http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/ Fri, 24 May 2013 20:39:58 +0000 MyBB http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=1154 Fri, 17 May 2013 14:23:32 +0000 http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=1154
What is the situation in your authority - are you politically balanced on the Board or not?

Would very much appreciate some information on this matter.

Thanks]]>
What is the situation in your authority - are you politically balanced on the Board or not?

Would very much appreciate some information on this matter.

Thanks]]> http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=1153 Fri, 17 May 2013 08:53:41 +0000 http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=1153
We said that we would carry out a draw of all those providing a response to the survey, and that one lucky person would win a free place at our Annual Conference. Second prize is two free places at our Annual Conference. The old joke.

Anyway the winner was James Povey from Bucks CC.]]>
We said that we would carry out a draw of all those providing a response to the survey, and that one lucky person would win a free place at our Annual Conference. Second prize is two free places at our Annual Conference. The old joke.

Anyway the winner was James Povey from Bucks CC.]]> http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=1152 Thu, 16 May 2013 09:53:47 +0000 http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=1152
The 15 shortlisted are:

Innovation
• Maldon District Council – Scrutiny of Staff Survey 2011 results
• Medway Council – Fair access to credit
• Stoke-on-Trent City Council – Inclusive and transparent involvement

Involving communities
• London Borough of Hackney – Access to services for young disabled people
• London Borough of Haringey – Downhills ward
• Tunbridge Wells Borough Council – ‘Any bin will do’: Tackling dog fouling in Southborough

Raising the profile
• Boston Borough Council – Social impact of population change in Boston
• Westminster City Council – Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust reporting break
• Yorkshire and Humber JHOSC – Review of children’s congenital cardiac services

Transforming services
• Northampton Borough Council – Management of community centres
• South Somerset District Council – Council tax reduction: a local scheme
• Suffolk County Council – Creation of a new heritage organisation for Suffolk

Working together
• London Borough of Haringey – Getting to the heart of the matter
• Telford and Wrekin – Scrutiny of welfare benefit reforms
• South Somerset District Council – Somerset Flood Summit 2013

The entries were shortlisted by an expert panel of judges made up of:

• Baroness Sally Hamwee, House of Lords and CfPS Advisory Board
• Jennette Arnold OBE, London Assembly and CfPS Advisory Board
• David Brindle, Public Services Editor, The Guardian
• Cllr Peter Fleming, Chair of LGA Improvement Board and Leader of Sevenoaks District Council
• Catherine Howe, Chief Executive, Public-i

The 2013 awards showcase best practice, innovation, positive outcomes and added value in public services, through the work of non-executives in the public sector and the role they play in representing and supporting local people.

Jessica Crowe, Executive Director, CfPS says: “These tough times call for inspired and innovative scrutiny and our awards highlight the difference this is making in local communities up and down the country. The shortlisted entries reiterate the importance of scrutiny in facing the biggest challenges head on with ambition to make the biggest impact possible, often with little resource. We were pleased to see so many entries that proved that scrutiny is at its best when connecting with the main challenges communities face, and involving those communities to create better outcomes for local people.”

Baroness Sally Hamwee, Chair of the Good Scrutiny Awards judging panel says:
“Once again we were hugely impressed by the energy and enthusiasm presented in the entries. They show the continued importance of scrutiny during a time of major change in local government, showcasing creative solutions to the big issues, such as welfare and benefit reforms, that local communities face. Clearly scrutiny is increasingly appreciated by executives working co-operatively with scrutineers, and scrutineers are seizing opportunities to anticipate issues, as well as reacting to them. I look forward to celebrating with the shortlisted authorities on 11 June.”

Winners, including one overall winner from across the 15 shortlisted entries and one scrutineers’ choice winner chosen on the day by delegates, will be announced at the awards ceremony to be held at CfPS 2013: Decide, Design, Deliver – accountable policies, services and outcomes on the evening of 11 June at Local Government House.]]>
The 15 shortlisted are:

Innovation
• Maldon District Council – Scrutiny of Staff Survey 2011 results
• Medway Council – Fair access to credit
• Stoke-on-Trent City Council – Inclusive and transparent involvement

Involving communities
• London Borough of Hackney – Access to services for young disabled people
• London Borough of Haringey – Downhills ward
• Tunbridge Wells Borough Council – ‘Any bin will do’: Tackling dog fouling in Southborough

Raising the profile
• Boston Borough Council – Social impact of population change in Boston
• Westminster City Council – Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust reporting break
• Yorkshire and Humber JHOSC – Review of children’s congenital cardiac services

Transforming services
• Northampton Borough Council – Management of community centres
• South Somerset District Council – Council tax reduction: a local scheme
• Suffolk County Council – Creation of a new heritage organisation for Suffolk

Working together
• London Borough of Haringey – Getting to the heart of the matter
• Telford and Wrekin – Scrutiny of welfare benefit reforms
• South Somerset District Council – Somerset Flood Summit 2013

The entries were shortlisted by an expert panel of judges made up of:

• Baroness Sally Hamwee, House of Lords and CfPS Advisory Board
• Jennette Arnold OBE, London Assembly and CfPS Advisory Board
• David Brindle, Public Services Editor, The Guardian
• Cllr Peter Fleming, Chair of LGA Improvement Board and Leader of Sevenoaks District Council
• Catherine Howe, Chief Executive, Public-i

The 2013 awards showcase best practice, innovation, positive outcomes and added value in public services, through the work of non-executives in the public sector and the role they play in representing and supporting local people.

