The role of good governance in developing Children s Services Plans in Partnership

Transcription

1 Snapshot: Learning from the National Third Sector GIRFEC Project The role of good governance in developing Children s Services Plans in Partnership The National Third Sector GIRFEC Project The National Third Sector GIRFEC project is a Public Social Partnership (PSP) of Barnardo s Scotland, Improvement Service and Voluntary Action Scotland. The aim of the project is to reduce inequalities for children, young people and their families by creating, nurturing and enabling partnerships within and between the third and statutory sectors to ensure the best use of resources. Introduction The Children and Young People s (Scotland) Act 2014 makes provisions affecting how children services are planned including, Getting It Right for Every Child (GIRFEC). A number of the parts of the Act have already been implemented such as the provision of free school meals for all children in Primary 1 to 3 and an increase in the number of nursery hours available for pre-school children. Other parts of the Act are being phased in over the coming year and some will come with specific support and guidance to assist with implementation. One of these, Part 3, places a duty on local authorities and Health Boards to develop joint children s service plans in cooperation with other service providers. In preparing the plan public bodies will be required to consult more widely than had been the case in the past and include other service providers which undoubtedly will have an impact on how they manage the process. Bringing together organisations and representatives of children s services, some of whom will not have worked together before, will require clear terms of reference so that everyone can play their part in full. Therefore a key part of the process will be to ensure that governance arrangements are effective to ensure that there is proper and effective participation and consultation by all parties. Good governance, particularly when working in partnership, is recognised as a key component in ensuring that processes are carried through meaningfully and effectively, involving the right

2 people, in the right way, and working to agreed timescales while being open, honest and accountable. Developing a plan for children s services will undoubtedly involve both the public and third sector working more closely together. The concept of governance will not be new to either sector as both have published documents providing guidance which continue to underpin the way in which they operate. The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) together with the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers (SOLACE), the Local Government Association and the Audit Commission, produced Delivering Good Governance in Local Government (2007) which set out a framework to support the work of local government citing six elements. The voluntary sector s Good Governance: A Code of Practice for the Voluntary and Community Sector (2010) identifies six similar principles. Drawing on these sources six key elements of good governance can be set out: Therefore, we should expect to see these principles of governance clearly underpinning the actions of those responsible for consulting

3 and preparing the Children s Service Plans, and by doing so we should be confident that the partnership will work effectively. However, if these principles are not clearly stated or evident and understood then potential for disagreement, delays and derailment is likely. This paper draws on the findings of the NTSG Project and gives a snapshot of the preparedness in terms of governance arrangements of the public and third sectors to work together to plan children s services. Methodology Project staff worked in nine community planning areas using a model which was designed to ensure the widest possible participation from the public and voluntary sectors. Participants completed a self-assessment questionnaire derived from the Improvement Service s Public Sector Improvement Framework (PSIF). Information was gathered in relation to those key areas which impact most on the meaningful and effective involvement of the third sector in community planning and children s services planning. This included levels of community engagement, organisational and structural leadership, accountability and governance. This methodology has been consistently and equally applied across all nine areas. The evidence gathered gives the very distinctive perspectives of both third sector and statutory organisations Findings Governance is essentially the processes of interaction and decisionmaking among people involved in a particular situation (in this case, a partnership). The six elements of good governance outlined above are a useful tool to compare the information gathered from local areas. When comparing what good governance is in relation to partnership working it is clear that there are inconsistencies across the areas the project works in. At the same time there are common themes which point to the need to improve the governance infrastructure as well as clarifying roles and responsibilities. The following sections consider each of the elements and provide a snapshot of learning from local areas.

