Welcome to One Norbiton, Working Together

Joint Professional and Community Working Group Conference Event

Welcome from David Smith, Project Sponsor

HousekeepingToday’s programme

Purpose of today

The ward of Norbiton is more deprived than other parts of Royal Borough Kingston. Piloting this Local Integrated Service, ‘One Norbiton, Working Together’ project will help to improve the lives of Norbiton people.

The project will;1) Develop a community voice and involve Norbiton community members in decisions about priority setting and resources for Norbiton

2) Pool money and resources together to form a single pot for Norbiton community members to influence or control

3) Increase partnership working on Norbiton issues between agencies and with community members

The purpose of today is to;

• Introduce the professionals and Norbiton community members to each other and build our working relationships

• Hear from Cabinet Office about ‘Local Integrated Services’ and ‘Community Budgets’ and what is happening elsewhere in the country –share learning from their experience

• Hear from those who’re leading work on issues such as Policing and Housing

• Begin action around priorities for Norbiton and plan next steps

• Explore innovation opportunities for Norbiton

• Programme• 1.30.........Tea and Coffee• 1.45.........Introduction (David Smith, NHS Kingston/RBK Health & Adult Services) • 1.55.........Project Evaluation (Dr. Heidi Seetzen, Kingston University) • 2.05..........Local Integrated Services (Ian Leete, Cabinet Office) • 2.30..........Housing Strategy and Links to Project (Mike England, RBK Housing) (Interactive)• 2.50..........St Peter’s Church (Rev Peter Holmes) • 3.05..........Policing priorities in Norbiton (Ch. Insp. Bill Heasman, Met Police) (Interactive)• 3.25..........Tea and Coffee Break • 3.40..........Time to Innovate (Eleanor Jones, Social Entrepreneur in Residence) (Interactive)• 4.00..........Break-out groups • 1. Housing• 2. Policing• 4.35..........Feedback• 4.45..........Looking Forward and Close (Russell Styles, NHS Kingston Public Health)

One Norbiton, Working Together

The journey so far...

Emerging Priorities identified so farTop 4 = Housing Issues ,Police and Safety, Maintenance of communal areas and Youth activities

What does success look like to the community?

• Understanding the needs and priorities of the Norbiton community

• Having involvement and influence over services and service providers

community members’ recorded comments at 1st June event“We will have more of a

sense of ownership of services”

“It involves everyone to

help each other build and

sustain a better society ”

“The community will

benefit by resources being

used better”

“This helps

represent the

community”

Project Evaluation

Dr Heidi SeetzenKingston University

Local Integrated Services and community Budgets

Ian Leete, Cabinet office

Making Sense- Local Integrated Services

UNCLASSIFIED

What is the Big Society?

12

Taking an active role in our

communities, engaging in

positive social action, and

helping others out

neighbourhoods are in charge of their own destiny, feel able to

shape the world around them, and choose to do

so

Government becomes a

better buyer from a range

of providers in order to

achieve more innovative,

diverse and responsive

services which give real

value £

UNCLASSIFIED

•LAA’s

•Central burdens inhibit innovation

•Total Place

•Pressure to deliver better for less

•High expectations of services, less money to deliver

•Citizen led decision making

•New financial freedoms and flexibilities

•Rapid implementation

EXPERIENCE GOING FORWARD

Community Budgets

CONTEXT FOR REFORM

UNCLASSIFIED

DfE

The Problem

Intensive family intervention

worker/ parenting

practitioner

DH

LA YJB PCTPolice

Surestart

Parent support advisers/Schools

Police officer

YOS workerCAMHS/ Mental Health Worker

Drug and alcohol team

DWP

JCP

Employment Personal advisers

VCS

Young carer support worker

Prisons

Family support workers

CLG

Housingauthorities

Housing link worker

MoJHO

UNCLASSIFIED

How did this happen?

