Docstoc

Capital Ambition Annual General Meeting and Programme Board

Document Sample
Capital Ambition Annual General Meeting and Programme Board Powered By Docstoc
					Capital Ambition Annual General Meeting
                  and
           Programme Board




             Agenda Paper

Meeting to be held on Tuesday 5 May 2009
           (11.00am to 1.00pm)



           London Councils
         59½ Southwark Street
           London, SE1 0AL




                        1
Members:
 Elected Members:
 Cllr. Clyde Loakes, Labour
 Cllr. Nick Stanton, Liberal Democrat
 Cllr. David Simmonds, Conservative
 London Councils:
 John O’Brien, Chief Executive
 Chief Executives:
 Derek Myers, Kensington & Chelsea (Chair)
 Rob Leak, Enfield (Deputy Chair)
 Geoff Alltimes, Hammersmith & Fulham
 Rob Whiteman, Barking & Dagenham
 Paul Martin, Sutton
 Barry Quirk, Lewisham
 Mary Ney, Greenwich
 Society of London Treasurers:
 Jane West, Hammersmith & Fulham

 GLA:
 Ian Clement

 LFEPA:
 Rita Dexter

 NHS London:
 TBC

 Advisers:
 David Warwick – Deputy Director, and Regional Director of Local
                  Government Practice, Government Office for London
 Nigel Bourne – London Business Board
 Dennis Skinner – IDeA
 Joe Simpson – Leadership Centre for Local Government

 In Attendance:                         Will Tuckley, Bexley (Item 6)
 Capital Ambition                       John Connell, CLG (Item 9)
 Steve Johnson,
 Julia Vernalls,
 Suzanne Rose,
 Selena Lansley (Item 7)
 Nicky Jackman (Item 8)
 Aramide Adeboye




                                          2
Agenda items



      1.           Apologies:
                   Rob Leak, Enfield; Geoff Alltimes, Hammersmith &Fulham; Mary Ney,
                   Greenwich, Barry Quirk, Lewisham; Rob Whiteman, Barking & Dagenham.


      2.           Minutes of Last Meeting

                   Purpose: To consider and approve the minutes of the Capital Ambition
                   Programme Board meeting held on Tuesday 17 March 2009.


Constitutional items

      3.           Election of Chair and Deputy Chair 2009/10

                   Purpose: To elect a Chair and Deputy Chair for the Programme Board.


Progress reports

      4.           Chairman’s remarks on Capital Ambition

                   Purpose: To receive an update from the outgoing Chair of Capital Ambition.

                   Recommendation: That the Programme Board notes the update.


      5.           Report of the Corporate Director of Capital Ambition

                   Purpose: To receive a report from the Corporate Director, Capital Ambition,
                   giving an update on activity and issues since the last Programme Board
                   meeting, and providing an indicative financial summary for 2008/09.

                   Recommendation: That the Programme Board notes the report.


Work Programmes

Connected London

      6.           Shared learning and new ways of working: seeking improvements in
                   NI1 and NI4




                                                   3
                   Purpose: To seek Capital Ambition’s support and approve funding for
                   delivery of a three-borough initiative supported by the Leadership Centre for
                   Local Government, ICoCo (Institute for Community Cohesion) and the
                   Department of Communities and Local Government to help develop a better
                   response to the demands of NI1 and NI14. The boroughs believe this will
                   also be of value more widely across the capital and the country.

                   Recommendations:
                   That the Programme Board
                   (i)    considers the proposal at Appendix A
                   (ii)   considers the funding request of £60 000 for delivery of stage 1
                   (iii)  agrees to consider the findings of stage 1 with a view to supporting
                          stage 2.


Delivering Together

     7.       The London Futures Programme 2009/10

                  Purpose:
                  (i)   To endorse and approve the budget allocation for the London Futures
                        work programmes agreed by the Collaborative Board on 22 April 2009
                  (ii)  To approve the change of name to the London Futures Board with
                        effect from 05 May 2009; and
                  (iii) To delegate spending authority to the London Futures Board.


              Recommendations:
              That the Programme Board:
              (i)    considers the summary work programmes appended to this report and
                     approves the associated funding of £412,000;
              (ii)   approves the change of name from the London Collaborative Board to
                     the London Futures Board, and
              (iii)  delegates spending authority of up to £250,000 to the London Futures
                     Board.


Raising the Bar

     8.       Performance Office Update
              Purpose: To provide an update on the Performance Office and its associated
              work programmes.

              Recommendations:
              That the Programme Board notes the report.

Developing Capability

     9.       Total Place



                                                    4
                Purpose: To receive an oral update from the Leadership Centre for Local
                Government on the Total Place pilots.

                Recommendation: That the Programme Board notes the update.


     10.        Consultation on Sector Led Support - IDeA presentation

                Purpose: To receive a presentation on the IDeA’s proposals on Sector Led
                Support.

                Recommendation: That the Programme Board notes the presentation, and
                feedback comments to IDeA on the proposals.


Closing Items



     11.        Current Issues and AOB



     12.        Date of the Next Meeting
                The next meeting of the Programme Board will be held on Tuesday, 28 July
                2009 at 2.30pm at the London Councils offices, 59½ Southwark Street, London
                SE1 0AL.



Suzanne Rose
Head of Stakeholder and Programme Management, Capital Ambition
suzanne.rose@londoncouncils.gov.uk
Tel: 020 7934 9968
www.capitalambition.gov.uk




                                                  5
  Capital Ambition Programme Board

              Minutes


Meeting held on Tuesday 17 March 2009
          (2.30pm to 4.30pm)


         London Fire Brigade
           169 Union Street
               London
               SE1 0LL
Attendees:

Elected Members:
Cllr. Clyde Loakes, Labour
Cllr. Nick Stanton, Liberal Democrat
Cllr. David Simmonds, Conservative

London Councils:
John O’Brien, Chief Executive

Chief Executives:
Derek Myers, Kensington & Chelsea (Chair)
Rob Leak, Enfield (Deputy Chair)
Geoff Alltimes, Hammersmith & Fulham
Barry Quirk, Lewisham

Society of London Treasurers:
Jane West, Hammersmith & Fulham

GLA:
Ian Clement

LFEPA:
Rita Dexter

NHS London:
Paul Corrigan

Advisers:
Dennis Skinner – IDeA
Joe Simpson – Leadership Centre for Local Government

In Attendance:
Capital Ambition
Steve Johnson,
Julia Vernalls,
Suzanne Rose,
Steve Pennant (Item 8)
Nicky Jackman (Item 11)
Mark Pacey
Aramide Adeboye
London authorities
Leo Boland, GLA (Item 7)
Ron Dobson, Commissioner, LFEPA
Agenda Items

1.   Apologies
     Paul Martin, Sutton; David Warwick, GOL; Rob Whiteman, Barking &
     Dagenham; Mary Ney, Greenwich; Nigel Bourne, London Business Board;
     Dick Sorabji, London Councils.

2.   Minutes of Last Meeting

     Decision: The minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 20 January 2009
     were approved.

3.   Constitutional Arrangements

     The Board considered the proposed revision of constitutional arrangements
     for Capital Ambition agreed in April 2008.

     It was noted that Cllr Simmonds has agreed to lead on resident views and
     Paul Martin has agreed to Chair the Operational sub-group.

     Decision: The Programme Board agreed the proposed revisions.


PROGRESS REPORTS

4.   Report of the Chair

     The Board received an oral update from the Chair.

     It was noted that:
     - Capital Ambition is working alongside Haringey and has provided
         assistance by sourcing a number of senior local government staff; and
         helping to form the Haringey Improvement Board;
     - the Chair will attend future liaison meetings on behalf of Capital Ambition
         with Haringey.

      Decision: The Programme Board noted the update.


5.   Report of the Corporate Director of Capital Ambition

     The Board received a progress, programme management and budget
     report from the Corporate Director of Capital Ambition on activity and issues
     since the last Capital Ambition Programme Board meeting.

     It was noted that:
      - Mark Pacey has joined Capital Ambition as an interim programme
         manager;




                                        1
     -       The Capital Ambition bid for £1.5m to the first year of the three year
             CLG capital fund had been successful, with an additional £500k
             revenue funding;
     -       Havering would participant in the second wave of pilots for the London
             Efficiency Challenge and not Hammersmith and Fulham as stated in the
             report;
     -       £100k additional funding from GOL for worklessness could be used to
             extend the work already underway, with London Councils colleagues,
             on apprenticeships;
     -       Jane West offered to work with Capital Ambition on the presentation of
             its financial status.

     Decision: The Programme Board noted the report and asked that:

     (i)       the Director ensure that liaison Chief Executives are consulted before
               the London Efficiency Challenge takes place in the authorities to
               which they are matched;
     (ii)      a proposal on the use of the GOL worklessness funding be brought
               to the operational sub group for consideration.


6.   Capital Ambition Annual Report

     The Board considered and made recommendations on a draft of the Capital
     Ambition annual report.

     Decisions: The Programme Board agreed the final draft of the annual
     report subject to the following amendments:

     (i)       greater emphasis on support to LAA delivery;
     (ii)      capturing the work across London, GLA and family;
     (iii)     the Chair would update the forward in consultation with Cllr White to
               reflect the case for London for the future in the face of the economic
               downturn.

         The Chair thanked all those who drafted the report.


WORK PROGRAMMES

Theme 1: Connected London

7.   Tri-partite Project

     The Board received a proposal from Leo Boland and was asked to approve
     the secondment of a senior local authority officer to undertake a three-way
     joint managerial learning experiment project.

     Decision: The Programme Board approved £50,000 towards the overall
     cost of the project.



                                           2
8.   Connected London Strategy

     The Board discussed and provided input to the developing ‘Connected
     London’ vision and proposals for investment agreed by the Efficiency Board
     and related proposals for investment in the empowerment agenda.

     It was noted that:
      - Ian Clement would lead the Connected London work for the Capital
          Ambition Programme Board with Cllr Michael White;
      - new applications should be relevant to all Londoners including visitors;
      - the scope is to develop real solutions for real life issues with
          opportunities for efficiency savings;
      - there would be greater value in cross sector solutions building on
          current local, national and international activity;
      - opportunities exist for the use of open source software for public service
          utilities;
      - the strategy needs strong leadership;

     Decisions:

     The Programme Board:

     (i)     noted the programme approved by the Efficiency Board and bids
             made to the CLG Efficiency & Transformation fund;
     (ii)    noted the progress made to date in current projects;
     (iii)   agreed to fund the London Empowerment Partnership an initial sum
             of £35,000 to initiate projects and work up proposals for further
             projects;
     (iv)    agreed to progress the strategy on a cross sector basis, taking into
             account the learning from NHS experience;
     (v)     asked that work be commissioned on the top ten irritations for
             Londoners to which there might be a technical fix;
     (vi)    asked that Cllr David Simmonds take forward work to ensure the
             views of Londoners are incorporated into this workstream.
     (vii)   The Board receives greater project definition in due course.


Theme 2: Delivering Together

9.   Joint Improvement Programme – Funding

     The Programme Board received a progress report on the transfer of funding
     for the London Joint Improvement Programme (JIP) for adult social
     services.

     Decisions: The Programme Board



                                        3
    (i)     noted the transfer of resources for the JIP to Capital Ambition and
            the arrangement of the JIP to report to the Efficiency Sub group on
            progress;

    (ii)    asked the JIP to consider market management of Residential Care
            Homes in the recession with the potential for unintended
            consequences of small suppliers being driven out of the market.


Theme 3: Raising the Bar

10. Support for Safeguarding Children

    The Board was asked to approve a programme of work and associated
    funding and governance structure aimed at building and strengthening
    London’s overall resilience in the area of child protection.

    It was noted that:
     - IDeA have developed a safeguarding peer benchmark which would be
         piloted in Kingston;
     - forthcoming legislation will set out the role for leading members and
         LGA is developing protocols at national level;
     - comments made at Leaders’ Committee need to be incorporated and
         the cross over with work that Leaders want to oversee needs to be
         managed.

    Decisions:
    The Programme Board:

    (i)     approved in principle the proposed work programme as detailed in
            Section 6 of the PID;
    (ii)    approved in principle the governance arrangements as detailed in
            Section 4 of the PID;
    (iii)   considered the funding of £510,000 as requested in Section 8 of the
            PID and agreed £400,000 subject to revision of the funding
            proposals;
    (iv)    asked John O’ Brien to lead for the Programme Board.

11. Performance Office Update

    The Programme Board received an update on the Performance Office and
    its associated work programmes.

    It was noted that:
     - LFEPA was commended by the Programme Board on its performance
         ratings and apologies offered that LFEPA had been omitted from the
         report;
     - Waltham Forest was a 3-star authority in 2007 and not four-star as
         indicated;




                                       4
     -   A report would come to the next meeting of the performance office sub-
         group setting out the costs and implications of the various
         benchmarking tools available.

    Decision: The Programme Board noted the report.


Closing items

12. Current issues and AOB

     -   The Financial Services Authority has challenged LAML; the Chairman,
         Nathan Elvery has written to the Minister, John Healey, to draw this to
         his attention, and to ask for his support.

13. Date of Next Meeting
    The next meeting of the Programme Board will be held on Tuesday, 5 May
    2009 at 11am at the London Councils offices, 59½ Southwark Street,
    London SE1 0AL.

Suzanne Rose
Head of Stakeholder and Programme Management, Capital Ambition
suzanne.rose@londoncouncils.gov.uk
Tel: 020 7934 9968
www.capitalambition.gov.uk




                                       5
Date of Meeting: 5 May 2009

Subject:       Report of the Corporate Director of Capital Ambition

Report by:    Steve Johnson, Corporate Director, Capital Ambition   Agenda item: 5
              Contact: steve.johnson@londoncouncils.gov.uk

Purpose: To receive a report from the Corporate Director, Capital Ambition, giving an
update on activity and issues since the last Programme Board meeting, and providing an
indicative financial summary for 2008/09.

Financial cost: None


Executive summary: The report includes updates on engagement meetings to
individual authorities, the recent ICT e-Auction and an update on the Programme
management and Capital Ambition budget.

Recommendation: That the Programme Board notes the report.
                                                               Item 5 Appendix A

                         CAPITAL AMBITION BOARD

                                  5 May 2009

                            DIRECTOR’S REPORT


Engagement Meetings

1. The following engagement meetings have taken place since the last report to
   the Programme Board:

   •   Southwark                                      16 March 2009
   •   Hammersmith and Fulham                         1 April 2009
   •   Camden                                         21 April 2009
   •   Kensington and Chelsea                         23 April 2009

2. Outcome letters from the engagement meetings with LBs Southwark, Bromley
   and Enfield are attached at Appendix B.

3. All engagement meeting outcomes are fed into the Performance Office for
   structured analysis which is included in the Performance report at agenda
   item 8.


Individual Support Packages

4. Formal review meetings of the LB Harrow support package have been
   concluded, with Harrow in the final stages of programme completion. A final
   closure meeting at which a report is expected has been arranged for July
   between Suzanne Rose and Tom Whiting (Assistant Chief Executive and
   programme lead). Mike Lockwood, (Chief Executive) has been invited to
   present to the Capital Ambition Programme Board on 22 September 2009.

5. The closure meeting with LB Hillingdon will take place 28 April 2009.


Other Meetings

6. A meeting was also held with the Business Transformation team at LB Harrow
   to understand their approach to improving services and reducing the costs of
   contact. The Director of Business Transformation, Carol Cutler, will be invited
   to participate in the work strand on Business Process Improvement in addition
   to the boroughs of Waltham Forest, Barking and Dagenham, Brent and
   Lewisham.

7. Meetings were also held with the Assistant Chief Executive of LB Richmond
   and the Deputy Chief Executive of LB Waltham Forest about greater


                                          2
                                                                 Item 5 Appendix A

   involvement in the Capital Ambition workstreams on efficiency. Waltham
   Forest is keen to be involved in the Business Process Improvement Work
   (see above) and Shared Services work.

8. As part of the wider work within London Councils, Capital Ambition also met
   with Justine Greening MP, shadow Minister for London to brief on the overall
   work programme and the initiatives scheduled for 2009-10.

9. Capital Ambition met with Sharmin Joader the Private Secretary to the
   Cabinet Secretary Gus O’Donnell to explain the work programme and the
   potential for secondments into Capital Ambition from the civil service. Wider
   links are now being established with other government departments.


Efficiency

10. The ICT e-auction was held with 15 London boroughs and partners on the 31
    March 2009. Savings of over £10.5m were achieved by the event which also
    attracted media interest. Capital Ambition is now examining how the ongoing
    contracts are best managed to ensure continued savings are delivered
    whether this is through a lead borough or a more centrally managed
    approach.

11. The Efficiency Board met on 23 April and agreed the developing London
    Procurement Strategy which aims to identify how London can best deliver
    pan-London contracts, more localised procurement and meet the
    requirements of building capacity in SMEs etc. at local level.

12. Early work is also being taken forward with SLT leads on developing a more
    collaborative approach to council funds management across London. A
    potential prototype model has been developed for wider discussion with SLT
    which seeks to protect councils’ individual investment strategies while
    securing the benefits of greater pooling of resources. Any further
    developments will need to bring proposals to the Capital Ambition Programme
    Board for potential match funding.

London Efficiency Challenge

13. Following the first trials of the London Efficiency Challenge process follow-up
    support is being provided in Richmond seeking to unlock savings in the
    planning process. Feedback and learning from phase1have resulted in a
    revised process to be tested in two further trials in Barking & Dagenham and
    Havering in July.

14. The Challenge methodology has been presented to the REIP Business
    Transformation group who gave external challenge and review to the process
    and showed great interest in the potential of the methodology. The design of
    a web-enablement data-capture process is currently being lead by the IDeA


                                         3
                                                                  Item 5 Appendix A

   with the purpose of improving the efficiency of data gathering, comparing
   regional performance, capturing national best practice and applying the
   challenge process across the country.


London Collaborative

15. The new arrangements for the work of the London Collaborative outlined at
    the last Programme Board were agreed at the meeting of the London
    Collaborative Board on 22 April 2009. These provide for improved programme
    management arrangements for the overall London Futures programme of
    work by Capital Ambition and a new more focused development relationship
    with The Young Foundation and OPM. Further details on the new proposals
    are at agenda item 7.


Communications and Marketing

16. The final version of the Annual Report 2008/09 will be available from 5 May.
    Copies for Board members will be available at the meeting.

17. A new leaflet on the work of Capital Ambition is now in print for senior officers
    working in London local government and their partners. This compliments the
    leaflet produced for elected members in March 2009.

18. Capital Ambition was represented as one of three main speakers at the
    NLGN’s recent ‘Designing Public Services Event’ with attendees from across
    local government, the commercial sector and the voluntary sector.

19. Cllr Clyde Loakes presented for Capital Ambition at the recent LGA event on
    ‘Working with the Regions’, an initiative by the LGA to develop better
    relationship with their constituent authorities at the regional level. Capital
    Ambition is now involved in the further work on the ways in which the LGA
    build on existing linkages.

20. The Capital Ambition stand at the National Digital Inclusion conference
    promoting Connected London and its elements of community empowerment
    and service improvement through technology generated interest in the work of
    RIEPs in general and Capital Ambition in particular. Steve Pennant was
    interviewed about the work, and it can be seen by clicking this link
    http://net.digitalengagement.org/video/capital-ambition

21. Capital Ambition has also been asked to present at the forthcoming LGA
    annual conference during one of the member workshops on responding to the
    recession. The presentation will be led by Cllr Michael White. Ken Cole,
    Capital Ambition Procurement Advisor, will also be speaking at the LGC
    ‘Fundamentals of Local Government’ seminar in June 2009.



                                          4
                                                                 Item 5 Appendix A

Programme Management and Budget

22. Final figures for year end 2008/2009 still being completed, a high level
    indicative financial summary of central hub costs and each of Capital
    Ambition’s themes is attached at Appendix C. A full statement of accounts
    and proposed budget will be brought to the Capital Ambition Programme
    Board on 28 July 2009 for consideration.

23. Capital Ambition had an in-year budget of £15,889,789 made up of
    £8,134,175 continuation funding from predecessor bodies, £507,547 ring
    fenced grants and CLG programme funding of £7,248,067.

24. The summary sets out the sub-programmes of each theme, with the amount
    approved by the relevant Boards for spend in 2008/09, the amount paid and
    the balance (therefore indicative amount for carry forward to 2009/10).

25. This shows an indicative spend for 2008/09 of just under £4.3 million, and a
    carry forward of just over £11.5 million across the whole programme.

26. An income statement for 2009/10 is attached at Appendix D. The indicative
    income figure including carry forward is £23,771,824 (not including interest). It
    reflects that the bid for additional funds from CLG’s Efficiency and
    Transformation fund (reported at the last Programme Board) was successful
    with £2.530.000 having been secured for: work resulting from the London
    Efficiency Challenge; Shared Professionals; Business Process Improvement
    and Property and Asset Management. This in addition to the transfer of funds
    for the Joint Improvement Programme.

