Community commissioning case studies

1. Community commissioning case studies March 2012

2. Contents • Foreword (p.3) • Community commissioning overview (p.4) • Summary of lessons learned so far in Local Integrated Services approach to community commissioning (pp.5-6) • Case studies (p.7 onwards): • Barnsley (pp.8-10) • Blackburn with Darwen (pp.11-13) • Calderdale (pp.14-16) • Cheshire West and Chester (pp.17.19) • Kingston (pp. 20-22) • Leeds (pp.23) • Sheffield (pp.24-26) • Tameside (pp.27-29) • Warrington (pp.30-32)

3. Foreword by Nick Hurd, Minister for Civil Society [MCS photo] A priority for this Government is putting more power in people’s hands – transferring power to local communities and enabling people to come together to improve their own lives. In doing so the freedom and responsibility of people and their communities will increase – the potential prize being enhanced, more cohesive communities; services that are more efficient and responsive; and increased opportunity and influence for individuals. This culture change requires a vast shift in roles and responsibilities that can only be achieved with strong, sustained leadership and partnership working. There are a number of places where local leaders are instigating this change in local communities – bringing together a range of partners to do things differently. One example is community commissioning – where statutory commissioners are giving local partners a central role in decisions on how local public money is spent. In recent months the Cabinet Office has championed places that have chosen to take this approach to service reform, supporting the testing of innovative responses to local challenges and priorities. For some, community commissioning has been a response to the need to generate significant efficiency savings; for others it is based on a belief that co-production delivers for individuals and communities and can be taken further; for many both of these drivers apply and more besides. Achieving this degree of culture change and service reform takes time and commitment, but positive, pioneering change is already emerging: • statutory commissioners including local authority leads, PCT and NHS leads and the police have identified services and spend that are being devolved for local decision-making; • new partnerships have developed to drive improved services and outcomes – for example a community, social enterprise, local authority and Work Programme prime providers are working together to redesign local worklessness services; • new commissioning models are emerging that will enable and underpin statutory commissioners’ commitments to align or pool their resources; • savings are being generated, for example savings resulting from service contracts being reassigned and services co-locating to better meet local need. This paper gives an insight into the thinking and action to date in nine areas that are exploring community commissioning. I hope that it provides food for thought and inspiration to others who have embarked on a similar journey of service reform, or wish to consider it; and that it encourages increased join up between those who are simultaneously stepping up to the service innovation challenge.

4. .Community commissioning overviewCommunity commissioning is an ambitious form of co-production – where power and responsibility for local public service commissioning is shared by local partners. It will vary from place to place depending on what makes sense locally but key elements have been evidenced as: devolving or sharing commissioning power and responsibility with communities; building community capacity to commission; strong local leadership and partnership working; locally set service priorities and outcomes; aligning or pooling resources; establishing robust governance and accountability. Service users and community members have a central role in local public service commissioning using mainstream spend A community commissioning body is formed to influence commissioning of local services Senior partners buy into the new commissioning model Local partners can have one or more roles across the commissioning cycle Leader could be from anywhere in the community e.g. voluntary organisation; community group; local authority Local partners can identify their service needs and priorities - whatever is important to them e.g. unemployment ; health; traffic calming; street lighting Local partners can design services to meet local priorities – resulting in more effective, integrated and personalised services Existing commissioners devolve or share power with community A local leader(s) believes a new approach is needed to local public service commissioning and instigates change Local partners can review service delivery against outcomes, and based on results contracts can be renewed or decommissioned • A Members will vary but will include service users and residents plus others e.g.: • Community organisations • Service providers and employees • Existing commissioners e.g. Local Councillors • Business partners Community is supported and trained to take commissioning responsibility Local partners can procure services to meet their priorities, design specifications, and desired outcomes. This may require de-commissioning Resources are mapped / aligned / pooled and accountability is managed Community commissioning body can take a variety of forms e.g. advisory body; mutual; social enterprise; CIC

5. Summary of lessons learned so far from Local Integrated Services approach to community commissioning (1) • Community commissioning needs to be an integral part of an overall approach to strategic commissioning. It doesn’t work as a stand alone project,it requires significant buy-in from public sector partners. • Community commissioning groups can take a variety of forms but they must have a clear role within a broader governance and accountability framework which partners are signed up to. Councillors and statutory commissioners need to understand what decisions they are delegating. Members of a community commissioning group need to understand their responsibilities and areas of influence. • Leadership at a strategic level is essential. Community commissioning only works as part of a strategic approach which encourages delegation and resident involvement in decision making. Key individuals need to drive forward the new approach and help overcome barriers to progress. • Some areas are looking to pool budgets, but most are looking to make better use of the public spend within the LIS area. Resource mapping has helped to identify areas of duplication and can lead to reform of local services in a way that better matches local priorities. • Statutory commissioners and finance officers should be involved from the start, as community commissioning requires their expertise and will impact on their work. • Training and development for staff and residents on the specific skills required for community commissioning has been an important upfront investment. Most areas have been in a position to build on existing engagement arrangements. Residents and service users have agreed to become involved in the pilot areas.. The nine LIS areas shared their experiences of community commissioning at several workshops during 2011. Whilst some areas have concentrated on setting up community commissioning groups and identifying local priorities, others have been more focussed on resource mapping and developing integrated services at a local level. All areas have made progress in the last twelve months. Most have modified and refined their approach in the context of a rapidly changing external environment. Some of the key points of learning are summarised below:

