developing leicestershire’s partnerships leicestershire together sub-group 17 th june 2011 lynn...
Post on 02-Jan-2016
214 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Developing Leicestershire’s partnerships
Leicestershire Together Sub-group17th June 2011
Lynn Aisbett, Melton Borough CouncilMark Grant, Chair, Stronger Communities BoardAndy Robinson, Leicestershire County CouncilChris Thomas, Leicestershire Constabulary
Developing Leicestershire’s Partnerships - content
Why change/Lessons learned Tasks and challenges In localities – a proposal In the county – updated proposal Outstanding risks Recommendations
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.
Leaders 1 11 10
Integrated Services that put the Community First
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.
County wideprioritisation& servicedesign
Localityprioritisation& Servicedesign
Localityservicecoordination
A Model for Seamless Services for Leicestershire?
JointCo-ordination
JointService Planning/Redesign
County wideservicecoordination
Joint Countywide Governance
Joint Locality Governance
Workshop findingsMajority 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
Localityprioritisation& Servicedesign
Localityservicecoordination
Locality working: a “Hinckley” proposal
Joint Locality Governance
•'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.
StructureTheme Commissioning Boards Planning, Monitoring & Commissioning Groups Localities
Co
mm
iss
ion
ing
Bo
ard
- E
xe
cu
tiv
e
Environment
Community Safety
Health & Wellbeing
Children & Young People
Local Economic Partnerships
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
Lo
ca
lity
Co
mm
iss
ion
ing
E
xe
cu
tiv
es
Su
b-s
tru
ctu
re t
o b
e d
ete
rmin
ed
lo
ca
lly
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
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
1. Based on evidence collected, Leicestershire Together moves to an integrated public service commissioning model.
2. The LT board is replaced with a smaller Leicestershire Commissioning Board to set commissioning priorities and co-ordinate joint commissioning activities
3. The Leicestershire Commissioning Board is supported by a Commissioning Executive with reduced membership
4. The Board and Executive would meet bi-annually with a wider group of stakeholders.
5. Locality Commissioning Boards are further investigated and developed with District Councils
Recommendations
Proposed Membership
top related