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