4 Clarity of purpose A fundamental element underpinning good governance arrangements is that all of those involved are clear what those arrangements are. It was apparent that in general there was some uncertainty in local areas. Just under half of respondents (47%) indicated that they knew what the governance arrangements were in their area. The remainder of participants across the areas were less certain or did not know. When the responses are broken down by sector it becomes clear that a small majority in both health (53%) and local authority staff (54%) have a clear idea of how the governance arrangements operate in their area whereas for third sector partners that number falls significantly to only 36%. The reasons for the lack of clarity can be found in some of the supporting statements from third sector organisations. There was, for example, recognition that governance structures were in place but were separate and may be one of the reasons for a lack of awareness: In terms of governance and accountability each sector has its own mechanism but corporately this is sometimes vague. This vagueness can foster different views on communicating governance arrangements: Although there is some level of governance, it is difficult to establish the lines of communication. At times, it would appear that personal agendas get in the way of professional business and can impact on the governance. At the day to day level in terms of partnership working a lack of awareness of governance arrangements leads to a negative view of how a particular sector or partnership arrangement is working: Currently there is a strategic group which meets; the voluntary sector group has not met for some time. It is unclear to me at the moment how GIRFEC sits in relation to the third sector and who has responsibility to ensure good practice is embedded within the sector, therefore I have no knowledge of who has responsibility for what.

5 Being clear on roles and responsibilities The findings from the survey together with the supporting statements above from third sector participants seem to suggest that there is a lack of awareness, particularly amongst that sector, of governance approaches in their area. The project was interested in whether partners in local areas had discussed and formally agreed their respective roles and responsibilities in the context of children s service plans. The responses are split again by sector with the majority of the public sector (61%) having a clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities within the partnership. The third sector partners appear much less certain as only 33% claim to understand their roles and responsibilities. The public sector s strong view may be attributable to their established use of hierarchical structures where staff have well defined roles in well-defined structures and is reflected in comments from public sector participants: Roles and responsibilities are very clear within groups and working across groups to ensure cross-cutting themes covered. Multiagency meetings within the authority are now commonplace. All partners are committed to following the GIRFEC process through these. Relationships between agencies have increased which has allowed for greater continuity and joined up working. However there were others in the public sector that were less positive about how clear their roles were: All partners are not clear about their role within the partnership. Although all are effective leaders within their own services it may still be unclear as to how they move forward as a strong collaborative partnership where roles are mutually agreed and decisions easily taken on behalf of other services. From a front line position, there is still a degree of ambiguity around agency responsibility and role which can result in duplication or failure to address specific areas.

6 And for third sector partners there were some specific concerns over roles and responsibilities, A weakness is the lack of clear roles and responsibilities for each partner although this works reasonably well informally. There is a need for more clarity of role and responsibility, clearer understanding of each other s roles through which barriers such as service/sector specific language and culture can be reduced. Taking Informed, transparent decisions, managing risk and exercising control The project was interested in whether there were appropriate structures and processes in place to support effective decision making in partnerships. When asked about the structures and decision making processes the majority of responses were positive with 72% of public sector participants agreeing that there were appropriate structures for decision making with 52% of third sector participants also in agreement. The comments associated with this issue confirm that positive view, initially related to the community planning process, however this confidence extends to decision making around GIRFEC: Multiagency meetings within the authority are now commonplace. All partners are committed to following the GIRFEC process. Clear partnership structures are in place for gathering intelligence, reporting themes/issues, enabling partnerships discussions and in making decisions/agreeing action. There are regular partnership meetings ensuring clarity and direction of services. Having an effective system to deal with conflict is central to effective partnership working and a key element of good governance. The project survey asked participants to consider if all partners had agreed to a conflict resolution mechanism. In this instance the lack of knowledge was not specific only to the third sector but included public sector participants as well. The responses here suggest significant uncertainty with 69% of third sector and 58% of public sector not knowing if there had been agreement on a