6. Summary of lessons learned so far from Local Integrated Services approach to community commissioning (2) • It takes time to develop effective community commissioning. Some areas have found it best to start off with small budgets and quick wins to increase buy-in and confidence. For example focusing initially on environmental cleaner, greener services or community grants. Participatory budgeting techniques have been used successfully in some areas as a forerunner to more extensive community commissioning. • Residents and other local partners can identify better and more efficient ways of delivering services locally – the LIS work provides good examples of this relating to family services, employment support, reducing offending and environmental services. Frontline staff have been positive about integrating services at a local level but this is challenging against a background of cuts. Increasing the number and range of local partners in local commissioning decisions shares the challenge and understanding of difficult decisions on local services. • Community commissioning groups need to be outcome focussed as individual participants will come from different organisational cultures, and may have differing priorities. It is important to take time to negotiate and agree some measures of success early in the process. • It can be difficult to unpick spend at a small area level for some services, particularly those commissioned on a large area footprint. The most successful community commissioning groups are concentrating on services that can be geographically calculated at local level. For some organisations, the move to larger and longer outsourced contracts in some areas has reduced the opportunity to commission services flexibly at a local level. • Information sharing continues to be a barrier to progress, particularly where residents need information to inform their decisions but statutory authorities are unable to share it. • Some LIS areas are now beginning to report financial savings – for example from reducing the duplication of services, better tailoring of services to the needs of individuals and families, decommissioning services which aren’t a local priority, and by simplifying and streamlining services.

7. Case studies 9 localities in England are developing a Local Integrated Services (LIS) approach to community commissioning. In 2011 Cabinet Office championed LIS development to encourage the testing of community commissioning as one service reform response to the challenge of saving resources and improving service outcomes. The following case studies provide information from each of the 9 LIS areas on their vision for community commissioning and progress so far. For further information a contact(s) is given at the end of each case study. Alternatively you can contact the Office for Civil Society at: ocs.info@cabinet-office.gsi.gov.uk

8. Barnsley – Thurnscoe (1): summaryA local authority, social enterprise and Work Programme provider collaboration - using community commissioning to reduce worklessness Thurnscoe has a population of 9,000. It is a former mining community with limited employment opportunities. Over 30% of the adult population is claiming benefits. Life expectancy is 4-5 years lower than the Barnsley average. Labour-led Council.

9. Barnsley (2):community commissioning roles and responsibilities 2011: progress towards community commissioning 2010: action to date relevant to community commissioning 2012 onwards: towards implementation Two 5 week courses have been attended by 10 local activists to build their capacity to take part in LIS and other renewal activity within the area. The aim is to have up to 20 community advocates that will conduct research on the perception of existing services and ideas for improvements. The Thurnscoe Group for BIG Local and the Community Housing Alliance consultation group are increasing community influence in local services. • The local authority has strained relations with the community. Various community engagement activities and policies have been implemented in the past but any improvements in outcomes for people in Thurnscoe have not been sustained. Community buy in and involvement has been low due to reasons such as consultation fatigue, low levels of employment and a lack of trust between the community and local public sector agencies. • The plan is for a 7 year programme to be developed, with the first 2 years focusing on mapping community needs and developing a community led enterprise to deliver services very differently over the subsequent 5 years. Local people e.g. residents Statutory commissioners will be represented on Trust Thurnscoe and One Barnsley. Statutory commissioners The LA is investing in community capacity and community commissioning awareness. A workforce event has been held for local practitioners and their managers to discuss the implications of LIS. • Various largely separate commissioning arrangements in place across different areas, functions or agencies. • Turning Point will continue to have a central role in community commissioning in Barnsley. Following the findings of the review into current services, Turning Point will work closely with all partners and the community advocates to design a local integrated service which will be cost effective, community led and can sustain local employment. Turning Point is investing in community engagement for two years – aiming to provide proof of concept and result in future investment . Serco and A4E are resourcing co-commissioning of worklessness services with the community. VCSE, private sector & others • A variety of arrangements were in place where different groups were involved in a number of ways.

10. Barnsley (3): outcomes and resources • Outcomes aimed for • The following outcomes were jointly selected by the Council, VCSE and other partners: • Strong, resilient communities • Co-produced responsive services • Empowered citizens able to direct their own support and maintain their independence. • Reduced number of residents claiming JSA • Increased number of startup businesses Progress towards outcomes Notable progress has been made towards developing co-produced, responsive services. Extensive mapping work has been done to identify the work done in Thurnscoe by partners through universal or targeted services, and to identify how partners are working to tackle the issues Thurnscoe faces. All local community groups and organisations have been visited to promote the LIS approach. A community conference has been held for local residents to discuss LIS and what it might mean for Thurnscoe. In addition a workforce event has been held for local practitioners and their managers to discuss the implications of LIS for their work in the area. Outcomes • Resources mapped, aligned, pooled • £27.6 million is spent in Thurnscoe per year by BMBC. • A full community mapping of buildings, groups, and other key assets has been completed. • The following funding is being pooled for use in community commissioning: • BMBC: Y1 £50k; Y2 £75k • Turning Point: Y1 £50k for community engagement; Y2 £75k community led neighbourhood services vehicle • SERCO: Y1 £25k • A4E: Y1 £25k • Savings • Too early to say at this stage. All partners are committed to fully testing new ways of reforming local services to improve outcomes and generate efficiencies. The detail of possible efficiencies will be subject to more intensive work with the community and public sector partners in the coming year . Resources For further information on the Barnsley case study please contact: shaunjones@barnsley.gov.uk

