Welcome from David Smith, Project Sponsor Housekeeping Today’s programme Purpose of today

1. Welcome to One Norbiton, Working Together Joint Professional and Community Working Group Conference Event

2. Welcome from David Smith, Project Sponsor HousekeepingToday’s programme Purpose of today

3. The ward of Norbiton is more deprived than other parts of Royal Borough Kingston. Piloting this Local Integrated Service, ‘One Norbiton, Working Together’ project will help to improve the lives of Norbiton people. The project will; 1) Develop a community voice and involve Norbiton community members in decisions about priority setting and resources for Norbiton 2) Pool money and resources together to form a single pot for Norbiton community members to influence or control 3) Increase partnership working on Norbiton issues between agencies and with community members

4. The purpose of today is to; • Introduce the professionals and Norbiton community members to each other and build our working relationships • Hear from Cabinet Office about ‘Local Integrated Services’ and ‘Community Budgets’ and what is happening elsewhere in the country –share learning from their experience • Hear from those who’re leading work on issues such as Policing and Housing • Begin action around priorities for Norbiton and plan next steps • Explore innovation opportunities for Norbiton 

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

6. The journey so far...

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

8. What does success look like to the community? • Understanding the needs and priorities of the Norbiton community • Having involvement and influence over services and service providers community members’ recorded comments at 1st June event “This helps represent the community” “It involves everyone to help each other build and sustain a better society ” “The community will benefit by resources being used better” “We will have more of a sense of ownership of services”

9. Project Evaluation Dr Heidi Seetzen Kingston University

10. Local Integrated Services and community Budgets Ian Leete, Cabinet office

11. Making Sense- Local Integrated Services UNCLASSIFIED

12. What is the Big Society? Taking an active role in our communities, engaging in positive social action, and helping others out • Government becomes a better buyer from a range of providers in order to achieve more innovative, diverse and responsive services which give real value £ neighbourhoods are in charge of their own destiny, feel able to shape the world around them, and choose to do so UNCLASSIFIED

13. CONTEXT FOR REFORM EXPERIENCE GOING FORWARD • LAA’s • Central burdens inhibit innovation • Total Place • Pressure to deliver better for less • High expectations of services, less money to deliver • Citizen led decision making • New financial freedoms and flexibilities • Rapid implementation Community Budgets UNCLASSIFIED

14. The Problem DfE HO MoJ DH CLG DWP Police PCT YJB LA Housing authorities JCP Prisons VCS YOS worker Young carer support worker Police officer CAMHS/ Mental Health Worker Drug and alcohol team Housing link worker Employment Personal advisers Family support workers Parent support advisers/Schools Surestart Intensive family intervention worker/ parenting practitioner UNCLASSIFIED

15. How did this happen? 1801 1834 1912 1944 1986 2004 Birmingham = Bourton-on-the-water Pop 1 million vs Pop 4 000 VS UNCLASSIFIED

16. 46,000 families Community Budgets: The challenge around families with multiple problems All of these families access universal services… Universal Services1 Education - £583m Child benefits - £113m GP/NHS costs - £31m £727m universal spend/yr …and specialist services, (often repeatedly for many years)  Targeted Services2 Welfare benefits - £753m Mental health treatment - £21m Parenting support - £53m Drug treatment - £10m £837m targeted spend/yr but family breakdown and crises still leads to very poor and costly outcomes Reactive spend3 Children going into care, hoax fire calls, nuisance behaviour costs, juvenile criminality costs, truancy costs, alternative education costs, vandalism, evictions due to ASB £2.5bn reactive spend/yr NOTE: BROAD ESTIMATES ONLY - does not include costs of criminal justice services. 1 DfE 2010-11 planned pupil funding. HMRC website. NHS costs taken from NHS expenditure in England 2009, entitlement benefits HMRC, education costs taken from DfE planned educational spend 2010/11 2 Unit costs taken from the following sources Dept of Health supplied figures (drugs, alcohol & mental health, Home Office (Dynamic Benefits report – Welfare) all other unit costs from published research Steve Parrott and Christine Godfrey, Family Intervention Projects: Assessing potential cost-effectiveness University of York, 2008 (unpublished). 3 Unit costs from published research Steve Parrott and Christine Godfrey, Family Intervention Projects: Assessing potential cost-effectiveness University of York, 2008 (unpublished). Distribution of costs to families based on a sample of 40 families selected by 17 authorities using a standardised methodology (DfE internal analysis) UNCLASSIFIED

