Initial Option IdeasReview of the Strategic PartnershipDecember 2012

This is a work in progress

Connected PartnersWorking together with city partners to deliverco-ordinated services togetherConnecting Salford: Whose city vision is it?to develop a family of partnerships,led by a central City Partnership that isdriven by energetic and engaged communitiesof motivated citizens, linked into neighbourhoodrepresentatives and guided by a co-operative approach

Phase 1 Responses

Functions

Providing a joined up approach and be representativeOwn a vision, plan and strategyTackle issues and have prioritiesHave clear leadership and accountabilityOversee PerformanceInclude commissioning and resourcingEnsure all are engaged and communicated with

Overall response

Options

1.No change

2.Existing Partnership takes the Lead

3.New City Partnership

Option 1: No Change

Option 2: Existing Partnership takes the LeadEg, Health and Wellbeing Board

Strengths:Bodies are already in existence.Reduces the number of meetings and some duplication.Legal entities with some statutory reporting duties already in place.

Weaknesses:Over burden the partnership with issues outside their remit.Membership will need to be reviewed to ensure there is a city wide perspective.Community and business sector engagement will need to be improved.Could result in overly complex arrangements, this is a national concern for the evolving Health and Wellbeing Boards.

Option 3: City Partnership PrinciplesBuilds on good practiceConstruct to assist the City MayorSpace for partners to come togetherFocuses on the City Plan, vision and prioritiesBetter coordination and reduced fragmentationReduces duplication and costsImproves community engagement and involvementAction ledPerformance management against agreed outcomesPlatform for better Private Sector involvementLinks with Greater Manchester and beyond

Coordinationmodel

CityPartnershipConnectedCity

Public Sector response

PerformanceModel

What Next?Recommend that the Executive agree that the development of a new City Partnership is the best way forward

2a.Agree the coordination model is further developed and shared with the wider Forum

OR

2b.Further options are explored with key representatives from the different groups and a revised model is brought back to the Executive in March for final ratification

References to Pages, Sections and Appendices refer to the Report Strategic Partnership Review which was presented to the Partnership Executive on 18 December 2012.Fast pace this is still very much for discussion.

Cllr Stone established the steering group made up of Executive members at September meeting Appendix A (Page 7)Keep in line with the recommended 12 weeks consultation in line with the City Mayors Connecting Salford engagementFirst two Phases:Phase 1: Asking what Purpose people believe a strategic partnership should performPhase 2: What Mechanisms do we already have or need to be developed to perform these functions

Backdrop of:Increasing austerity measuresNeighbourhood arrangements reviewDeveloping co-operative commissionSteering group recognised a number of drivers for reform (Page 4, Section 4.6) one of the main drivers being the City Mayors city vision and development of the city plan.

Within Connecting Salford: Whose city vision is it? It is proposed ..

This underpinned the work.Phase 1: Purpose

47 responses to 4 question survey plus meeting with City Mayor and Deputy City Mayor 188 responses in total over a 3 week period

Responses from across the city, various groups and Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA) and Greater Manchester Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) Appendix B (Page 7)Responses can be grouped into 7 main areas

Full responses can be found on the Partners IN Salford website and a summary is included at Appendix C (Page 8)Providing a joined up approach and proper representation plus ensuring there is proper engagement and communication with the community, third and private sectors were the two most commonly cited requirements for a strategic partnership.

However, as we will see later, different groups placed different emphasis on the priorities and this impacts upon any option the be taken forward.Phase 2: Mechanisms

18 presentation and meetings with boards or representatives, including a meeting with AGMA and the Local Government Information Unit (LGiU) over 3 weeks Appendix B (Page 7)

Steering group considered all the evidence collected and suggest 3 Options for consideration Option 1: No change (Page 5, Section 5.1)

There is a lot of good practice already within Salford:

Strengths:Long history trusted as independentPartnership working recognised as very good / excellent (Care Quality Commission 2010 Salford Adult Safeguarding Board)Some strong partnershipsPartnership Forum and well-attended ConferenceWell established community engagement practices

Weaknesses:Duplication of membership and activities Partnership Executive and Salford Place BoardFragmentation and silo deliveryDysfunctional in parts eg Think City hasnt met, Salford Safeguarding Childrens Board not part of the original Partnership landscape and incorrectly placed hereArrangements are complex and appear hierarchical to the communityPrivate Sector not fully engagedLinks with Greater Manchester / beyond not clear

Lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater!

Option 2 Existing Partnership Lead (Page 5, Section 5.2)

Main issue: will this dilute the operation of an existing partnership too much?

Local Government Information Unit (LGiU): Health and Wellbeing Board has taken the lead in those areas with a poor Local Strategic Partnership (LSP) as described before, there are clearly some issues with our current arrangements BUT we have some excellent practice and it is sometimes difficult to fully appreciate these from within the system.City Partnership Principles (Page 6, Section 4.3)

Based on the findings of both Phase 1 and 2See additional sheetLinks beyond Salford (Page 14, Section F.5)

Good relationships already exist between Greater Manchester bodies and the Council and Partners including the City Mayor as our lead on Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA)/Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA), regional businesses and regional third sector organisations

Excellent working between the Council and Partners with a lot of collaborative / shared services either in place or being investigated.

Suggestion: members of Partners Governing Bodies are invited to attend the Mayoral Teams meetings once or twice per year to share and coordinate.

Must not overlook the good work happening between the Partnerships and Greater Manchester eg the developing Pan-Manchester Health and Wellbeing Board

The City Partnership adds glue or connectivity to this ensuring the opportunities of working across the Greater Manchester City Region are shared by all.

The different groups placed emphasis on different functions for the strategic partnership, although ALL regarded having a joined up approach with proper representation as the key function.

For the Public Sector (and indeed the various partnerships) there emphasis on Overseeing Performance (Green), and much less on engagement and communication. This results in a different view on how the strategic partnership should be modelled, one suggestion as follows:The City Partnership here is more like a Public Service Board with the heads of service from partners.

The Family of Partnerships is reduced to four groups:Health and Wellbeing BoardChildren and Young Peoples TrustCommunity Safety PartnershipPlus a new Business and Inward Investment Group similar to the Coordination model

ie People / Place / Prosperity

Safeguarding falls outside the Family of Partnerships for both Children and Adults and is cross cuttingCommunications and Engagement is also cross-cuttingWhich ever option, that the two Partnership changes are further explored:

Merging Think Skills & Work and Family Poverty Strategic GroupCreating a Business and Economic Development / Inward Investment Partnership

If we go for 2b then:

Further options explored during January then taken to the steering group for agreement at the planned meeting on 29 January.The revised model confirmed by the City Mayor before sharing with the wider Partnership throughout February.Bring back to the Executive in March