Progress through Partnership (PtP) The Partnership support programme in the South East

1. Progress through Partnership (PtP)The Partnership support programme in the South East Presented by members of the PtP team E-mail: ptp@seemp.co.uk www.progressthroughpartnership.org.uk

2. What we think makes a support programme work? • Being peer led and evidence based • Being relevant – Making links to organisational priorities (LAA / CAA / LDF /Economic drivers) • Being engaged members / partners / practitioners with • Having a strong brand that is recognised and valued

3. Peer led / evidence based • Ensured by • Self Assessment • completed by 80% of LSPs in region – (similar to A2P toolkit) • Regional/sub regional themed events used to gather evidence and views • Strong communication that shares and tests our analysis • Practitioner Associates

4. Introducing the PAs • Kate Ivackovic – Mole Valley Council • Antonia Perkins – Winchester City Council

6. Mole Valley v Surrey • 2 Community Plans; 2 Agendas • Legislation: Surrey’s place at the table confirmed • The LAA - activities driven from ‘the top’ • Unitary rumours: A rocky start • LSP Officers Group: Shared our woes • PtP: Use funding to help Surrey work with us • Final event next week. The Surrey Experience

7. Practitioner Associates • What are PAs? • Cohort of LSP Managers, Partner Chairs and Elected Members • Wide range of skills and experience • Peer to Peer support • Individually tailored assignments

8. Practitioner Associates • Use of PA for Winchester District Strategic Partnerships • Peer to Peer for Elected Members • Anecdotal • Acting as PA for Vale of the White Horse • Shared experience around performance management and structures • Reciprocal learning

9. Practitioner Associates • Team of people with similar experiences and problems • Help partnerships recognise their own weakness / strengths and offer a solution to build capacity • PA days can be flexibly used for one-to-one or small group activities • PA days are paid for through a separate budget, so free at point of delivery

10. Relevance • Links to organisational priorities • (SCS / LAA / CAA / LDF /Economic drivers ) • Examples • East Kent Partnership (Common economic driver) • East Sussex joint SCS (Single strategy document) • Oxfordshire conference • (County wide partnership conference)

11. Introducing Robin Taylor • Responsible for Project Managing the Oxfordshire Partnership conference

12. 3 strategic objectives determined by LSP self assessment trends in the County: • Joined up working between partnerships; • Linking spatial and community planning (LDF/SCS) • Performance Culture • Objectives determined by LSP network: • Partners in the same room • A chance for partners to have their say • Capturing thoughts and ideas and turning them into an agenda for moving forward Objectives?

13. Presentations • CLG: view from Central Government • Stories from elsewhere (PAs) • Spatial / Community Planning • Discussions / Activities • Green and Red cards: existing strengths and areas for improvement • Priorities for change • Informal discussions over lunch! What happened?

14. Challenges • Taking the plunge • A very public approach • Getting to the nitty gritty • Success Factors • Commitment and engagement of LSP practitioner network • Range of speakers • Independent conference report Challenges? Success Factors?

15. Then what?

16. Engaging members in partnerships • Accountability and Governance pilot • A members perspective – what they want from a support programme and partnership agenda

17. Accountability and Governance of PartnershipsCase Study Example (Southampton CC) • Mark Palmer • Head of Improvement and Governance South East Employers

18. Accountability and Governance of Partnerships • LSPs represent a major step in the shift from local government to local governance (Geddes 2007). • ODPM 2006 LSP review – concern about fragmentation of accountability and dilution of local democracy (ODPM – LSPs – Shaping their Future). • 35% LSPs identified accountability to the public as deficient. • Key issue is the relationship of the LSP to the local democratic process.

19. Case Study – Southampton CC 2008 • Leadership intervention to design and agree a model for partnership scrutiny for the city from May 2008 onwards. • LSP/Council had committed to this but had not translated into a practical model. • Project intervention – December 2007-March 2008. • Stakeholder engagements – members/officers/city partners • Development of a partnership model for scrutiny. • ‘Partnership inquiries’ established as part of the councils scrutiny work programme. • Thematic multi agency issues e.g. economic regeneration/ issues in SCC, would involve partner engagement in policy development process.

20. Benefits • Enhanced mutual understanding between LSP/scrutiny process (non executive involvement). • Partner involvement in policy making. • Higher profile of LSP within the council. • Partners directly involved in the accountability process.

21. A Members Perspective Cllr Rory Love • Cabinet Member for Environmental Services,Shepway District Council • PtP Practitioner Associate

22. What Motivates Elected Members?

23. ’ We say: No cuts in public services for Folkestone. • That means: • We will press for an increase in visible policing for both Folkestone and the whole of Shepway, as we believe police on the street deter crime and build positive community relations. Getting from this…

24. To this…

25. Strong brand recognised and valued Knowledge hubs Virtual and real Quality delivery Peer/evidence led Peer / expert support

26. What next for PtP • Continue to be peer led • Develop and strengthen knowledge hubs • Member/Partner engagement in depth • Modular learning • Leadership network • Support around scrutiny • LAA performance management • Other targeted support based on evidence and feedback

27. Thank youAny questions? Presented by members of the PtP team E-mail: ptp@seemp.co.uk www.progressthroughpartnership.org.uk