17. LIS – A Step Further Volunteers Community assets – day care centre Public services Charity staff Public sector buildings Private sector staff Pubs Clubs + Social activities Business premises UNCLASSIFIED

18. Principles Local Authorities commission services in liaison with local community and frontline staff UNCLASSIFIED

19. What can others offer? UNCLASSIFIED

20. In practice Community as a commissioner Design Commission Deliver? UNCLASSIFIED

21. Ricky Community Researcher Basildon, Essex UNCLASSIFIED

22. Responsibility and Activity • Holocaust Centre – approach at a community level. Helping people understand why they need to take responsibility • Community Organisers – Cabinet Office supporting recruitment of 5000 people to galvanise social action UNCLASSIFIED

23. What does this mean for local authorities? UNCLASSIFIED

24. The Challenge UNCLASSIFIED

25. Local Integrated Services: Exploratory Innovation in 9 Areas August 2011

26. Trust Thurnscoe - community-led economic resilience Authority: Barnsley (Lab) Headline Reform: Tackling Worklessness Sponsor: Phil Coppard, CEO Barnsley Council Thurnscoe: Pop. 9000 Thurnscoe is a former mining community with little in the way of local enterprises and employment opportunities Over 30% of adult population claiming benefits, with15% claiming incapacity benefit Life expectancy is 4-5 years lower than the Barnsley average Previous attempted solutions have not worked Outcomes: Strong, resilient communities Co-produced responsive services Empowered citizens able to direct their own support and maintain their independence Partners: A4E, SERCO, Thurnscoe Community Housing Alliance, Turning Point Governance Structure: Under development. Elected Members are feeding in community views Why/How selected: Collective decision by BMBC and partners, including VCSE Engagement Plan: Key activists trained via Working Together for Change courses £27.6 million is spent in Thurnscoe Funds contributed from SERCO, A4E, Turning Point

27. Inner South Leeds: Beeston Hill and Holbeck; Middleton and Belle Isle – Leeds letting go Authority: Leeds (Lab) Headline Reform: Health services; anti-social behaviour Sponsor: ? Inner South Leeds: Pop. 15 000 Wards in Leeds are extremely diverse with differing needs. Beeston Hill and Holbeck have high levels of anti-social behaviour; Middleton and Belle Isle have significant health inequalities Leeds is starting from a low base of community involvement in services, although some engagement structures do exist Outcomes: Better coordinated and integrated services A more tailored approach to service delivery, responding to local need A reduction in the number of NEETs Partners: Cardinals Estate and Beeston Hill residents groups, Probation Service, Beeston Hill PFI, Aire Valley Homes, B. Isle Tenant Mgmt Governance Structure: Residents structures where they exist. Statutory partner leadership teams brought together for each area Why/How selected: Authority-selected based on statistical date; input from 2 existing residents groups Engagement Plan: Through residents and tenants groups Precise spend not mapped Pooling of staff resources

28. Mixenden – Improving the Community; Improving the Environment Authority: Calderdale (Lib/Lab) Headline Reform: Cleaner, Safer, Greener Sponsor: ? North and East Halifax: Pop. 48000 The area is more socially and economically diverse than ethnically. It includes the wards with both the highest and lowest unemployment rates in Calderdale. There is already deep community capacity and resident-led partnerships. But there is a desire to go still further. Outcomes: Fully aligned and community controlled services across a range of service areas A reduced gap in deprivation across wards Partners: North Halifax Partnership, Transpennine, CAB and Pennine Housing Governance Structure: Based on existing North Halifax Partnership Constitution. Community board and 2 councillors Why/How selected: Partner and resident selected, through North Halifax Partnership Engagement Plan: Through North Halifax Partnership, Community Wardens and elected members Precise spend not mapped All partners aligning engagement funds