1801183419121944 19862004

Birmingham = Bourton-on-the-waterPop 1 million vs Pop 4 000

VS

UNCLASSIFIED

Community Budgets: The challenge around families with multiple problemsUniversal Services1

Education - £583m

Child benefits - £113m

GP/NHS costs - £31m

Targeted Services2

Welfare benefits - £753m

Mental health treatment - £21m

Parenting support - £53m

Drug treatment - £10m

£727m universal spend/yr

£837mtargeted spend/yr

Reactive spend3

Children going into care, hoax fire calls, nuisance behaviour costs, juvenile criminality costs, truancy costs, alternative education costs, vandalism, evictions due to ASB

£2.5bn reactive spend/yr

1 DfE 2010-11 planned pupil funding. HMRC website. NHS costs taken from NHS expenditure in England 2009, entitlement benefits HMRC, education costs taken from DfE planned educational spend 2010/112 Unit costs taken from the following sources Dept of Health supplied figures (drugs, alcohol & mental health, Home Office (Dynamic Benefits report – Welfare) all other unit costs from published research Steve

Parrott and Christine Godfrey, Family Intervention Projects: Assessing potential cost-effectiveness University of York, 2008 (unpublished).3 Unit costs from published research Steve Parrott and Christine Godfrey, Family Intervention Projects: Assessing potential cost-effectiveness University of York, 2008 (unpublished). Distribution of costs to families

based on a sample of 40 families selected by 17 authorities using a standardised methodology (DfE internal analysis)

46,000families

All of these families access universal services…

…and specialist services, (often repeatedly for many years)

but family breakdown and crises still leads to very poor and costly outcomes

NOTE: BROAD ESTIMATES ONLY - does not include costs of criminal justice services.

UNCLASSIFIED

LIS – A Step Further

Public services

Public sector buildings

Community assets – day care centre

Pubs

Business premises

Volunteers

Charity staff

Private sector staff

Clubs + Social activities

UNCLASSIFIED

Principles

Local Authorities commission services in liaison with local community and frontline staff

UNCLASSIFIED

What can others offer?

UNCLASSIFIED

In practice

Community as a commissioner

UNCLASSIFIED

Ricky Community Researcher

Basildon, Essex

UNCLASSIFIED

Responsibility and Activity

• Holocaust Centre – approach at a community level. Helping people understand why they need to take responsibility

• Community Organisers – Cabinet Office supporting recruitment of 5000 people to galvanise social action

UNCLASSIFIED

What does this mean for local authorities?

UNCLASSIFIED

The Challenge

UNCLASSIFIED

Local Integrated Services: Exploratory Innovation in 9 Areas

August 2011

Trust Thurnscoe - community-led economic resilience

Authority: Barnsley (Lab) Headline Reform: Tackling Worklessness

Outcomes:1.Strong, resilient communities2.Co-produced responsive services3.Empowered citizens able to direct their own support and maintain their independence

Thurnscoe: Pop. 9000

Thurnscoe is a former mining community with little in the way of local enterprises and employment opportunities

Over 30% of adult population claiming benefits, with15% claiming incapacity benefit

Life expectancy is 4-5 years lower than the Barnsley average

Previous attempted solutions have not worked

Sponsor: Phil Coppard, CEO Barnsley Council

Partners: A4E, SERCO, Thurnscoe Community Housing

Alliance, Turning Point

Why/How selected: Collective decision by BMBC and partners,

including VCSE

Governance Structure: Under development. Elected Members are feeding in community views

Engagement Plan: Key activists trained via Working Together for

Change courses

£27.6 million is spent in Thurnscoe

Funds contributed from SERCO, A4E, Turning Point

Inner South Leeds: Beeston Hill and Holbeck; Middleton and Belle Isle –

Leeds letting goAuthority: Leeds (Lab) Headline Reform: Health services;

anti-social behaviour

Outcomes:1.Better coordinated and integrated services2.A more tailored approach to service delivery, responding to local need3.A reduction in the number of NEETs

Inner South Leeds: Pop. 15 000

Wards in Leeds are extremely diverse with differing needs. Beeston Hill and Holbeck have high levels of anti-social behaviour; Middleton and Belle Isle have significant health inequalities

Leeds is starting from a low base of community involvement in services, although some engagement structures do exist

Sponsor: ?

Partners: Cardinals Estate and Beeston Hill residents groups, Probation Service, Beeston Hill PFI, Aire Valley Homes, B. Isle

Tenant Mgmt

Why/How selected: Authority-selected based on statistical date; input from 2 existing

residents groups

Governance Structure: Residents structures where they exist. Statutory partner leadership

teams brought together for each area

Engagement Plan: Through residents and tenants groups

Precise spend not mapped Pooling of staff resources

Mixenden – Improving the Community; Improving the

EnvironmentAuthority: Calderdale (Lib/Lab) Headline Reform: Cleaner, Safer,

Greener

Outcomes:1.Fully aligned and community controlled services across a range of service areas2.A reduced gap in deprivation across wards

North and East Halifax: Pop. 48000

The area is more socially and economically diverse than ethnically.

