of approaches to community cohesion, equalities and social inclusion
Organisation Outline:
This is not a statutory partnership
The aim of the Community Belonging Partnership is to ensure that all sections of our community get along well together and are able to participate and want to make a positive contribution.
The outcome would aim to build on the existing community vibrancy by developing our community cohesion and engagement plans as well as celebrating our diversity. The outcome would need to capture the contribution that culture, the arts, sport and faith contribute to the development of a community sense and pride of place. The strength of the voluntary sector is integral in the delivery of this outcome.
Membership has not yet been confirmed for this partnership but the partnership will take an inclusive approach to
membership including public, private and voluntary sector and faith groups.
Meetings of the Community Belonging Partnership will be open to the partnership
Milton Keynes Council Partnership information: Accountable Body: Milton Keynes Council Lead Officer: Abid Hussain Councillor Representation: N/A at present time. Expected to be chaired by Cllr I McCall
(1) Focusing on the purpose of the partnership, outcomes for the community
and creating and implementing a vision for the local area. Indicator Evidence/Comments
(i) Aware of the targets of the partnership and prepared to compromise organisational agenda and ensure that plans and priorities reflect the needs of the whole community.
The partnership has targets in the form of the National Indicators they are helping to deliver on.
The partnership has not yet decided on its main plans and priorities.
Due to the wide scope of the term ‘community belonging’, it is important that clear aims and objectives are agreed early on. The basic outline is has been agreed by the LSP.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (ii) Committed to working together positively and with enthusiasm to actively participate in the shaping of the partnerships strategy.
Although the partnership strategy has not yet been developed, partners will be involved in agreeing this over the next few meetings of the partnership.
A working group has been set up involving organisations from the Milton Keynes community to shape the partnership strategy.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (iii) Communicates effectively ambitions and goals to local people and different partner organisations.
N/A (Partnership not yet operational)
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (iv) Willing to commit resources for partnership activities.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (v) The partners’ plans truly reflect those of the partnership. Although the CBP plan has not been agreed, all partners
involved in its development share a commitment to ensuring local communities feel part of MK.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (vi) The partnership is open and honest about its own issues and priorities.
The partnership issues and priorities will be defined by the NI's that it is responsible for delivering which will give a clear focus to the partnership activities.
Once operational partnership minutes and meetings will be open to the public.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A Overview of this section of Good governance: As this partnership is in the early stages of development it is making satisfactory progress towards focusing on its purpose, outcomes for the community and vision for the local area. It has made attempts to involve a number of organisations whilst it establishes itself through open meetings and a working group. Due to the vast role the partnership will play for Milton Keynes and as part of the LSP, it is important that it follows all guidance and definitions that the LSP have already identified as being part of its role. Overall Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A Recommendations: (i)It is important that there is a focus on communicating the goals and ambitions of the partnership to stakeholders and the community in the early stages of the partnership’s development. This could be achieved by implementing an effective communications strategy which includes strategies for reaching minority groups. (ii)The initial meetings of the Community Belonging Partnership should establish the specific targets and the level of resources that will be needed in order for the partnership to operate successfully and ensure that all partners are signed up to contributing them.
(2) Engaging with local people and other stakeholders to ensure robust public accountability.
Indicator Evidence/Comments (i) Willing and committed to engage with local people and stakeholders to develop the community vision.
The Working group will be developing the initial community vision in conjunction with the LSP vision and once the partnership is established meetings will be open to the public.
As part of the process for establishing the partnership the working group have involved a stakeholder forum.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (ii) Put collective time, effort and resources into planning and implementing consistent and robust consultation which is accessible to everyone.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (iii) Show genuine regard to what local people and stakeholders have to say and offer by taking every opportunity to listen and respond to them.
The working group have been involved in establishing the Community Belonging Partnership and there will be opportunities for the public to contribute to the partnership once it is operational.
See (i) Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (iv) Attempts to consult and communicate to a diverse range of people.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (v) Transparent about what the organisation within the partnership is accountable for and finding meaningful ways for people to challenge and question what it is doing.
The partnership is responsible for 3 NI’s and 7 SCS actions, its core responsibility will be to ensure community belonging themes are promoted and awareness is raised.