27. In the period since the last Capital Ambition Programme Board Meeting a total
    of £66,400.00 has been committed under delegated authority.

28. A new budget management and programme management system is being
    implemented by the Programme Office which will aid us in reporting
    accurately and appropriately to each of the boards in the Capital Ambition
    governance structure.

Steve Johnson
Corporate Director
Tel: 020 7934 9972

Appendices:

Appendix A           Director’s Report
Appendix B           Engagement Letters
Appendix C           Financial Summary 2008-10
Appendix D           Income Statement 2009/10




                                         5
  Item 5 Appendix Bi




Annie Shepperd
Chief Executive                              Contact        Suzanne Rose
Southwark Council                            Direct Line    020 7934 9968
                                             Fax            020 7934 9988
Town Hall                                    Email          suzanne.rose@londoncouncils.gov.uk
Peckham Road
London                                       Date           26 March 2009
SE5 8UB

      Dear Annie

      Engagement with Capital Ambition

      I should like to thank you for taking the time to meet with Suzanne Rose and
      myself on 16 March. The purpose of these meetings is to foster an effective
      managerial relationship between Capital Ambition, as the regional
      improvement and efficiency partnership, and Southwark in ways that can help
      support the achievement of your Council’s ambitions.

      You raised the work of the London Collaborative on carbon reduction I asked
      that Capital Ambition place some stronger emphasis on progressing this work.
      I have passed on this message to the Capital Ambition Team and, at our
      meeting, Suzanne was able to provide you with an interim update. It is good
      that Southwark is prepared to put resource into this important work

      We reflected on your Council’s managerial strengths in terms of what your
      authority might be able to offer to other Councils. You drew our attention to
      your programme management work delivering the Building Schools for the
      Future programme within Southwark. You said that Partnerships for Schools
      recognises the high quality of your work in this area. Additionally, you
      highlighted your environmental work on preventing “fly tipping” – in particular
      you referenced a specific “tyre-marking” system introduced in Southwark that
      enables tyres to be traced back to the licensee, and suggested this scheme
      could best work when implemented across, at least, London.

      We discussed how Southwark might more readily draw upon the resources of
      Capital Ambition and on the strengths and expertise of other authorities. Your
      suggested areas for focus was:

      -    Sharing services in planning where during the recession the resource
           needed is smaller given the drop in large-scale applications and
           regeneration; and possibly


  Chair: Derek Myers                 Capital Ambition is part of        Head of Stakeholder and
  Derek.myers@rbkc.gov.uk                London Councils                Programme Management
  020 7361 2299                       59½ Southwark Street,                      Suzanne Rose
                                        London SE1 0AL                           020 7934 9968
                                www.capitalambition.gov.uk
Item 5 Appendix Bi



    -    School improvement services

    A further area for pan-London collaboration that you highlighted was
    preparedness for extreme weather conditions following the experience of
    London authorities in the snow conditions in February 2009.

    We discussed CAA, and the view that Southwark will not be able to meet the
    decent homes target or be able to deliver its target for “affordable housing”. I
    understand that Southwark is currently negotiating to lower the target to 30%
    of new build (including shared ownership). You also raised the difficulties of
    achieving the goal of lowering the rate of teenage conception locally – in your
    judgement Southwark’s overall rate was influenced by external factors (such
    as the numbers of pregnant asylum seeking teenagers arriving in your
    borough). This area of work presents particular opportunities for cross-
    borough collaboration and I said that I would raise this with Capital Ambition.
    For wider discussion and action. We noted that this NI is one for which a
    number of authorities foresee risks to delivery of their target.

    With regard to Children’s Services, you perform well, but are concerned that
    the move to independent Chairs for Safeguarding Boards will be difficult as
    there will be strong competition between authorities for a small number of
    people and if these Chairs are to be formalised and professionalised this may,
    in itself, draw people from the mainstream profession having a further impact
    on the recruitment and retention of Directors of Children’s Services. We
    discussed a number of options including joint employment to chair boards in a
    number of authorities and chief executives chairing (not on a reciprocal basis).

    In terms of your Council’s overall service improvement you agreed that the
    rate of improvement appears to be slow compared to other authorities in
    London.

    Thanks you once again for your time, and for your part in the London
    Collaborative work. I look forward to continuing our dialogue.

    Yours sincerely




    Barry Quirk
    Capital Ambition Board Member

    Cc.       Derek Myers, Chair
              Suzanne Rose



Chair: Derek Myers                    Capital Ambition is part of   Head of Stakeholder and
Derek.myers@rbkc.gov.uk                   London Councils           Programme Management
020 7361 2299                          59½ Southwark Street,                 Suzanne Rose
                                         London SE1 0AL                      020 7934 9968
                                   www.capitalambition.gov.uk
  Item 5 Appendix Bii




Mr. Doug Patterson
Chief Executive                               Contact        Suzanne Rose
Bromley Council                               Direct Line    020 7934 9968
                                              Fax            020 7934 9988
Civic Centre                                  Email          Suzanne.rose@londoncouncils.gov.uk
Stockwell Close
Bromley                                       Date           4 March 2009
BR1 3UH

      Dear Doug

      Engagement with Capital Ambition

      It was good for me and Suzanne Rose to meet with you and Bill Ford on 19
      February – apologies for the delay in sending this letter which summarises our
      discussions.

      Our purpose in meeting was to foster your interest in Capital Ambition, and to
      update you on our activities as well as identify ways in which Bromley can
      support the ambitions of and gain benefit from the partnership. It was
      interesting to hear about the council’s relationship to London, and members’
      perspective on Bromley as an area.

      We set out the current Capital Ambition work programme and the four themes
      on which it is centred, and we noted a number of projects with which Bromley
      has been involved. You expressed interest in engaging more deeply with the
      ongoing work and suggested that it would be useful for a wider group of your
      chief officers to be involved but that they are less aware of Capital Ambition’s
      work.

      In relation to Bromley’s performance you are confident that your upcoming
      CPA ratings will reflect improvements that Bromley has made, in particular in
      Children’s Services. You also anticipate that an area that will be identified as
      in need of further attention will be the equalities agenda; currently the
      authority is only at Level 2 of the Equality Standard for Local Government. We
      identified Croydon and Havering as authorities that may offer some synergies
      with Bromley on this agenda.

      We noted the ageing population of Bromley, and your good performance in
      relation to vulnerable adults and children, as well as your stretching NEET
      and returners to employment targets that you have in the LAA. These may
      well become even more challenging given the recession where your
      unemployment rates are increasing and Bromley’s traditional resident groups

      Chair: Derek Myers              Capital Ambition is part of                Suzanne Rose
      Derek.myers@rbkc.gov.uk             London Councils                   Head of Stakeholder
      020 7361 2299                    59½ Southwark Street,                   and Programme
                                         London SE1 0AL                           Management
                                 www.capitalambition.gov.uk
Item 5 Appendix Bii



    are disproportionately affected. This does raise the question of resilience of
    Bromley’s communities which you suggest is strong.

    You told us about your ten point plan in relation to the recession has a
    particular focus on SMEs, and you are also holding a housing advice day and
    have a contingency in your budget against short-falls in income. It was also
    interesting to hear about the set of ‘Operating Principles’ that you have
    developed which you reported as having been embraced by staff throughout
    the organisation.

    In our discussion about performance, we also reflected that although your
    BVPIs show overall improvement, fewer have done so that in previous years,
    and that improvement is slower than in sixteen other authorities.

    Bromley’s priority is very clearly value for money, and you also have a focus
    on addressing health inequalities where you want to work more closely with
    Health in order to address them.

    Bromley is performing particularly well in relation to Use of Resources and
    Customer Satisfaction (with 84% of people happier and approving of what the
    councils is doing), and you expressed particular interest in following up
    suggestions with regard to member peer reviewers, workforce productivity
    and shared professional services as well as other efficiency projects. With
    regard in particular to value for money, we discussed the London Efficiency
    Challenge programme. Suzanne agreed to send you the ‘notepad’ which sets
    out the areas for investigation in the Challenge and you expressed interest in
    early participation in the programme.

    Once again I would like to thank you for your time and an interesting
    discussion about Bromley’s challenges and successes, and in relation to the
    work you have done with my own authority on fraud.



    Yours sincerely




    Mary Ney
    Capital Ambition Board Member

    Cc. Derek Myers, Suzanne Rose, Steve Johnson




    Chair: Derek Myers              Capital Ambition is part of           Suzanne Rose
    Derek.myers@rbkc.gov.uk             London Councils              Head of Stakeholder
    020 7361 2299                    59½ Southwark Street,              and Programme
                                       London SE1 0AL                      Management
                               www.capitalambition.gov.uk
Item 5 Appendix Biii




     Mr. Rob Leak
     Chief Executive                          Contact       Suzanne Rose
     Civic Centre                             Direct Line   020 7934 9968
                                              Fax           020 7934 9988
     Silver Street                            Email         Suzanne.rose@londoncouncils.gov.uk
     EN1 3XA


                                              Date          16 March 2009


     Dear Rob,

     It was very good to meet you again, on behalf of Capital Ambition, on Friday 27
     February 2009. It may not be the purpose of our engagement, but I enjoyed hearing
     about what you are doing in Enfield and, as before, I was impressed by your
     personal enthusiasm, commitment and very evident hard work.

     As you know, it is Capital Ambition practice to follow up these meetings with a letter
     which sets out the main issues which we discussed. These letters also become a
     briefing item for the Capital Ambition Programme Board.

     We talked first of all about your anticipated Audit Commission assessment outcome.
     Since then you have indeed been confirmed as a 4 star authority which is improving
     well. Congratulations are due to you and everyone associated with that outcome.

     You also updated me on a range of the issues which we reviewed at our previous
     meeting. These included your experience of recent inspections, including how the
     Authority’s focus on a perceived area of higher risk had an unexpected outcome for
     the inspection which had been seen as relatively low risk. This must have been a
     frustrating lesson for the Authority but I was impressed by your very positive
     approach to the learning experience which it had provided.

     We talked about developments with the establishment of your ALMO and with your
     housing management service, both of which were positive; and your expectation that
     your equalities standard rating will progress from level 3 to level 4, later this year.

     A substantial part of our discussion concerned the progress you have been making
     with your place shaping strategy. When we met last time, you identified this as a
     crucial area for improvement, although you were then concerned about whether you
     had the necessary internal capacity to drive it forward.


     Chair: Derek Myers            Capital Ambition is part of              Head of Stakeholder and
     Derek.myers@rbkc.gov.uk           London Councils                      Programme Management
     020 7361 2299                  59½ Southwark Street,                            Suzanne Rose
                                      London SE1 0AL                                 020 7934 9968
                                www.capitalambition.gov.uk
Item 5 Appendix Biii



     You painted a very different picture on this occasion and, in some detail, outlined
     your approach to the various opportunity areas which have been identified in and by
     the borough and the conditions and issues to which your plans are intended to
     respond. These include substantial areas of deep and entrenched poverty; high
     rates of teenage pregnancy; planning blight issues; and the impact of high volumes
     of cheap temporary housing.

     Part of our discussion concerned how you had achieved a more optimistic
     assessment about future prospects. You explained to me that you saw as key:

          •    the work which you had successfully undertaken to unite your members
               around a vision for place shaping in Enfield;
          •    the work the Council has undertaken to engage your local communities;
          •    good levels of engagement with the North London Strategic Alliance;
          •    partnership working, which had embraced the GLA; a range of other public
               sector agencies and the private sector; and
          •    the recruitment of some new talent and skills to the Authority and the fact that
               those individuals have skills which were particularly well matched to their
               particular roles in the programme of work which had led to where you are
               now.

          In this context, you expressed concern about the LDA strategy for supporting
          regeneration, which has changed and which you felt is now less instrumental in
          reducing deprivation at borough level than is to be found outside London.

          We also talked about Enfield’s response to the high murder rate in 2008, which
          had involved, amongst other things, some re-organisation of police deployment.
          You were hopeful that the work which all of the agencies had jointly taken would
          have a long term beneficial impact on this problem.

          You also told me that Enfield had been shortlisted for a beacon council award in
          the “supporting independent living for disabled adults” category. I am aware that
          you have since been awarded beacon status, which, if your enthusiasm for the
          project is matched by what it is doing, will be very well deserved.

          We went on to review progress with your LAA. You said that the new LAA
          negotiations had gone well, although you anticipated that some of the targets will
          be difficult to achieve. That, of course, is how it should be.

          We touched on a range of efficiency issues, although your efficiency role in
          Capital Ambition does not make this a high priority for me to explore with you.
          However, you told me about Enfield’s “Leaner Programme” and how this is
          delivering staff savings in support of your budget constraints. Your single status
          issues are resolved. Council tax was expected to rise in the order of 2.48%. In
          terms of longer term funding prospects, you expressed concern that deprivation
          in Enfield is deepening and consequently costs are rising, but this is not matched
          by what is happening to your funding.
     Chair: Derek Myers                Capital Ambition is part of       Head of Stakeholder and
     Derek.myers@rbkc.gov.uk               London Councils               Programme Management
     020 7361 2299                      59½ Southwark Street,                     Suzanne Rose
                                          London SE1 0AL                          020 7934 9968
                                   www.capitalambition.gov.uk
Item 5 Appendix Biii




          We spent some time looking at “what might go wrong?” Your assessment
          included failure of any of the 4 area strategies, the effect of which would be an
          inability to provide a step ladder for people in need of better life chances; a
          direction of travel for NLWA which would cut directly across one of your area
          strategies; health funding issues; and deepening deprivation not matched by
          resources to respond to it. You were relatively optimistic, but not complacent,
          about the prospects for a “conventional” service failure, based upon work that
          you do, personally as Chief Executive, to assess service risks. Like most of us,
          you were also concerned about how CAA would unfold. I added a view that your
          clear personal investment in making Enfield a better place flagged you as a
          potential “single point of failure”, although you were confident that you had others
          in your Director team who help mitigate that risk.

          Last of all, we talked about “giving and receiving”. You reminded me that your
          Director of Children’s Services was now with Haringey; told me that your
          customer access centre is a peer review site and you hoped that your beacon
          council entry could be made accessible to others. You added that you were also
          encouraging your senior managers to engage more with other London
          colleagues.

          With thanks again for your time, and your commitment to Capital Ambition


          Yours Sincerely




          PP Rita Dexter
          Capital Ambition Board Member

          cc. Derek Myers, Suzanne Rose, Steve Johnson




     Chair: Derek Myers              Capital Ambition is part of        Head of Stakeholder and
     Derek.myers@rbkc.gov.uk             London Councils                Programme Management
     020 7361 2299                    59½ Southwark Street,                      Suzanne Rose
                                        London SE1 0AL                           020 7934 9968
                                  www.capitalambition.gov.uk
Capital Ambition - Financial Summary - 2008 to 2010                                                               Item 5 - Appendix C

                                                                          2008/09                                   2009/10
                                                                                                                                    Total
                                                                                                                   Indicative
                                                             Budget         Total                    Indicative                  Indicative
                                                                                                                     Budget
Central Hub Costs                                           Allocation   Expenditure   Variance       C/F from
                                                                                                                   Allocation
                                                                                                                                 Available
                                                             2008/09       2008/09                    2008/09                      Budget
                                                                                                                    2009/10
                                                                                                                                  2009/10
Salaries                                                     1,600,000       822,149     777,851        777,851      1,931,187    2,709,038
Strategy, Development and General Support                      250,000       171,733      78,267         78,267         30,000      108,267
Comms and Web Development                                       50,000             0      50,000         50,000         25,000       75,000
Efficiency Priorities April 09-12                               24,000        24,000           0              0              0            0
Member and Leadership Development                                    0             0           0              0              0            0
Other                                                                0             0           0              0              0            0
New Funding (Unallocated)                                            0             0           0              0              0            0
Subtotal                                                     1,924,000     1,017,882     906,118        906,118      1,986,187    2,892,305

                                                                          2008/09                                   2009/10
                                                                                                                                    Total
                                                                                                                   Indicative
                                                             Budget         Total                    Indicative                  Indicative
                                                                                                                     Budget
Raising the Bar                                             Allocation   Expenditure   Variance       C/F from
                                                                                                                   Allocation
                                                                                                                                 Available
                                                             2008/09       2008/09                    2008/09                      Budget
                                                                                                                    2009/10
                                                                                                                                  2009/10
Performance Office                                           1,125,000        40,162    1,084,838     1,084,838        437,250    1,522,088
Efficiency Measures                                            240,600       187,391       53,209        53,209        291,300      344,509
Learning and Performance Analysis                               11,600             0       11,600        11,600        113,242      124,842
London Challenge                                               245,150        56,023      189,127       189,127         70,000      259,127
Customer Satisfaction                                           50,000        30,000       20,000        20,000         50,000       70,000
Change Management Support                                    1,250,000       139,544    1,110,456     1,110,456        124,000    1,234,456
Authority/LSP Support Packages                               2,290,000     1,712,463      577,537       577,537        450,000    1,027,537
Sharing Good Practice                                           50,000        11,980       38,020        38,020         50,000       88,020
New Funding (Unallocated)                                            0             0            0             0        550,000      550,000
Subtotal                                                     5,262,350     2,177,564    3,084,787     3,084,787      2,135,792    5,220,579

                                                                          2008/09                                   2009/10
                                                                                                                                    Total
                                                                                                                   Indicative
                                                             Budget         Total                    Indicative                  Indicative
                                                                                                                     Budget
Delivering Together                                         Allocation   Expenditure   Variance       C/F from
                                                                                                                   Allocation
                                                                                                                                 Available
                                                             2008/09       2008/09                    2008/09                      Budget
                                                                                                                    2009/10
                                                                                                                                  2009/10
Futures Work                                                   643,690       262,792      380,898       380,898        305,500      686,398
Innovation & Responses to other Major Challenges             2,312,014             0    2,312,014     2,312,014      2,110,874    4,422,888
Multi Authority Working                                        906,975         6,975      900,000       900,000              0      900,000
Property and Asset Management                                  158,000         5,038      152,962       152,962        264,000      416,962
Safeguarding Children                                                0             0            0             0        400,000      400,000
Collaboration in Procurement, Efficiency & BPI               2,493,790       626,701    1,867,089     1,867,089      1,378,600    3,245,689
New Funding (Unallocated)                                            0             0            0             0      1,980,000    1,980,000
Subtotal                                                     6,514,469       901,506    5,612,963     5,612,963      4,458,974   12,051,937

                                                                          2008/09                                   2009/10
                                                                                                                                    Total
                                                                                                                   Indicative
                                                             Budget         Total                    Indicative                  Indicative
                                                                                                                     Budget
Connected London                                            Allocation   Expenditure   Variance       C/F from
                                                                                                                   Allocation
                                                                                                                                 Available
                                                             2008/09       2008/09                    2008/09                      Budget
                                                                                                                    2009/10
                                                                                                                                  2009/10
Neighbourhood Renewal/Economic Development & Regeneration      100,000             0     100,000        100,000              0      100,000
Innovation & Responses to other Major Challenges               100,000         1,005      98,995         98,995         50,000      148,995
Customer Services                                              150,600             0     150,600        150,600        300,000      450,600
ICT and Back Office                                            195,000             0     195,000        195,000         60,611      255,611
Shared Infrastructure                                           55,000             0      55,000         55,000        600,000      655,000
New Funding (Unallocated)                                            0             0           0              0              0            0
Subtotal                                                       600,600         1,005     599,595        599,595      1,010,611    1,610,206

                                                                          2008/09                                   2009/10
                                                                                                                                    Total
                                                                                                                   Indicative
                                                             Budget         Total                    Indicative                  Indicative
                                                                                                                     Budget
Developing Capability                                       Allocation   Expenditure   Variance       C/F from
                                                                                                                   Allocation
                                                                                                                                 Available
                                                             2008/09       2008/09                    2008/09                      Budget
                                                                                                                    2009/10
                                                                                                                                  2009/10
Member Development                                             534,000        50,931      483,069       483,069        285,310      768,379
Leadership Development                                         470,000        63,000      407,000       407,000        100,000      507,000
Workforce Research                                              65,000         5,000       60,000        60,000         60,000      120,000
Workforce Reform, Planning and Management                      150,000        20,000      130,000       130,000        115,000      245,000
Developing Workforce Capability                                369,370        11,952      357,418       357,418        105,000      462,418
New Funding (Unallocated)                                            0             0            0             0              0            0
Subtotal                                                     1,588,370       150,882    1,437,488     1,437,488        665,310    2,102,798

Grand Total                                                 15,889,789     4,248,839   11,640,950    11,640,950    10,256,874    23,877,824
                                                                                                    Less CA Contribution to LC     -206,000

                                                                                                    Total Net Income 09/10       23,671,824
Capital Ambition Income Statement 2008-2012 (as at 29/4/09)                                                                                 Item 5 - Appendix D

