Return to Agenda

ITEM EX8

EXECUTIVE – 18 MAY 2004

LOCAL AREA WORKING: "RESPONDING TO LOCAL COMMUNITIES"

Report by Assistant Chief Executive

1. In providing services to the community and taking responsibility for local governance, the County Council needs to be responsive to local needs. This is reinforced by the requirements of the Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA), the Boundary Committee views about the future shape of local authorities in the context of regionalism and by the recent Home Office consultation paper ‘Building Civil Renewal’ .
   
   
2. It may be useful to reflect on the end products we want local area working to achieve:

• Better service delivery – The County Council needs to improve the tailoring of services to local circumstances and engage more effectively in the concerns of local communities. Developing local area working will be one of the keys to this improvement, but whether we should concentrate on changes to managerial arrangements or political machinery is a matter for debate.
• Improvements in Customer Service & the County Council’s reputation – public satisfaction with the County Council is relatively low, despite generally high satisfaction with individual services we provide. No doubt there are a variety of reasons for this, but it is likely that local area working could improve the Council’s reputation by making the organisation more visible in the High Street, making it easier to access advice and assistance and by being more active in helping to address the concerns of local communities.
• Joined up Governance - we live in an increasingly complex society with numerous services managed independently of one another. Bringing some coherence to the big picture and ensuring that the various arms of public service work effectively together and with the voluntary and business sectors is a key role for local government. In part this is a strategic function, which we undertake on a countywide basis; but it is also a more local activity. In part this local need is met by partnership working with district councils, local councils and with the voluntary sector, but this may not be the complete solution – it is certainly true that those who involve themselves in the South Oxfordshire forums value the opportunity to network with others with an interest in their locality. Of course there are also benefits in joining up services within the County Council as well as with partners.

3. We have made notable progress in the last year and this report reviews progress and proposes further action in the context of the decisions of the County Council meeting on 13 Jan 2004, at which it was agreed that joint area forums in South Oxfordshire should continue for 2004/05 and that the opportunity to develop similar arrangements with other districts should be explored (see Annex 1 for details of the Council’s decisions).

Progress during 2003/04

4. During the last year we have been concentrating on four aspects of local area working:

• Local political machinery – in addition to the South Oxfordshire Area Forums there have been a range of new initiatives to help join up governance and improve partnership working:
  
  
• Regular bilateral meetings with each district council. These are used to focus on key issues and local projects requiring effective county/district partnership.
• Meeting with town council leaders to consider ways of improving partnership working.
• Pilot exercise to help Chipping Norton to implement their Town Plan and to respond to economic development needs.
• Attendance at town and parish meetings by local members. Feedback from Town Councils suggests that these visits are welcomed by local councils and are helpful for two-way communication with the County Council. We need to further exploit this contact.
• Involvement in all five district local strategic partnerships (LSPs). District leaders are all represented on the countywide LSP
• Informal member involvement in area committees/forums operating in the City and Vale of White Horse.
  
  
• Improving customer service – a new Customer Service Strategy is being developed and will be considered by the Executive later in the year. It will include proposals for improving access to information and advice via the telephone, the website and by visits to local access points. We will also review whether the review and rationalisation of property can help to improve public access as well as maximising our investment in the property portfolio. Sharing premises and contact centres with district and town councils are to be explored. As part of the Customer Strategy we will update the consultation strategy and include reference to local area forums.
  
  
• Partnerships with other statutory bodies and the voluntary, community and faith sector – A Compact has been developed to improve partnership working between and with statutory agencies and voluntary organisations in the county. Further work is ongoing to define operational processes for funding, consultation etc.
  
  
• Managerial Action – A number of initiatives are under way:
  
  
• Town and parish councils have been surveyed about ways in which we might improve communication and consultation. A number of changes are being made as a result.
• Discussions have been taking place with the Association of Local Councils and with individual town councils about the delegation of county functions
• A communications strategy is being developed and it will include improvements to consultation and communication arrangements.
• Partnership working has been discussed with Town Clerks and further meetings will take place as required.
• Divisional visits to improve awareness of local community issues.