It includes the wards with both the highest and lowest unemployment rates in Calderdale.

There is already deep community capacity and resident-led partnerships. But there is a desire to go still further.

Sponsor: ?

Partners: North Halifax Partnership, Transpennine, CAB

and Pennine Housing

Why/How selected: Partner and resident selected, through North

Halifax Partnership

Governance Structure: Based on existing North Halifax

Partnership Constitution. Community board and 2

councillors

Engagement Plan: Through North Halifax Partnership, Community Wardens and elected members

Precise spend not mapped All partners aligning engagement funds

BwD Community Budget – A mainstream approach to community

involvementAuthority: Blackburn with Darwen

(Lab)Headline Reform: Famillies with

complex needs

Outcomes:

1.Communities will be more involved in the design of services2.Greater use, and effectiveness, of preventative services3.Reduced use of costly reactive services

Shadsworth, Bastwell, Darwen: Pop. 36 famillies with

complex needs

Blackburn is facing:•The loss of traditional industries•Higher levels of anti-social behaviour than other areas, with specific issues around domestic violence and alcohol abuse

Blackburn is a Community Budget area and is exploring a LIS approach can enhance this model across multiple service areas

Sponsor: Kate Hollern, Leader, BwD Council

Partners: All public services in Blackburn with Darwen

Why/How selected: Informed by BwD’s Community Budget status

Governance Structure: Public Service Board, made up of

statutory agencies

Engagement Plan: Direct to families involved

Detailed costing of service use by 36 famillies

Aligning in progress but slowed by health reforms

Lowedges, Batemoor and Jordanthorpe – Preventing emergency

health care through social actionAuthority: Sheffield (Lab) Headline Reform: Older and

vulnerable people; Health

Outcomes:1.More choice and control for older people2.Increased social activity and enterprise to support independent living3.Improved intergenerational relationships

Jordanthorpe: Pop. 4 000

The areas have significantly higher levels of retired residents than the Sheffield average

11.1% of residents are permanently sick or disabled, compared to a Sheffield average of 6.2%

Initial LIS mapping has revealed 200 individuals unknown to public services. Preventative services can now be provided, avoiding high-cost emergency referrals

Sponsor: ?

Partners: Sheffield Acute Trust, Sheffield University, Sheffield

Homes

Why/How selected: Statutory analysis of statistical information

Governance Structure: Project group made up of local residents

and statutory partners. Accountable to South Community Assembly

Engagement Plan: Through community researchers

Costs of emergency health referrals mapped

Acute Trust exploring redirecting investment

Ellesmere Port – Starting off on the right foot

Authority: Cheshire West and Chester (Con)

Headline Reform: Health and Economic Inequalities

Outcomes:1.A reduction in the most deprived wards, reflected in the indices of deprivation2.4-5??? Awaiting detail

Ellesmere Port: Pop. 61 000

31 000 of these residents are in an area of high deprivation.

Ellesmere Port itself is one of the most deprived wards in the country.

Cheshire West & Chester is a new authority, spinning out from the Old Cheshire County Council. Engagement methods and ways of working are still bedding in.

Sponsor: Steve Robinson, CEO CW&C Council

Partners: Bevan Brittan, Ellesmere Port Authority, Local

Strategic Partnership

Why/How selected: Deprivation indicators make the area

selection an obvious choice. Residents will direct service

specific change

Governance Structure: Exploring development of a formal LIST

model to take charge of pooled funding and commissioning

functions

The neighbourhood team is working with residents and councillors to build 5-10 groups within the neighbourhoods

Spend mapped against 5 priorities Alignment opportunities being explored

Smallshaw Hurst and St Peters – Developing the trust to develop the

people Authority: Tameside (Lab) Headline Reform: Complex

Families and Offending

Outcomes:1.Spending on complex families and offending reduced2.Rigorous Cost Benefit Analysis is applied to new and existing services3.Great commissioning across local authority boundaries

Smallshaw Hurst and St Peters: Pop. 16 000 and 12 000

respectively

Both wards are among the most deprived in Tameside. One has a strong history of community involvement, the other is developing.