                                                  2008/9                 2009/10                2010/11               2011/12                   TOTAL

Balance C/F from 2007/8

Former Capital Ambition                                5,633,707                                                                                     5,633,707
Former LCE                                               593,109                                                                                       593,109
National workstreams                                     198,384                                                                                       198,384
DCLG Additional Grant                                  1,702,000                                                                                     1,702,000
Subtotal                                                8,127,200                                                                                     8,127,200

Indicative C/F from 2008/09

Central Hub Costs                                                                906,118                                                               906,118
Raising the Bar                                                                3,084,787                                                             3,084,787
Delivering Together                                                            5,612,963                                                             5,612,963
Connected London                                                                 599,595                                                               599,595
Developing Capability                                                          1,437,488                                                             1,437,488
Subtotal                                                                      11,640,950                                                            11,640,950

Total C/F *                                           8,127,200              11,640,950                    -                     -                         -

Ring Fenced Funding                                                                                                                                            -
                                                                                                                                                               -
DCLG Climate Change                                        228,111                                                                                      228,111
Defra Climate Change                                        51,325                                                                                       51,325
DCLG/SERIEP Adult Social Care                              228,111                                                                                      228,111
Joint Improvement Programme                                350,289               882,874                                                                    -

Total Ring Fenced Funding                               857,836                 882,874                    -                     -                    507,547

New DCLG Funding

New DCLG RIEP Funding                                  5,702,778               7,699,000             7,699,000                                      21,100,778
London Efficiency Challenge                                                      450,000                                                               450,000
Supplier Relationship Development                                                310,000                                                               310,000
Shared Professionals                                                             200,000                                                               200,000
Property and Asset Management                                                    300,000                                                               300,000
East London Shared Solutions                                                     350,000                                                               350,000
Business Improvement Approaches                                                  550,000                                                               550,000
Value for Money Portal                                                           370,000                                                               370,000

Total New DCLG Funding                                5,702,778              10,229,000             7,699,000                    -                  23,630,778

Subscriptions                                                                                                                                                  -

London Councils                                            795,000             1,125,000             1,125,000             1,125,000                 4,170,000
London Connects                                            400,000                   -                     -                     -                     400,000

Total Subscription funding                            1,195,000               1,125,000             1,125,000             1,125,000                  4,570,000

Capital Ambition Income Target                          -206,000                -206,000              -206,000              -206,000                  -206,000



Total Income                                 15,676,814              23,671,824              8,618,000                919,000               36,629,525

New Funding (Pending)

Mobile Device Portal                                                             300,000                                                                300,000
DWP Worklessness Grant                                                           100,000                                                                100,000
CLG Community Cohesion                                                           120,000
DFT Funding                                                                      200,000                                                                200,000

Total New Funding Pending 09-10                                                 720,000                                                               600,000

Notes
*C/F from 2008/09 does not include accrued interest which will be applied once final accounts are received from LB Hammersmith and Fulham
CAPITAL AMBITION PROGRAMME BOARD
Date of Meeting: 5 May 2009

                        Shared Learning and New Ways of Working;
Project/Subject:
                        Seeking Improvements in NI1 and NI4

Report by:              Maureen Holkham, Assistant Director
                        (Community Services)                                 Agenda
                                                                             item: 6
                        Contact: Maureen.Holkham@bexley.gov.uk

Strategic Theme:        Connected London

 Purpose: To seek Capital Ambition’s support and approve match funding for delivery of a
 three-borough initiative supported by the Leadership Centre for Local Government, ICoCo
 (Institute for Community Cohesion) and the Department of Communities and Local
 Government to help develop a better response to the demands of NI1 and NI14. The
 boroughs believe this will also be of value more widely across the capital and the country.

Financial implications 2009/10:
               Allocated to     Connected London Requested                       Balance
           Connected London         Balance             £                           £
                    £                  £
                     1,030,000            679 595
 Stage 1                                                 £60k                  619,595
 Stage 2                                          To be decided

Executive summary:
Delivery of key community cohesion indicators are proving challenging for several
boroughs along the Thames corridor where there is significant alienation by the
traditional white working and lower middle classes. Alienation is driven by various
factors including the pace of change and fear of further change. Pessimism about
future prospects within these groups is exemplified in several ways including
growing dissatisfaction with mainstream institutions. In order to fulfil the pivotal role
of community leadership, it is important that Councils take steps to address the
levels of discontent articulated by traditional communities in their areas.

This bid is for Bexley, Havering and Barking & Dagenham to carry out much needed
research and action planning into the characteristic and dynamics of dissatisfaction
and the interventions needed to ameliorate this. Varying degrees of consultation,
analysis and intervention have been carried out to date in the three boroughs.

Further work will provide a more sophisticated understanding of factors that
contribute to alienation, and the proposed interventions/projects will provide a basis
for comparison of what works in addressing discontent. This joint approach will also
deliver economies of scale in terms of development and roll out. If successful, the
resulting toolkit could be used by other local authorities facing similar issues.

Challenging but achievable timescales have been set for research and outcome
based interventions and the Capital Ambition Board is asked to approve this work
stream as a matter of urgency.
 Outcome: A more sophisticated understanding of the causes of alienation, and the
 delivery of a different form of outreach and engagement with a hard to engage group

Risk: the major risks to the execution of the project are
- the analysis underlying the options proposed is not accurate
- the mixed methodologies adopted are not suited to yield the required insights in
   different areas, impacting the baseline sought
- the analysis leading to recommendations for council communication plans is not
   sound
- there is not sufficient or applicable best practice available and/or effective
   evaluation of current opportunities.

Recommendation:
That the Programme Board
(i)    considers the proposal at Appendix A
(ii)   considers the match funding request of £60 000 for delivery of stage 1
(iii)  agrees to consider the findings of stage 1 with a view to supporting stage 2



Appendices:
Appendix A: Shared Learning and New Ways of Working; Seeking Improvements
            in NI1 and NI4
                                           Item 6 Appendix A




                 Bid to Capital Ambition




       Shared Learning and New Ways of Working;
          Seeking Improvements in NI1 and NI4




  London Boroughs of Bexley, Barking and Dagenham and
                       Havering




                       April 2009




Executive Summary


                                                           1
                                                                      Item 6 Appendix A



Delivery of key community cohesion indicators are proving challenging for several
boroughs along the Thames corridor where there is significant alienation by the
traditional white working and lower middle classes. Alienation is driven by various
factors including the pace of change and fear of further change. Pessimism about
future prospects within these groups is exemplified in several ways including growing
dissatisfaction with mainstream institutions. In order to fulfil the pivotal role of
community leadership, it is important that Councils take steps to address the levels of
discontent articulated by traditional communities in their areas.


This bid is for three areas – Bexley, Havering and Barking & Dagenham – to carry
out much needed research and action planning into the characteristic and dynamics
of dissatisfaction and the interventions needed to ameliorate this.


London’s reputation as a world class global city, supported by local authorities
providing community leadership in areas experiencing community cohesion tensions,
could be adversely affected without this work.


Varying degrees of consultation, analysis and intervention have been carried out to
date in the three boroughs. Further work will provide a more sophisticated
understanding of factors that contribute to alienation, and the proposed
interventions/projects will provide a basis for comparison of what works in addressing
discontent. This joint approach will also deliver economies of scale in terms of
development and roll out. If successful, the resulting toolkit could be used by other
local authorities facing similar issues.


Challenging but achievable timescales have been set for research and outcome
based interventions and the Capital Ambition Board is asked to approve this work
stream as a matter of urgency.




                                                                                      2
                                                                       Item 6 Appendix A


Introduction

This paper is submitted jointly by the London Boroughs of Bexley, Barking and
Dagenham, and Havering, and is supported by the Leadership Centre for Local
Government, ICoCo (Institute for Community Cohesion) and the Department of
Communities and Local Government. It asks for support from Capital Ambition to
help develop a better response to the increasing evidence of alienation amongst
significant numbers of residents in the boroughs concerned. The boroughs believe
this will be of value not merely for themselves, but also more widely across the
country where an increasing number of councils are faced with similar issues of
dissatisfaction and alienation.




The Challenges
We see four separate challenges to cohesion in the three boroughs. Each has
distinctive reasons for its emergence, but it is the combined impact of these
challenges in East and South East London (and in many parts of the wider Thames
Gateway) that require a focused and particular response by the authorities. These
challenges are as follows;



       1. The rise of suburban dissatisfaction

Historically resident dissatisfaction tended to be correlated with areas of high social
disadvantage, and in the late 1990s boroughs such as Hackney recorded the highest
levels of dissatisfaction amongst residents. However, the 20081 State of the Suburbs
report by the Leadership Centre, London Borough of Barnet and the Academy for
Sustainable Communities (ASC), highlighted the need to focus on dissatisfaction in
suburban areas (or city suburbs as described in the report).

Polling by MORI has shown a steady deterioration in satisfaction in suburban areas.
Across local government as a whole, the most recent polling shows satisfaction with
local government is now greatest in Central London, with Inner London outperforming
national averages and with Outer London trailing.




1
    The State of the Suburbs report (2008) by the Leadership Centre.



                                                                                       3
                                                                Item 6 Appendix A

Figures for area satisfaction are:


    •   London 75%
    •   Inner London 79%
    •   Outer London 72%
    •   Thames Gateway 70%
    •   Barking &Dagenham, Bexley, Havering average 68%


And those for Council satisfaction are:


    •   London 49%
    •   Inner London 56%
    •   Outer London 46%
    •   Thames Gateway 48%
    •   Barking & Dagenham, Bexley, Havering average 46%

On both measures, the three boroughs score at least ten percentage points less than
Inner London, and also underperform against other suburban areas.


Performance by the London Boroughs of Bexley, Barking and Dagenham, and
Havering against the main cohesion indicators has also been mixed over the last few
years. The key indicators for this purpose are NI 1 and NI 4. Both are important
proxies for disaffection/alienation, to which people respond negatively because they
do not believe Councils are listening to them or that there is anything they can do
about it.


Provisional borough results for 2007/8 and 2008/9 are set out below.


NI 1 Percentage of people who believe people from different backgrounds get
on well together in their local area.

Borough               Place Survey Results          Place Survey Results
                      2007/2008                     2008/2009
Bexley                73% (27th in London)          69.1% (30th in London)
Barking and           47%                           49.1% (33rd in London)
Dagenham
Havering              72% (29th in London)          69.8%
National Average      77.3%                         Not available yet.
London Average        78.6%                         76.2%


                                                                                   4
                                                                Item 6 Appendix A

NI 4 Percentage of people who feel they can influence decisions in their
locality.
Borough              Place Survey Results           Place Survey Results
                     2007/2008                      2008/2009
Bexley               32% (31st in London)           25.9% (32nd in London)
Barking and          39%                            37.4% (13th in London)
Dagenham
Havering             30% (32nd in London)           25% (Ranking would suggest
                                                    33rd)
National Average     33%                            Not available yet.
London Average       39.5%                          35.0%

The above statistics also mirror the happiness/well-being ratings produced by the
Royal Geographic Society/Institute of British Geographers. Their research mapped
out happiness and well-being in 273 districts in England, Wales and Scotland, based
on a measure of subjective well-being (using responses from 12 weighted questions
from the British Household Survey). The results were then weighted/controlled taking
into account socio-demographic characteristics such as age, income, employment
status, health, and educational qualifications. Whilst Bexley scored better on this
tabulation (10th in London and 123rd in the UK), the scores for Barking and
Dagenham and for Havering confirm the MORI findings set out above. Barking and
Dagenham was 30th amongst London boroughs (and 244 in Great Britain) and
Havering 31st (and 244 in Great Britain).


This suburban dissatisfaction does not mirror underperformance by suburban local
authorities. If Audit Commission ratings were the guide then we would have
anticipated much higher levels of satisfaction in the three boroughs. The 2008/9
ratings were as follows:


   •   LB Bexley - 4*, improving well
   •   LB Barking and Dagenham – 4*, improving strongly
   •   LB Havering – 3*, improving well


This shows that there is a clear mismatch between administrative and financial
efficiency as assessed by the Audit Commission, and some residents’ perceptions of
how well their Councils listen to their needs and concerns and respond to these.
Whether the causes of this alienation are the same in all three boroughs, or are
unique to the conditions in individual boroughs, is something the project needs to
establish.


                                                                                  5
                                                                              Item 6 Appendix A



A brief description of the social, economic and demographic positions of each
Borough can be found in Appendix A.



     2. The Recession

Local Futures2 has carried out detailed research on the differential impact of the
recession. To do this they have analysed actual and likely impacts by place of work
and by place of residence, thus providing a better overall indicator of effect. This dual
analysis has shown for example that whilst the greatest job losses have been in the
City of London, the impact on the small residential community in the City is hardly
noticeable. The key research findings indicate that the combined percentage effect of
the two impacts is greatest in the suburbs and beyond London in similar places such
as Swindon New Town or suburban areas around Bristol. Percentage job loss, and
threat of job loss, has so far been greatest in the private sector, with public sector
pay and employment remaining remarkably buoyant. We know that the public sector
pain will follow, but this is not anticipated to really bite until 20011/12.


Whilst unemployment levels in suburban areas do not match that of inner city areas,
the rate of increase in unemployment has been much greater in the suburbs, which in
itself increases levels of fear. In addition, suburban areas with the greatest rates of
increase in unemployment have not had the history of previous recessions ingrained
into their consciousness (whilst in many inner city areas it is the problem of
generation on generation unemployment that has proved most intractable); nor do
they have the structure of support and intervention that never left many inner areas
even when the national economy was buoyant.


Although recent analysis of unemployment by the Work Foundation (Geography of
the Recession 14th April) suggested the greatest impact has been in core cities, the
authors stressed the point that there was a still disproportionate impact in areas with
significant manufacturing industries (which are not usually found in city centres, but
in the surrounding areas).

This is also evidenced by Local Futures’ recent analysis, indicating that the majority
of Thames Gateway districts including Bexley, Havering and Barking and Dagenham

2
 Local Futures are a research and strategy consultancy with a focus is on social and environmental
change.



                                                                                                     6
                                                                   Item 6 Appendix A

are amongst the most exposed places in Britain to the recession. There are two
contributing factors to their vulnerability;

1) a high percentage of jobs in vulnerable sectors

2) a high percentage of residents whose skills are linked to jobs within vulnerable
sectors

(please see Appendix B).



    3. Alienation
Within the suburbs, the demographic group most likely to be dissatisfied is C2 men
(but also some significant C1), living in owner occupation (perhaps previously council
property) and working in the private sector.


In Barking and Dagenham, analysis has shown that 2 resident segments (younger
married couples and older working ages, both living in former Council housing) make
up 44% of the borough's population, and predominantly populate the middle wards of
the borough where disaffection is most evident. In comparison to other groups, these
segments are only moderate users of public services, and the largest group of
residents in these wards is in the C1 social class.


We believe that all three boroughs have a disproportionately high C1/C2
demographic, clearly linked to current/ previous economic activity or employment in
the area. When existing dissatisfaction is combined with the effects of the recession,
there is substantial potential for increased alienation in the boroughs concerned.


The C1/C2 demographic presents particular difficulties for Council engagement. This
group tends to be lower users of council services as they are owner occupiers, in
work, and not retired. As MORI evidence has consistently shown, people have much
lower satisfaction with councils than with council services. But this demographic is
more likely to have their views of councils framed by hearsay and “knowledge” rather
than personal experience. For a significant percentage, their last major engagement
with local government was the desire to extract themselves from the council’s
jurisdiction through buying their house. In addition these residents may hold Councils
and others institutions/authorities responsible for depriving them of autonomy over
aspects of their lives, thus exacerbating alienation. Councils are therefore in a
particularly weak position to try and influence their views and behaviour.



                                                                                     7
                                                                    Item 6 Appendix A



Councils face a tough challenge in trying to influence this demographic and trying to
combat myths and hearsay. This demographic is sceptical about “evidence”
produced by Councils, and traditional Local Government forms of communication. As
a result, “evidence” that clashes with their fundamental belief systems is unlikely to
have any impact. If Councils want to accept this issue as a core challenge, then they
must recognise that more of the same will not work. The C1/ C2 demographic is not
much concerned with the traditional council welfare mix of solutions. As they see
themselves as payers of such programmes rather than beneficiaries, the usual
solutions are more likely to enhance alienation rather than sooth it.

    4. Promoting Cohesion
In circumstances where alienation is combined with fear of change, fear of pace of
change, and fear of recession/unemployment, affected groups can start to blame
others for their circumstances, particularly if there is a perception that some groups
or communities are treated more favourably by the authorities. This fear and blame
culture can be made worse by existing institutions (the media and some single issue
organisations) who label specific groups (younger generations, single mothers, new
communities) as responsible for the ‘break-down in society’.


Alienation of any segment of its population impacts negatively on a Council’s ability
to do its job, and to provide services that meet those residents’ needs. Where
alienation also results in a negative impact on other residents (because of ‘blame’ for
unemployment, crime and disorder, insufficient social housing etc), then Councils
have a community cohesion problem that they need to address. However, as set out
above, the traditional approach of simply telling the C1/C2 demographic that services
are allocated fairly, or that certain groups do not benefit disproportionately is unlikely
to have any impact – particularly if they are disseminated using the usual Council
communication routes. If anything, these approaches are likely to make resentment
worse, as alienated residents believe that the authorities and others cooperate to
direct services, funds and rights towards ‘preferred’ groups.




                                                                                        8
                                                                    Item 6 Appendix A


Options
If they agree with the above analysis, Councils have two options:


   1   They can accept the weakness of Councils’ ability to influence alienated
       groups and pass the responsibility elsewhere. The difficulty with this approach
       is two fold. First it is unclear to whom Councils could legitimately transfer
       responsibility. But secondly, if councils are to be centre stage in a place
       shaping agenda, they cannot afford to ignore this issue.


   2   They can learn and adopt new and meaningful methods of engagement, face
       the issues head on and go through a change of culture to recognise the
       needs of a small, but growing, alienated group.


In summary if Councils are to make a major contribution to the de-escalation of
tensions then they will have to work in a different way to engage with those whom
they are trying to influence.


The purpose of the bid therefore is to ask for Capital Ambition funding to develop a
more sophisticated understanding of the causes of alienation, and to attempt a
different form of outreach and engagement with what has turned out in fact to be a
hard to engage group (even though the whom and the where are known). The reason
why external funding is needed to do this is fourfold.


   1. whilst the solutions to this are embryonic, the very fact of some of the
       Councils publically committing their own resources at this stage could be
       counterproductive in terms of local reaction.
   2. the target audience either lives in boroughs which fail to qualify for specialised
       funding, or lives in those parts of boroughs where such money is not available
       to be targeted.
   3. this approach has relevance not just to the three boroughs concerned but to a
       number of other areas in London.
   4. this would again be an example of Capital Ambition leading more nationally,
       as this issue does not merely affect London.




                                                                                      9
                                                                  Item 6 Appendix A




Proposal
In the light of this evidence we propose a 2 stage project over 2 years:


   Stage 1: Identification of specific causes of alienation in each borough.


Although some universal trends can be identified, community cohesion issues can be
organic and localised. Therefore each borough will need to be clear about causes of
alienation and disenchantment in their area before attempting to address them; a
blanket remedy to these problems will not be effective.


This stage will include:


a) Inception and initial scoping
b) desk based quantitative research– demographics, employment, manufacturing
output, schools achievement, skills and training, crime and disorder etc
c) Focus group design – questions and composition
d) Audit of existing communications
e) Stakeholder interviews
f) Targeted Resident Interviews
g) Vox Pops videos
h) Focus Groups
i) Final report and recommendations




LB Barking and Dagenham has already carried out this stage of the work, but Bexley
and Havering still need to complete it. We ask that Capital Ambition contributes 50%
to the cost of this phase and LB Bexley and LB Havering will match fund. This will
ensure that each borough has the same baseline information and will provide an
overall consistency. The value in this is that it will produce recommendations based
on consistent research which could then be shared with other Regional Improvement
and Efficiency Partnerships (RIEPs).




                                                                                 10
                                                                   Item 6 Appendix A

In terms of outcomes, this stage would provide the following:
   •   Identification of the specific causes of alienation and dissatisfaction among
       local residents
   •   Identification of both positive messages and negative community myths that
       need to be countered;
   •   Delivery of an initial review of existing policies, consultations, messages
       communication plans and communication channels;
   •   Recommendations on how council communication plans could be made more
       effective in achieving community cohesion objectives, including appropriate
       communication tools and segmentation
   •   Appraisal of best practice and evaluation of current opportunities.



Stage 2: Promoting engagement and interaction


Any specific initiatives in the boroughs to promote better engagement and interaction
with alienated groups will need to reflect the outcomes of the Stage 1 research.
However some examples are:


a) Projects addressing myths and beliefs about key themes; projects addressing
specific concerns expressed by target groups – you said, we did.