The partnership could be challenged by the public by
attending open meetings, or through the LSP Performance Group.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (vi) Keeping people informed with up to date, open and honest feedback on decisions actions and progress.
Initial progress on the development of the Community Belonging Partnership has been communicated through the LSP and the partnership Ambassador.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A Overview of this section of Good governance: Stakeholders are involved in the planning stages of the Community Belonging Partnership and the partnership has plans to engage with the public once it is operational. Overall Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A Recommendations: See (i)
(3) Partners working together to achieve a common purpose with clearly defined functions and roles.
Indicator Evidence/Comments (i) Roles and responsibilities are clearly defined and understood.
Roles and responsibilities have been included in a draft terms of reference for the partnership.
Roles and Responsibilities are being discussed by the working group.
Due to the vast scope of CBP, the working group have had difficulties outlining their exact priorities, and are taking their thoughts to a wider stakeholder forum.
(ii) Protocols and terms of reference have been agreed and implemented.
There is a draft terms of reference available, and this is being discussed by the working group.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (iii) Actively co-operates, participates and communicates with each other in the partnership.
The CBP working group has been regularly communicating/meeting and sharing ideas by email.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (iv) Understands the role, aims and expectations of the partnership and feels other partners work cohesively in the partnership.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (v) Makes and uses resources available through partnership.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (vi) Feels supported and supports other organisations within the partnership, and has confidence in all partners.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (vii) Empowering cross cutting teams and agencies to deliver priorities and robustly holding them to account for their performance.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A Overview of this section of Good governance: CBP is currently developing roles and responsibilities for partners and the partnership as a whole. A draft terms of reference has been produced by the working group. There is some indication that good communication is taking place via emails by the working group members. Overall Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A
Recommendations: (ii)The roles and responsibilities for the partnership and partners should be agreed and clearly defined in the terms of reference. (iii)CBP will need to ensure that the role and responsibility for the partnership is implemented and fully understood by partners when they join. (iv)Depending on the structure the working group choose to establish for CBP, a clear set of responsibilities may be needed for other sections of the partnership.
(4) Promoting values for the partnership and demonstrating the values of good governance through high standards of conduct and behaviour.
Indicator Evidence/Comments (i)A suitable system to give courage and confidence to challenge conduct and behaviours and deal with them effectively.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (ii) Promoting the partnership standards and protocols and role modelling the right behaviours in the way you interact with the community, stakeholders and people from your own organisation.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (iii) Understanding and recognising the ethics and obligations of other organisations and the implications of these for the partnership.
Many of the partners in the working group have been, or are presently involved with working together externally from this partnership and therefore there is a foundation understanding of each others ethics and obligations; this would be extended to new members of the partnership by focusing on the shared goal to improve community belonging.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (iv) Promotes the principles and practices of equality and diversity across the partnership.
The Community Belonging Partnership is to promote the principles of equality and diversity within the whole of Milton Keynes and bring a sense of belonging to all communities.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (v) Attendance of meetings is recorded and a suitable system is place to manage non-attendance.
Records of attendance for community belonging partnership will be kept via the minutes.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (vi) What protocols and ground rules does the organisation have for conducting its routine business?
• Terms of reference are in the developing stages.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A Overview of this section of Good governance: The partnership is not yet operational and so several of these criteria do not apply. There is a good foundation for partners to understand the ethics and obligations of other partners and a focus on equality and diversity which will support good governance and is a prominent issue to the existence of the partnership. Overall Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A Recommendations: (vi) It is important for the CBP agree terms of reference in their early stages. These should be comprehensive enough to facilitate good governance for the partnership and contain ground rules to support the partnership in conducting its routine business. (vii) In the initial meetings of the CBP partnership it would be advisable to agree a minimum attendance requirement to retain membership of the partnership.
(5) Taking informed and transparent decisions which are subject to effective scrutiny and managing risk.
Indicator Evidence/Comments (i)How open and transparent is the partnership’s decision making processes to people outside?
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (ii) Prepared to publicise and answer questions on the partnerships proposals and decisions.