5. Discussions about options for joint local area working have now been held with the City Council, Cherwell and West Oxfordshire. Discussions with South Oxfordshire and the Vale of White Horse will take place in the next few weeks. In summary the position in each district is:

• In South Oxfordshire we have been piloting joint consultative forums covering 5 areas within the district. The County Council has agreed to extend these arrangement for 2004/05.
  
  
• Oxford City has 6 Area Committees, which are both consultative and exercising delegated functions. County Councillors for the City have been encouraged to attend their local committee but they have no mandate to speak on behalf of the County Council. The City Council have invited the County Council to formally join in with the area machinery and the County Council needs to respond to this invitation. It has been suggested that a small member group might be established to discuss the arrangements, if the County Council is agreeable to joint area forums in the City.
  
  
• In the Vale there are 4 area committees again operating as consultative bodies and exercising delegated powers. County members are invited to attend meetings of their local forum but they have no mandate to speak on behalf of the County Council. The County Council is likely to be encouraged to join in with the area forums in a more formal way.
  
  
• In West Oxfordshire and Cherwell there are no area consultative or decision-making committees, although consultative meetings take place occasionally. West Oxfordshire and Cherwell are not keen to develop area forums. However joint working to support the implementation of district community strategies and town plans/village appraisals have been welcomed. The Chipping Norton pilot exercise is designed to examine the resource implications involved in this form of local area working.

6. In deciding whether to extend local area forums it may be useful to consider the activities which can be performed by local forums. During the South Oxfordshire pilot it became clear that aspirations to engage with and facilitate two way communication between the Councils and local people were unlikely to be achieved by area forums, except where controversial subjects were under discussion. Experience elsewhere has shown that local forums add value where they concentrate on the ‘well being’ of local communities by:

• giving a local perspective to service consultations including the work currently undertaken by stand alone bodies i.e. traffic advisory committees; area youth committees
• briefing the Executive on the local impact of proposed policies;
• addressing local issues of concern;
• asking a Scrutiny Committee to investigate a local concern;
• providing a local perspective for scrutiny reviews;
• contacting local MPs and other representatives about issues of concern to local communities in the area;
• supporting town and parish councils with the implementation of town/village plans;
• supporting services provided locally e.g. youth centres; adult education, libraries
• helping to broker solutions where joint action is required e.g. self reliance projects to tackle disadvantage and develop preventative approaches;
• contributing to the development of county and district community strategies and their implementation.

7. In this context local members can provide a valuable role in championing the aspirations of local communities. Local members may also be able to provide information and advice on the County Council’s policies and operational practice, although they are not expected to be experts in the work of all services and officers need to be available to advise local members.
8. The County Council has been or is likely to be invited to participate more formally in area forums in three of the five districts. The County Council needs to decide whether to become formally involved in area forums:

• In each district or
  
  
• In the three inviting county participation

9. A decision has already been made to continue with the South Oxfordshire forums, albeit with modifications to the format. Extending the experiment to the City would seem sensible especially as there are very few parishes in the City area and area forums can therefore perform the role of local neighbourhood councils. Members may also want to join in with the Vale area forums. If the Council decides to join in with forums in the City and the Vale in addition to those in South Oxfordshire it may be useful to identify a lead member for each forum who will take responsibility for feeding back to the Executive when appropriate.
10. At this stage the creation of area forums in West Oxfordshire and Cherwell is not recommended; however, it is recommended that the new Council should be invited to consider this option in 2005.
11. There is also the potential to create Area Boards with delegated functions. However there are few county functions which lend themselves to sub county delegation and those that do would not fit comfortably into the relatively small areas overseen by existing area forums. At this stage it is suggested that the County Council should not develop area boards with delegated functions, but this option should be considered further in 2005 once the further piloting of area forums has been reviewed.

Local Budgets

12. In some counties (notably Suffolk) budgets have been delegated to individual members to enable them to support local initiatives e.g. self help projects to tackle disadvantage or provide activities for young people. Details of the Suffolk scheme are attached at Annex 2.
13. In other areas budgets have been allocated to area committees or to local members acting in conjunction with an area committee. Details of the Surrey scheme are attached at Annex 3 (download as .doc file).
14. The provision of local budgets is often seen as an alternative to the creation of area committees. In consequence it would be sensible to defer a decision on local budgets until 2005 at which time the new Council can consider this option in conjunction with a review of local area forums and the potential for area boards with delegated functions and possibly budgets.
15. The 2004/05 budget does not provide funding for local budgets whether allocated to local boards or local members. The County Council will need to decide whether to provide some funding in the 2005/06 budget.