29. BwD Community Budget – A mainstream approach to community involvement Authority: Blackburn with Darwen (Lab) Headline Reform: Famillies with complex needs Sponsor: Kate Hollern, Leader, BwD Council • Shadsworth, Bastwell, Darwen: Pop. 36 famillies with complex needs • Blackburn is facing: • The loss of traditional industries • Higher levels of anti-social behaviour than other areas, with specific issues around domestic violence and alcohol abuse • Blackburn is a Community Budget area and is exploring a LIS approach can enhance this model across multiple service areas Outcomes: Communities will be more involved in the design of services Greater use, and effectiveness, of preventative services Reduced use of costly reactive services Partners: All public services in Blackburn with Darwen Governance Structure: Public Service Board, made up of statutory agencies Why/How selected: Informed by BwD’s Community Budget status Engagement Plan: Direct to families involved Detailed costing of service use by 36 famillies Aligning in progress but slowed by health reforms

30. Lowedges, Batemoor and Jordanthorpe – Preventing emergency health care through social action Authority: Sheffield (Lab) Headline Reform: Older and vulnerable people; Health Sponsor: ? Jordanthorpe: Pop. 4 000 The areas have significantly higher levels of retired residents than the Sheffield average 11.1% of residents are permanently sick or disabled, compared to a Sheffield average of 6.2% Initial LIS mapping has revealed 200 individuals unknown to public services. Preventative services can now be provided, avoiding high-cost emergency referrals Outcomes: More choice and control for older people Increased social activity and enterprise to support independent living Improved intergenerational relationships Partners: Sheffield Acute Trust, Sheffield University, Sheffield Homes Governance Structure: Project group made up of local residents and statutory partners. Accountable to South Community Assembly Why/How selected: Statutory analysis of statistical information Engagement Plan: Through community researchers Costs of emergency health referrals mapped Acute Trust exploring redirecting investment

31. Ellesmere Port – Starting off on the right foot Authority: Cheshire West and Chester (Con) Headline Reform: Health and Economic Inequalities Sponsor: Steve Robinson, CEO CW&C Council Ellesmere Port: Pop. 61 000 31 000 of these residents are in an area of high deprivation. Ellesmere Port itself is one of the most deprived wards in the country. Cheshire West & Chester is a new authority, spinning out from the Old Cheshire County Council. Engagement methods and ways of working are still bedding in. Outcomes: A reduction in the most deprived wards, reflected in the indices of deprivation 4-5??? Awaiting detail Partners: Bevan Brittan, Ellesmere Port Authority, Local Strategic Partnership Governance Structure: Exploring development of a formal LIST model to take charge of pooled funding and commissioning functions Why/How selected: Deprivation indicators make the area selection an obvious choice. Residents will direct service specific change The neighbourhood team is working with residents and councillors to build 5-10 groups within the neighbourhoods Spend mapped against 5 priorities Alignment opportunities being explored

32. Smallshaw Hurst and St Peters – Developing the trust to develop the people Authority: Tameside (Lab) Headline Reform: Complex Families and Offending Sponsor: Steven Pleasant, CEO Tameside Council Smallshaw Hurst and St Peters: Pop. 16 000 and 12 000 respectively Both wards are among the most deprived in Tameside. One has a strong history of community involvement, the other is developing. Tameside is also part of the Greater Manchester Community Budgets work and, like Blackburn with Darwen, is exploring how the two initiatives can support and enhance each other Outcomes: Spending on complex families and offending reduced Rigorous Cost Benefit Analysis is applied to new and existing services Great commissioning across local authority boundaries Partners: New Economy, St Peter’s Partnership, Smallhurst housing Governance Structure: Delivery in each ward by existing organisations, overseen by LSP and Public Service Board Why/How selected: Deprivation indicators make the area selection an obvious choice. Residents will direct service specific change The neighbourhood team is working with residents and councillors to build 5-10 groups within the neighbourhoods Some mapping. More work due Alignment established in services for offending

33. Warrington - Stronger Together in Warrington Authority: Warrington (Lab) Headline Reform: Benefit Dependency Sponsor: Katherine Fairclough, Assistant CEO, Warrington Warrington: Pop. 18 000 A targeted approach based on clusters of long-term benefit claimants, not defined neighbourhoods. It is expected that this approach will lend itself to mainstream reform. Wards have higher than average levels of teenage pregnancy, anti-social behaviour, and lower life-expectancy A focus on information sharing to provide better services for customer across public services Outcomes: Improving the life chances of long-term benefits claimants To narrow the gap in quality of life between areas in Warrington Partners: CAB, Jobcentre Plus, and local social housing provider. Governance Structure: A CiC proposal is being considered. LSP has current oversight Why/How selected: Responding to surveys conducted to develop the Warrington neighbourhood plan Engagement Plan: Building on the work of the local Strategic Partnership and its surveys Mapped via case conferencing model Residents determining regeneration funding. Partners investing by need