Once operational there are plans for the partnership meetings and minutes to be open to the public and the partnership will be open and transparent in its approach to answering questions regarding proposals and decisions.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (iii) Understands and fully debates all issues within the partnership before making a decision.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (iv) How open is the partnership to public scrutiny? The Community Belonging Partnership could be
scrutinised through the LSP performance group. The working group plan to make the partnership
accessible for the public to question them. Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (v) Risk assessments of partnership activity have been carried out and effective risk management procedures are in place.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (vi) MKC have carried out a risk assessment of their involvement with the partnership and adopted risk management procedures to minimise any risks associated with membership.
Overview of this section of Good governance: The Partnership is not yet operational and has therefore not yet taken any decisions, so the majority of these criteria do not apply. However there are initial plans to publicise minutes and meetings and the partnership will be open to public scrutiny and prepared to answer question on proposals and decisions. Overall Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A Recommendations: (vii) The partnership should agree a formal and transparent decision making process which should be contained within the terms of reference. (viii) Risk assessments should be carried out of partnership activity and MKC’s involvement in the partnership.
(6) Developing the capacity and capability of partners to be effective Indicator Evidence/Comments
(i) Promotes training and development within the partnership. N/A (Partnership not yet operational)
(ii) Commits the time and resources to make sure all partner organisations have the capacity, capability and motivation to achieve partnership priorities.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (iii) Networks outside to learn about new ideas and alternative ways of working.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (iv) A system is in place for an induction and support system for new partners when they join.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (v) Review process in place for evaluating partnership performance.
The partnership will be evaluated against LAA national indicators and the Sustainable Communities Strategy.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A Overview of this section of Good governance: It is not possible to evaluate the ongoing training and development for members of the partnership at this early stage. There are not yet any induction or support system arrangements in place for new members. There are criteria for reviewing the partnership’s performance against the National Indicators that it is responsible for. Overall Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A Recommendations: (ix) A clear induction should be provided for all members of the CBP partnership to ensure that all partners are fully aware of the aims and objectives of the partnership, their role and responsibilities and are able to participate effectively. (x) The partnership should continue to promote training and development for all partners following completion of the induction process.
Partnership Governance Review: Community Safety Partnership 35
2.3) Community Safety Partnership (CSP) Health Check Evaluation
November 2008 Contributors: Richard Solly
Partnership Information: CSP is a statutory partnership established under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The Act remains a crucial factor in the development of approaches to crime reduction, providing a localised partnership structure to identify and tackle local crime. It placed a responsibility on local authorities and the police in England and Wales to work together in (1) carrying out annual strategic assessments on crime and disorder, and (2) producing and delivering strategies to reduce local crime and disorder and to combat the misuse of drugs, alcohol and other substances. The Community Safety Partnership represents organisations working with the community to reduce crime, anti-social behaviour and the fears people have.
The Partnership has six main priorities over the next few years:
Reduce violence in public places Tackle the effects of alcohol and drug misuse Tackle anti-social behaviour (including deliberate fire setting) Reduce repeat domestic violence Continue to reduce acquisitive crime (burglary, theft, robbery and vehicle crime) Reduce re-offending from those on the ‘prolific and other priority offenders’ scheme.
Milton Keynes Council Partnership information: Accountable Body: Milton Keynes Council Lead Officer: Richard Solly Councillor Representation: Cllr Sam Crooks (Lib Dem), Cllr Isabella Fraser (Lib Dem), Cllr Vanessa McPake (Lib Dem) (Cabinet), Cllr Ruth Jury (Conservative) and Cllr Elizabeth Campbell (Labour).
The partnership currently delivers on the following LAA National Indicators and Sustainable Community Strategy Actions: NI195: Improved street and environmental cleanliness NI 16: Serious acquisitive crime rate NI 20: Assault with injury crime rate NI 21: Dealing with local concerns about anti-social behaviour and crime by the local council and police NI 30: Re-offending rate of prolific and priority offenders NI 32: Repeat incidents of domestic violence NI 40: Drug users in effective treatment NI 49: No. of primary fires per 100,000 population, No. fatalities per 1000,000 population, No. Casualties, No. primary fire non-fatal casualties per 100,000 population SCS 1.2.1: Addressing and supporting social, economic and physical regeneration of our towns and neighbourhoods that are in need of revitalisation SCS 2.2.1: Tackling crime and the fear of crime SCS 2.2.2: Reducing the number of people killed or seriously injured (KSI) in road traffic collisions. SCS 2.2.3: Reducing the number of primary fires and related casualties
Organisation Outline:
The Community Safety Partnership represents Milton Keynes Council (MKC), Thames Valley Police, Thames Valley Police Authority, Buckinghamshire Fire and Rescue Authority and the Primary Care NHS Trust. These are statutory members and are part of the Responsible Authorities Group (RAG).