Partnership Arrangements

16. Partnership working operates at many levels and in many service and cross cutting areas. This paper concentrates on partnerships with key agencies/sectors within the county:

• Local strategic partnerships
• Town and parish councils and local members
• District councils
• NHS
• Police
• Voluntary, Community and Faith Sectors
• Business and Higher/Further Education Sectors

17. Local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs) – During the development of community strategies it has been helpful to have the Deputy Leader involved with each local, LSP, but this does create a heavy workload. As we move into the implementation phase we are looking at member and officer involvement to ensure we contribute effectively. A separate report on this subject will be brought to the Executive in the next few weeks.
18. Town & Parish Councils – There are four areas for development:

• Communication – Our monthly bulletin ‘Town & Parish News’ is well received by local councils and we are working to ensure that we maximise coverage of relevant news. The creation of a centralised Communications & Marketing Unit should help in this respect. We also need to support local members in their relations with local councils. We will be surveying local members to establish a clearer picture of needs. Particularly where no area forums exist it would be useful to have annual bilateral meetings with town councils. During 2004 it is suggested that this arrangement should be trialled with one or two town councils and then reviewed in 2005.
• Consultation – We have agreed a new process for consultation which concentrates on fewer consultation exercises focused on those issues that local councils are most likely to want to express views on. We also aim to improve feedback. These new arrangements will be implemented during 2004.
• Delegation – Local councils, particularly town councils, could perform a more dynamic role in their local areas. In particular they could take on functions from the County Council and their district council, where appropriate. In the short term there are obstacles to be overcome – fears about competence, worries about inadequate resources to do the job, disinterest in the services being offered for delegation, workload implications etc. These problems will not be resolved overnight and we need to work over a period of years to make progress. In the short term we should aim for at least one pilot with a town council willing to trial the delegation of functions.
• Relationships to LSPs – In areas where we have area forums and district LSP operational we need to clarify the inter-relationships to avoid duplication of effort. This could impact on the relationship between local councils and their local county councillor; for example local members might forego attendance at every local parish council meeting in favour of a mixture of meetings e.g. attendance at quarterly meetings of parish councils coupled with meetings (up to three per annum) of area forums at which local parish representatives will attend. Any such changes need to fit local circumstances and the aspirations of each local member.

19. District Councils – Bilateral working arrangements are now in place for each district and are gradually evolving to suit the needs of each district. We’ll review arrangements later in the year. For specific subjects we have specific partnerships e.g. crime and disorder, drugs and alcohol abuse. We have nominated lead officers and members to oversee these arrangements and ensure that effective progress is secured.
20. NHS – The obvious partnership links are with Social & Health Care but we also seek to involve Primary Care Trusts and NHS Trusts in area forums, crime & disorder partnerships, LSPs and voluntary sector compacts. The emphasis on primary care priorities and the shortage of resources has inhibited partnership working and we need to work harder to ensure that NHS interests are more effectively involved in key partnership projects.
21. Police – In addition to specific crime and disorder and drugs & alcohol partnerships, the Police are actively involved in LSPs and Area Forums. Their involvement helps us to join up governance around some of the difficult societal problems.
22. Voluntary Sector – In Oxfordshire the partnership with the voluntary sector is still relatively under-developed. The Voluntary Sector Compact has been a useful first step in defining partnership principles but further work is needed on funding arrangements, consultation arrangements and the particular needs of Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) groups. Within the organisation we need a more corporate approach both to join up our grant giving with our strategic objectives and to offer a more consistent approach to the numerous voluntary, community and faith groups providing services and support to the community. During 2004/05 the development of more detailed partnership arrangements will proceed under the Compact umbrella and the Executive will receive further proposals in due course. A review of internal arrangements for liaison with the voluntary sector is now concluding and the outcomes will be reported to the executive shortly. In addition to the relationships we have with individual organisations we also rely on a number of intermediary bodies (the Oxfordshire Council for Voluntary Action, Banbury Council for Voluntary Service, Oxfordshire Rural Community Council, Oxfordshire Race Equality Council and Banbury District Race Equality Council) which act on behalf of a wide range of interests groups. We need to help to strengthen some of these organisations in order to support the voluntary and community sector more effectively. Some ODPM funded research is underway in this area.
23. Business & Higher/Further Education Sectors – Involving the business sector in local issues has always been difficult. However we have managed to secure business representatives in the work of the countywide LSP and they have made a valuable contribution. Business representatives have also contributed successfully to our Best Value projects. We need to build on these successes and in particular seek to involve major business in local area forum projects. Similarly the universities have involved themselves in the countywide LSP with a notable contribution from Graham Upton Vice Chancellor of Brookes who chairs the LSP. Again we need to build on these partnerships particularly in the City.