11. Blackburn with Darwen (1): summaryService transformation – using strategic commissioning at a borough wide level and its links with neighbourhood based commissioning locally to reform servicesFocus is on 30 families in Shadsworth, Bastwell and Darwen. Labour-led Borough Council

12. Blackburn with Darwen (2):community commissioning roles and responsibilities 2011: progress towards community commissioning 2010: action to date relevant to community commissioning 2012 onwards: towards implementation • The direction of travel is much greater resident involvement in the management and delivery of services. This is supported by a policy of asset transfer and further community empowerment around services in local areas. • Residents could influence neighbourhood plans, which in turn influenced borough wide priorities. • Involvement of residents in Sure Start centres was proving successful. • Extensive consultation with residents to develop a new Vision 2030 for Blackburn with Darwen – agreeing desired long term outcomes whilst also garnering extensive input around short-term budget / commissioning priorities. Resident involvement is now embedded in Council operational arrangements. Ward groups focus on local level problem solving and influence wider strategic decisions. Residents now sit on the Board of Sure Start centres. In some areas services to troubled families now involve families in deciding on the most appropriate services. Local people e.g. residents Statutory commissioners • Blackburn with Darwen is putting in place a streamlined joint commissioning process which involves both statutory, private sector and VCSE partners. Councillors will retain a central role at a local level, in relation to council services, ward forums and within the strategic partnership. The joint care trust is now well established. Improved health outcomes has resulted in the LPSB looking at more radical service redesign via strategic commissioning. The Commissioning Board has mapped funding baselines and developed a new commissioning framework encompassing compact review, sustainability and social value. • Statutory commissioners were part of the Blackburn Public Services Board (LPSB) which led on a number of pieces of work to improve and integrate local services. The combined care trust is the most obvious example of the impact of their work. VCSE, private sector & others The Chair of the LSP comes from the private sector. The partnership and the council work closely with the local chamber of commerce. Local VCSE organisations are well represented on neighbourhood groups. As above • All relevant local partners are signed up to a radical programme to transform public services and to focus on prevention rather than reactive services

13. Blackburn with Darwen (3): outcomes and resources • Outcomes aimed for • Reduced levels of spend e.g. on the most vulnerable families • Services better tailored to people’s real needs • Improved outcomes for local residents, including health, educational attainment, employment, environmental • Improved outcomes for vulnerable/ troubled families • Established strategic and community commissioning • Progress towards outcomes • 40 families working through therapeutic pathway • 32 families with detailed family plans, working to their self identified outcomes • Neighbourhood / community based lead – improved family / social networks of support therefore in the longer term reduction in service intervention and improved sustainable outcomes • Stakeholder offer to deliver services ‘at the right time’ ensures family progress is not delayed • Early evidence in families of sustained change Outcomes • Resources mapped, aligned, pooled • Good progress has been made on the delivery of better health and social care outcomes following the setting up of a single care trust under a single chief executive. • BwD council has identified the costs to a range of agencies which are related to thirty troubled families • BwD has a vision of community budgets being introduced throughout the borough. This would involve the mapping, pooling and aligning of a significant level of resource. • Savings • Use of volunteer advocates (not lead professionals) will lead to reduction in mainstream spend; in the longer term, community advocates will ensure ongoing support • Early evidence of reduction in service uptake • Of 40 families over 8 month period, only one family re-referred to Social Care • Neighbourhood stakeholder groups working as Team around The Family/Child • Asset based approach in communities – building on existing community assets and networks Resources For further information on the Blackburn with Darwen case study please contact: Jonathan.Tew@blackburn.gov.uk

14. Calderdale – North and East Halifax (1): summaryNorth Halifax Partnership, local authority and statutory and VCSE partners working together to make the area safer, cleaner and greenerThe 4 wards have a population of 48,000 and are more socially and economically diverse than ethnically. The wards include those with the highest and lowest unemployment rates in the area. No overall control of the council – a Lib Dem/Lab coalition