34. One Norbiton – Collaboratively commissioned services Authority: Kingston on Thames (Lab) Reform: Public safety, housing and public space Sponsor: David Smith, CEO, Kingston PCT and Director RBK Norbiton: Pop. 10 000 A ward with lower-deprivation levels for Kingston, with greater numbers of transient residents The service areas are entirely determined by the Norbiton community, although greater engagement is being striven for Outcomes: Services delivered in equal and reciprocal relationship between residents, professionals and service users Improved resident satisfaction against their prioritised areas Partners: Voluntary Action Kingston, Kingston University, NHS Kingston, Metropolitan Police Governance Structure: A community working group supported by a professionals working group Why/How selected: Responding to surveys conducted to develop the Warrington neighbourhood plan Engagement Plan: The neighbourhood team and councillors supporting the community working group Mapped via case conferencing model Partner resources made available. Pooling not yet necessary

35. Housing Issues Mike England Housing Strategy Lead RBK

36. Housing Issues Mike England Housing Strategy Lead RBK

37. Housing Strategy; Key Elements • Plan for more new homes, especially affordable housing; • Bring Council homes to the decent Homes standard by 2016 and talk to residents about the future of larger estates; • Advice and assistance to home-owners to make their homes energy-efficient. • Promote a thriving private rented sector. • Advice and assistance to those in Housing need and prevent and minimise homelessness; • Exploit other opportunities to improve quality of life, eg Health and Educational Attainment

38. Issues to take forward today • Council Homes; • Physical improvements; internally, communal areas, the environment. • Longer-term future • Home-Owners; • ensuring advice and assistance on energy efficiency/fuel poverty. • Advice/Assistance generally and specifically to older people/homeless people. • How to maximise impact on health, educational attainment, eg by physical improvements, direct assistance eg to homeless people, work in schools.

39. Housing Issues: A community project in Norbiton Reverend Peter Homes

40. Policing and Safety Chief Inspector Bill Heasman, Kingston Met Police http://www.metpolicecareers.co.uk/specials/intro-video.html

41. Chief Inspector Bill Heasman Partnership lead for Kingston Police

42. Main Themes • SNT Structure • SNT Responsibilities • Ward Priorities • Crime Profile • Communication • Contribution

43. SNT Structure Partnership Chief Inspector Three SNT Inspectors (Jaiye Warwick-Saunders) Each ward has a dedicated Sergeant (Tracey Miller) 2 Constables (Ben Styles & Iain Kinnaird) 3 PCSO's (Jen Doyle, Graham Brown & Charlene Gregory

44. Ward Priorities (i) Crime (ii) ASB (iii) Ward Panel Norbiton SNT Current Priorities – (i) Domestic Violence (ii) ASB -

45. Crime Profile Crime falling: Theft from shops Cycle Theft Theft of Motor Vehicles Robbery Showing an Increase Burglary Theft from Motor Vehicles Criminal Damage

46. Communication How? What works for you? Ward Panels / NHW groups / Community meetings Leaflets / Posters E-mails / websites Public meetings Street Briefings Other?

47. Contribution Metropolitan Police Special Constabulary Metropolitan Police Volunteers

48. Time to Innovate! Eleanor Jones Social Entrepreneur in Residence Young Foundation and NHSK

49. Social Enterprise • Social Entrepreneurship – creation of value through innovation • Eleanor Jones • Social Entrepreneur in Residence Direct Tel: 020 8339 8015 Mobile: 07956 308313Email: Eleanor.Jones@kpct.nhs.uk The Young Foundation

50. The Young Foundation We bring together insight, innovation and entrepreneurship to address social needs We have over 50 years success in developing and supporting new ideas turning them into sustainable organisations, such as the Open University, Which?, the School for Social Entrepreneurs and Healthline (the precursor of NHS Direct). www.youngfoundation.org