7 mechanism. Partnerships are expected to work together. However should there be disagreement, evidence from the areas taking part in the project suggests that a limited number would know what to do about resolving a dispute. Comments from participants ranged from recognising that more work is required in relation to conflict resolution and that there was a need to ensure that organisations know about conflict resolution mechanisms to those that were "unaware of the conflict resolution methods agreed. Another key part of partnership working requires partners to recognise and manage risk. The project was interested in finding out whether partnerships had effective mechanisms for managing collective risks which are regularly reviewed. Over half (52%) of third sector participants and 38% of public sector participants were unaware of mechanisms for managing risk. It should be noted that health participants were much more positive with 58% believing that there was an effective mechanism as one respondent said Our service links with key partners and has a protocol to manage risk or potential risk as this arises. Only 30% of local authority participants and 26% of third sector participants felt there were effective mechanisms in place for managing risk. The Steering Group has a risk strategy but it is overarching and not directly related to the work of those who implement GIRFEC - there may be other risk strategies but I'm not aware of them which is an issue in itself. (Third Sector) GIRFEC is in development and the main partner agencies are involved and committed (i.e. Social Policy, Education and NHSL). However, there is much more work needed to be done to address the issue of common aims and the management of collective risk. (Public Sector) Developing capacity and capability of the group (partnership) so that it is effective The strength and sustainability of any partnership will be defined by its effectiveness in delivering its vision or purpose. That in turn will be delivered through its members ability to develop their capacity and capability to competently address their roles and responsibilities, in this case children s services planning. Although the survey did not specifically seek views about this topic there was significant opinions expressed in the across the areas to provide

8 some insight into the partners overall capability to be effective partners. As before there was a clear split between the statutory and voluntary sectors, the former were overwhelmingly content with their capacity to contribute effectively and indeed drive the partnership forward. The third sector partners have a spectrum of quite differing views that suggest they are experiencing a quite complex landscape. In the first instance there are those who find that capacity is the most significant challenge for the third sector with some organisations, like the Third Sector Interface (TSI), being asked to take on a representative role for all issues and services. The TSI does have a remit to ensure third sector representation however it often does not have the physical capacity or the underpinning knowledge to speak expertly on behalf of the whole sector. Other organisations that have the knowledge may not have the staff to attend the required meeting schedules. Third sector reps find it difficult to represent the whole sector and it is the same 2 or 3 who attempt to attend meetings which is not feasible. Again others recognise the need to have appropriately trained and knowledgeable people acting as independent representatives. We need to ensure that those representing the third sector in the partnership have an understanding of and can represent the views of the smaller third sector organisations as the voices of their service users will be lost or they will not be aware of changes. Some organisations feel that they are not been given the opportunity to step up and demonstrate their capability because of resistance on the part of some statutory agencies, I have experienced some resistance from statutory organisations middle managers towards the third sector as they believe their staff are the only ones who have the knowledge, skills and experience. I feel there is pressure on us to align ourselves with the way the statutory sector is working rather than there being recognition of what we can bring that would complement the great work that is

9 being done in the statutory sector, we have very different strengths and I am not sure that this is always appreciated. There are those who want to contribute but feel that they are not getting an opportunity: Only a handful of third sector organisations have been invited to be involved with the GIRFEC Partnership there has not been wide consultation with smaller voluntary sector. Involving stakeholders and being accountable To ensure that children s service planning is effective there is a need to ensure that the right people are involved in decision making, ensuring continuity that decisions are carried through and that partners are held to account. The project was keen to ascertain whether this was the case in partnership areas. Almost 60% of participants in the public sector agreed that their partnership has the right people involved and made very confident comments to support that point of view; Through the strategic structure here, there is clear accountability to the appropriate higher strategic partnerships. We have strong voluntary sector representation at every level across the partnership from strategic planning groups through to practice development. This extends all the way through the development of the full range of services for children and families (not just GIRFEC). Only one third of participants from the third sector felt that the right people were involved. In addition 39% did not know if those involved in decision making were the right people. Their comments clearly reflect their uncertainty over their own accountability and in some cases that of their partners; Accountability will be easier when there are clear priorities and actions aligned to specific groups and robust reporting mechanism acceptable to all partners (or as many as possible). From a front line position, there is still a degree of ambiguity around agency responsibility and role which can result in duplication