15. Calderdale (2):community commissioning roles and responsibilities 2010: action to date relevant to community commissioning 2011: progress towards community commissioning 2012 onwards: towards implementation • Plans were for a new commissioning body to be developed, with community board members from each of the 4 wards, and 2 councillors to provide scrutiny. It has been decided that there is not the capacity or appetite for developing new commissioning structures at this time. Next steps are dependent on a council review of neighbourhood services. NHP have facilitated the 2 Community First Panels established in N&E Halifax. • The area has an effective and vocal community panel that has worked very closely in partnership with the local authority to influence services and activities. £1.8 m funding is devolved. Beyond this, limited influence exists over the commissioning of services. The NHP Board continued to develop its influence with other LIS partners. NHP teams include community wardens and Community Development ‘Link’ workers who enable community voice in service planning and delivery for Safer, Cleaner, Greener and Sure Start Children’s Centres. NHP facilitates the SCG Partnership and promotes co-production through N&Eblog. Local people e.g. residents • The Council has “re- commissioned” the North Halifax Partnership to deliver Council services since 2006, when the Government directed Sure Start and Neighbourhood Management funding (secured by the Partnership ), to local authorities – a national change in funding arrangements. Statutory commissioners • Local Councillors would have a key scrutiny role in a new community commissioning body if it is established. • Statutory commissioners on the LIS Group would need to decide which of their services and budgets will be devolved for community commissioning. • A number of statutory commissioners joined the Director of Communities led group to develop LIS – including Adult Social Care and Children’s Services leads at the Council, the local NHS Chief Executive • Strong tradition of devolved delivery. NHP delivers £1.8M of Council services (Sure Start Children’s Centres and Neighbourhood Engagement). • NHP Board sets annual delivery priorities and there is wide consultation and involvement from residents. • There has been no commitment from key budget holding organisations to pool budgets. NHP can’t build a local commissioning model without this undertaking. A new Board will lead a new locality working programme with approval from Cabinet in February 2012 to explore options. • Pennine Housing 2000 is undertaking a major investment in housing development. They are involved in discussions with the community and local authority about the design of their plans. VCSE, private sector & others

16. Calderdale (3): outcomes and resources • Outcomes aimed for • Peg the deprivation gap between Calderdale average and Pellon, Ovenden, Illingworth and Mixenden for rates of : • NEET young people • Number of people on out of work benefits/ universal benefit • Access to “affordable housing” for local residents • Voids and tenancy turnover • ASB reports; violent crime and total crime • 2. Increase % of public sector contracts delivered by VCSE sector • 3. Create Single Neighbourhoods Delivery Team combining universal (Safer, Cleaner Greener) and targeted (early intervention, prevention, financial inclusion) services. of the communities and how these are being achieved. • Progress towards outcomes • Crime outcomes on positive trend: June 2010- June 2012 48% reduction in violent crime; 24% reduction in criminal damage; 11% reduction in total crime; 7% reduction in ASB . Employment and NEET gap widening; voids turnover being contained. • Council budget up to 2015 includes proposals for contracting out a number of services to VCSE and private sector. • During 2011-12, there has been North and East “virtual team” working. In 9 months, to December 2011, 145% increase in neighbourhood doorstep contact, and 52% increase in e-contact N&Eblog • ). Outcomes • Resources mapped, aligned, pooled • In December 2010 £4.7m of SCG services was • Mapped including: community engagement (NHP); Housing and Grounds management and • maintenance (Together Housing); Streetscene and Parks (Council); Neighbourhood Policing team; CAB outreach capacity. • No partner appetite for pooling budgets as focus in 2011/12 has been on priority of budget reduction in consultation with whole Calderdale population. • Savings • The integrated working in North and East Halifax via SCG partners has achieved these savings in 2011/12 • £50k Council streetscene and parks service savings through coordinated working including Pennine Housing and Council grounds maintenance contracts – re assigning patches between the two services • £20k – NHP neighbourhood team co location with Pennine Housing • £30k – NHP team organising Neighbourhood watch development, community intelligence briefings, PACT meetings servicing, for West Yorkshire Police • £40k –NHP team organise shared service communication via N&Eblog; SCG door knocking days Resources For further information on the Calderdale case study please contact: Liz.Broadley@ovenden-initiative.org.uk (North Halifax Partnership) or Robin.Tuddenham@calderdale.gov.uk

17. Cheshire West and Chester – Ellesmere Port (1): summaryReducing inequalities via joint commissioning of local services with local peopleEllesmere Port is one of the most deprived wards in the country. Half of the 61,000 population live in an area of high deprivation. Community Commissioning is being led by the CEO of Cheshire West and Cheshire Council – a Conservative-led Council.

18. Cheshire West and Chester(2):community commissioning roles and responsibilities 2010: action to date relevant to community commissioning 2011: progress towards community commissioning 2012 onwards: towards implementation • Neighbourhood Action Groups, working with Ward Councillors developed Neighbourhood Plans and determined how budgets were spent on neighbourhood services e.g. parks; play facilities. Panels were successful in leveraging additional investment. Notable outcomes achieved e.g. 40% reduction in anti-social behaviour. LA Neighbourhood Team is working with residents and councillors to build 5- 10 neighbourhood groups that will be Commissioning Boards for their locality. To test the approach local residents were centrally involved in outsourcing the LA housing management service. Residents sat on a commissioning group with LA commissioners to design and procure the service. • Established, representative neighbourhood commissioning boards systematically influence the decisions of a cross-sector statutory community commissioning body. • Agreement exists to provide clarity and transparency on how the LIST will work with neighbourhood and area boards. Local people e.g. residents Statutory commissioners • Cross-sector strategic statutory commissioning body (LIST) is established. LIST uses its collective budgets and levers in new investment, to commission local services informed by local people. • The new commissioning model is fully aligned to the CWAC Whole Place Community Budget – Altogether Better Programme. • Statutory commissioners from local authority, police, health, fire – form Local Strategic Partnership (LSP) along with VCSE and private sector partners. LSP aids service integration but doesn’t result in systematic strategic, cross-sector commissioning. • LA worked with Bevan Brittan (founders of the Local Integrated Services Trust (LIST) commissioning model) to explore how a cross-sector statutory commissioning body could be formed. The LA is keen to explore this model as a vehicle to attract social investment. VCSE, private sector & others • As above • Private sector invests in local public services e.g. via a Social Impact Bond

