Agenda item

The Panel accepted the report of the Corporate Director (Finance & Performance) to inform of progress against the agreed work programme for the evaluation of eight major partnerships during 2009/10 and the ongoing work being undertaken to establish a performance management framework for partnerships.

Members were advised that, with regard to the 2009/10 Work Programme, the outcomes and actions previously reported to the Panel from the evaluations of the Community Safety and Museums Partnerships had been considered and approved by each of the Partnership Boards and agreed actions would be implemented and monitored.

The ongoing valuations of the eight partnerships chosen to be assessed during 2009/10 indicated that the Partnership Development and Evaluation Toolkit was allowing individual partnerships to identify what they did well and identify areas where there was scope for development.

Evaluations of the review of the CCTV arrangements in partnership with the Police and the Key Cultural Partnership were complete.  The management and operation of CCTV in the district was a partnership only between the Council and Lancashire Constabulary and not all questions in the toolkit applied.  It was proposed that the arrangements should be formalised within the responsibilities of the Community Safety Partnership.  The evaluation of the Key Cultural Partnership had been timely given that its strategic role was seen as being a key element in delivering the district Arts Strategy.

Members were advised that the target dates for commencement of evaluations of the Luneside East and Shoreline Management Partnerships had slipped due to other work commitments and were now planned for completion between October and December 2009.  Arrangements for the evaluations of the Lancashire Supporting People Partnership were currently under review as officer involvement in the partnership had recently transferred from Health and Strategic Housing Services to the Forward Planning Team in Planning Services.

The Performance Management Group had decided to withdraw evaluations of the Lancashire Economic Partnership (LEP) and West End Partnership (WEP) from the work programme on the grounds that the Council was already contributing to an evaluation of the LEP being carried out by the NW Development Agency and the WEP was no longer receiving administrative support from the Council.

It was reported that the mapping exercise had identified the number and type of partnerships the Council was involved in and had identified 23 partnerships being of major significance to the Council, 21 as moderate and 15 with a limited level of significance.  It was proposed that an evaluation of all partnerships of a major and moderate significance level be undertaken.  The eight partnerships selected for review during 2009/10 were the first of these. 

Evaluations to-date had shown that the effective approach would be to evaluate only those partnerships with a direct involvement in delivering local priorities arising from the Sustainable Community Strategy and the Council’s Corporate Plan, the majority of these being partnerships assessed as having major significance in achieving the Council’s priorities.

This approach would enable resources to be concentrated on the evaluation of the key partnerships, which potentially carried higher risks, to be built into the Council’s Business Planning Process and their action planning and performance to be monitored through either the Lancaster District Local Strategic Partnership’s (LDLSP) or the Council’s Performance Management Frameworks.

It was reported that the requirements of Regulation 4 of the Accounts and Audit Regulations and the CIPFA/SOLACE Governance Framework made it clear that the Annual Governance Statement related to the governance of the whole organisation including the partnership activities.

The Council had already put in place a number of basic elements needed for effective partnership governance, as defined by the CIPFA Finance Advisory Network.  The partnership evaluations to-date had informed the continuing work to develop and establish effective governance standards within individual partnerships and the overall partnership framework, including the production of risk registers and actions arising from them.  These were reviewed by the Risk and Insurance Manager to assess the impact of high level risks and opportunities on service delivery. 

The evaluations had also highlighted underdeveloped and inconsistent governance arrangements within partnerships and the Partnership Mapping and Evaluation Team was developing a Code of Practice for Working in Partnerships, which sought to provide a corporate framework for engaging with, and entering into, new partnerships, which included a checklist for assessing the need for a partnership arrangement and the elements that needed to be in place to develop a successful partnership.  Also included was a format/template for a formal partnership agreement that must be signed by all partners before any commitment to the partnership was entered into and a procedure for obtaining approval for the Council to enter into a partnership.

The Code would be completed in time to be considered by the Performance Management Group in November and supported by other standard policies and processes that partnerships may adopt and should simplify any review of partnership governance arrangements.

It was reported that also under development was a register (database) that would provide a central point of reference about partnership activities and purpose and their overall governance and performance managements.  Once established, the register would provide a process to ensure that partnerships were relevant to the Council’s priorities and objectives.

A final element to be fully established was a mechanism for partnerships to provide assurance on their systems and processes in line with the principles of the governance framework.  It was proposed that the Council’s major partnerships produce an Annual Report on their activities, incorporating assurances on their governance arrangements, and it was proposed that a standard document/template be developed for this purpose.

Resolved:

(1)        That the decision of the Performance Management Group to withdraw evaluations of the Lancashire Economic Partnership (LEP) and West End Partnership (WEP) from the work programme on the grounds that the Council is already contributing to an evaluation of the LEP being carried out by the NW Development Agency and the WEP is no longer receiving administrative support from the Council, be endorsed, and that it be noted that instead the Council will receive a copy of the NWDA evaluation report on the LEP and also an end of project report in respect of the WEP instead.

(2)        That the proposal to evaluate only those partnerships with a direct involvement in delivering local priorities arising from the Sustainable Community Strategy and the Council’s Corporate Plan, the majority of these being partnerships assessed as having major significance in achieving the Council’s priorities be endorsed, and that it be noted that this approach will enable resources to be concentrated on the evaluation of the key partnerships and to be built into the Council’s Business Planning Process, and action planning and performance to be monitored through the LDLSP’s or the Council’s Performance Management frameworks.

(3)        That the proposal that the Council’s major partnerships produce an Annual Report on their activities, incorporating assurances on their governance arrangements, and a standard document/template be developed for this purpose, be endorsed by the Panel.

(4)        That the proposal that, in line with their Service Business Plan, Corporate Strategy be responsible for maintaining the register and for ensuring that the Council receives Annual Reports from its key partnerships about their activities, governance and performance be endorsed.