Themes are likely to include:
   •   Provision of social care; access and benefits
   •   Provision of social housing
   •   Impact of regeneration schemes
   •   Recycling
   •   Health and Wellbeing/healthy life styles
   •   Crime and disorder

   •   Parking provision and penalties

Local projects addressing specific concerns will depend on the issues identified in the
Stage 1 research.

b) Promoting interaction:


This involves creating a range of opportunities and chances for different groups to
interact with each other in a positive and meaningful way, promoting a shared sense

                                                                                    11
                                                                       Item 6 Appendix A

of identity and common purpose linked to place. Positive interaction would be
encouraged between:


    a) authorities and the public
    b) neighbours and communities


Community empowerment also has a significant role to play. This bid will allow us to
develop initiatives and projects which will incorporate all these key factors of
community cohesion within the context of our local settings.



c) Reshaping of Council Communications:

Key initiatives will include:


Developing     a   consistent      approach   to   communications:     Using    empathetic
communication, without reinforcing and aggravating existing frustrations. This will
include developing a communications style for each borough; ensuring the language
used for all Council Communications is easily accessible; using a variety of
approaches and techniques to reach different segments of the population; and
ensuing that Communications Teams and front line staff are all appropriately trained.


Creating informal communication networks: The "grapevine" or "rumour mill" is the
major form of communication which councils do not currently tap into. By creating
localised informal communication networks, and developing community leadership
capacity, Councils can share evidence with key community influencers to help them
address myths and concerns as part of their day to day business.


Influencing behaviours: Work has already begun in Barking and Dagenham to seek
to influence behaviours in the fields of recycling and healthy lifestyles, using ‘Nudge’
behavioural economics.          The question is whether these techniques can be applied
effectively to other fields, and this bid will allow us to assess the transferability of this
approach.




                                                                                          12
                                                                   Item 6 Appendix A


Project Governance Arrangements
The project will be overseen by a Steering Group comprising


   •   the Chief Executives of the 3 boroughs
   •   the Cabinet Members for Community Affairs for each of the 3 boroughs
   •   other relevant senior Council officers
   •   representatives from Capital Ambition
   •   ICoCo
   •   CLG
   •   Local Government Leadership Centre
   •   Other expertise as necessary


The Steering Group will meet approximately every 3 months for the duration of the
project at each of the boroughs in turn. Its role will be to


   •   Identify key partners;
   •   Approve the work programme (Stage 1 and Stage 2) and timetables
   •   Approve the project budget and main items of spend;
   •   Monitor budget spend;
   •   Let contracts for separate phases of the work;
   •   Receive reports and feedback from contractor organisations;
   •   Agree mechanisms for evaluation of outcomes at each phase;
   •   Adjust longer term interventions to reflect learning from shorter term projects;
   •   Oversee regular feedback to Capital Ambition, including the final report.


The Steering Group may be supported by Specific project groups as necessary.




                                                                                     13
                                                                 Item 6 Appendix A


Estimated Project Costs and Timetable

Estimated Costs

Stage 1                                      Estimated cost
Identification   of   specific   causes   of £60k per borough
                                             £30k contribution from Havering and
alienation in each borough.
                                             Bexley
                                             Total cost for Capital Ambition: £60k
Stage 2
Promoting engagement and interaction          £TBD
Total                                         £TBD

Key Milestones


Agreement to proceed from 3 boroughs,         May 2009
Capital Ambition, and other partners
Steering Group set up; meetings agreed;       June2009
budget management arrangements put in
place
Identifying specific causes of alienation –   September 2009
initial findings from research in Bexley
and Havering. Review of outcomes of
work in all 3 boroughs
Steering Group agrees                         October 2009
engagement/interaction projects in each
borough
Bid to CA for Stage 2 funding                 November 2009
Projects take place                           November 2009 to December 2010
Evaluation of outcomes                        January 2011 – March 2011
Final report – collaboration between 3        End April 2011
boroughs




                                                                                     14
                                                                   Item 6 Appendix A


Appendix A: Local Context

Local context: London Borough of Bexley


Place:
   •     The LB Bexley forms part of South East London, in a key location in the
         Thames Gateway, between major growth areas in London and Kent.
   •     It is described as a city suburb, which has a growing but changing population.


People:
   •     Bexley has a population of around 218,000.
   •     Just over 63% of its population are of working age (16-64).
   •     According to the 2001 census, the population is predominately White British
         (85.9 %) with a BME population of 12.1%. This is lower than the national
         average of 13%.
   •     The largest BME group is Asian, and 42 languages are spoken in the
         borough.
   •     Population trends suggest that overall resident numbers will decline up to
         2010, and then slowly increase (by around 2%) up to 2031. The BME
         population is predicted to grow more quickly, and is likely to more than double
         (to 17.2%) by 2023. In particular, there is likely to be a rapid growth in the
         younger BME population, and by 2010 19% of people under 20 are likely to
         be non white.
   •     In addition to its resident profile, Bexley also draws in very significant
         numbers of school pupils from surrounding boroughs, the majority of whom
         are from BME communities.
   •     The increase in buy-to-let properties that has occurred in some parts of the
         Borough (e.g., Thamesmead), has resulted in an increasingly transient
         population.


Economy:
   •     From January 08 to January 09, Bexley had the largest increase in the Job
         Seekers Allowance (JSA) count across London. This is of particular concern
         because Bexley currently has the second highest proportion of local
         economic activity in London, with an active manufacturing sector.



                                                                                     15
                                                                             Item 6 Appendix A


      •    Thirteen of the Borough’s 146 super output areas are within the most
           deprived 20% in the country.
      •    Even last year, some wards such as Thamesmead East had an
           unemployment rate which was over twice the Borough’s average.
      •    Bexley has fewer professional and managerial workers in comparison to
           similar English suburbs (Local Futures, 2007) 3.
      •    Bexley’s residents have relatively low levels of vocational qualifications,
           including fewer residents qualified to NVQ levels 4 and 5 than London or
           London Thames gateway averages.
      •    However, two thirds of Bexley Pupils achieved 5A*-C passes at Key Stage 4
           and Key Stage 2 SATs results (2006/7) showed Bexley to be among the top
           ten best achieving local authorities in London.


Safety
      •    Despite a decrease in actual crime, Bexley has seen an increase in fear of
           crime in recent years.
      •    Anti –social behaviour by groups of youths consistently scores highest on
           residents’ community safety concerns.

      •    LB Bexley’s Community Safety Department have found there are widely held
           negative perceptions of young people in the borough. The recent Place
           Survey ranks Bexley 31st in London against NI 22: Perceptions of parents
           taking responsibility for the behaviour of their children in the area.

Cohesion


      •    In addition to the challenges posed by the recession, there will be increased
           pressures on local services from the growth in local population, and potential
           growth in new housing developments, within the broader context of the
           Borough’s location in the Thames Gateway Regeneration Area.


      •    Generational divides are evident, with one in six respondents to our talkback
           survey wishing for better relations between young and old.


      •    The diversity of the population is increasing, although the predicted pace of
           change is not as rapid as in other boroughs (e.g. Barking and Dagenham).

3
    State of the English Suburbs Report (2007) by the Local Futures Group.



                                                                                            16
                                                                   Item 6 Appendix A

         Ethnic communities seem to be settling into distinctive pockets impacting
         directly on cohesion.


   •     The new BME communities in Bexley are younger than the majority of the
         existing resident population and are positive about prospects in the borough
         and in general are doing well economically. By contrast many older white
         residents are pessimistic about prospects in the borough. Given the
         correlation between material conditions and social cohesion, the prospect of
         an economic recession, with an anticipated increase in unemployment and
         housing repossessions, will increase the sense of disillusionment and
         alienation felt by older white residents.



Local context: London Borough of Barking and Dagenham


Place
   •     The London Borough of Barking and Dagenham forms part of North East
         London and is also part of the Thames Gateway
   •     The borough has a long history of manufacturing linked to the car industry.
   •     Car manufacturing at the Ford site in Dagenham has been in steady decline
         for the last 20 years, and the area is recognised as having significant
         regeneration potential associated with extensive brown field sites that are
         available for housing and other development.
People
   •     Barking and Dagenham’s current population is around 167,000.
   •     Of these, 76.7% is white, and 23.3% BME, with the largest group being
         Black/Black British, and then Asian.
   •     The percentage of residents under 14 in the borough is high at 23%, with
         those aged 60 or over making up 16%.
   •     Overall trends suggest there will be continuing rapid growth in the BME
         population over the next few years so that by 2016 around 40% of residents
         will come from BME groups. The pace of change in the last few years has in
         itself been significant (in 2001 the BME population was just 15%).


Economy
   •     The unemployment claimant count has increased from 5% in February 08 to
         7.7% in February 09 – the largest percentage point increase in London

                                                                                       17
                                                                   Item 6 Appendix A


   •     Barking and Dagenham has the largest proportion of manufacturing employee
         jobs in London (16.5% compared to 10.5% in Brent, the nearest comparator)
   •     Barking and Dagenham has the lowest level of adult skills in the whole of
         England & Wales, with 43% of working age residents having a qualification at
         Level 2 or above, compared to 61% in London.
   •     There are significant plans for the regeneration of parts of the borough:
         however, unless progress is made in developing the skills of the local
         population the trend will continue that the higher skilled-jobs in the borough
         tend to be taken by residents of other boroughs


Safety
   •     Despite a decrease in actual crime, Barking and Dagenham, like Bexley, has
         seen an increase in fear of crime in recent years.
   •     Anti–social behaviour by groups of youths consistently scores highest on
         residents’ community safety concerns.

   •     There are widely held concerns about young people in the borough. The
         recent Place Survey ranks Barking and Dagenham 33rd in London against NI
         22: Perceptions of parents taking responsibility for the behaviour of their
         children in the area.



Cohesion
   •     In the main, the new BME communities are younger than the majority of the
         existing white resident population, are positive about prospects, and in
         general are doing well academically and economically.
   •     By contrast many older white residents are pessimistic about prospects in the
         borough. Those who are economically active and have choices are moving
         out of London to areas such as Canvey Island;
   •     The pace of change underway is the borough is rapid, with plans to
         regenerate vast areas of former industrial land and use this to create new
         communities in response to London’s pressurised housing market. Major sites
         such as Barking Riverside are already under construction, albeit with
         concerns expressed about the absence of social infrastructure to support
         significant new housing development.
   •     It is perceived that the rapid rate of change in a borough whose population is
         more strongly affiliated to Essex than other London Boroughs has led to a
         sense of loss and mourning the past, rather than looking forward to the future.

                                                                                      18
                                                                  Item 6 Appendix A

Local context: London Borough of Havering

Place
   •    Havering is an outer London borough comprised of a cluster of suburban
        communities situated alongside large areas of protected open space. It is the
        third largest London Borough by geographic area.
   •    To the south the borough extends into the London Riverside (regeneration)
        area of the Thames Gateway.


Population


   •    In 2007 the borough had a population of around 226,000.


   •    Havering has the smallest proportion of BME residents (8.8%) of all London
        boroughs; this population has increased significantly since the year 2000.
        Unlike Barking and Dagenham, the ethnic make up of the area is not
        predicted to change significantly in the next 10 years.


   •    By contrast, Havering has the highest proportion (20%) of men and women
        over retirement age, with all indications showing that people in this group are
        living longer.


Economy


   •    Havering has the lowest unemployment rate in Greater London (2.6%), and
        fewer people of working age (66%) than any other London borough.


   •    Havering as a whole falls well outside the top 50 most deprived local
        authorities in the country on the key measures of deprivation. There is one
        specific area that ranks within the 10% most deprived in the country,
        representing less than 1% of the 149 small areas in Havering.


   •    Harold Hill was the largest Greater London Council post-war estate, and one
        of the largest of its kind in Europe. The area has been prioritised for
        significant investment and regeneration over the next decade, and this sits
        alongside proposals for the Thames Gateway area that will affect other areas
        in the Borough such as Rainham and South Hornchurch.



                                                                                    19
                                                                  Item 6 Appendix A

   Safety


   •   Havering has one of the lowest crime rates in London, and the Council has
       recently been awarded Beacon status for its work on regulating the night-time
       economy in Romford, the borough’s major urban centre.


   •   Localised concerns reflect those evident in neighbouring boroughs, relating to
       anti-social behaviour and the associated perceptions of young people held by
       others. Additionally, increases in racially-motivated hate crime have been
       recorded in specific locations.


Cohesion


   •   Havering residents are most likely to relate to their local neighbourhood; with
       around two-thirds feeling a strong sense of belonging to their locality. More
       than half also state that they feel a similar sense of belonging to Havering as
       a whole.


   •   Levels of disillusionment among some white residents are high, and overall
       residents are more likely to disagree that the Council listens to the concerns
       expressed by them (62%). There is no clear consensus regarding whether
       there is a strong sense of community, with slightly more residents disagreeing
       than agreeing (52% vs 48%).


   •   There is suspicion about the Council’s motives in anything it tries to do and
       resistance to proposals for change. More than four out of five residents (82%)
       do not believe that they are able to influence local decision-making.




Appendix B: Employment in vulnerable sectors v workforce in
vulnerable sectors




                                                                                   20
                                                                            Item 6 Appendix A




Fig. 9, The Impact of the Recession on the Thames Gateway (April 2009) by the Local Futures Group




                                                                                                    21
CAPITAL AMBITION PROGRAMME BOARD
Date of Meeting: 5 May 2009

Project/Subject:     The London Futures Programme 2009/10

Report by:           Julia Vernalls, Programme Lead, Delivering
                     Together                                         Agenda
                                                                      item: 7
                     Contact: julia.vernalls@londoncouncils.gov.uk

Strategic Theme:     Delivering Together

 Purpose:
 (i)   To endorse and approve the budget allocation for the London Futures work
       programmes agreed by the London Collaborative Board on 22 April 2009
 (ii)  To approve the change of name to the London Futures Board with effect
       from 05 May 2009; and
 (iii) To delegate spending authority to the London Futures Board.



Financial implications 2009/10:
     Item        Allocated    Committed      Balance Requested          Balance
                     £           £              £        £                 £
 London             300,000           0       300,000   250,000           50,000
 Collaborative
 Core    work
 and Futures
 Programme
 Management
 Leadership         100,000           0       100,000        52,000       48,000
 Development
 Carbon             200,000           0       200,000       110,000       90,000
 Reduction

Executive summary: At its meeting on 22 April 2009, the London Collaborative
Board approved new management and delivery mechanisms for its work
programmes with Capital Ambition as the client and programme management and
commissioning hub for all leadership, innovation and workstream activity under the
heading of the London Futures work programme.           As a result of the new
arrangements, it has recommended a change of name to the London Futures Board.

The Board also considered the first tranche of proposals for its continuity work
commencing 05 May 2009 as listed below.

The London Collaborative:
   (i)   London Leadership Network
   (ii)  Innovation and Ideas Development
   (iii) Behaviour Change
   (iv)  London Collaborative programme management support
                                                                           Cont’d
London Councils:
   (v)  Futures Programme Management
   (vi) Carbon Reduction

Tables summarising the proposals, including the financial implications, are appended
to this report. The detailed proposals as submitted to the London Collaborative
Board are available from selena.lansley@londoncouncils.gov.uk.

The Collaborative Board does not have delegated authority to spend Capital
Ambition funding and the Programme Board is, therefore, being asked to endorse the
work programmes and approve the associated funding totalling £412,000.

The Programme Board is also being asked to approve the change of name from the
London Collaborative Board to the London Futures Board, and to consider delegating
spending authority of up to £250,000 to the Board, This would be consistent with the
spending authority delegated to the Efficiency Board.


Outcome:
The new management and delivery arrangements for the former London
Collaborative work programmes support greater plurality in programme delivery,
and should enable the London Collaborative to focus, in particular, on the original
aims of challenge and innovation for the future leadership of London’s public
sector.

Risk:
There would be a risk to London local government if support was withdrawn from the
Climate Change programme. There would also be a reputational risk to Capital
Ambition if support to the Futures programme and Leadership Network was
withdrawn, and a loss of faith from the 350 Leaders in the network.

Recommendations:
That the Programme Board:
(i)    considers the summary work programmes appended to this report and
       approves the associated funding of £412,000;
(ii)   approves the change of name from the London Collaborative Board to the
       London Futures Board, and
(iii)  delegates spending authority of up to £250,000 to the London Futures Board


Appendices:
Appendix A:        London Futures – Summary Work Programmes
Appendix B:        Background report from the London Collaborative Programme
                   Manager

Background papers:

Agenda paper and reports to the London Collaborative Board Meeting of 22 April
2009
                                                                                                                  Item 7 Appendix A


                                    London Futures – London Collaborative Core Programme

                                                Proposals May 2009 to April 2010

(a) London Collaborative - London Leadership Network and Innovation and Ideas Development

      Project                               Outline Deliverables                              Target          Budget
                                                                                           Completion Date      £


Web 2.0 networking   • Purchase and implement a tool to support:                           End June 2009         12,000
system               • connections and collaboration
                     • ideas development


Network              • Supervise and launch web 2.0 capacity                               July 2009             25,000
development and      • Active ongoing management, moderation and support
management           • Maintain database, tracking of participation
                     • Communications with network
                     • Explore models for organising borough engagement with network
                     Extending membership of network:
                     • Further representation from NHS, police and other partners          Ongoing to April
                     • Think tanks, academic and research organisations                    2010

Network Seminars     4 sub-regional events each bringing 40-50 people together and 1 pan   September 2009        19,000
                     London consolidating event
Network event        Half-day event for whole network as follow on from Emirates event     July 2009             21,000
                     June 2009 and focused on
                     • Introducing web 2.0 capacity                                        Ongoing to April
                     • Restating ambitions and inform of changes in programme              2010
Chief Executives     Further chief executives’ event                                       Jan 2010              12,000
Event                on pan-London cooperation and priorities, and taking stock toward
                     end of Collaborative programme




                                                                   1
                                                                                                                           Item 7 Appendix A



      Project                                  Outline Deliverables                               Target              Budget
                                                                                               Completion Date       (to April
                                                                                                                       2010)
                                                                                                                         £

Innovation and Ideas   Quick review of current issues as a starting point for ideas           June 2009                  36,500
Development            development                                                            (possible follow on)


                       Process for ideas development in light of above and steer from Board   From July 2009
                       and involving network. To include:                                     out-comes by
                       • Thinking from UK and elsewhere                                       March 2010
                       • Experience and current practice in London public services
                       • Options for fruitful ideas to pursue
                       Develop and test two sets of ideas e.g. on health and social care
                       using innovation techniques and network

Round-up at end of     •   Stakeholder feedback and reflection on strengths and               March 2010                 10,000
programme                  weaknesses
                       •   Final report including handover proposals


Young Foundation       •   Senior project coordination and policy capacity                    In place May 2009          60,000
programme              •   Staff and management resources to meet demands of
management and             programme
support


                                                                                                                       £195,500
Total – London Collaborative - London Leadership Network and Innovation and Ideas
Development




                                                                      2
                                                                                                                                        Item 7 Appendix A


(b) London Collaborative – Behaviour change


        Project                                     Outline Deliverables                                   Target                 Budget
                                                                                                        Completion Date             £

Practice exchange           • Application and revision of evaluation framework (developed                  Report on all              16,000
                              current programme)                                                       activity March 2009
                            • Two workshops to compare different BC programmes in London
                              and develop evidence base for most effective interventions
                            • Report on evaluation framework and outcomes
Active Living               • Support to boroughs for local projects                                     February 2010                20,500
                            • Action learning/research sets
                            • Production of case studies and a report
                            • Network event to share learning
                            • Research on market segmentation and user insight campaign

                                                                                                                                     £36,500
Total London Collaborative – Behaviour change




Total - London Collaborative – Core and Development and Behaviour Change                                                           £232,0001




1
 The London Collaborative Contract which expired on 04 May 2009 allows up to £300,000 continuity to work to be undertaken under a one year contract
extension to April 2010. Further work of up to £68,000 can, therefore be allocated without a formal tender process.

                                                                           3
                                                                                                                          Item 7 Appendix A




(c) London Councils – Carbon Reduction


    Project                                 Outline Deliverables                                 Target Completion   Budget
                                                                                                        Date           £
London           • A phased and funded London wide programme for the practical                      March 2011         110,000
Collaborative      retrofitting of London’s housing stock
Homes Retrofit   • Efficiencies through linking and partnering with existing and proposed
Project            energy efficiency programmes.
                 • Strategies for tackling, with key partners, persistent barriers to delivery
                   encountered by existing schemes in order to reach all households with a
                   range of options.