19. Cheshire West and Chester (3): outcomes and resources • Outcomes aimed for • Five priorities in place for Ellesmere Port: • Best Start In Life • Community Safety / Reduce Domestic Abuse • Health inequalities • Addressing worklessness • Maximising Income • These will feed into the five CWAC Whole Place Community Budget priorities from 2012: • Thriving Neighbourhoods • Best Start in Life • Opportunity Economy • Ageing Well • Smarter Services Progress towards outcomes Outcomes • Resources mapped, aligned, pooled • Kick start funding of £126K promoted the use of joint resources and • the Area Partnership Board acted as a commissioning board • to support Partners expressions of interest and project • proposals. Proposals needed to address one of the five • priorities for Ellesmere Port (see above). • 18 awards of support were granted using CWAC • commissioning standards with clear set targets and • outputs agreed. Evaluation reports will be presented • to the APB in March. Savings Resources For further information on the CWAC case study please contact: Carly.Brown@cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk

20. Kingston – Norbiton (1): summaryStrategic Partnership approach to reduce health inequalities and improve community lifeNorbiton Ward has a population of 10,500. It is relatively deprived compared with other parts of the borough. Life expectancy is up to 7 years lower than other wards. The black and minority ethnic population is around 20%. Child Poverty is significant. It is a Lib Dem-led Council.

21. Kingston – Norbiton (2):community commissioning roles and responsibilities 2012 onwards: towards implementation 2010: action to date relevant to community commissioning 2011: progress towards community commissioning The project will be driven by the community’s timescales of when they’re ready to set up a LIS Trust for example, or commission services. Currently the group established are in a position to influence decision making processes and will continue to be supported to increase and develop that role. • Consultation fatigue in the ward was evident. Residents were clear they wanted more involvement from the wider community. The local Community Development team had good links with some of the most marginalised groups of people in the area. However, links with the wider Norbiton community were limited. Community activities were carried out via volunteers to reach all members of the community approaching schools, commuters at the train station, clubs, church halls and local businesses. A Community Working Group was established in June 2011. The group has established their terms of reference, have 30 core members, and have agreed their priority 4 issues. Local people e.g. residents Governance and Accountability of the Community Working Group will explore involvement of the Professional’s Core Team and democratically elected Council Members. A Plan to implement a Neighbourhood Community Budget will be in place by March 2013 Efforts will continue to increase partnership involvement from DWP and other relevant agencies ongoing. Kingston has a strong Local Strategic Partnership and good history of partnership working. However, statutory commissioners had generally worked independently of each other apart from joint funded posts and projects across health and social care and some partnership projects around policing and safety. Statutory commissioners • Statutory commissioners are represented within the project governance structure and relevant statutory services are represented on the project team. • Commissioners from the Police, Housing, Public Health and the Local Authority have been involved in resource allocation and budget release to the project. • Some limited work with local businesses and private sector services to address the improvement of community life. • VCSE sector have always played a crucial role in providing services, activities and support to local people. As with statutory providers, previous work was mainly to higher deprivation estates. VCSE, private sector & others • Kingston Chamber of Commerce are one of the 6 key project partners. They have engaged local businesses in priority setting and understanding local needs. • Kingston Voluntary Action is also a key project partner. • VCSE will be key in increasing membership of Community Working Groups and engagement with wider community.

22. Kingston – Norbiton (3): outcomes and resources • Outcomes aimed for • The following outcomes were jointly selected by the six Strategic Partnership partners involved: • Increased Partnership Working: specifically on issues affecting the • ward of Norbiton. • 2) Pooled Resources: across partners focused on benefiting the ward of Norbiton. • 3) Development of community voice • a) Increased community involvement in identifying local issues and forming local solutions. • b) Development of a representative community body, giving Norbiton residents a voice and increased role in influencing statutory decisions . • c) Increased opportunities for community members to receive training and involvement activities to advocate the needs of their local area. Progress towards outcomes 1) Partnership working is currently very successful and is ongoing. Six partners are currently committed to meeting monthly and working to joint plans –including those set by the community. 2) Pooled Budgets By March 2013, to have a Neighbourhood Community Budgets Plan in place 3) Ongoing. Community Working Group established, decision making influence is being supported and training opportunities have been provided to increase involvement. Outcomes • Resources mapped, aligned, pooled • No resources had previously been mapped or pooled to enable aligned strategic commissioning in the Norbiton Ward. • However, resources such as Public Health and Community Development had been jointly run and resources pooled across the Local Authority and NHS which provided an excellent advantage in the community development aspect of the project. • Accountancy support, skills and resource to be identified and allocated by 2013 onwards. Savings So far, some Met Police (£8k), Housing (£75k)and health funds (£4k) have been identified for this work. In addition professional’s time has been redirected to the One Norbiton project. Savings for services are yet to be identified and will be part of the priority resource mapping work. Resources For further information on the Kingston case study please contact: martha.earley@rbk.kingston.gov.uk or russell.styles@kpct.nhs.uk

