Developing Leicestershire’s partnerships

1. Developing Leicestershire’s partnerships Leicestershire Together Sub-group 17th June 2011 Lynn Aisbett, Melton Borough Council Mark Grant, Chair, Stronger Communities Board Andy Robinson, Leicestershire County Council Chris Thomas, Leicestershire Constabulary

2. Developing Leicestershire’s Partnerships - content • Why change/Lessons learned • Tasks and challenges • In localities – a proposal • In the county – updated proposal • Outstanding risks • Recommendations

3. Leaders 1 11 10 Integrated Services that put the Community First Why? • Substantial reduction in public expenditure • Need to get maximum value from what we spend by: • minimising back office and maximising front line • targeting spend at what is cost effective • reducing demand for high cost services – prison, hospital, residential care How? • A truly place based approach • Full sharing of responsibility with local people – ‘Community First’ • Not just Councils - the whole public sector, the voluntary sector and the private sector • Not just ‘commissioning’ or ‘enabling’ – about localities as well Objective • The best possible frontline services from the funding available.

4. The case for change • Better outcomes can be achieved at lower cost by co-ordinated action across agencies. • A need to be clearer, quicker, more efficient, more responsive to community needs - at county and locality level - by • Taking responsibility & letting go • Removing the sovereignty barriers.

5. A Model for Seamless Services for Leicestershire? Joint Countywide Governance Locality prioritisation & Service design County wide prioritisation & service design Joint Service Planning/ Redesign Locality service coordination Joint Co-ordination County wide service coordination Joint Locality Governance

6. Workshop findings • Majority of participants recognised the need and identified potential for new ways of deciding on and delivering services. For example: • Joined up approach to ASB referrals (101 service) • Public health programmes – such as physical activity and healthy eating • Health visiting and care packages, including respite for carers • Renewable energy generation and energy efficiency • Verge and grass cutting and litter collection • All require a greater design and co-ordination role for localities - some would be directly commissioned in a locality, similar to CYPS model • The barriers are a combination of corporate sovereignty, cultural silos and practical, operational issues • Workshops have helped define county/strategic priorities – and helped flag up possible quick wins, such as sport and physical activity

7. Locality working: a “Hinckley” proposal • 'Locality Commissioning Boards’ to direct local resources to local priorities • Locality General Manager in each locality with overall accountability (to LCB) for locality activities • Locality Managers to co-ordinate actions and spend for specific groups of activities – pubic health, CYPS, adults, community safety, street scene • Locality Stakeholder engagement to be developed to ensure that local decisions and activities are fully informed and supported • “Executive powers ”will remain with the relevant local agencies, but the Local (District) Authority could be vested with responsibility for overall local management and coordination by the Locality Commissioning Board. Locality prioritisation & Service design Joint Locality Governance Locality service coordination

8. Structure Theme Commissioning Boards Planning, Monitoring & Commissioning Groups Localities Environment • Substance Misuse • Prevention & Early Intervention • JSNA Steering Group • Community Based Care for frailty • Mental Health & Learning Disability • Staying Healthy Partnership • Joint Children & Child & Adolescent Mental Health Services • Waste & Cleaner Greener • Climate Change • Natural & Historic Environment • Flood Risk • Transport • Rural • Housing, Planning & Infrastructure • Housing Services • Stronger Communities / Big Society • Sport & Physical Activity • Voluntary Community Sector Community Safety Health & Wellbeing Commissioning Board - Executive Locality Commissioning Executives Sub-structure to be determined locally Children & Young People Local Economic Partnerships

9. Role of members • Leicestershire Commissioning Board • county leader and portfolio holders • 2 district leaders • Theme Commissioning Boards • county lead/members on each board • district representatives on each board • county portfolio holder to met district equivalents similar to existing arrangements with children & young people • Locality Commissioning Boards • Joint member and officer boards

10. Outstanding Risks • Fragmentation of approach – need to ensure that where significant progress is being made, e.g., health and social care, that a separation across outcomes and localities does not occur • Still too many groups? • Communicating progress, achieving consistency is a challenge as themes and localities respond differently • Securing political agreement and sign off • Provider – commissioner split remains varied • Developing the market not being done a whole system basis

11. Recommendations • Based on evidence collected, Leicestershire Together moves to an integrated public service commissioning model. • The LT board is replaced with a smaller Leicestershire Commissioning Board to set commissioning priorities and co-ordinate joint commissioning activities • The Leicestershire Commissioning Board is supported by a Commissioning Executive with reduced membership • The Board and Executive would meet bi-annually with a wider group of stakeholders. • Locality Commissioning Boards are further investigated and developed with District Councils

12. Proposed Membership