London           • Flexible and choice driven local programme delivery.
Collaborative    • Higher profile of carbon reduction within London.
Homes Retrofit   • Drive market innovation in sustainability product and skills.
Project          • Clear, unambiguous and streamlined procurement policies and
(Cont’d)           approaches.
                 • Integration and mutual evolution of policy and delivery.
                                                                                                                      £110,000
Total London Collaborative – Carbon Reduction



(d) Capital Ambition – Futures Client and Programme Management

    Project                                 Outline Deliverables                                 Target Completion   Budget
                                                                                                        Date            £
London           Commissioning, contract and programme management of all London                     March 2011       70,000 p.a.
Futures Client   Futures work programmes
and
Programme
Management



                                                                      4
                                                                           Item 7 Appendix B

    Report from the London Futures Programme Manager

1   This paper provides the back ground to recommendations made at the London
    Collaborative Board meeting on 22 April 2009.

2 The meeting of the London Collaborative Board on the 22 April 2009, considered
  papers on the revised structure for future forward work on developing resilience for
  London’s public services to meet its future challenges. The Young Foundation /OPM
  also provided a range of proposals to take this work forward.

3 The existing contractual arrangements with the Young Foundation / OPM ended in
  May 2009. The value of the work of the London Collaboration has lead to the need to
  consider future work proposals for the continuation of this work for a further year.

4   In summary the following was agreed on the future structure:

    •   A clear lead for the Collaborative, as part of the ‘Delivering Together’ theme and
        work programme within Capital Ambition. As a result of the new arrangements a
        recommended change of name to the ‘London Futures Board’.

    •   Aligned within the existing Capital Ambition work themes, the projects on Climate
        Change, Worklessness and Population Flows. These will now come under the
        respective lead boroughs and London Councils, as we have developed deliverables
        and the focus is on implementation, co-ordination and management.

    •   The Board working with the Young Foundation and OPM; concentrating on the
        development of the network, moving the Behaviour Change initiative towards
        implementation and exploring new approaches to help councils and partners deliver
        their future agendas within reduced resources.

    •   Committed to further develop a genuine social innovation and leadership network for
        London supported by the Young Foundation/OPM delivering a coherent events
        programme and web 2.0 infrastructure that will further raise the reputation of London
        as a leading edge world class city.

5 Proposals on future work programme were presented to the board. These were fully
  discussed and the financial implications of £412,000 were recommended for approval
  by the Capital Ambition Programme Board. Proposals for taking forward were:

        •   Developing the established leadership network                    £37,000

        •   Leadership events programme including events series
            ‘responding to tough times’ and a Chief Executive’s event.       £52,000

        •   Innovations and further ideas development for living within
            the challenging financial settlement.                            £36,500

        •   Continued Behaviour Change work including developing
            the Active Living project.                                       £36,500

        •   Continued Programme management for support from
            Young Foundation /OPM                                            £70,000
                                         1
                                                                        Item 7 Appendix B



      •   Climate Change Proposals for a new enlarged programme
          working with the LDA for retrofitting homes.                     £110,000

      •   London Collaborative client and programme management             £70,000

6. Further proposals from the Young Foundation/OPM were presented to the board and
   following rigorous debate the proposals were not agreed:

   Facilitated learning sets for up to 40 people                   £90,000 - 200,000

   Incentive Cards exploration                                     £7000

   Facilitation of in borough learning sets                        £5000 per borough

   It was agreed that further discussions would take place to further develop the
   Leadership network and the incentive cards exploration in a more focused and
   progressive way.




                                              2
CAPITAL AMBITION PROGRAMME BOARD
Date of Meeting: 5 May 2009

Project/Subject:    Performance Office Update

Report by:          Paul Warren, Performance Researcher
                                                                      Agenda
                                                                      item: 8
                    Contact: Paul.warren@londoncouncils.gov.uk

Strategic
                    Raising the Bar
Theme:

Purpose: To provide an update on the Performance Office and its associated work
programmes.


Financial implications 2009/10:
None

Executive summary:
This report provides an update on the following:

LAA Risk Analysis

Results from an initial survey identifying the most problematic areas in relation to
meeting LAA targets plus options for support.

London Performance Story

PwC commissioned research on the lifespan of CPA in London.

Development of Performance Benchmarking

Development of sector led performance evaluation tool.

The Place Survey

Top level results plus possible options for the year between the biennial Place
Survey.

 Outcome: N/A

Risk: N/A

Recommendation:
That the Programme Board notes the report.
LAA Risk Analysis

1. London boroughs were contacted during December 2008/January 2009 to
   identify where they have issues about achieving their Local Area Agreement
   (LAA) targets; 21 boroughs (64%) provided a response.

   Each borough had to grade each LAA target using the following scale:

   Red - Meaning serious difficulties in meeting LAA target
   Amber - Possible difficulties meeting LAA target
   Green - No identifiable problems in meeting LAA target.

2. A simple scoring system was adopted where red was equal to two points and
   amber one point. Using this method of scoring we were able to see the
   indicators that the boroughs involved in the survey had the most pressing
   concerns with.

   The top five in ranking points order are:

                                                       Boroughs that ranked Indicator as
National Indicator                            Points
                                                       red
         Working age people on out of work             Bexley, Croydon, Harrow, Islington,
NI 152                                            18
         benefits                                      Sutton, Waltham Forest
                                                       Enfield, Kingston upon Thames,
         Number of affordable homes
NI 155                                            15   Lambeth, Tower Hamlets, Waltham
         delivered (gross)
                                                       Forest
                                                       Bexley, Croydon, Enfield, Hillingdon,
NI 112   Under 18 conception rate                 12
                                                       Lambeth
         Working age people claiming out of
                                                       Camden, Enfield, Lambeth, Waltham
NI 153   work benefits in the worst               12
                                                       Forest
         performing neighbourhoods
                                                       Bexley, Kingston upon Thames, Tower
NI 154   Net additional homes provided            11
                                                       Hamlets, Waltham Forest


3. The Government Office for London (GOL) also carried out a survey on LAA
   indicator risk, during their LAA refresh negotiations. They found that the
   indicators most at risk were:

     •   NI 8 – Adult participation in sport and recreation
     •   NI 16 – Serious acquisitive crime rate
     •   NI 56 – Obesity among primary school age children in Year 6
     •   NI 112 – Under 18 conception rate
     •   NI 123 – Stopping smoking
     •   NI 130 – Social Care clients receiving Self Directed Support per 100,000
         population
     •   NI 152 – Working age people on out of work benefits
     •   NI 153 – Working age people claiming out of work benefits in the worst
         performing neighbourhoods
     •   NI 154 – Net additional homes provided
     •   NI 155 – Number of affordable homes delivered (gross)
     •   NI 186 – Per capita reduction in CO2 emissions in the LA area




                                              2
    The findings of GOL were similar to those from the Capital Ambition survey.

4. Further investigation is now needed to find out exactly what support is needed,
   if any, by individual boroughs or by London as a region to assist them in
   successfully meeting their LAA targets for those areas as identified above.

   Possible options are:

      •   Facilitated events/workshops - could be held on specific areas such
          as worklessness; these events could be attended by individuals from
          different managerial levels within boroughs (front line staff, senior
          managers) and also from other partner organisations. The main purpose
          would be to find what support could be offered.
      •   Further investigation (borough led) - would involve an individual or
          small team from a borough providing support and advice either to one
          borough or a number of boroughs on a specific issue where they have
          issues regarding LAA targets. This individual or team would therefore
          have experience/previous track record on the area that they are advising
          on. Local Improvement Advisers could also be used to provide advice
          and support.
      •   General support - those boroughs that have a significant number of
          LAA targets at risk could be offered support, either of a general nature
          around their Local Strategic Partnership, or on more specific issues.

5. These options will be presented to and discussed at the next Performance Sub-
   Group Meeting on the 5 May 2009.

The ‘London Performance Story’

6. PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) have been commissioned to develop a
   ‘Performance Story for London’ focusing on the seven years of Comprehensive
   Performance Assessment (CPA), reported under delegated authority.

7. PwC will produce a high level report, outlining the key trends in corporate and
   service performance for London boroughs as a group of authorities against the
   whole authority population.

8. A meeting between PwC and the Performance Office to discuss the initial
   findings of the analysis took place on 28 April 2009.

Development of Performance Benchmarking

9. The need for a performance benchmarking tool which provides more real time
   comparative performance data as a basis for continuing the improvement in
   London local government performance was agreed at Chief Executives’
   London Committee (27 February 2009), and the Performance Sub-Group (3
   March 2009). There was also agreement that this analytical tool needed to be
   operational in six months.

10. There appear to be three broad contenders with which to work:




                                        3
      1. The PwC approach;
      2. A CIPFA proposal, or
      3. Development by the Sector of a CLG-funded national prototype
         application plus national analytical unit.

11. The latter proposition would involve Capital Ambition hosting an analytical unit
    and the phased development of a national application which would be capable
    initially of comparing performance and service expenditure, but expanding later
    to include the ability to take into account the socio-economic context in which
    services are delivered. Furthermore the prototype appears capable of
    adaptation to take in and report data more frequently than annually.

12. To explore this opportunity on behalf of the Programme Board a speculative bid
    for £320k of capital funding has been made to CLG for Capital Ambition to host
    the development of the prototype and the small national analytical unit. This
    bid was successful.

13. It was also agreed at the Performance sub-group of 3rd March 2009 that Capital
    Ambition’s Performance Office would provide a full evaluation of the options
    and opportunities together with a Specification for agreement at the next sub-
    group meeting on 5 May. This would precede approval by the Programme
    Board.

The Place Survey

14. The results of the Place Survey, which is the national residents biennial
    satisfaction survey were due for release but have been delayed by CLG who
    are reviewing the survey and its methodology. Informally a release date of June
    has been mentioned although this has not been confirmed.

15. Ipsos MORI who have conducted their survey for London have provided the
    following data:

   Scores for area satisfaction are as follows:

   London 75%
   Inner London 79%
   Outer London 72%

   And for Council satisfaction:

   London 49%
   Inner London 56%
   Outer London 46%

16. According to Ipsos MORI the overall trend for council satisfaction is indeed
   down in London and also nationally. However, area satisfaction has tended to
   rise which may suggest that authorities are not getting the credit they may
   deserve for local improvements.




                                         4
17. There is also the issue of what Capital Ambition can do in the year between the
    Place Survey. A report is to be submitted to the Performance Sub-Group on 5
    May 2009 detailing possible options, which include:

      •   Re-run the Place Survey
      •   Undertake a London-wide sample survey
      •   Commission work to look at all the individual residents survey carried out
          by boroughs, and collate the main messages from them
      •   Focus on specific areas/issues that the Place Survey has identified.

18. The Performance Office is also looking at the possibility of commissioning
    Ipsos MORI to undertake some in-depth analysis on the Place Survey looking
    at issues such as the main drivers behind satisfaction scores being lower in
    outer London than inner.




                                         5
                                                                                      



                                                                                          
                                                                                      


 
 
 
 
 



       Setting the pace 
                                                     



    Developing a Framework for Sector-led Help –
                 Consultation paper




 
                                                                                        Item 10 


      This consultation document suggests a new framework for self improvement for local 
         authorities in England. It builds on earlier LGA/IDeA proposals including, ‘Driving 
    Improvement’ and ‘Developing the New Performance Framework for Localities’1  In addition 
       to sector‐led improvement, the other main component of those proposals was self‐
    evaluation which, following successful piloting, is now being rolled out across authorities 
                          and is officially recognised by the CAA process. 
 
It proposes a greater role for local authorities in owning and sharing amongst themselves 
the responsibility for their own improvement. That would mean a changed role for the 
regional and national improvement bodies, and a reduction in the role of central 
government and regulators.  
 
We are working to ensure maximum engagement in the consultation process.
 
 




                                                             
1
   LGA and IDeA, Driving Improvement: a new performance framework for localities, London,
February 2006.   
LGA / IDeA, Developing the new performance framework for localities, London, March 2007 
 
                                                 2 




                                                                                                    
                                                                                  Item 10 


Foreword Chair of the LGA Improvement Board and Chair of the IDeA
 

Although local government has shown continuous improvement over recent years
there are reasons why we are not and why we can not afford to be complacent:

    •   A new regulatory framework is being introduced – Comprehensive Area
        Assessment and while it is too soon to judge its impact, just the change in
        regime may leave weaknesses in some authorities exposed as new and
        different aspects of performance will be evaluated.
    •   The current economic crisis means that authorities will be serving
        communities whose levels of need are increasing at the same time as the
        income available to meet those needs is being reduced. Some are already
        feeling they are caught between a rock and a hard place even before
        resources are further squeezed in the next national spending review.
    •   There are aspects of our approach that we acknowledge still need further
        development, in particular, our ability to facilitate the delivery of significant
        capacity to turn things around, corporately or at a service level when there
        are serious failings in high risk areas.
    •   While ministers may want to be sympathetic and open to a local government
        led approach to improvement the absence of a clear framework leaves room
        for them to respond in an interventionist way where an authority is seen to
        be in crisis.

This consultation framework aims to stimulate a debate within authorities, RIEPs,
the regulatory regime and other interested bodies about what kind of an approach
local government should collectively be taking, in this turbulent context, to help
those authorities that face particular difficulties. We ask you to recognise that this
draft framework is a serious attempt to make progress in a difficult and contentious
area and welcome your comments on and criticisms of it.

To be effective the approach will, in particular:
    • Need to foster the development of a culture of openness within and across
       authorities. Openness about areas of weakness as well as of strength, so
       issues can be tackled early with support from local government’s
       improvement architecture (RIEPs, IDeA etc) where it can help to accelerate
       progress.
    • Include clearer roles for the key parts of the local government improvement
       architecture, authorities themselves, the Regional Improvement and
       Efficiency Partnerships, the IDeA and LGA.

While we are not complacent we have a track record of which we can be proud and
which gives credibility to our assertion that the government should continue the
                                            3 




                                                                                             
                                                                                    Item 10 


journey on which it has embarked, and appropriately reduce the role of ‘field forces,’
inspection and intervention.

We want to know whether there is widespread support within local government for such a 
sector‐led approach and if so, how far it should go and how fast. How far should it be about 
doing what we currently do, but doing it better: about building on the sort of corporate 
support we have given to poor and weak authorities and now enhancing our ability to 
facilitate the delivery of significant capacity to turn things around, corporately or at a 
service level where this is needed?  And how far should we be seeking to establish a 
comprehensive set of arrangements, to which all authorities seriously commit, which are 
designed to spot and prevent all potential service or corporate failure? 
 
We also want to hear from Government and regulatory bodies who are likely to have an 
interest in, and views on, how a more strongly local government‐led approach will work 
effectively with them, particularly in the most challenges circumstances such as when, as is 
still occasionally the case, an authority has a combination of corporate weaknesses and 
service failures.  
 
The answer to all these questions will determine what happens after this consultation: 
whether we can move straight into implementation or whether we need to distil the 
responses into a more tightly defined framework on which further consultation would be 
necessary. 
 




                                             4 




                                                                                             
                                                                                                                   Item 10 




Contents
Foreword ................................................................................................................... 3
Executive Summary .................................................................................................. 5
Definition of terms ..................................................................................................... 7
Summary of Consultation Questions ......................................................................... 8
Background - The story so far…. ............................................................................ 11
The foundation upon which the proposals are built ................................................. 13
Evaluation of current approaches............................................................................ 15
Key strengths and areas for development of the current sector-led approach ........ 16
Underpinning assumptions...................................................................................... 17
Key concepts and principles.................................................................................... 18
Proposals ................................................................................................................ 20
Role of Individual authorities ................................................................................... 21
Role of RIEPs.......................................................................................................... 23
Role of the IDeA...................................................................................................... 24
Role of LGA............................................................................................................. 26
Government and regulatory regime – “the ask”....................................................... 28
Illustrative examples................................................................................................ 30
Consultation Timeline/implementation .................................................................... 32
Appendix 1 .............................................................................................................. 33
Appendix 2 .............................................................................................................. 36
Appendix 3 .............................................................................................................. 50




                                                              5 




                                                                                                                                  
                                                                                 Item 10 

 
 
Executive Summary
2.     Local government can demonstrate an enviable track record of improvement
over recent years. The strength of the self improvement approach was recognized
when the National Improvement and Efficiency Strategy was published by CLG and
the LGA in December 2007. There is however, no room for complacency. Local
Government needs to introduce a clearer framework that describes how it will work
with authorities facing particular difficulties to support and facilitate their
improvement. We are asking at the same time that central Government and the
regulatory regime steps back in order to give local government the opportunity to
demonstrate it can be responsible for its own improvement.

3.      For the framework to be effective four factors were judged to be critical:

•    Identifying early warning signs of difficulty
•    Building trust and confidence
•    Recognising the importance of, and sustaining political ownership
•    A clearer framework of support architecture.

Key concepts and principles

The framework has been informed by the following key concepts and principles:

•    Nowhere left behind – We believe that local government as a whole can not
     allow failure – both because of the impact on communities and on the reputation
     of local government as a whole (with the public and other key
     partners/stakeholders).

•    Family first – Local government should be given first shot at sorting out our own
     problems before governmental/regulatory intervention. The rationale for this
     being that a local government led approach is more likely to be effective,
     sustainable and likely to be less expensive.

•    Critical friends – For local government help to work, local government support
     bodies, working with councillor and officer peers, need to both build trust and
     confidence with authorities and also provide real challenge.

•    Working together for the sake of our shared reputation - Local government
     as a whole together with individual authorities needs to take responsibility for
     each other’s successes and problems. This means top performers may need to

                                            6 




                                                                                          
                                                                                  Item 10 


    loan out capacity to those in need. This concept also requires collaboration
    between sector support bodies and not competition.

•   Doing the hard, ‘soft’ stuff - We want to keep the emphasis of this framework
    on what works – the use of our most experienced and skilled political and officer
    peers, the use of judgement by those peers as individuals and working as part of
    a team, the development of trust in relationships that allow challenge and help to
    be given and received. This means the approach will not be overly bureaucratic,
    involve extensive tick lists or detailed procedures (the easy, but we would argue,
    relatively ineffective ‘hard’ stuff).

•   Ownership is key - The primary responsibility for any council’s improvement lies
    with that authority. Local government can offer support, advice, expertise and
    challenge but the authority needs to drive its own improvement journey.
    Improvement support offered will therefore generally need to be bespoke and co-
    designed with the authority.


Definitions and scope of framework
4.    This consultation paper has been produced to describe how local
government (individual authorities and the local government owned improvement
support architecture) will work together to overcome the particular difficulties that
any authority may at some time face.

5.       The following scenarios may help to illustrate what is meant by “particular
difficulties”:

•   Authority 1 has a strong track record on improvement and community
    leadership but has recently become aware of weaknesses in aspects of
    children’s services that could result in, most importantly, unsafe practice, and
    also damage to the reputation of the authority.
•   Authority 2 has services that are generally performing well but has developed
    poor relationships between officers and members and between different political
    groups. These are resulting in poor media coverage and are affecting the quality
    of decision making.

The local government sector has had more experience in helping turn round
authorities in difficulties corporately than in service areas. Being able to guarantee
the skills and capacity to cover the full range of local authority services is a
considerable challenge. Should these proposals offer a full range of support from
the outset or build it up in a programmed way? If the latter, on what basis could it
be built up (e.g. focus on a limited range of services initially or only focus on the very
                                            7 




                                                                                              
                                                                              Item 10 


worst performing areas, such as those which threaten the reputation of the authority
and the sector as a whole).

6.    The focus of this consultation paper is currently on authorities. There are
however several places where the paper touches on dysfunctional partnerships.
There is a wider debate to be had about the extent to which authorities are taking
responsibility for poor performance/behaviour across LSPs and this issue probably
needs to be examined in more depth as part of the follow-up to this paper.

Consultation question 1
To what extent should local government-led help framework seek to address issues
across local partnerships as well as within authorities?


Consultation question 2
Can this framework cover the full range of local authority services right from the
start? If it should be developed over a period of time, on what basis should that be
built?




                                          8 




                                                                                        
                                                                                                    Item 10 




Background - The story so far….
A strong record of improvement

7.       Significant improvements in the performance of English local authorities are a clear 
reminder that local Government’s record of achievement remains strong. The introduction of CPA 
back in 2002 provided both the impetus for change and also a benchmark by which local 
authorities could monitor and take responsibility for their own improvement agenda with support, 
advocacy and assessment provided by the Regional Improvement Partnerships IDeA, the wider 
LGA group and the Audit Commission. In particular, improvements in corporate management and 
political leadership brought about by CPA have led to some authorities moving from poor in 2002 
to the top star category in 2008. The last set of CPA scores released before the introduction of CAA 
in April this year is an indication of how far authorities have come.   
  
 
8.      Local Government’s record of achievement is strong. In December 2002 the
first CPA results were published and the number of Good or Excellent single tier or
county councils was 76. By March 2009 when the 2008 scores were announced the
number of 3 or 4 star authorities had increased to 119, despite the introduction of
the ‘Harder Test’ in 2005 which raised standards. At the same time the number of 0
or 1 star authorities has reduced from 34 to just 4.

