Meeting documents

Apologies for absence were received from John Cartwright, Julia Clarke, Michael Hunt, Sue Imbriano, Sam Knollys, Rita Lally, David Rowlands, Warren Whyte, Chris Williams.

The following were in attendance as substitutes:

Tracey Aldworth for John Cartwright

Paul O’Hare for Michael Hunt

Kingsley Grimble for Sam Knollys

David Schofield for David Rowlands

There were no declarations of interest.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 29 July 2009 were agreed and signed as a correct record.

The Board received the Update Report from the BSP Implementation Group (BSPIG).

Jackie Fisk, Policy Officer, told Members the following:

·         The feedback from the Audit Commission showed a good picture overall. Some areas had been highlighted as being points of focus in the next year, and these were listed under point 2.

·         Points 3 and 4 covered the Improvement Programme.

·         The Sustainable Community Strategies were now going through various organisations and the planned date for publication was October 2009.

·         LAA Performance was largely on track. BSPIG had delegated authority over the LAA pooled fund and details of this were shown in the Appendix.

·         Economic Assessment – this was expected to become a statutory duty in the following year – more information would be brought to the Board as this developed.

·         Update on Tackling Disadvantage Partnership Programme: Trevor Boyd (Head of Commissioning and Service Improvement, Adults and Family Wellbeing, Buckinghamshire County Council) will update the Board on the work of the Programme, and ask the Board to comment on the scope of its work and the strategic approach proposed for tackling disadvantage in its widest sense across Buckinghamshire.

·         Feedback on consultation with seldom-heard groups: Trevor Millard and Alison Bond, Halo Works, will discuss with the Board the findings of the consultation with seldom-heard groups undertaken as part of the Sustainable Community Strategies development.

Trevor Boyd (Head of Commissioning and Service Improvement, Adults and Family Wellbeing) gave a presentation on the Tackling Disadvantage Partnership Programme.

During the presentation, Trevor Boyd made the following points:

·         Tackling disadvantage in Buckinghamshire was a priority in the Sustainable Communities Strategies and in the Local Area Agreement (LAA).

·         Eight neighbourhoods in Buckinghamshire fell into the lowest 30% of deprivation nationally. Four localities had been defined which covered these eight areas (Oakridge and Castlefield, Disraeli, Quarrendon and Southcourt). Projects were being carried out in these areas to tackle disadvantage, and this was monitored by a Programme Board. The aim was to engage a community organisation or local residents to take ownership of work carried out.

·         There was no single cause for deprivation, and the best approach was a partnership approach, as the causes were multi-faceted.

·         Tackling disadvantage should be about empowering and raising aspirations, rather than developing dependency. A Partnership Programme had been set up to tackle the problem of disadvantage in Buckinghamshire. The programme had two workstreams, the first of which included a Community-led approach; the creation of a Vulnerable Localities Index (being produced by the Fire and Rescue Service); and a Childhood Poverty Programme (which would be linked to the work of the Children’s Trust).

Members then asked questions, and these are summarised below.

You mentioned a Community-led approach – do you include local Councillors (County, District and Parish)?

Yes – this is crucial to the work. We have already engaged with Local Members and we will continue to do so.

Can you give more details about the projects being carried out in the four identified areas?

Examples of short-term projects: Providing an Adaction Outreach Worker; providing an additional Youth Worker to the Youth Offending Service for the Oakridge and Castlefield area; Community Fun days.

Examples of medium-term and long-term projects: Play activity; Cardio-vascular screening programmes; addressing take-up of quality childcare places.

Not all the above are new schemes, - some of the work is about intensifying existing schemes.

By the next meeting of the Programme Board local indicators need to be defined for the four identified areas, as well as National Indicators. This will be discussed with the High Wycombe Local Community Partnership.

Are there examples of areas which have moved out of disadvantage?

Some Unitary Councils in the Midlands have done this, such as Coventry City Council. However they had large financial investments, which we do not have. The challenge is to unlock investment already made, in a creative way. There is not much new funding available.

Is there an approach which is transferrable through different communities?

Acorn data is being used to break down information almost by individual streets. However this is a test approach.

Trevor Millard and Alison Bond (Halo Works) then gave a presentation on the feedback from consultation with seldom-heard groups.

During the presentation, the following points were made:

·         By their very nature, seldom-heard groups were difficult to reach for consultations.

·         The Sustainable Community Strategies were the theme of the Consultation. The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Looking back over the Board’s first year, Members will review, with the BSP Implementation Group, its ways of working and governance arrangements. This session will be facilitated by Robin Douglas, Leadership Centre for Local Government, who will be framing the session around the questions set out in the attached Audit Commission ‘Working Better Together? – self-assessment questions – improving partnership working’ tool.

Robin Douglas (Leadership Centre for Local Government), facilitated this session, and asked Members to discuss and provide answers to the following questions:

·         The BSP Board one year on – how has it done (where are we now)?

·         What should be improved?

The answers provided by Members are noted below.

The BSP Board one year on – how has it done (where are we now)?

·         The Board is an important place for significant players in Buckinghamshire to come together.

·         Members have learnt a lot, which has been cascaded to others.

·         Resourcing and supporting the Partnership is a real challenge.

·         There is greater shared ownership.

·         It is a thoughtful, slow Committee.

·         Complex – be realistic.

·         Not doing detailed work.

·         Totality of business is not on the table.

·         Too early to be too critical or decisive. Difficult to say yet what difference the Board has made.

·         The Board would be missed if it was not here – good interactions and relationships.

·         Link between the Board and BSPIG – is the Board providing a great enough steer?

·         There is a disconnection between the Board and the Implementation Group.

·         Need to consider value for money for the taxpayer.

·         Not all County business goes through the BSP Board and its structures – already other structures in place (e.g. CADEX).

What should be improved?

·         More bite needed – e.g. the creation of a joint venture company with delegated powers.

·         Robust discussions take place on individual tables – this needs to be reproduced in the full Committee.

·         Agenda to be planned in advance – how can Board members steer it?

·         What are the ‘big alarm bells’ we need to think about? Critical issues need to be identified.

·         More time on agenda to be spent on Implementation Group Report – more detailed look at each strand on a regular basis.

·         Making space for creative discussions – statutory functions might crowd this out.

·         Balance between ‘ideas development’ and ‘policy oversight.’

·         Thematic leadership – ‘emotional’ commitment to key priorities.

·         Forward plan should be agreed and understood, and be more formal. Board needs to own the Programme.

·         Better feed into the Board of key decisions which have been taken (a ‘health check’ role).

·         More active steer to BSPIG.

·         Ask Thematic Partnerships for an achievable idea/aim and work to achieve it.

·         Where do we publish what is delivered by the partnership?

·         Focus resources on delivering successes.

·         Only full Board Members should be in attendance at meeting (i.e. the decision-makers).

Robin Douglas also distributed the findings of his investigations prior to the meeting (attached), and said that most of the comments were in regard to purpose, rather than process.

28 January 2010, 2:30pm, venue tbc

28 January 2010, 2:30pm, Chartridge Conference Centre, Chartridge Lane
Chesham, HP5 2TU

4 May 2010, 2:30pm, Uplands Conference Centre, Four Ashes Road

Cryers Hill, High Wycombe, HP15 6LB

13 July 2010, 2:30pm, Main Hall 1, Green Park Training & Conference Centre, Stablebridge Road, Aston Clinton, HP22 5NE