Management Action

24. We have no dedicated resources to support local area working, other than one officer in the Chief Executive’s Office who has been seconded to provide support until the Summer 2004. The workload has grown substantially in recent months and will continue to do so if the County Council adopts the action plan recommended. Some additional resources are needed otherwise we will be unable to sustain the excellent progress made in the last 12 months. Some of this is administrative (servicing area forums etc): this can be shared with the districts but some funding will be needed. We hope to absorb this workload in 2004/05. More pressing is the community partnership/project management workload for which additional resources are needed.
25. At this stage we need a Community Team of 3 officers: one to look after the city area and to provide countywide co-ordination, one to look after the east of the county (Cherwell and South Oxfordshire) and one to look after the West (West Oxfordshire and the Vale). By making the existing secondment permanent we can fund one of these posts, but further strengthening of resources available to support work in this area will be needed (see job role at Annex 4). We may be able to secure further secondments but back filling will be needed so funding will be required. Most importantly we need to select the right individuals to undertake these difficult roles.
26. The estimated cost of the proposed team is £150k pa. In the current year these costs can be met from the budget carry forward in the Chief Executive’s Office but thereafter some additional funding will be required. For 2005/06 there will be a funding shortfall of £50 -£100K.

Conclusions

27. Good progress has been achieved in local partnership working during the last year but much remains to be done in order to more effectively reflect the needs of local communities in the work of the County Council. This will become increasingly important over the next few years as is evident from recent announcements by the Government and the Boundary Committee, which emphasise the need for local authorities to demonstrate their strategic capability but also their ability to relate to the differing needs of local communities.
28. In a diverse county like Oxfordshire a one size fits all solution will not work: the needs of Oxford City are very different to those of the rural areas and even within the market towns and rural areas there are marked differences in needs and aspirations. Local area working needs to reflect these local differences. In consequence the cautious approach adopted so far has been a useful way of evolving solutions that work. However we need to ensure we make progress at a steady rate and take note of the dynamic changes occurring in other counties.
29. At this time with county elections approaching it is not appropriate to adopt a long term strategy, but we do need to use the next year to experiment with a variety of initiatives and keep abreast of the strategies being adopted elsewhere. To do this a modest investment of resources will be required. The scale of funding identified above is miniscule compared to the £millions being invested by other counties.
30. Equally important is the need to integrate local area working with existing management and political machinery and with other changes taking place over the medium term. For example the development of one stop shops/local access points/mini contact centres coupled with business process re-engineering will change the shape of ‘front office/back office’ structures over the life of the next Council. Similarly the rationalisation of property, modern workstyle and technology enhancements will impact on the way we operate and organise services. The development of local area machinery needs to be tuned into these changes so that we add value to the work of the Council rather than adding bureaucracy.
31. At Annex 5 there is a short and medium term action plan. The County Council Management Team support these proposals and in particular feel that improvements to customer service and partnership working with town and parish councils should be our priority. The County Council is already committed to continue with area forums, at least in South Oxfordshire and it is hoped that changes to the way these are organised will improve effectiveness. However, they are resource intensive and the County Council will need to review their usefulness next year.

RECOMMENDATIONS

32. The Executive is RECOMMENDED to consider whether to:

Background Papers: Nil

Contact Officer: Stephen Capaldi (01865 815466)

May 2004

 Return to TOP