But we need to do more

8.      The case for sector led improvement has been made, accepted and is
reflected in the National Improvement and Efficiency Strategy. However despite the
track record of improvement success and a clear policy direction many of the
behaviours, both in central and local government, reflect the old top down ways of
working. In January 2008, the IDeA published Clive Grace and Professor Steve
Martin’s ‘Getting better all the time?”, an independent assessment of local
government improvement and its future prospects’2. Their essay commissioned by
the IDeA for the sector, set out some fundamental challenges to the system in terms
of the next stage of improvement in local government. Three key challenges were
identified:

a) Government and regulators are still implicitly working with an old model of
improvement, largely based on top down approaches, which is not fit for the new
world that local authorities and their partners find themselves in;

                                                             
2
  Grace, Clive and Steve Martin, Getting Better All the Time? An Independent Assessment of local government 
improvement and future prospects, IDeA, , London, January 2008 
                                                                9 




                                                                                                                
                                                                                        Item 10 


b) both central and local government are struggling to turn the rhetoric of reform
into the realities of implementation

•      central government to let go, and
•      local government to take responsibility and move beyond compliance; and

c) the improvement challenges ahead will not require merely incremental
improvement but embedded innovation.

9.      The National Improvement and Efficiency Strategy3 agreed by the LGA
and central government, published January 2008 established a new devolved
“system” for sector led improvement. With local government at the heart of driving
continued performance in local public services, new roles were given to RIEPS, the
IDeA, the LGA and indeed government. While the system is developing rapidly, and
can already point to success, the challenge of a coherent and agreed response from
all partners remains. In the absence of a defined response, old behaviours can not
be challenged and will persist, central government won’t let go and authorities will
fail to move beyond compliance.

10.     Leaving no place behind is a challenge to all parts of the system. Authorities
need to engage, be open to challenge and scrutiny and accept the responsibility
that their performance reflects on the sector as a whole; RIEPS need to provide help
to authorities facing difficulties; the IDeA needs to use its peer expertise to support
this engagement and provide some of the underpinning infrastructure; and the LGA
needs to provide overall political leadership (building on its ground breaking
commitment to “no poors and weaks”). Ministers, understandably, want
reassurance about the performance of local authorities so there are is a reduced
risk of unpleasant surprises – reassurance that the current regulatory regime has
not always provided. The Government and regulators, will, of course, ultimately
step in when services fail, but they have to accept that the need for them to step in
can only be reduced if, at a system level, they step back.


Consultation question 3
Has the National Improvement and Efficiency Strategy met the original expectations
of clarifying the improvement architecture, devolving responsibility for improvement
to local government leading to improved support and better outcomes for citizens?




                                                             
3
     CLG and LGA, National Improvement and Efficiency Strategy, London, January 2008 
                                                                10 




                                                                                                
                                                                                   Item 10 



The foundation upon which the proposals are built
Local government led help event

11.      This consultation paper develops the initial thinking from an event held in
early December 2008, when leading councillors including political peers and chief
executives from across the country came together to discuss how to develop a
framework for sector-led support for authorities facing particular difficulties (attendee
list included as an appendix 1.)

12.    The group’s thinking was informed by its experience of working in and with
authorities facing unusually severe problems over many years. The roles of those
contributing included:

•   Chief executives, and leading councillors who had worked to turn their
    authorities around, with assistance from local government’s support agencies,
    peers, and the regulators;
•   Political and officer peers;
•   Members of RIEP governance structures and sub regional partnerships;
•   Leading members of the LGA including it’s Executive, the Improvement Board,
    Performance Support Panel and Political Improvement Boards;
•   IDeA, RIEP and LGA officers.

13.     The event provided an opportunity to air issues, share perspectives and
approaches and deepen our collective understanding of what is a difficult and
sensitive area of improvement work. Although the focus for the event was work with
authorities facing particular difficulties, some of the thinking is relevant to the
broader question of the nature, strengths and challenges of sector-led support with
all authorities and partnerships. The thinking from the event has informed this
consultation framework. In addition, those present identified four critical success
factors:

•   Identifying early warning signs of difficulty
    To be effective local government led framework needs to have mechanisms in
    place to ensure timely recognition of problems and effective support where
    necessary. There are already mechanisms in place for highlighting signs of
    difficulties including self awareness, inspectorate reports, intelligence/’talk’ within
    local government and political group structures. However, there is also a
    recognition that this could be achieved on a more transparent and systematic
    basis.


                                            11 




                                                                                               
                                                                                   Item 10 


•     Building trust and confidence
      It is important that we are able to develop a framework where authorities are
      open to challenge from peers and where peers are able to provide challenge in
      an open and constructive way. The framework for sector led engagement also
      needs to facilitate high levels of trust between the individual authority and local
      government’s improvement architecture.

•     Recognising the importance of, and sustaining political ownership
      A sector led framework should fully recognise the role of politics in supporting
      authorities in difficulty. Political ownership of problems and support to tackle
      them is vital - at a national, regional and local level. It is essential political
      parties accept and own problems in their authorities and that they understand
      the need to take responsibility for being part of the solution. Local government
      also needs to have a framework for supporting the increasing number of
      authorities with no overall control.

•     A clearer framework of support architecture.
       It is important that there is clarity regarding the support architecture so that
      authorities know where to go and the level of support available to help them in
      challenging situations. This could take the form of a clearer support ‘map’.
      Alternatively, the group suggested it might be more helpful to provide a guide to
      support based on particular scenarios.


14.      Further thinking about these critical success factors is summarized in appendix

Consultation question 4
Are these four critical success factors the right ones to measure any new framework
by, and if not what else is needed?




                                             12 




                                                                                             
                                                                                     Item 10 


Evaluation of current approaches
15.     Set out below is a brief evaluation of the strengths and areas for development
in the current approaches taken by both government and regulators, and by local
government. These inform the principles and proposals later in the paper.



Key strengths and areas for development of the government approach



Strengths
CPA, as well as representing a huge opportunity cost, has increased
authorities’ focus on areas of core competence and brought about
improvement as a result. However it is now felt to have reached the limits of
its effectiveness and it is too early yet to evaluate the impact of the new
Comprehensive Area Assessment regime.
The inspection and audit regime is valued where it is focused on the
protection of vulnerable service users, and on probity and on public
accountability and value for money.
Areas for Development
Inspection and audit should be focused on assessment activity rather than
improvement activity. There have been recent concerns about the
effectiveness of inspection even in those areas where it is considered most
important – particularly safe-guarding.
There is a lack of clarity on the respective roles of Government Offices and
the Audit Commission in monitoring performance.
The number and cost of government commissioned improvement bodies and
field forces is excessive and needs to be radically reduced.
Some examples of intervention seem geared to ministers being seen to act
in the face of bad publicity – rather than by what is most likely to be effective.


“…if our performance indicators say we are delivering, then for heaven’s
sake, leave us alone. Inspections are time consuming, sap the energy of
officers, and take the capacity away from us delivering our key targets.
[…]don’t inspect local government to death. Don’t be overly bureaucratic
about it.” Iain Malcolm, Leader of South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough
Council




                                           13 




                                                                                             
                                                                                   Item 10 


Key strengths and areas for development of the current sector-led
approach

Strengths
RIEPs have broadened and deepened ownership of the shared improvement
and efficiency agenda.
There is a high level of confidence in IDeA’s track record in working with and
co-designing bespoke, peer based improvement programmes for authorities
facing difficulties.
Accredited political and officer peers are crucial in facilitating improvement.
Areas for Development
Our ability to deploy capacity to deliver solutions/provide support needs to be
developed further, with a particular need to build capacity in specific service
areas
Insufficiently developed range of approaches where there isn’t local
ownership of the improvement issue.
We need to develop further approaches to working on partnership issues.
There is insufficient shared understanding of the contribution of the LGA to
the improvement agenda
Although far simpler than the Governmental/regulatory architecture, there is
still confusion about the roles and contribution of different sector-led bodies.



Consultation question 5
How far do you agree with the key strengths and areas for development of the
current government and sector-led approaches?




                                          14 




                                                                                           
                                                                                Item 10 



Underpinning assumptions
16.   There are a number of areas where there appears to be a high level of
consensus across local government:

a) All authorities have strengths that others can learn from and problem areas
   where they need support;
b) Leading councillors and officers need to accept and understand that they have a
   responsibility to contribute to improvement and address underperformance in
   other local authorities as well as their own to protect the reputation of local
   government
c) Support and challenge from within local government is likely to be far more
   effective because it involves credible officer and councillor practitioners who
   know how to make change happen on the ground. It is also likely to be
   considerably less expensive than government intervention and therefore:
d) Local government and its support agencies assert that they should be given
   early notice of potential problems identified through the inspections
   process/regulatory regime and to address agreed areas of weakness before any
   government intervention is taken;
e) For sector-led support to be effective the authority concerned has to be prepared
   to acknowledge the need to improve and accept help;
f) There may be times when local government as a whole will act as an advocate
   for an authority if the authority is asserting its right to, for example, set locally
   appropriate priorities;
g) The government has the right to intervene if a sector led approach has not
   worked in a particular authority.

Consultation question 6
Is the protection of the reputation of local government as a whole sufficient incentive
for councillors and officers agree to take responsibility for providing support in
another authority?




Key concepts and principles

                                           15 




                                                                                            
                                                                                Item 10 


17.    Given these underpinning assumptions, the framework needs to be informed
by the following key concepts and principles:

•   Nowhere left behind – We believe that local government as a whole can not
    allow failure – both because of the impact on communities and on the reputation
    of local government as a whole (with the public and other key
    partners/stakeholders).

•   Family first – Local government should be given first shot at sorting out our own
    problems before governmental/regulatory intervention. The rationale for this
    being that a local government led approach is more likely to be effective,
    sustainable and likely to be less expensive.4

•   Critical friends – For local government help to work, local government support
    bodies, working with councillor and officer peers, need to both build trust and
    confidence with authorities and also provide real challenge.

•   Working together for the sake of our shared reputation - Local government
    as a whole, together with individual, authorities needs to take responsibility for
    each other’s successes and problems. This means top performers in a particular
    service or function may need to loan out capacity to those in need based on an
    assumption of reciprocity from other local authorities when needed. This concept
    also requires collaboration between sector support bodies and not competition.

•   Doing the hard, ‘soft’ stuff - We want to keep the emphasis of this framework
    on what works – the use of our most experienced and skilled political and officer
    peers, the use of judgement by those peers as individuals and working as part of
    a team, the development of trust in relationships that allow challenge and help to
    be given and received. This means the approach will not be overly bureaucratic,
    involve extensive tick lists or detailed procedures (the easy, but we would argue,
    relatively ineffective ‘hard’ stuff).

•       Ownership is key - The primary responsibility for any council’s improvement lies
        with that authority. Local government can offer support, advice, expertise and
        challenge but the authority needs to drive its own improvement journey.
                                                             
4
   “Where performance problems are identified, support from within the local 
government community should be the default position, with central government 
involvement as the exception.”, Skelcher, Chris; Pam Fox, Michael Hughes, Pauline Jas, 
Peter Watt, Philip Whiteman, Learning from the Experience of Recovery. From Turnaround 
to Improvement: Third Annual Report, Department for Communities and Local 
Government, London, September 2006 
 
                                          16 




                                                                                            
                                                                               Item 10 


   Improvement support offered will therefore generally need to be bespoke and co-
   designed with the authority.




Consultation question 7
Do you agree with the key concepts outlined, and if not what else is needed?




                                        17 




                                                                                       
                                                                                              Item 10 



Proposals
18.      The proposed framework is broken into 5 parts:

•     The role of individual authorities
•     The role of RIEPs
•     The role of the LGA
•     The role IDeA and the other local government improvement bodies
•     Government and regulatory regime – the ask

19.    To help build an understanding of how the approach works and will work in
future a number of scenarios are then described.


The framework allows for considerable flexibility, necessary to optimise the variety
of improvement support resources available and to match the variety of local
circumstances. However, within this flexibility there need to be clear arrangements
which maximise the extent to which corporate and service weaknesses are
anticipated, identified and dealt with, with no risk of it falling between stools. In
summary, the framework would operate in the following way:

      Authorities continually monitor their own performance (e.g. through performance 
      management, community engagement and scrutiny), undertake a self‐evaluation 
      every year and peer led external challenge of corporate health every three to four years 
      The vast majority of performance issues will be dealt with routinely by authorities 
      directly themselves or with external commercial or public sector support 
      RIEPS monitor the improvement challenges of authorities in their region and in 
      particular identify emerging serious performance difficulties, drawing on intelligence 
      from a range of sources including other improvement bodies, regulators and 
      government 
      The IDeA, working closely with the RIEPs, acts as a confidential clearing house for 
      sensitive issues 
      Where actual or potential performance difficulties are identified, the RIEP facilitates 
      discussions with the authority and other stakeholders leading to agreement on the way 
      forward and appropriate improvement support 
      IDeA facilitates peer support and direct help if needed 

                                                 18 
* The National Improvement and Efficiency Programme Office is hosted within IDeA and was
established to facilitate the implementation of the National Improvement and Efficiency Strategy in
particular by supporting the RIEPs and ensuring effective collaboration across local government’s
improvement architecture 
                                                    




                                                                                                       
                                                                                              Item 10 


    Where the difficulties have an otherwise intractable political cause or dimension, the 
    LGA may need broker discussions with appropriate politicians  
    Higher performing authorities / services make available officers and members to help 
    the authority in difficulties 
    If a situation is reached where a government department is contemplating an 
    improvement notice or using other intervention powers, a meeting is first called with 
    the relevant authority (including the relevant politicians) the RIEP and other 
    appropriate sector improvement bodies, to see whether, as an alternative, an effective 
    sector led approach is feasible 
 




                                                 19 
* The National Improvement and Efficiency Programme Office is hosted within IDeA and was
established to facilitate the implementation of the National Improvement and Efficiency Strategy in
particular by supporting the RIEPs and ensuring effective collaboration across local government’s
improvement architecture 
                                                    




                                                                                                       
                                                                                              Item 10 



Role of Individual authorities
20.   We are consulting on whether we should be asking all authorities across the
country to sign up to statement that would include:

•   Commitment to the key concepts and principles that emerge through this
    consultation process
•   Commitment to undertake self‐evaluation annually and to engage in a peer led external
    challenge of corporate health, at least every three to four years
•   a commitment to contributing to improvement across local government by
    engaging in RIEPs, providing councillor and officer peer and other support to
    other authorities and sharing learning and knowledge through a variety of routes
    including communities of practice etc
•   agree performance information collected by Government Office and the
    inspectorates can be shared with the RIEP/IDeA via the National Improvement
    and Efficiency Programme Office*
•   a commitment to have early, confidential, conversations with the IDeA, or the
    RIEP or, for councillors, with the relevant IDeA lead political peers about local
    governance and performance challenges where local government help might be
    useful

MUTUALITY STATEMENTS
A number of RIEPs have mutuality statements – this is one of them.

“This council welcomes the creation of Capital Ambition, the Regional
Improvement Partnership in London. It joins with other London authorities in
recognising that improving services to Londoners requires collective
commitment.

This council is responsible for its own improvement but it also acknowledges that
this can best be achieved by working with others in London and nationally.

This council undertakes to participate in Capital Ambition by contributing to its
work and by working with it for this council’s own improvement.”




                                                 20 
* The National Improvement and Efficiency Programme Office is hosted within IDeA and was
established to facilitate the implementation of the National Improvement and Efficiency Strategy in
particular by supporting the RIEPs and ensuring effective collaboration across local government’s
improvement architecture 
                                                    




                                                                                                       
                                                                                 Item 10 



Consultation question 8

Does your authority support the idea of greater sector-led support, with a view to
reducing the regulatory burden, and would it be prepared to sign a commitment to
that effect?

Consultation question 9
How can adherence to the terms of the mutuality statement be guaranteed? Does it
need a legally binding component? What other rewards and sanctions are
available? How should any local authorities that don’t sign up or subsequently
withdraw be treated?



Role of RIEPs
21.      Individual RIEPs will want to take different approaches to their role, they
were, after all, established out of a recognition that the geography, patterns of
different types of authorities and history of different regions necessitate different
approaches to collaborating for improvement. So recognising how the nine RIEPs
fulfil their role will vary, this paper proposes that RIEPs:

•   Confirm their commitment to supporting authorities and partnerships in difficulty,
    ensuring resources are devoted to prevention and support;
•   Work out how they will, through regular discussion, keep in touch with the
    improvement challenges of all the authorities in their region, and, in particular,
    ensure they are aware of any more serious difficulties in individual authorities;
•   Facilitate effective collaboration across local government’s improvement bodies
    within the region including the Regional Employers Organisations, IDeA, the
    Local Government Employers and Leadership Centre in order to maximise their
    contribution.
•   Consider how they will facilitate access to support based on identified best
    practice within and beyond the region for individual authorities and for groups of
    authorities where there are issues in common across several authorities in a
    region
•   Agree protocols about the sharing of information by Government Offices and
    inspectorates with the RIEPs and how it will be used.
•   Consider funding a peer review or peer reviews for each authority on a regular
    basis.


                                           21 
                                             




                                                                                          
                                                                                       Item 10 




                                                                                               
Consultation paper on sector‐led help.  Version 0.9 
22.   The following boxes give a summarized account of the approach being
developed in two regions.




The South West has had more authorities in difficulty than other regions and has 
adopted a good way of working with these authorities. The SWRIEP agrees an 
improvement plan with each authority facing difficulties with specific outcomes and 
measures. It then funds a significant amount of that plan and puts in place a 
monitoring mechanism to ensure targets etc are met. In addition it pays for 
mentoring, peer reviews and places on LA and AEL to help develop officers and 
members.
 




The North East is developing an approach based on a culture of transparency in
relation to performance, and on being improvement focused rather than punitive.

The new performance framework is seen as providing an opportunity for the
Government and inspectorates to better coordinate their approaches to localities,
and to work in partnership with the North East Improvement Partnership (NEIEP)
to provide improved support and challenge to local areas. In line with the local
performance framework, improvement activity will to be locally led, and in many
cases voluntary early engagement with the RIEP and IDeA will take place, which
may lead to some sector-led peer support. Beyond this, two new mechanisms to
provide formal coordination are being introduced:
1.      Joint Local Meetings between the Local Council/LSP, GONE and Audit
        Commission to agree any significant underperformance/efficiency/good
        practice issues which would be helpful to refer to the RIEP or consider at a
        regional level. These could be built around existing liaison meetings.
2.      A Regional Roundtable, say twice a year, will consider the regional view on
        LAA/MAA/PSA delivery, areas where learning and best practice can be
        shared, areas where the RIEP or others can offer support. For local
        government, this exercise will be conducted through the ANEC Regional
        Chief Executives Group and involve GONE, AC and IDeA.

Whilst most underperformance issues will be dealt with through local partnership
performance management, joint local meetings will consider those
                                       22 
                                                                            Jo Webb 




                                       
                                                                                       Item 10 




                                                                                               
Consultation paper on sector‐led help.  Version 0.9 
underperformance issues that are seen as critical, and are proving difficult to
solve locally. The meeting will consider how issues are being tackled, and lead to
three possible outcomes:
•        Strong local improvement plans are in place: issue does not need
         regional/RIEP input, progress will be reviewed at the next joint local meeting
•        Issue to be referred to the regional round table / RIEP, with the agreement of
         the locality. This is likely where RIEP support is required or where the issue
         may be relevant in other localities.
• Audit Commission/GONE not satisfied that issue is being adequately dealt
         with locally but locality does not agree to seek support or refer to regional
         round table. In this situation further Government or Inspectorate action is
         likely to follow, such as a ‘red flag’ of the performance area, further audit or
         inspection work or an Improvement Notice




Consultation question 10
Would the proposed commitments from RIEPs produce tangible benefits for local
authorities?




                                                       23 
                                                                                   Jo Webb 




                                       
                                                                                      Item 10 




                                                                                                
Consultation paper on sector‐led help.  Version 0.9 


Role of the IDeA and the other local government improvement bodies

23.     The IDeA has considerable, recognized expertise in the deployment of
political and managerial peers to help authorities (of all CPA categories) open
themselves up to challenge and assist them to bring about improvement. These
peer approaches are uniquely powerful in authorities facing particular difficulties.
The IDeA role is therefore to:

•    Provide support and expertise to authorities in developing their response to their
     particular improvement challenges
•    The recruitment, accreditation, development and deployment of councillor and
     officer peers to provide support, challenge and capacity to authorities
•    To act as a coordinating link between the local government improvement bodies,
     professional associations, other national improvement improvement bodies, and
     other national stakeholders including government and inspectorates and advise
     and support RIEPS and the LGA members
•    Act as a confidential clearing house for people to raise concerns about an
     authority – these will be then followed up as appropriate by sensitive
     conversations with the council’s senior councillors and/or officers.
•
“We were … able to “shortcut” some of the learning involved, based on the experience of 
our peers, and move our improvement agenda on more quickly as a result.  Equally 
important, however, was the boost the process gave the morale and confidence of our 
staff in tackling the next wave of change and improvement for the council and its partners. 
 