In addition to the core statutory authorities previously mentioned the partnership also includes representation from: The National Probation Service, Town and Parish Councils, Substance Misuse Services, MK Youth Offending Team, MK Equality Council, Victim Support, MK Chamber of Commerce, The Open University, MK Safety Centre, MK College, Parks Trust. Safer Communities Unit, Street Care, Safer Neighbourhoods and a number of MKC departments. These members are part of the Joint Agency Tasking and Coordinating Group (JATAC).
The Stakeholder Forum meets at least twice annually and consists of individuals such as Members of Parliament, 3 nominated Councillors from each party, and other relevant individual organisations that can be found in the Stakeholders Terms of Reference.
CSP has a detailed structure, to view this see the partnership Bibliography. The partnership works to an agreed rolling 3 year plan which is reviewed annually to ensure it continues to meet the
needs of the people of Milton Keynes. CSP has its own brand logo (below) which is used for all initiatives involved with the partnership. This is often used
alongside partners’ logos on shared initiatives, such as the police or MKC.
1.) Focusing on the purpose of the partnership, outcomes for the community and creating and implementing a vision for the local area.
Indicator Evidence/Comments (i)Aware of the targets of the partnership and prepared to compromise organisational agenda and ensure that plans and priorities reflect the needs of the whole community.
CSP under national legislation are required to formulate and implement plans/strategies. The plan must be based upon ‘strategic assessment’ of the issues caused by crime, anti-social behaviour and drug misuse. The plan has to be for 3 years and reviewed and discussed by the partnership at least on an annual basis.
CSP plans and priorities are predominately based around National Indicators and LAA’s.
The Partnership is statutory and this ensures full support from the statutory RAG, in adjusting some organisation priorities to reflect local needs.
The main objective of the partnership is to reduce crime and anti-social behaviour and to combat the misuse of drugs, alcohol and other substances in the Borough of Milton Keynes. This is clearly identifiable through all literature produced by CSP.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (ii)Committed to working together positively and with enthusiasm to actively participate in the shaping of the partnerships strategy.
As a statutory partnership there is a need to work together, the involvement of other groups in the stakeholder forum demonstrates the enthusiasm of the partnership in achieving its aims. The basis of the partnership means that the more active each member is the easier their job may become through the reduction of crime.
(iii)Communicates effectively ambitions and goals to local people and different partner organisations.
CSP has a website (www.safermk.co.uk); this offers a variety of information including plans and reports.
The partnership also maintains local websites at Neighbourhood Action Group level (NAGazines) which are updated regularly by the individual NAGS.
Through all partners CSP communicates its work and ambitions through literature, posters and a number of other resources.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (iv)Willing to commit resources for partnership activities.
CSP has a large budget of approximately £800k pa which is mainly used to finance the team and national and local initiatives.
MKC, Police and Fire Authority all financially contribute to CSP.
CSP uses staff from different organisations on a regular basis to assist in its activities, for example 3 Fire Officers are office based at MKC.
Through the CSP activities, partners are always involved whether individually or as a group, depending on the activity and whether it reflects their role or not. This can be seen during events and also within literature produced.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (v) Partners’ plans truly reflect those of the partnership
The main objective of the partnership is to reduce crime and anti-social behaviour and to combat the misuse of drugs, alcohol and other substances in the Borough of Milton Keynes, this is automatically reflected through all partners as it is their role e.g. Police, Probation or benefits their organisation to have minimal crime.
(vi)The partnership is open and honest about its own issues and priorities.
The partnership is open with its issues and priorities. It is compulsory to annually have a ‘strategic assessment’ carried out; which is published and available to everyone. The assessment evaluates the partnership’s work.