Tameside is also part of the Greater Manchester Community Budgets work and, like Blackburn with Darwen, is exploring how the two initiatives can support and enhance each other

Sponsor: Steven Pleasant, CEO Tameside Council

Partners: New Economy, St Peter’s Partnership, Smallhurst

housing

Why/How selected: Deprivation indicators make the area

selection an obvious choice. Residents will direct service

specific change

Governance Structure: Delivery in each ward by existing

organisations, overseen by LSP and Public Service Board

The neighbourhood team is working with residents and councillors to build 5-10 groups within the neighbourhoods

Some mapping. More work due Alignment established in services for offending

Warrington - Stronger Together in Warrington

Authority: Warrington (Lab) Headline Reform: Benefit Dependency

Outcomes:1.Improving the life chances of long-term benefits claimants2.To narrow the gap in quality of life between areas in Warrington

Warrington: Pop. 18 000A targeted approach based on clusters of long-term benefit claimants, not defined neighbourhoods. It is expected that this approach will lend itself to mainstream reform.

Wards have higher than average levels of teenage pregnancy, anti-social behaviour, and lower life-expectancy

A focus on information sharing to provide better services for customer across public services

Sponsor: Katherine Fairclough, Assistant CEO, Warrington

Partners: CAB, Jobcentre Plus, and local social housing provider.

Why/How selected: Responding to surveys conducted to develop the Warrington neighbourhood plan

Governance Structure: A CiC proposal is being considered. LSP

has current oversight

Engagement Plan: Building on the work of the local Strategic Partnership and its surveys

Mapped via case conferencing model

Residents determining regeneration funding. Partners investing by need

One Norbiton – Collaboratively commissioned services

Authority: Kingston on Thames (Lab)

Reform: Public safety, housing and public space

Outcomes:1.Services delivered in equal and reciprocal relationship between residents, professionals and service users2.Improved resident satisfaction against their prioritised areas

Norbiton: Pop. 10 000

A ward with lower-deprivation levels for Kingston, with greater numbers of transient residents

The service areas are entirely determined by the Norbiton community, although greater engagement is being striven for

Sponsor: David Smith, CEO, Kingston PCT and Director RBK

Partners: Voluntary Action Kingston, Kingston University, NHS Kingston, Metropolitan

Police

Why/How selected: Responding to surveys conducted to develop the Warrington neighbourhood plan

Governance Structure: A community working group

supported by a professionals working group

Engagement Plan: The neighbourhood team and councillors supporting the community working group

Mapped via case conferencing model

Partner resources made available. Pooling not yet necessary

Housing Issues

Mike EnglandHousing Strategy Lead RBK

Housing Issues

Mike EnglandHousing Strategy Lead RBK

Housing Strategy; Key Elements

• Plan for more new homes, especially affordable housing;• Bring Council homes to the decent Homes standard by 2016

and talk to residents about the future of larger estates;• Advice and assistance to home-owners to make their homes

energy-efficient.• Promote a thriving private rented sector.• Advice and assistance to those in Housing need and prevent

and minimise homelessness;• Exploit other opportunities to improve quality of life, eg

Health and Educational Attainment

Issues to take forward today• Council Homes;

– Physical improvements; internally, communal areas, the environment.

– Longer-term future• Home-Owners;

- ensuring advice and assistance on energy efficiency/fuel poverty.

• Advice/Assistance generally and specifically to older people/homeless people.

• How to maximise impact on health, educational attainment, eg by physical improvements, direct assistance eg to homeless people, work in schools.

Housing Issues: A community

project in Norbiton

Reverend Peter Homes

Policing and Safety

Chief Inspector Bill Heasman, Kingston Met Police

http://www.metpolicecareers.co.uk/specials/intro-video.html

Chief Inspector Bill Heasman

Partnership lead for Kingston Police

•SNT Structure•SNT Responsibilities•Ward Priorities•Crime Profile•Communication•Contribution

Main Themes

SNT StructurePartnership Chief InspectorThree SNT Inspectors (Jaiye Warwick-Saunders)

Each ward has a dedicated Sergeant (Tracey Miller)2 Constables (Ben Styles & Iain Kinnaird)3 PCSO's (Jen Doyle, Graham Brown & Charlene Gregory

Ward Priorities

(i) Crime (ii) ASB (iii) Ward Panel

Norbiton SNT Current Priorities –

(i) Domestic Violence (ii) ASB -

Crime Profile

Crime falling:Theft from shopsCycle TheftTheft of Motor VehiclesRobbery

Showing an IncreaseBurglaryTheft from Motor VehiclesCriminal Damage

Communication

How? What works for you?