“In short, we found it a far more emotionally intelligent approach than our previous 
experience of government intervention, not least because we “owned” the process”. 
Kim Ryley, Chief Executive, Hull City Council 
 

24.   In addition to the IDeA, The Leadership Centre has provided useful support in
some authorities where there have been political problems and Local Government
Employers (as well as Regional Employers Organisations) where there are
problems in the relationship between chief executives and political administrations.
IDeA will play a coordinating role with the Leadership Centre, Local Government
Employers and other local government central bodies to ensure well coordinated
support is provided.
                                           24 
                                                                             Jo Webb 




                                       
                                                                             Item 10 




                                                                                     
Consultation paper on sector‐led help.  Version 0.9 




Consultation question 11
Are the peer led models of improvement currently used by the sector robust enough
to meet the new challenges this framework suggests?

Consultation Question 12
The clearing house role was suggested by one of the participants following the
December event. If needed is this role best undertaken by the IDeA and/or by the
RIEP or by the two working together?




                                                       25 
                                                                          Jo Webb 




                                       
                                                                                     Item 10 




                                                                                              
Consultation paper on sector‐led help.  Version 0.9 


Role of the LGA
24.      Political ownership is crucial to the addressing of improvement issues. If the
difficulties facing an authority are to do with managerial weaknesses it is the
authority’s councillors who will need to take steps to address these. If the problems
are a result of political dysfunction the wider political architecture will need to play a
role to support change. The LGA leadership, through its Political Groups and
Improvement Boards therefore has a role that includes:

•    To challenge poor performance in local authorities and supporting poor
     performers to improve.
•    In particular Improvement Board members will take steps to help by having
     discussions with leading councillors in an authority where barriers to
     improvement have a political and cross-party dimension.
•    Keep under review the effectiveness of local government’s improvement
     architecture (including IDeA, RIEPs, and the Leadership Centre).
•    Support local authorities who have come into conflict with government or
     regulators as a result of legitimate differences of view about the priorities in the
     area. If necessary, agree with the authority to commission a peer review to
     come to a view about the reasons for the conflict.
•    The LGA Political Group improvement boards will link to authority/party groups in
     particular where dysfunction within a group has a serious adverse effect.


“I hope that in 10 years time the council will be allowed to get on with it. I hope that
we will be funded for improvement, and not punished for following our own priorities,
rather than the priorities of the government.” Jill Shortland, Leader Of Somerset
County Council

Consultation Question 13
How could the respective roles and responsibilities be further refined?

Consultation Question 14
Who should begin the dialogue with an authority about the need for support if
they themselves do not seek it?

Consultation Question 15
What assurance can we provide that the sector will be sufficiently robust and
                                                       26 
                                                                                  Jo Webb 




                                       
                                                                                     Item 10 




                                                                                             
Consultation paper on sector‐led help.  Version 0.9 
challenging of itself? Can it provide sufficient incentive to ‘coasting’ authorities to
improve?

"We as local government need to be convinced that a strong shared
framework is our most effective way forward - we all have something to
give and something to gain from collectively owning Sector Improvement and
making it a viable alternative to unnecessary government intervention."
Joyce Redfern, Chief Executive of Wigan Council and Chair of the national RIEP
Chief Executive’s group.




                                                       27 
                                                                                 Jo Webb 




                                       
                                                                                  Item 10 




                                                                                           
Consultation paper on sector‐led help.  Version 0.9 


Government and regulatory regime – “the ask”
25.   The National Improvement and Efficiency Strategy sets the context for all the
proposals in this paper. Although changing roles and patterns of behaviour is
always hard, there is evidence that the practice of government departments and the
inspectorates is already evolving in line with the principles of the National Strategy.
For example in their work with some councils there has been increased emphasis of
government departments and inspectorates:
    - Recognising the importance of leaving responsibility and power in the in
      hands of the authority to drive its own improvement in order to secure
      sustainable change; and,
    - Appreciating the role of and engaging with the sector's improvement bodies
      including IDeA and the Regional Improvement and Efficiency Partnerships.

In order to build on this progress already made we now propose that in future

•    No action should be taken to serve an improvement notice or otherwise
     intervene in an authority over a corporate, service, or partnership delivery
     weakness before first giving the authority the opportunity to drive its own
     improvement with help from the rest of local government.
•    In practice this would normally mean the authority would be asked to call a one-
     off meeting with the relevant government departments, (and if appropriate
     inspectorate/audit body), the IDeA, RIEP and GO to discuss the issues and how
     they will be addressed. Given the importance of political ownership this would
     need to involve local leading members.
•    Inspectorates and the Audit Commission to provide to RIEPS and IDeA (both
     through the National Improvement and Efficiency Programme Office) information
     and analysis of the performance of individual authorities, regions and local
     government nationally. This will facilitate the development of relevant help and
     support at an individual authority, regional and national level.
•    Government departments and the regulatory regime should actively address the
     areas for development identified in section 5 above.
•    Additionally we are asking that Government monitoring and support activity
     progressively moves from Government to local government along with
     appropriate resources.

26.    The approach set out in this paper, if adopted, provides a form of ‘insurance’
for authorities and also ensures that as a sector we minimize future risks of failure.
                                                       28 
                                                                               Jo Webb 




                                       
                                                                                    Item 10 




                                                                                            
Consultation paper on sector‐led help.  Version 0.9 
If local government signs up to this the reduced risk should also be recognised by
government departments and inspectorates through reduced inspection.

 Consultation question 16
 Are there other actions or commitments that local government should be asking
 for?

 Consultation question 17
 This framework involves enhanced roles or responsibilities for all five parts of
 the current system? Would it still work if any one part was not playing its full
 role?



“We had one of the first corporate governance inspections as well as
everything else, and we were quite hostile, although never in denial. We said -
you know how bad it is, we know how bad it is, what is the point of going
through the inspection process again for the third time in 12 months? What is
this proving?” Jules Pipe Mayor of the London Borough of Hackney
 




                                                       29 
                                                                               Jo Webb 




                                       
                                                                                                Item 10 




                                                                                                        
Consultation paper on sector‐led help.  Version 0.9 


Illustrative examples
27.    In most instances authorities will be aware of difficulties and will be keen to
address them with support from a range of possible sources. Occasionally, this will
not be the case and the last two scenarios describe how we will respond. Some of
the scenarios below are described more fully in case studies included as appendix
4.

 Scenario                                                    Who can authorities turn to when
                                                             they recognize the challenge?
 A has a strong track record on                              Local Government help
 improvement and community leadership                        Peer review (corporate or service),
 but became aware of weaknesses in                           Inter authority exchange, RIEP,
 aspects of children’s services that could                   Sector specialists
 potentially result in, most importantly,                    Other sources of help
 unsafe practice, and also damage to the                     Specialist private sector provision,
 reputation of the authority.                                voluntary sector

 See case study in appendix 4

 Work by the Audit Commission identifies                     Local Government help
 concerns about the finances and culture                     Peer review (corporate or service),
 in an authority                                             Inter authority exchange, RIEP,
                                                             Sector specialists
 See Case Study in appendix 4                                Other sources of help
                                                             Specialist private sector provision,
                                                             voluntary sector
 Problems with a chief officer requires an                   Local Government help
 external reality check                                      Other chief Executives in the
                                                             region/sub region
                                                             RIEP, IDeA Regional Associate or
                                                             member peer, Regional LGA
                                                             Other sources of help
                                                             District Audit, standards board,
                                                             political parties, CIPFA
 Dysfunctional political groups                              Local Government help
                                                             IDeA Regional Associate
                                                             IDeA Political Peers

                                                       30 
                                                                                             Jo Webb 




                                       
                                                                                              Item 10 




                                                                                                      
Consultation paper on sector‐led help.  Version 0.9 
 Serious Adverse Incident                                    Local Government help
 Support to handle a crisis                                  Mutual support, Political peers,  
                                                             RIEP,IDeA regional associate
 Problematic political leadership                            Local Government help
                                                             LGA Improvement Board members,
                                                             Regional Associates, IDeA member
                                                             peers,
                                                             Other sources of help
                                                             Regional and national political
                                                             parties, standards board, Audit
                                                             Commission ethical governance
                                                             work
 Leader and Chief Executive relationship                     Local Government help
 breakdown                                                   IDeA Political Peers and Regional
                                                             Associates, Regional Employers.
 Scenario                                                    How should we respond in those
                                                             rare cases where the challenge is
                                                             not acknowledged?
 An authority has services that are                          When the issue has been raised
 generally performing well but has                           with the IDeA and/or RIEP the next
 developed poor relationships between                        step would be likely to be a
 officers and members and between                            confidential discussion with the
 different political groups. These are                       leading members in the authority
 resulting in poor media coverage and are                    and the chief executive to agree
 considered likely to be affecting the                       how the issues can be addressed.
 quality of decision making.
 A partnership is in danger of significantly                 When the issue has been raised
 missing its agreed LAA delivery targets                     with the IDeA the next step would
 as a result of conflicting priorities and                   be likely to be a confidential
 competitive behaviours between the                          discussion with the leading
 partners.                                                   members in the authority and the
                                                             chief executive to agree how the
                                                             issues can be addressed. This may
                                                             include working in partnership with
                                                             other public sector improvement
                                                             bodies such as the Police
                                                             Improvement Agency to provide
                                                             challenge and support to partners
                                                             as well as the authority.

                                                       31 
                                                                                           Jo Webb 




                                       
                                                                Item 10 




                                                                        
Consultation paper on sector‐led help.  Version 0.9 




                                                       32 
                                                             Jo Webb 




                                       
                                                                                           Item 10 




                                                                                                   
Consultation paper on sector‐led help.  Version 0.9 


Consultation Timeline/implementation

 Consultation Process
 April                               Consultation paper issued to authority leaders and chief
                                     executives, RIEPs, Inspectorates, CLG, other Government
                                     departments.
 April/May/June                      Regional meetings
                                     RIEP lead member meeting
                                     RIEP C/E meeting
                                     RIEP Directors Meeting
                                     Political Group Improvement Boards CLG
                                     Ministers
                                     Commission/inspectorates


 1 July                              Consultation closes



28.  Consultation responses can be emailed to ???? by 1 July. All responses will
be made publicly available before the final framework is issued.


29.     We will analyse all the consultation responses we receive, including the
views expressed at the consultation meetings and review our proposals. What then
happens will determine whether we can move straight into implementation the
production of a final framework or whether we need to distil the responses into a
more tightly defined framework on which further consultation would be necessary.
Recognising the importance of effective joint working between the sector-led
architecture and Government departments and the regulatory regime, in parallel
with this we will seek to agree with relevant bodies a document to replace “Roles
and responsibilities in the local performance framework” which was issued in July
2008.
 

                                                       33 
                                                                                       Jo Webb 




                                       
                                                                                  Item 10 




                                                                                           
Consultation paper on sector‐led help.  Version 0.9 
Summary of Consultation Questions
Consultation question 1
To what extent should local government-led help framework seek to address issues
across local partnerships as well as within authorities?


Consultation question 2
Can this framework cover the full range of local authority services right from the
start? If it should be developed over a period of time, on what basis should that be
built?

Consultation question 3
Has the National Improvement and Efficiency Strategy met the original expectations
of clarifying the improvement architecture, devolving responsibility for improvement
to local government leading to improved support and better outcomes for citizens?

Consultation question 4
Are these four critical success factors the right ones to measure any new framework
by, and if not what else is needed?

Consultation question 5
How far do you agree with the key strengths and areas for development of the
current government and sector-led approaches?

Consultation question 6
Is the protection of the reputation of local government as a whole sufficient incentive
for councillors and officers agree to take responsibility for providing support in
another authority?

Consultation question 7
Do you agree with the key concepts and principles outlined, and if not what else is
needed?

Consultation question 8
Does your authority support the idea of greater local government led support, with a
view to reducing the regularity burden, and would it be prepared to sign a
commitment to that effect?


                                                       34 
                                                                               Jo Webb 




                                       
                                                                                   Item 10 




                                                                                           
Consultation paper on sector‐led help.  Version 0.9 
Consultation question 9
How can adherence to the terms of the mutuality statement be guaranteed? What
other rewards and sanctions are available? How should any local authorities that
don’t sign up or subsequently withdraw be treated?

Consultation question 10
Would the proposed commitments from RIEPs produce tangible benefits for local
authorities?

Consultation question 11
Are the peer led models of improvement currently used by the sector robust enough
to meet the new challenges this framework suggests? If not, how would they need
to be improved?

Consultation Question 12
The clearing house role was suggested by one of the participants following the
December event. If needed is this role best undertaken by the IDeA and/or by the
RIEP or by the two working together?

Consultation Question 13
How could the respective roles and responsibilities be further refined?

Consultation Question 14
Who should begin the dialogue with an authority about the need for support if they
themselves do not seek it?

Consultation Question 15
What assurance can we provide that the sector will be sufficiently robust and
challenging of itself? Can we provide sufficient incentive to ‘coasting’ authorities to
improve?

Consultation question 16
Are there other actions or commitments that local government should be asking for?

Consultation question 17
This framework involves enhanced roles and responsibilities for all five parts of the
current system? Would it still work if any one part was not playing its full role?



                                                       35 
                                                                                Jo Webb 




                                       
                                                                Item 10 




                                                                        
Consultation paper on sector‐led help.  Version 0.9 




                                                       36 
                                                             Jo Webb 




                                       
                                                                                    Item 10 




                                                                                             
Consultation paper on sector‐led help.  Version 0.9 




Appendix 1
Critical Success factors for local government’s framework

The following areas were seen as being key by the people participating in the
December event.

Identifying early warning signs of difficulty

To be effective local government led framework needs to have mechanisms in place
to ensure timely recognition of problems and effective support where necessary.
There are already mechanisms in place for highlighting signs of difficulties including
self awareness, inspectorate reports, intelligence/’talk’ within local government and
political group structures. However, there is also a recognition that this could be
achieved on a more transparent and systematic basis.

While national data provides information on the majority of services, this is still using
a national framework on national priorities and misses many of the softer or local
issues. Also, it provides information within fairly narrow parameters and sometimes
issues can arise in one service that can actually be more symptomatic of wider
governance matters. It is important that as a sector we are smart enough to see the
links or the potential domino effect. Within the context of CAA, the national focus is
quite rightly on the achievement of outcomes and where these are not being
achieved, the regulators will then look to see if there are issues such as corporate
governance issues that are impacting on these matters. Within a sector led
framework, we would want to address any corporate governance issues before they
have the chance to impact on outcomes and reach the realms of the inspectors.                   Deleted: es




Building trust and confidence

a) We need to build the space for confidential discussions and to provide timely
   support. This needs to include a respect for difference amongst authorities.
b) It is important that we are able to develop a framework where authorities are
   open to challenge from peers and where peers are able to provide challenge in
   an open and constructive way.

                                                       37 
                                                                                Jo Webb 




                                       
                                                                                   Item 10 




                                                                                           
Consultation paper on sector‐led help.  Version 0.9 
c) The framework for sector led engagement also needs to facilitate high levels of
   trust between the individual authority and local government’s improvement
   architecture.
d) Trust, mutual challenge and respect between local and central government must
   develop further. There is a need for greater clarity of roles and responsibility.
   There needs to be clear water between the respective role of the inspectorates,
   government offices and the local government improvement architecture for
   authorities in difficulty (and perhaps more generally). The recent document
   produced by CLG, Roles and Responsibilities in the Local Performance
   Framework (July 2008) does not resolve this issue. Also, regulation and the
   current league table approach, doesn’t assist in fostering a climate of trust.

Recognising the importance of and sustaining political ownership

a) A sector led framework should fully recognise the role of politics in supporting
   authorities in difficulty. Political ownership of problems and support to tackle
   them is vital - at a national, regional and local level. It is essential political
   parties accept and own problems in their authorities and that they understand
   the need to take responsibility for being part of the solution. Local government
   also needs to have a framework for supporting the increasing number of
   authorities with no overall control.
b) As improvement practitioners we need to understand that the politics can affect
   improvement. We need to harness the energy when parties are working well and
   be supportive where this is not the case.
c) There is confusion regarding the role of regional Local Government Associations
   and the national Local Government Association.
d) There is a tension for all parties between local government practitioners and
   members of parliament/civil servants who don’t have the same grounding. This
   results in some ‘solutions’ that don’t work within a political landscape and don’t
   assist in the role of local government in leading local communities e.g. directly
   elected police representatives. There is a need to build better relationships with
   civil servants and improve their understanding of local government. Similarly,
   within local government, we also recognise the need to better understand what
   drives civil servants in their work with local government. More regular two way
   secondments may assist with this issue.

A clearer framework of support architecture

a) It is important that there is clarity regarding the support architecture so that
   authorities know where to go and the level of support available to help them in
                                             38 
                                                                                 Jo Webb 




                                       
                                                                                Item 10 




                                                                                        
Consultation paper on sector‐led help.  Version 0.9 
   challenging situations. This could take the form of a clearer support ‘map’.
   Alternatively, the group suggested it might be more helpful to provide a guide to
   support based on particular scenarios.
b) Outlined below are examples of scenarios and where support could be provided
   that were developed by the group:




                                                       39 
                                                                             Jo Webb 




                                       
                                                                                   Item 10 




                                                                                            
Consultation paper on sector‐led help.  Version 0.9 


Appendix 2 Case studies

Anonymised Children’s services case study

Summary

“Midthorpe” Council, a 4 star council under CPA, had its JAR in 2007 and this
highlighted some areas for improvement, including safeguarding. Midthorpe had
previously had good experiences of working with the IDeA to improve particular
areas (such as Customer Services) and so approached the agency with a view to
them helping them improve their safeguarding services.

Midthorpe wanted to learn from Local Authorities who were more successful in their
experiences of integrated children’s services and asked that the Beacon authorities
of Oxtown Borough Council and Munbridge City be part of the team.

The IDeA and the council jointly decided to use the peer team approach to focus on
Safeguarding rather than the whole of children’s services. The approach involved
two site visits of 2 days each, an initial baseline assessment questionnaire and
ongoing support between site visits.

Key learning points

•    Learning from other authorities in the same situation as Midthorpe but with more
     successful experiences
•    The process is good, but needs the local authority to plan carefully to ensure that
     they gain as much as possible from the experiences of others.
•    The peer team process is more accessible than an assessment process
     because it is less threatening and focuses more on development and
     improvement suggestions. It also allows for the other authorities to keep in
     touch over the longer term, and come back a few months on to see how things
     have progressed and help ensure progress.
•    The JAR identified areas for improvement which shaped the planning for the
     peer team process. However, the peer team uncovered the cause of the
     symptoms identified in the JAR, which ultimately is more useful to the council.
•    This kind of sharing (between authorities) is essential because everyone is doing
     the same things, though in very different ways, dealing with different cultures,
     different approaches etc. “It is good to compare experiences with different
                                                       40 
                                                                               Jo Webb 




                                       
                                                                                    Item 10 




                                                                                             
Consultation paper on sector‐led help.  Version 0.9 
     authorities – you can find different elements of different authorities’ approaches
     that can apply to your own authority”.
•    Conversations do happen between colleagues in similar roles in different
     authorities but not necessarily as critical friends to lead to improvement. In this
     kind of structured exchange “You can’t fail to learn something from someone – it
     is a two-way process even if it starts as one authority helping another”.
•    The time commitment is critical. It is time consuming. It is worth investing the
     time as it enables improvement to happen sooner, but it is not easy to ensure
     that the time is available. Commitment from executive management in both the
     receiving and supporting authorities is crucial here as they can ensure the
     resources are necessary. It is not without cost, but the initial investment is worth
     it as there is always something to learn.
•    It would be good to conduct this kind of thing regularly but it is expensive. It can
     be more forward looking and helpful to the council than a JAR which identifies
     problems but does not detail how to make improvements.

Background

The JAR identified certain areas for improvement: capacity, thresholds and quality
assurance and confirmed some problems that were known about internally but not
being dealt with. However, the first session of the peer team approach identified
problems with the Local Safeguarding Children’s Board. The roles of the members
were not clear, and there were knowledge gaps which needed to be addressed
before work could progress on thresholds or quality assurance.

The process has brought children’s services together as a directorate. It has
assisted integration and the process has helped to merge previously separate
elements of the service. Problems in safeguarding were tackled as problems for the
whole of children’s services, and not just one section. This enabled a re-focussing
of priorities which resulted in some of the successes (such as reduction in
caseloads, case file audit procedures and the redeployment of ACCWs to children’s
centres where they will work more on prevention than case management).

Who is involved?

The national adviser for the IDeA on Children’s Services worked with the local IDeA
Regional Associate to plan the approach. An experienced IDeA associate project
managed the peer team process and put together the team. This consisted of two


                                                       41 
                                                                                 Jo Webb 




                                       
                                                                                      Item 10 




                                                                                              
Consultation paper on sector‐led help.  Version 0.9 
officers from Oxtown Borough, and Munbridge City Councils, an official from the
NSPCC and a Member Peer.
The Chief Executive of the council enabled resources to be allocated to
Safeguarding in order to act on the JAR and peer team recommendations.