10 or failure to address specific areas. Issues with accountability remain. The importance of integrity Integrity is recognised as a central element of good governance. Although evidence gathering in local areas did not focus on integrity as it relates to partnership working there were a number of observations and comments made from all the areas which highlighted how the various partners felt about how they are viewed and treated. The third sector partners have a consistent view of their role within the partnerships which seems to emphasise their feeling of not being treated as equal partners. This feeling of inequality was reflected in a number of comments: The third sector work towards implementing GIRFEC principles in many ways although this doesn't appear to be directly linked to the GIRFEC partnership which has been very distant and there are no representatives of at any of the 3rd sector strategic meetings. A common theme was that representation for third sector organisations was often tokenistic The third sector is mostly outside of statutory agencies' approach to GIRFEC and whilst they may be represented at the governance level, this results in it being a tokenistic approach. Even within public sector agencies/departments it appears that there is still much to be done. There needs to be an agreement to establish an openness and transparency, whilst acknowledging that there are limitations to this. It would be more effective if the third Sector was seen as having as strong and equal a voice as other agencies. The accountability of the third sector needs to be clarified too. One participant had a plea Bring the third sector 'in' to the fold! As stated previously, get the right people at the table... Comments from the public sector are of a much more positive nature but recognise that their partnership is a work in progress. They also acknowledge the important role that the third sector can

11 play in the process but need to support and understand them better. It would be useful to have more and more effective third sector engagement in community planning and options are currently being considered to expand the membership to improve that. There is limited involvement from the third sector in the different levels of the governance structure and it is unclear how the TSI can represent the diverse sector within this structure. There needs to be better understanding of their role in the CPP. We need to look at how the third sector is represented in all levels of the governance structure to ensure individuals that are empowered and able to advance key issues are involved. Discussion All of the information above is drawn from recent engagement with practitioners who are involved in the design and delivery of children s services across Scotland. It gives a snapshot of a varied landscape particularly in relation to the governance of existing partnerships. There are examples of where governance arrangements are working well with both public and third sectors working closely together. There are however a number of examples of where there is uncertainty and a distinct lack of clarity in relation to the governance of partnerships. It was apparent that there was uncertainty at the most basic level. The crucial building blocks for effective partnership are being clear about the purpose of the partnership and the individual and organisational roles within it. This uncertainty and lack of clarity will affect how a partnership operates. It was notable that participants from the third sector had the poorest understanding of purpose, as well as being the partner with the least clear view of their roles and responsibilities within the partnership. In addition there are further issues around the nature and quality of the relationships. Again it is the third sector that has the main concerns about their status as an equal partner and their capacity to deliver for the partnership.

12 It is notable that in two of the key elements associated with good governance - conflict resolution and risk management - that there was a lack of awareness in both the statutory and third sectors over how these were managed. Whilst this is only a snapshot of the findings from the locality work of the project the strong themes and issues to emerge need to be taken into account by policy makers at the local and national level. Understanding the reasons why these issues have arisen is important. One of the reason s may be that the responsibility to produce children s service plans has traditionally lain with the statutory bodies, who would design and deliver services in their area without having to involve any other organisations. The introduction of community planning over the past decade together with the requirement to work in partnership began a transformation in the delivery of public services. One way this was demonstrated was in the formation of themed sub groups under a community planning partnership board. The group would have representation from a number of other organisations who would be delivering children s services. It is possible that as the process of transforming from one method of working generally autonomously to working in partnership with a wide range of different partners there may have been an assumption that the processes of governance were understood. What is clear from the results though is that the third sector frequently expresses a view that they often do not know what is happening or feel unable to contribute. Therefore in order to ensure that all partners feel they can make a positive and fair contribution to the process it is important that the issues identified by the project are addressed. The responsibility may lie initially with those statutory organisations tasked with drawing up the children s service plan as they consider the wider landscape of children s service providers and need to restate their commitment to good governance as expressed in the document Delivering Good Governance in Local Government. There is also an onus on those in the third sector who would expect to be consulted or involved to make sure that they are aware of their own responsibilities in relationship to being a good partner particularly when considering governance issues.

13 Given the changes in the preparation of Children s Services Plans and impending requirements of greater community involvement in public service delivery through the Community Empowerment Act the need to give a clear strong message is imperative. However as it stands the findings from the demonstration areas suggest that, although some areas are making progress, there remains a significant amount of work to be done to ensure that governance in Children s Services Partnerships is fully fit for the purpose of good partnership working. This is one of a series of snapshot papers taking the learning from the National Third Sector GIRFEC project to highlight the project findings around the involvement of the third sector in the delivery of children services and related issues.