23. Leeds – inner south Leeds (1): summaryInner South Leeds consists of three wards each with a population of some 15,000 citizens with significant challenges in unemployment, antisocial behaviour, NEET, housing, and health inequalities. Much of the housing and business growth is anticipated in the Inner South area. Leeds City Council is a majority Labour administration. • Locally Set Service Priorities and Outcomes • Cleaner and safer places to live • Improved workforce skills and local employment and NEET • Improved health outcomes especially smoking and alcohol related illnesses • Active participation of citizens in shaping their places and improving service design and delivery Senior Leadership and Partnership Working The Leeds Initiative (LSP) has overarching responsibility for improved locality working. The Chief Executive’s office is accountable for the success of the work. The Executive Member for Neighbourhoods and Housing is the accountable politician. A Senior Manager directly accountable to the Asst Chief Exec is driving the work locally. Community Commissioning Body There are a large number of local communities and neighbourhoods in Inner South Leads that are defined by their place rather than administrative boundaries. To help us engage better and resource the work, two new neighbourhood improvement boards have been developed. These are the Belle Isle and Middleton N I B, and the Beeston, Holbeck and Hunslet N I B The Leeds LIS Our approach to the LIS sought to improve understanding of the barriers to working better together locally. It was designed to shape our approach to the more entrenched issues in our large and complex city and made recommendations to change the way we work locally which are now being implemented citywide through a set of locality working design principles by area leadership teams. • Resources mapped and aligned or pooled • Environmental services resources aligned locally, and targeted to Inner South neighbourhoods. • Public sector assets in Inner South Leeds mapped for discussion at Neighbourhood Improvement Boards. • Derelict, eyesore and nuisance sites in Inner South Leeds understood and on an improvement schedule . Investment in Community Capacity Building Elected members have direct access to revenue funding of £225K which is used to commission work against local priorities and capacity building. There is also specific connecting communities funding for Belle Isle of £20K. The area has been selected as the only inner city neighbourhood planning pilot. Clear Governance and Accountability Committees of Elected Members have oversight of the local work and hold officers to account. A team of senior leaders from the Council and Partners have oversight of the service integration.

24. Leeds – inner south Leeds (2):community commissioning roles and responsibilities 2010: action to date relevant to community commissioning 2011: progress towards community commissioning 2012 onwards: towards implementation • Locality Working Pathfinder initiated and completed • Locality working Pathfinder concluded and recommendations accepted. • Design principles for locality working developed • Community Engagement Framework and Citizens Panel developed • Neighbourhood improvement boards initiated • To develop and implement strong and effective local leadership and governance arrangements that are responsive and accountable to the needs of local communities and maximise the engagement of local citizens in the design and delivery of local services Local people e.g. residents • Locality Working Pathfinder initiated and completed • To integrate and organise the delivery of services to communities and support individuals at the right time and in the right place and in a way that makes the best use of public and community assets and resources. • Corporate approach to working better locally adopted by Council and Partners • Design principles for locality working developed • Environmental Services integrated and delegated locally • N I Bs initiated Statutory commissioners • New Area Leadership Team established including 3rd Sector leadership • Reviewing the effectiveness of local partnerships, removing ineffective ones • Design principles for locality working developed and implemented • N I Bs developed • Locality Working Pathfinder initiated and completed • To maximise the use of local intelligence to improve our understanding of communities and their functions/characteristics so that services are targeted and tailored to meet need effectively and efficiently. VCSE, private sector & others

25. Leeds – inner south Leeds (3): outcomes and resources Outcomes aimed for Progress towards outcomes Outcomes • Better, more responsive and personalised services for residents • Reduced fragmentation and duplication of services • Improved ability to solve the deep rooted issues • Better join up between central and local • Increased influence of local activity in the development of policy and practice • Improved involvement of elected members and citizens in setting and progressing local priorities for council services. • Locality working pathfinder concluded • Corporate approach to working better locally adopted • Environmental Services integrated and delegated locally • New Area Leadership teams established • Co production of change programmes underway • Reviewing the effectiveness of partnerships and reducing ineffective local partnerships • Community engagement framework developed • Citizen panels to influence and shape responsive services being developed • Design principles for locality working • Resources mapped, aligned, pooled • Overarching Neighbourhood Improvement Boards established • Environmental services (street scene and enforcement) integrated and resources delegated locally • Early stage exploration of public sector assets underway • Early stage exploration of place and people resources and aligning/pooling budgets underway • Savings • Early stage exploration of resources and aligning/pooling budgets underway • Productivity gains in locally integrated Environmental Services through better targeting and local oversight scrutiny of resources Resources For further information on the Leeds case study please contact: Shaid.Mahmood@leeds.gov.uk

26. Sheffield – Lowedges, Batemoor and Jordanthorpe (1): summaryTesting if integrated services and place based resources combined with robust individual and community resilience – result in improved health, wellbeing and independence of older and vulnerable people, increased quality of services and reduced costs.LBJ has a population of 10,500. Most of the area falls within the top 1% of the index of deprivation. 20% of the population is over 65. It is a Labour-led council.

