CYP Executive 15 4 2011

1. CYP Executive 15 4 2011 Changes to Governance

2. Proposal • Best possible services for CYP • Most efficient and effective use of funding • Single system approach • Decision making partnership • Slim structure • Decisions made by funders • Users and providers have strong influence • Right balance between strategic and local decisions

3. Issues arising from the Board workshop

4. Do you agree with the recommendations from the Executive? • Need for differentiation of Groups • Keep number of Groups to minimum • Explain the ambition to move from 20% to 80% pooling • Who decides - Board or Executive? • Should the Board be about assurance and the Executive directing? • Should the 'Strategy and Monitoring' Groups be about Shaping and Delivery? • Called 'Planning and Monitoring' or 'Delivery' instead? • Should they be 'Task and Finish' groups instead of standing groups?

5. Do you agree with the recommendations from the Executive? (2) • Need to explain linkages to the other Boards • Should some Strategy and Performance Groups report to more than one Board?

6. What other Groups may be needed? • Similar structure to HWBB • Who holds the LSCB to account and should it be more integrated?

7. Which stakeholders should be included within which groups? • Questions about representation • Where should users be represented? • Where should the VCS be represented? • Where do acute consultants/schools/colleges/police fit in? • Board Membership • · Strategic = Small - 8? - with collective responsibility • 1 CYPS • 1 Health • 1 Police • 1 Social Care • 1VCS • 1 LSCB (independent Chair) • 1 Educator • 1 Districts • Others mentioned • Colleges/schools • PCC • LINks/Health watch • DPH

8. Which stakeholders should be included within which groups? (2) • Executive Membership • General • Same as Board plus providers • Locality partnerships representation on Exec Group • Bigger [than Board] • Preserve what’s working • Flexibility - review regularly • Roles/agencies mentioned • · Chief Officers (CYP) • · DPH • · C. Const [?] • · NHS providers • · Job Centre Plus • · Schools • · Connexions • · Voluntary Sector • · Locality Reps

9. Which stakeholders should be included within which groups? (3) • Strategy/Monitoring • · Delivery Groups (aka Strategy & Monitoring) operate at locality level unless as a County agree it should be standardised • · All Board members • · NHS providers • · JobCentre Plus • · Schools • · Connexions • · Voluntary Sector • · Locality Reps • Locality • · Schools/Colleges • · Youth Groups • · Pre-school groups • · GPs • · District • Police

10. How should Locality Groups fit in with this structure? • Use District boundaries • They should deal with the activities identified by the circle model • At present it doesn’t fit with the structure as it currently stands. • Role of DIG - seen as good vehicle to standardise (e.g. safeguarding) • or LPG but bigger = local differentiation • and Community Forums - to reflect variations/needs within localities • High Priority areas where inequalities need to be further addressed. • Link to GP Consortia = clusters which reflect priority neighbourhoods • Challenge of cross-border services for GP registered population

11. How should locality Groups fit in with this structure? (2) • Lines of Communication • oversight of the work - Monitoring (top down) • information on local priorities (bottom up) • Clear sense of Roles and Responsibilities • Involve “localities” in devising solutions

12. How should conflicts be managed • Acute/Targeted vs Universal Services • Don’t set impossible targets • Focus on needs of child • Clarity of Purpose • Agree common purpose (linked to JSNA evidence) and clear outcomes - is it making a difference? • decision making • purpose • Open culture - transparency • Accepting different and conflicting objectives are ok • Communication strategy • Good communications

13. How should conflicts be managed (2) • · Conflict Resolution needs to be facilitated • · Conflicts between Theme Boards - Leicestershire Together [resolves] • · Clear resolution processes in Localities • · Clear Resolution procedure - ends at Board • · Protocols to manage disagreement • · Establish a tool kit for this process • · Where there is conflict, a risk assessment should be undertaken • - escalation

14. Main points • Children at the centre • Where are the users: children/young people and employers • Voice of the Customer • Focus on outcomes for Children (outcomes that are tested) • Board - Assurance/Direction/Delivery • Safeguarding - accountability to Board? More integrated? • Whole System approach • Properly resourced • Think Locality first • Small Board • Keep it Simple • Third Tier [other Groups] based on Needs Analysis • Clarification of CVI Role on Board

15. Planning & Monitoring Groups with CYPS element • Youth Offending Management Group • Stronger Communities Partnership • Rural Partnership • City/County Transport Partnership • Staying Healthy Partnership (inc Tobacco Alliance) • Sports Partnership • Mental Health & Learning Disability • Joint Children & CAMHS • Prevention & Early Intervention Programme Board • Substance Misuse Partnership • Skills Partnership

16. Some Key Questions • What are the distinct roles of the 3 levels • Same or differentiated membership at different levels • Standing or task and finish groups? • CYP only or shared? • Locality - CYP only or cross cutting? • Locality - how represented at strategic levels? • Where and how will young people be involved? • How and where will VCS be involved? • How and where will providers be involved?