In addition to this CSP carry out a similar report identifying and highlighting crime statistics, this is also available to anyone and can be found on the internet.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A Overview of this section of Good governance: CSP has clearly defined goals that reflect the community. This is supported by the need to help achieve NI’s and LAA’s. There is strong evidence that CSP partners have a close working relationship with each other which is enhanced by the need for them to achieve the same target which ultimately is reducing crime in Milton Keynes. Overall Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A Recommendations: None for this section.
2.) Engaging with local people and other stakeholders to ensure robust public accountability. Indicator Evidence/Comments
(i) Willing and committed to engage with local people and stakeholders to develop the community vision.
In December 2007 a community safety survey was completed by the public, this formed part of the strategic assessment which was used as guidance for the 3 year plan 2008-11.
A further survey was published in November 2008 for the public to complete.
The strategic assessment was discussed in depth at a Stakeholder Forum and at public meetings before the final 3 year plan was agreed.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (ii)Put collective time, effort and resources into planning and implementing consistent and robust consultation which is accessible to everyone.
See 2 (i) The website www.safermk.co.uk offers a number of ways
to get involved including participating in a crime survey. The survey is part of the Strategic Assessment and influences the partnership's priorities for the following year.
Consultation with people delivering community safety services both at a strategic level and ground level also takes place. The Partnership holds a Stakeholder Forum twice a year to discuss policy and how to take solutions forward. A Practitioners' Forum is also held to find out from the people delivering community safety services, such as wardens and crime reduction officers, what the issues are and what the Partnership can do to support them.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (iii)Show genuine regard to what local people and stakeholders have to say and offer by taking every opportunity to listen and respond to them.
See 2 (i) (ii)
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (iv)Attempts to consult and communicate to a diverse range of people.
The role of the partnership and the relationship it has with everyday needs of the people, through the fire service and police and other partners, makes it imperative the partnership communicates with a diverse range of people. As a result of this CSP has a strong communication
strategy. Within the Stakeholder Forum partners include MK
Equality Council, MK College and representatives from the voluntary sector to assist in helping them meet this requirement.
Also the partnership offer many initiatives and information booklets in a number of languages. An example of this is when the Fire Service carried out a Home Fire Risk Check in Fishermead in October 2008. Letters were delivered prior to the 2 day event and printed in English, Somali and Polish.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (v)Transparent about what the members of the partnership are accountable for and finding meaningful ways for people to challenge and question what they are doing.
The roles of the individual partner organisations are clearly defined.
There is a Terms of Reference for the RAG, Stakeholder Forum and Performance Group and JATAC (Joint Agency Tasking and Coordinating Group). They state the roles of the partners who sit on these groups.
CSP do hold open meetings for the public to attend, however due to the content of the information that is sometimes discussed not all of the meeting may be open to protect identities of individuals.
CSP is scrutinised by MKC scrutiny and Safer Communities Initiative, which is national and supported by the Home Office. This is a legal requirement from the Police and Justice Act 2006.
CSP report directly to the LSP and this is another avenue where the partnership can be questioned.
(vi)Keeping people informed with up to date, open and honest feedback on decisions actions and progress.
The website contains a number of documents with the partnerships actions and achievements. Publications and reviews of the partnership are also available on the website, supported by a monthly news page offering information on CSP and what it is doing.
The partnership frequently releases crime statistics for Milton Keynes.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (vii) Partnership has an effective reporting mechanism to MKC and LSP.
RAG includes the MKC Chief Executive as a member, in order that a direct link with the council and partnership is maintained.
CSP report directly to the LSP. The Lead Officer of CSP is a member of SPLOG.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A Overview of this section of Good governance: The partnership does engage with local people and continues to explore many different ways to continue this. Due to the nature of the organisations the individual accountabilities are largely defined through their public role, and supported by the LSP Action Plans for specific targets. Overall Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A Recommendations: (i)Although the partnership communicates to a diverse range of people, they feel themselves that this could still be improved further and are looking into ways of strengthening connections with Gay and Lesbian groups and Disability organisations. (ii)The partnership should add a webpage to allow people to ask questions about the partnership activity and an explanation of guidelines of how people can challenge decisions or publications made by the partnership.
3.)Partners working together to achieve a common purpose with clearly defined functions and roles.