27. Sheffield - Jordanthorpe (2):community commissioning roles and responsibilities 2012 onwards: towards implementation 2011: progress towards community commissioning 2010: action to date relevant to community commissioning Increase the profile of the project to encourage more involvement by local people with the aim of establishing a community decision making and commissioning framework. Project expanded to include Lowedges and Batemoor. Local people participating in workstreams and volunteering to implement winter plans for vulnerable people. Project confined to Jordanthorpe at this time. Commissioning undertaken by individuals in receipt of a personal budget. Work with individuals to identify how we could develop the care and support market to meet peoples needs. Local people e.g. residents Preliminary evaluation of interventions to identify resources that can be redirected from reactive services into community action and citizen-led services. Model for delivering integrated services is developed and agreed • Governance structure established including workstreams to enable a range of approaches to be tested. • Mapping of resources in the area completed and an information hub created for local people and staff. • Conversations held with local people by a range of statutory organisations to collect opinions about what is good about the area, what is not so good and what changes they felt would make a real difference. Statutory commissioners Risk stratification exercise completed to identify most vulnerable older people and individual winter plans developed with them. • Sheffield University engaged to help with the evaluation of the project and to ensure that the voice of local people is represented. • Police and other agencies engaged to begin to align priorities. • Independent sector participating in Winter Planning • VCF sector is supported to become self sustaining so that it can in turn support local people to play an active role in local decision making. • Independent sector has a good understanding of the care and support needs of local people. VCSE, private sector & others • Directory of local services developed and included in the information hub. • Views thoughts and opinions of VCF and other stakeholders fed into the project.

28. Sheffield – Lowedges, Batemoor and Jordanthorpe (3): outcomes and resources • Outcomes aimed for • A wide range of outcomes have been identified for the project. All contribute to either improvements in health and wellbeing or building independence and resilience, including: • More choice and control for older people • Decrease in the number of unscheduled hospital admissions. • Development of community participation , integrated services and improved partnership working are how the outcomes will be achieved. Progress towards outcomes Good progress has been made in getting sign-up to the project from a wide range of partners and stakeholders. There is clear evidence that the Winter Planning project has made a real difference to the lives of the older people who participated . The learning will be used to inform the wider project. Based on the learning to date a model for integrated services in the area is being developed with partners. The next phase will be to translate that interest into active engagement and participation to support the development of a representative community body that it is hoped will commission services for local people. Outcomes • Resources mapped, aligned, pooled • The resource mapping that has taken place to date is informing the development of an integrated services model. • The mapping of care and support is being used to develop a local market position statement that will be used with service users and providers to identify gaps in provision and explore ways in which local people can get directly involved . • Savings • No specific savings have been identified at this stage, however, any reduction in the number of unscheduled admissions to hospital will deliver cost benefits. • The integrated services model being developed will look at the possibility of savings including co-locating services and sharing human resources. • The preventative approach being used means that some savings may not be realised in the short term. Resources For further information on the Sheffield case study please contact: lorraine.jubb@sheffield.gov.uk

29. Tameside – Smallshaw Hurst & St Peters (1): summaryTesting new ways of commissioning to reduce dependence on public services in two wards that consume a disproportionately large amount of public sector spend Smallshaw Hurst has a population of 16,000 and St Peters 12,000. Labour-led Council.

30. Tameside (2):community commissioning roles and responsibilities 2010: action to date relevant to community commissioning 2011: progress towards community commissioning 2012 onwards: towards implementation • In both wards there was strong local community involvement through a non statutory agency. St Peters Partnership is an established charity improving people’s life chances and developing aspirations through employment. In Smallshaw Hurst New Charter Housing is a large Registered Provider which has excellent community engagement through an established family intervention project and neighbourhood teams. Residents in St Peters can influence the use of resources in the ward via the Partnership which works closely with (and is funded by) statutory agencies. In Smallshaw Hurst ward New Charter has ensured that residents can influence decisions about the use of local resources. An example is the development of a tailored skills offer. Tameside Council used participatory budgeting in 2011/12 to allocate £400,000 saved through recycling. • As learning from the pilots emerges this will be scaled up where appropriate across the borough as part of the public service reform agenda. • Development of Community First Panels in both pilots will support further community commissioning. Local people e.g. residents Structures will be in place which enable statutory commissioners to work with local residents and VCSE organisations to reduce demand on statutory services and increase long term economic growth. Following the highly successful ‘You Choose’ participatory budgeting scheme that funded 149 community projects in 2011/12, it will continue in 2012/13. Statutory commissioners Statutory commissioners worked together to improve commissioning of services for people with complex needs. This was based on the principle of service user involvement in determining the most appropriate services. • Existing regeneration partnerships had ensured a multi agency approach to delivering physical and economic regeneration. The statutory agencies supported a shared set of strategic priorities but service commissioning was done separately. VCSE, private sector & others • VCSE organisations like St Peters are facilitating service redesign desired by statutory commissioners by developing alternative methods of delivery. The aim is to use resources more effectively by commissioning early intervention community based services.. • VCSE actively involved in strategic partnership, in service delivery at a neighbourhood and borough level and in identifying local needs. • New models of investment in early intervention initiatives based in community settings to tackle complex families.