Ward Panels / NHW groups / Community meetingsLeaflets / PostersE-mails / websitesPublic meetingsStreet BriefingsOther?

Contribution

Metropolitan Police Special Constabulary

Metropolitan Police Volunteers

Time to Innovate!

Eleanor JonesSocial Entrepreneur in ResidenceYoung Foundation and NHSK

• Social Enterprise

•Social Entrepreneurship – creation of value through innovation

• Eleanor Jones•Social Entrepreneur in Residence

Direct Tel: 020 8339 8015 Mobile: 07956 308313

Email: Eleanor.Jones@kpct.nhs.uk

The Young Foundation

•The Young Foundation

• We bring together insight, innovation and entrepreneurship to address social needs

• We have over 50 years success in developing and supporting new ideas turning them into sustainable organisations, such as the Open University, Which?, the School for Social Entrepreneurs and Healthline (the precursor of NHS Direct).

• www.youngfoundation.org

•Social enterprises are technically defined as:•“businesses with primarily social objectives whose surpluses are principally re-invested for that purpose in the business or in the community, rather than being driven to maximise profit for shareholders and owners”

•Social Enterprises are businesses that compete in the market like any other business, but also:• Trade for social and/or environmental purposes• Reinvest profit back into their business or community and • Adopt ownership structures based on participation rather than • personal gain.

•Successful Social Enterprises provide lasting, innovative, replicable (or scalable) social impact.

Social Enterprise - Definition

Social returns

Source: Adapted from Venturesome 52

Public institutio

n

Non-profit

Social enterpris

e

Social business

Values driven

business

Pure Business

Financial returns

Social ventures

Taxes GrantsTax breaks

RevenueTax breaksGrants

Revenue Revenue Revenue

•The Government aims to increase choice and high quality services, with organisations such as social enterprises that have the potential to:• • Dramatically improve quality of life, health and wellbeing • particularly for disadvantaged people

• Build social capital through communities taking responsibility • for addressing their own needs

• Address unmet needs in new, creative and innovative ways

• Create high staff and volunteer morale / motivation for the • social aims of the enterprise

• Support communities that are traditionally harder to reach

• Encourage ethical markets

The Value of Social Enterprises

1. Willing to change direction

2.Share credit with partners

3.Willing to break free from established structures – ‘to take into one’s own

hands’

4.Combine thinking and resources from different disciplines to achieve goal –

gathering ideas, experiences, skills and resources in new configurations

5.Want to ‘do something’ rather than ‘be someone’

6.Fuelled with the desire to restore justice in society and to address social

problems

•Ref David Bornstein

Successful Social Entrepreneur

1. Why are you doing it?

2. What will you do differently?

3. Who will benefit from the social enterprise?

4. How will the enterprise help to meet local priorities?

5. What services will the proposed enterprise provide?

6. How will you engage with your stakeholders?

7. How will the enterprise be funded?

8. Is the proposal sustainable?

9. Do you have the required skills and leadership?

10. How will you monitor and evaluate the enterprise?

11. What form of enterprise are you considering?

Starting a Social Enterprise

End to end innovation

The Social Entrepreneur in Residence Role

Initiation Seed Start-up Growth

Steps

Outcome

• Needs analysis• Idea

generation• Opportunity

scoping

• Outline concept paper

• Proof of concept• Prototyping

Organisation design

• Evidence-based business plan validated by stakeholders

• Piloting• Launch on a

small scale

• Independent , operational organisation

• Replication• Diffusion• Scaling-up

• Growth of organisation or diffusion of model

Key success factors

Understanding of:

• Need

• Policy context

• Opportunities to build an innovative organisation

Ability to:

• Research market

• Connect with public sector

• Build organisations

Access to:

• Entrepreneurial management

• Funding

Reinforcement of:

• Strong governance

• Professional management

• Significant funding

One Norbiton, Working Together how can we improve Norbiton?

4 Break Out Groups

2x Police and Safety2x Housing Issues

One Norbiton, Working Together how can we improve Norbiton?

Feedback

One Norbiton, Working Together closing remarks from

Russell Styles, Associate Director for Public Health