What are the practicalities

An initial baseline survey was distributed to all staff concerned. Although there was
a poor return rate initially, after the first site visit this improved. Three two-day site
visits were planned. So far, two have taken place.

Visit 1 – October 2007
This involved focus groups and individual interviews with key staff members. Key
areas to work on were identified – the LSCB and the link to prevention work.
Members of the LSCB were confused by its remit and were rather stuck on
processes rather than the more strategic big picture issues. This suggested that it
was not possible to work on Quality Assurance or Thresholds until this area was
dealt with.

It became clear that there needed to be better connections with the Prevention
Team. Without doing this, the capacity of safeguarding could not be improved.

Visit 2 – Dec 2007
This involved more interviews and some practice sharing seminars.

What is the impact / what has happened as a result?

•    Reducing caseloads through creative means – looking at caseloads across the
     whole of children’s services and re-focussing priorities. Some cases moved from
     case management (Children in Need and Child Protection) to YOS and Leaving
     Care. This has had an impact on other areas of the directorate, which has had
     mixed responses. However, there is an acceptance that the priorities had to
     change.
•    IRT manager moving on secondment to support the CAF facilitator and to
     establish the Children & Families team and children’s centres. This brings
     together the experiences from IRT and safeguarding and enables the manager
     to be more cross cutting in focus and helps ensure that safeguarding cuts across
     all children’s services.
•    Establishing a recruitment & retention strategy

                                                       42 
                                                                                  Jo Webb 




                                       
                                                                                    Item 10 




                                                                                             
Consultation paper on sector‐led help.  Version 0.9 
•    Using the Oxtown Borough “Integrated Working Practices” Toolkit, and adapting
     it to suit Midthorpe. This is being used successfully.
•    There has been a root & branch review of the LSCB – membership,
     organisation, and accountability. This has looked at the role of the members of
     the LSCB and it has been decided to appoint an independent chair. This is the
     model adopted successfully in Munbridge. There is now an interim chair from
     the Health sector. Midthorpe is currently gathering job descriptions of LSCB
     Chairs from across the country and will be advertising with a view to the new
     independent chair starting in the autumn.
•    Change in organisation of the ACCWs – moving them to the Children’s Centres
     and increasing the number of qualified social workers in caseload.
•    Improvement in reporting to LSCB. E.g. they thought they weren’t getting any
     performance data. Actually they were, but not in an accessible format. There
     are now procedures in place to summarise that data to be more useful. There is
     a move to reorganise the whole way that information is presented to the LSCB.

What could have been done differently?

•    Involving all the senior managers across Children’s services from the start,
     ensuring that they all knew what was happening and that all their staff were
     aware.
•    Managing the second visit better – in some ways this was an opportunity missed
     as those who took part in the workshops were not really aware of what was
     expected of them and therefore they didn’t work as well as they could have.
•    Staying in silos is not helpful. It would have been possible to look at the capacity
     in safeguarding post-JAR but it wasn’t initially seen as a problem for everyone in
     children’s services. Now that it is, ways of working have changed to be more
     integrated.
•    Communication in children’s services has improved internally, but not yet with
     external partners.

Critical Success Factors

•    Having information reflected back to senior managers about what is really going
     on for frontline staff.
•    Building up a two-way relationship with the other local authorities
•    Learning from the experiences of two Beacon authorities – includes visits to
     Beacon authorities.

                                                       43 
                                                                                Jo Webb 




                                       
                                                                                           Item 10 




                                                                                                    
Consultation paper on sector‐led help.  Version 0.9 
•    Having buy-in from the Corporate Centre – the Chief Executive was key to
     allocating extra resources in order to make the changes which were needed to
     improve.
•    “Useful to talk to people who have grappled with the same things”
•    Process managed by a credible organisation with an appropriate team for the
     circumstances

What next?

There are two more visits planned, in May (looking at culture change within the
Safeguarding team) and autumn.

•    Exploring the possibility of mentoring the Lead member for Children’s Services
     and for the chair of Scrutiny so as to learn from other LAs how to integrate
     children’s services into scrutiny, and how to ensure that Safeguarding also runs
     through scrutiny appropriately.
•    There is a move to look at the role of the health sector – can they take on some
     of the cases? Is some of the work more appropriately dealt with by health
     workers?
•    Accountability is probably an issue for the council as a whole, not just children’s
     services. It therefore helps the whole council if children’s services can model
     improvements. This is the advantage of having the corporate centre on board
     throughout the process
•    The LSCB has not been fully linked in with either the LA before, or with the
     scrutiny process. This is why there is likely to be some mentoring for the
     scrutiny chair as well as for the Lead Member for children’s services.
•    It is suspected that the council has yet to achieve change in perceptions of other
     agencies.


HULL CITY COUNCIL – PEER SUPPORT PANELS 
 
Background  
 
Hull has a population of 250,000. Although it is a regional city and a major European port, 
the sudden demise of the local fishing industry 30 years ago led to prolonged economic 
decline. Although the city has made significant strides in regenerating the local economy 
in the past five years, Hull is still rated the eleventh most deprived of England’s 354 council 

                                                       44 
                                                                                       Jo Webb 




                                       
                                                                                        Item 10 




                                                                                                
Consultation paper on sector‐led help.  Version 0.9 
areas and has high unemployment, with the annual claimant rate more than double the 
national average. Life expectancy for both men and women is below average. 
 
 
Objective 
 
The city council has made major improvements in its performance in the past few years, 
and was taken out of special measures by the Government at the end of 2006.  
However, the council did not see this as the end of its improvement journey. To improve its 
performance further, Hull decided to bring in external support and challenge, using a self‐
help model and drawing on expertise from credible practitioners within the local 
government sector.  
 
It is now rated as a “three star” authority which is “improving well”, and has won a number 
of national awards for its performance in a range of services, including customer service 
and was named as Council of the Year by APSE in 2008. 
 
Role of local government support 
 
The IDeA and LGA set up a joint project in which experienced practitioners from within the 
local government sector were brought in to share their learning and expertise. The aim 
was to take a collaborative approach, offering advice and feedback which would support 
the drive for further, rapid improvement in Hull.  
 
The steering group included Hull chief executive Kim Ryley and senior colleagues, as well 
as representatives from the LGA and IDeA.  
 
Five key service areas were targeted by this team at the request of the council, following 
its own self‐assessment of its performance: housing, customer service, worklessness, value 
for money and health inequality. Education and children’s services was also given peer 
support, but in a different format, as the council wanted to give external specialists in the 
field the chance to talk to parents, teachers and children direct. 
 
In all cases, the goal was to further improve performance and enhance strategic thinking 
and service development 
 


                                                       45 
                                                                                    Jo Webb 




                                       
                                                                                      Item 10 




                                                                                              
Consultation paper on sector‐led help.  Version 0.9 
A peer advisory process was set up, drawing on IDeA’s experience in knowledge 
management techniques. A standing panel of peer advisors was put in place, 
supplemented by expert practitioners with relevant specialist knowledge in each service 
area covered.  The IDeA selected these peers and chaired the advisory sessions.  
 
The initial meeting took place in December 2007 and the three half‐day workshops ran in 
February, May and July 2008. 
 
The sessions were carefully structured, with the relevant council head of service starting 
off with a short presentation on the key points of their service’s improvement journey, 
future plans, and challenges to be faced.  Feedback sessions from peer advisors and group 
discussions followed, and an action plan was produced by the council team at the end of 
each session.  
 
Service areas 
 
Education.  The review was not an attempt to add another formal assessment, but rather 
to bring together a respected team to look at the way Hull has responded to the key issues 
of attainment and attendance at school, and to high levels of NEETs.  The team saw how 
strong leadership, with high quality partnership working, has been a key driver to 
improvement.   
 
Outcome: The national profile of members of this review team lent weight to their 
comments, and provided a level of validation that has been important in giving the council 
the confidence to maintain its improved Ofsted assessment score. 
 
Housing. The session coincided with the launch of Hull’s latest housing strategy, and many 
of the council’s new structures and approaches were validated as appropriate to the 
delivery of this. 
 
Outcome: The peers helped council staff to enhance the service strategy by linking it more 
clearly to the full range of LAA outcomes, and encouraged engagement with the new 
Housing and Communities Agency (HCA). 
 
Customer service. Issues discussed included the best practice approach to frontline service 
migration to the council’s new customer service centres, and how to make systems 
integration work effectively. 

                                                       46 
                                                                                  Jo Webb 




                                       
                                                                                        Item 10 




                                                                                                
Consultation paper on sector‐led help.  Version 0.9 
 
Outcome: The panel discussion triggered a change of emphasis in development in this 
service area, encouraging a more streamlined service and stronger branding.  
 
Suggested improvements included developing a single, integrated customer strategy and 
that use of the council’s memorable call centre number could be part of Hull’s “brand”.  
Improved collating of customer service feedback would also mean that services could be 
tailored more accurately.  
 
Worklessness.  The session looked at the particular needs of young people not in 
education, employment or training (NEETS) and Local Employee Partnerships with 
JobCentre Plus, as well as the council’s “corporate parenting” initiative, in which 100 jobs 
were offered to 100 looked after young people.   
 
Outcome: The session reaffirmed the principle that the council, with partners, needed to 
firmly lead on addressing the issue of worklessness, as reflected by the Houghton Review.   
As a result, significant amounts of Working Neighbourhood Funding (WNF), some £9.75m, 
has been deployed for projects to support people into work. 
 
Value for money. This is a key priority for Hull, both in terms of boosting its CPA star 
rating, but also to release capacity for investment in supporting its LAA priority areas.  
 
Outcome: The panel focused specifically on responding more effectively to the way that 
“use of resources” is assessed by the Audit Commission.   
 
Health inequality – The session focused on defining “well being” in a way that all the local 
partners could relate to.  
 
Outcome: The panel offered advice about effectively communicating health messages, as 
well as validating the approaches of the council and its partners to changing local lifestyle 
choices.  
 
 
Conclusions 
 



                                                       47 
                                                                                    Jo Webb 




                                       
                                                                                           Item 10 




                                                                                                   
Consultation paper on sector‐led help.  Version 0.9 
In addition to giving Hull advice about further possible service improvements, this peer 
review process encouraged the council to recognise and celebrate its existing 
achievements and good practice. 
 
In the light of its recent experience, Hull is actively involved at national level in shaping 
thinking about sector led improvement and more effective alternatives to government 
intervention and inspection regimes. 
 
This review has helped feed into that process, says Alistair Doxat‐Pursar, head of 
improvement at the council.. “This process has enabled us to see what is working, where 
we can be more confident, and what still needs to be prioritised for further action.” 
 
Chief executive Kim Ryley comments: “For a relatively small input of time and energy, we 
gained significant and immediate benefits from access to credible practitioners, who 
understood our needs, the way we work, and how to make change happen on the ground. 
 
“This was true because we were then able to “shortcut” some of the learning involved, 
based on the experience of our peers, and move our improvement agenda on more quickly 
as a result.  Equally important, however, was the boost the process gave the morale and 
confidence of our staff in tackling the next wave of change and improvement for the 
council and its partners. 
 
“In short, we found it a far more emotionally intelligent approach than our previous 
experience of government intervention, not least because we “owned” the process”. 
 
LIVERPOOL CITY COUNCIL 
 
Background  
 
The city of Liverpool is situated in the north west of England, within the metropolitan 
areas of Merseyside. The Liverpool City Region incorporates the local authority areas of 
Knowsley, Sefton, St Helens, Halton and Wirral as well as the city of Liverpool itself. The 



                                                       48 
                                                                                     Jo Webb 




                                       
                                                                                               Item 10 




                                                                                                       
Consultation paper on sector‐led help.  Version 0.9 
total population is 436,100, making it the sixth largest city in the UK. Just over 10.8 per 
cent of the population are from black and ethnic minority communities (BME).   
 
This is the most deprived local authority in England, with high levels of unemployment and 
crime, as well as serious health inequalities.  Its falling population (in 1945, around 800,000 
people lived in the city) has led to a decline in the infrastructure of the area, as it was 
designed to serve a larger community.  Forty five per cent of children and 29 per cent of 
over 60s live in households that are income deprived.  
 
Challenges 
Following the CPA review in 2007, Liverpool City Council received one star. The Audit 
Commission CPA identified numerous weaknesses in the council’s financial and corporate 
management arrangements and planning, together with the issue of member behaviour. 
However, the council was judged as “performing well” or “performing strongly” in five of 
the seven categories assessed.  
 
In response, the recently‐appointed chief executive, Colin Hilton and the leader of the 
council, Warren Bradley, decided to call upon the assistance of peers to develop an 
improvement agenda. 
 
Role of Local government support 
 
Jo Webb, IDeA Regional Associate and Neil Woods, Senior Improvement Manager, have 
been supporting the council, providing direct assistance and acting in the role of “critical 
friend”, as well as helping broker a range of support. 

                                                       49 
                                                                                         Jo Webb 




                                       
                                                                                          Item 10 




                                                                                                  
Consultation paper on sector‐led help.  Version 0.9 
 
Ben Dolan, assistant chief executive of Liverpool CC comments: “One of the challenges 
facing the council was that despite a poor assessment of our use of resources 
arrangements, other CPA service block scores (with the exception of housing) indicated 
that the council was performing well in those areas.” 
 
The IDeA worked with chief executive Colin Hilton who commissioned a finance peer 
review which was undertaken in 2008. This included some experienced finance peers, led 
by Peter Rogers, ex chief executive of Westminster LBC. It was a specific high profile 
project, aimed at improving the council’s financial management.  
 
“This review confirmed what our CPA assessment had identified and went further in 
identifying specific areas for improvement,” says Dolan.  

“As a result the council has delivered a medium term financial plan reflecting the council’s 
corporate aims and priorities, increased provision for balances and reserves and has direct 
linkage to and support from the Sustainable Communities Strategy, Local Area Agreement 
and is underpinned by our new corporate improvement programme.” 

As part of the development of the 2009/10 budget, there was wide consultation with 
business and residents, including the innovative use of ICT in a budget game, in which 
citizens could make suggestions on‐line and test their impact upon council tax levels to the 
overall budget position. 

Liverpool made good use of peer reviews to undertake other specific pieces of work ‐  such 
as a report on tourism which includes an analysis of the roles of the key regional and sub‐

                                                       50 
                                                                                     Jo Webb 




                                       
                                                                                         Item 10 




                                                                                                 
Consultation paper on sector‐led help.  Version 0.9 
regional partners. Elected members were supported by dedicated peers directly via 
initiatives such as ward walks and other development opportunities.  

The Liverpool Democracy Commission, supported by the Leadership Centre, is also 
examining and consulting locally on the recommendations of the Independent Councillors 
Commission.  This is part of a national initiative in partnership with government and the 
main political parties. 

Dolan comments: “All of this was achieved during the same period that Liverpool delivered 
the most successful European Capital of Culture ever seen.” 
 
The IDeA worked with the council to secure the support of various public sector partners 
including LGA, the Regional Improvement and Efficiency Partnership, Local Government 
Leadership Centre, Government Office North West and the Audit Commission.  
 
One of the outcomes was to establish the Liverpool Strategic Innovation and Improvement 
Group (LSIIG) and the associated Improvement Plan. The LSIIG, chaired by Professor 
Michael Brown, vice chancellor, Liverpool John Moores University, developed an 
improvement and innovation plan which consists of three core strands: future ambition 
and delivery; finance and performance and organisational culture and governance. 
 
“It has been both a challenging and rewarding experience, and we are grateful for the 
support, time and commitment given by the LSIIG partners and the leadership of Professor 
Michael Brown, as independent Chair” says Dolan. 
 


                                                       51 
                                                                                    Jo Webb 




                                       
                                                                                             Item 10 




                                                                                                     
Consultation paper on sector‐led help.  Version 0.9 
The council itself is directly responsible for delivery of the improvements required, and the 
implementation of the specific improvements recommended is closely monitored by the 
LSIIG. 
 
The LSIIG was established with IDeA support, which helped facilitate its creation and 
establish its membership, including, crucially, the involvement of the Regional 
Improvement and Efficiency Partnership that also provided additional valuable support to 
the council.  The council took its responsibility seriously, developing its own plan, with the 
LSIIG reviewing progress, making suggestions and supporting delivery. 
 
Dolan comments: "The LSIIG demonstrates clearly how the public sector can act together 
to provide mutual support to secure improvement for the benefit of communities.” 
 
 
Outcome 
 
There has been significant progress since this initiative, and the council was confident 
about achieving an improved final CPA score and direction of travel assessment.  That 
confidence has seen an improvement 2 Star and Improving Well with more to come from 
CAA. 
 
The council intends to utilise its positive experience by transferring responsibility for 
improvement into its own continuous budget and performance improvement cycle and 
framework.  There is also an exit strategy for the LSIIG, which will be conclude its work in 
July 2009.  

                                                       52 
                                                                                       Jo Webb 




                                       
                                                                                           Item 10 




                                                                                                   
Consultation paper on sector‐led help.  Version 0.9 
 
Liverpool now has three corporate aims: to grow the city’s economy; empower our 
residents and develop our communities. These aims are underpinned by 10 priorities, 
including promoting enterprise and attracting development; developing first rate 
education and training opportunities, and providing sustainable communities.   
 
To meet these challenges, the council has re‐aligned the relationship between executive 
members and executive director responsibilities in line with these aims, revising 
governance arrangements, introducing a new business planning regime for 2009/10; 
making changes to the executive management team; implementing a new business unit 
structure and improving performance reporting at the neighbourhood level.  
 
A new performance management framework has been introduced, and the change 
process will be communicated to the residents of the city – this is led by the chief 
executive, who will also have overall ownership of the improvement agenda. Liverpool has 
made significant progress and recognises that still more needs to be achieved to respond 
to the positive challenges provided by CAA. 
 
Specific outcomes include: an improved CPA score and direction of travel 
judgement; resource allocation which concentrates on approved corporate aims; 
reduced numbers of council motions; new business planning arrangements which 
are robust and have been tested, improved communications within the council a 
robust and resourced continuous corporate improvement programme and an 
enhanced reputation for the council, both locally and nationally. 
 

                                                       53 
                                                                                        Jo Webb 




                                       
                                                                           Item 10 




                                                                                   
Consultation paper on sector‐led help.  Version 0.9 
Appendix 3
List of attendees at local government led improvement event
David Parsons, Chair of the Improvement Board and leader of Leicestershire
Council
Gerald Vernon Jackson – Leader, Portsmouth City Council
Ray Frost – Deputy Leader, Teignbridge District Council
Kenneth Lupton – Leader, Stockton on Tees Borough Council
Richard Kemp – Deputy Chair – LGA/Liverpool City Council
Peter Webb – Leader, North Dorset District Council
David Williams – Cabinet Member for Communities, London Borough of Richmond
upon Thames
Mike Cuff – Chief Executive, Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
Colin Hilton – Chief Executive, Liverpool City Council
Alastair Robertson – Managing Director, Watford Borough Council
Paul Sheehan - Chief Executive, Walsall Council
Bryony Rudkin – Councillor Suffolk County Council and Ipswich Borough Council
John Freeman - Director of Children’s Services, Dudley
Darra Singh – Chief Executive, London Borough of Ealing
Dame Sally Powell – Councillor, London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
Clyde Loakes – Leader, London Borough of Waltham Forest
Paul Bettison – Leader, Bracknell Forest Borough Council
Sue Banks – Assistant Director, West Midlands Regional Improvement & Efficiency
Partnership
Owen Williams –Chief Executive, Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council
Maggie Sullivan – Head of Independent Group, LGA
Liz Goodall – Chief Executive, North Dorset District Council
Helen Holland – Leader, Bristol City Council
William Brooks – Head of Conservative Group Office and Portfolio Holder for
Housing, London Borough of Ealing
Nathan Yeowell – Head of Labour Group Office, LGA
Lucy de Groot, Executive Director, IDeA
John Hayes – Director, Services, IDeA
Annette Madden – Interim Programme Director, Improvement & Performance, LGA
Dennis Skinner – Regional Associate National Co-Ordination, IDeA
Angela Page – Policy Adviser, LGA
Andrew Cozens - Strategic Adviser - Children, Adults & Health Services, IDeA
Caroline Abrahams – Programme Director, LGA Policy, LGA
Mandy James – CAA Programme Development Manager, IDeA

                                                       54 
                                                                        Jo Webb 




                                       
                                                                  Item 10 




                                                                          
Consultation paper on sector‐led help.  Version 0.9 
Jo Webb – Regional Associate, Yorkshire and the Humber, IDeA




                                                       55 
                                                               Jo Webb 




                                       

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:8
posted:8/18/2012
language:Unknown
pages:117