31. Tameside (3): outcomes and resources • Outcomes aimed for • Better services which meet needs of residents in the two pilot wards • Better integration of public services which will be delivered in a joined up way (particular focus on families and individuals ). • Learning from the pilots will be scaled up across the borough. Progress towards outcomes Good progress has been made in developing new methods of service delivery to improve outcomes. For example in St Peters there has been improved co-ordination of how ex offenders access services. This has seen a take up in services supporting early intervention. The complexity of issues faced within the wards means that it will take time to deliver outcomes. Progress is expected by the end of 2012 especially in terms of offender behaviour. The St Peters Pilot has developed an evaluation model that includes cost benefit analysis alongside wider evaluation tools. For example measures include take up of courses, take up of health services, obtaining identification and producing a record of achievement. Outcomes • Resources mapped, aligned, pooled • Detailed mapping of resources has been done across a number of partners – to identify resources expended on a sample of families and individuals with complex needs, and where these need to be realigned. • Tameside partnership continues to review and monitor the LIS work with a focus on aligning resources in a way which reduces duplication across agencies. • The key change around resources is developing multi-agency tools to effectively resource interventions across the partnership. Savings The proportion of resources allocated to problem families, offenders and those out of work will reduce whilst service quality will improve. There will be a shift to preventative services. Plans for community budgets are being prepared as part of the Greater Manchester Whole Place Community Budget pilot announced in December 2011. Resources For further information on the Tameside case study please contact: david.berry@tameside.gov.uk

32. Warrington – (1): summaryIncreasing community involvement in service commissioning to reduce long-term unemploymentWarrington LIS area has a population of 18,000. Labour-led Council.

33. Warrington (2):community commissioning roles and responsibilities 2010: action to date relevant to community commissioning 2011: progress towards community commissioning 2012 onwards: towards implementation • Warrington was acknowledged as good at consulting and engaging local communities. LSP agreed that increasing the local integration of services should also be a priority, with increased involvement of local communities in the commissioning of local services. Warrington Borough Council is undergoing a review of neighbourhood working structures following 4 year programme of implementation. The Council, and its partners, remain focussed on maintaining good levels of community engagement and participation. • Local communities will play a key role in the commissioning of local services – this will be achieved through a number of different mechanisms ( see outcomes on following slide) Local people e.g. residents Statutory commissioners will continue to play a pivotal role in service specifications. However this will not stop the development of alternative methods of service delivery. • Many traditional models of service delivery in place. Good evidence of commissioning across health and social care, but work needed to embed across all partners. New models being tested successfully by Local Authority, e.g. Connected Care. Plans in development for a new Health and Wellbeing CIC which could take on delivery of leisure services and a number of other wellbeing services. Statutory commissioners are exploring a number of options for joint commissioning of services. Significant barrier has been data sharing, which delayed the project by 9 months. However, from January 2012 this matter is now resolved. Statutory commissioners piloted case conferencing arrangements for long term unemployed prior to work programme commencement. Statutory commissioners • The private sector is heavily involved in the regeneration of Warrington, including the development of new jobs in the area. It will have an increasing role through corporate social responsibility to contribute to the wider community. • VCSE will continue as an active partner working alongside democratically elected councillors to support the wellbeing of the area. VCSE, private sector & others • Council keen to involve housing associations, 3rd sector providers, police, learning institutions and private sector in the regeneration of Warrington, particularly those areas with entrenched problems. • Good VCSE involvement via the ‘Third Sector Hub’ represented by Citizens Advice Bureau. Strategic partnership, which includes VCSE, continues to have a leadership role

34. Warrington (3): outcomes and resources • Outcomes aimed for • Improving the life chances of long term benefits claimants • Better integration of public services • Greater role for users in the specification and delivery of services • Reduction in long term unemployment and benefit dependency • A narrowing the gap between those areas in Warrington which perform well against a set of key indicators and those areas which perform least well. • Generating efficiencies through more effective commissioning and personalised services Progressing towards outcomes Progress made on narrowing the gap is measured quarterly and annually against a number of key indicators :employment, attainment, health, housing and environment. Analysis of neighbourhood management to date demonstrates positive results e.g. a faster reduction in crime and ASB in deprived areas . Enabling service users to have a greater say in the nature and quality of services can be achieved via : personal budgets, neighbourhood budgets, LI S arrangements, asset transfer, or a CI.C Warrington LIS is exploring all options. Outcomes • Resources mapped, aligned, pooled • LIS partners have begun the process of mapping the resources related to individual benefit claimants – this is being done via a case conferencing approach. This also identifies a lead worker who will co-ordinate future services to minimise duplication and to obtain the best possible outcome for each individual and his/her family. • Work on regeneration increasingly involves a ‘virtual’ pooling of budgets, such as aligning housing and neighbourhood improvement works, alongside community involvement and/or return to work activities, in order to achieve the overall outcomes. Individual public agencies remain accountable for their own budgets. • eblackburn@warrington.gov.uk • Savings • It is anticipated that evidence of local integration of services relating to employment will be available by April 2012 (to include less duplication of activities across organisations and better use of existing budgets). • In the longer term it is anticipated that savings should be seen in worklessness related costs e.g. sanctions / behaviour control techniques; direct payments of benefits; loss of income e.g. through rent arrears. Resources For further information on the Warrington case study please contact: eblackburn@warrington.gov.uk