Indicator Evidence/Comments (i)Roles and responsibilities are clearly defined and understood. The Terms of Reference for all 4 groups (RAG,
Performance, JATAC and Stakeholder Forum) all have clearly defined roles and responsibilities for its members.
The Cabinet Member with the responsibility for Community Safety is defined as being the Chair under the Terms of Reference for RAG and the Stakeholder Forum. Other roles for other partners are also defined.
The Stakeholder Forum consists of representatives from all 3 parties. There is no expectation for them to hold a role other than to attend.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (ii) Protocols and terms of reference have been agreed and implemented.
See 3 (i) There is also an overall Terms of Reference for CSP
in addition to the separate ones in 3 (i). The Terms of Reference are agreed every 12 months
by the members of that specific group. Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (iii)Actively co-operates, participates and communicates with each other in the partnership.
There is an information sharing protocol for the partnership. This was revised in October 2008.
CSP does have a communications officer that maintains contact with partners within the partnership.
(iv)Understands the role, aims and expectations of the partnership and feels other partners work cohesively in the partnership.
See 1 (i),(ii) Much of the work of CSP involves partners working
together to achieve a common or specific goal. Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (v)Makes and uses resources available through partnership.
Organisations have produced funding for certain
initiatives where it has been needed. CSP does bid for funding when partaking in
national/local initiatives. Other resources are shared e.g. specialist fire officers
and police officers working with other CSP organisations.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (vi)Feels supported and supports other organisations within the partnership, and has confidence in all partners.
CSP through statutory legislation is supported by the five key players. The statutory and the role CSP plays within the community means these organisations support each other as it benefits their organisations.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (vii)Empowering cross cutting teams and agencies to deliver priorities and robustly holding them to account for their performance.
As can be seen from the CSP structure delivery groups carry out numerous roles. These are accountable to the full partnership.
Delivery groups are accountable to the performance group and the RAG with regards to performance.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A Overview of this section of Good governance: Due to the nature of the work carried out from CSP partners work together towards a common goal. The statutory requirement and the individual organisations role in the community allow for simple defining of roles and responsibilities which are clearly laid out in a number of documents.
Overall Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A Recommendations: None for this section.
4.)Promoting values for the partnership and demonstrating the values of good governance through high standards of conduct and behaviour.
Indicator Evidence/Comments (i)A suitable system to give courage and confidence to challenge conduct and behaviours and deal with them effectively.
There is no specific arrangement for dealing with conflicts, however the defined structure of CSP allows for a resolution process to take place if required. This would first be dealt with by the CSP manager for MKC, performance group then RAG.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (ii)Promoting the partnership standards and protocols and role modelling the right behaviours in the way you interact with the community, stakeholders and people from your own organisation.
As stated previous the partnership works well as a team. CSP is heavily involved with interacting with the public both through organisations and the partnership itself.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (iii)Understanding and recognising the ethics and obligations of other organisations and the implications of these for the partnership.
All statutory partners were involved in the development of the terms of reference. All the terms of reference are reviewed annually by all partners, which would allow for any considerations to be discussed.
The nature of the partners’ individual obligations which are clearly defined allows for day to day considerations of their obligations.
(iv)Promotes the principles and practices of equality and diversity across the partnership.
See 2 (iv) MK Equalities Council is part of CSP Stakeholder
Forum. CSP have carried out training with these in understanding hate crimes.
In all terms of reference there is a section regarding the policy of equality and diversity for the partnership.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (v)Attendance of meetings is recorded and a suitable system is in place to manage non-attendance.
Meetings are regular and minutes are kept that register attendance at meetings.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A (vi)What protocols and ground rules does the organisation have for conducting its routine business?
The terms of reference are sufficient to support the routine business of CSP.
There is a suitable and clearly defined structure to ensure CSP carries out its routine business.
Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A Overview of this section of Good governance: CSP demonstrates a good standard of governance with clear protocols in the terms of reference allowing for the partnership to carry out its day to day function. Overall Indicator level: Green= effective in this area, Amber=Improvement is needed in this area, Red= Ineffective White= N/A Recommendations: (iii)Although the CSP has operated successfully on a consensus basis to date, it would be advisable to include a statement in all of the terms of reference, regarding the procedure to resolve co

Documents

08-04-09 ITEM09 PARTNERSHIP GOVERNANCE REVIEW