Jessica Crowe, Executive Director, CfPS says: “These tough times call for inspired and innovative scrutiny and our awards highlight the difference this is making in local communities up and down the country. The shortlisted entries reiterate the importance of scrutiny in facing the biggest challenges head on with ambition to make the biggest impact possible, often with little resource. We were pleased to see so many entries that proved that scrutiny is at its best when connecting with the main challenges communities face, and involving those communities to create better outcomes for local people.”

Baroness Sally Hamwee, Chair of the Good Scrutiny Awards judging panel says:
“Once again we were hugely impressed by the energy and enthusiasm presented in the entries. They show the continued importance of scrutiny during a time of major change in local government, showcasing creative solutions to the big issues, such as welfare and benefit reforms, that local communities face. Clearly scrutiny is increasingly appreciated by executives working co-operatively with scrutineers, and scrutineers are seizing opportunities to anticipate issues, as well as reacting to them. I look forward to celebrating with the shortlisted authorities on 11 June.”

Winners, including one overall winner from across the 15 shortlisted entries and one scrutineers’ choice winner chosen on the day by delegates, will be announced at the awards ceremony to be held at CfPS 2013: Decide, Design, Deliver – accountable policies, services and outcomes on the evening of 11 June at Local Government House.]]> http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=1151 Wed, 15 May 2013 08:12:35 +0000 http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=1151 Councils have used the Centre for Public Scrutiny’s ‘return on investment’ model to predict savings to taxpayers worth over £1.6 million. Westminster City Council’s scrutiny review about violence against by sex workers identified potential savings up to £1.2 million through early intervention to protect vulnerable women.

In London, Newham’s review explored the impact of commissioning better multi-agency services to address health inequalities experienced by sex workers. If the review recommendations are implemented potential savings could total £0.5 million.

Warrington Borough Council identified a group they called the ‘new homeless’ - working families where parents are being made redundant, losing their homes and suffering ill health – and predicted savings of £17,000 for each family helped to stay in their home.

Also in London, Southwark’s scrutiny review explored the impact of improving access to maternal health and early year’s services for local Gypsy and Traveller mothers, babies and young children. The review identified that there were potential savings of £20,930 from implementing its recommendations.

The model developed by CfPS (as part of its support for council scrutiny funded by the Department of Health) takes the ‘return on investment’ concept from the world of economics, business and commerce and applies it to council scrutiny of health and wellbeing.

These, and two other examples of the model in action, are published today (15 May 2013) in the CfPS report: Valuing inclusion – demonstrating the value of scrutiny in tackling inequalities. The six pilots demonstrate savings available to taxpayers if recommendations from council scrutiny about services for the homeless, gypsies and travellers and sex workers are accepted.

Anna Soubry MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Public Health says:
“I am encouraged by the Centre’s continued efforts to improve health and tackle health inequalities. Given today’s challenging financial situation we all need to ensure funding is invested to best effect and to identify where cost savings can be found. CfPS’s latest publication effectively demonstrates the value that scrutiny is bringing to reducing health inequalities, particularly for those vulnerable to the poorest health, and identifies potential financial savings.

“At the time when local government is taking over the leadership of Public Health, this publication shows how scrutiny can play a vital role in helping to find ways to take a council wide approach to improving the health of communities and reducing inequalities.”

Tim Gilling, Deputy Executive Director, CfPS, says:
“These reviews demonstrate real value, challenging the myth that scrutiny is unnecessary red-tape. Our support has helped councils predict savings for taxpayers, presenting a strong case to those in power to implement their recommendations. We urge councils and partner agencies to take the results from the pilots on board and resource scrutiny well, to use the function to tackle inequalities and to be ambitious about the return on investment they can achieve for their residents.”

Ends
For more information call Dushana Pinfield on 020 7187 7363.

Notes to Editors
1. The Centre for Public Scrutiny is an independent charity, focused on ideas, thinking and the application and development of policy and practice for accountable public services. CfPS believes that accountability, transparency and involvement are strong principles that protect the public interest. We publish research and practical guides, provide training and leadership development, support on-line and off-line networks, and facilitate shared learning and innovation.

2. Valuing inclusion – demonstrating the value of scrutiny in tackling inequalities can be downloaded from the CfPS website.

3. The CfPS Health Inequalities Scrutiny Programme supported six pilots: Adur District Council and Worthing Borough Council and Warrington Borough Council (homelessness and rough sleeping); South Somerset District Council and London Borough of Southwark (Gypsies and Travellers); London Borough of Newham and London Borough of Westminster (sex workers)]]> Councils have used the Centre for Public Scrutiny’s ‘return on investment’ model to predict savings to taxpayers worth over £1.6 million. Westminster City Council’s scrutiny review about violence against by sex workers identified potential savings up to £1.2 million through early intervention to protect vulnerable women.

In London, Newham’s review explored the impact of commissioning better multi-agency services to address health inequalities experienced by sex workers. If the review recommendations are implemented potential savings could total £0.5 million.

Warrington Borough Council identified a group they called the ‘new homeless’ - working families where parents are being made redundant, losing their homes and suffering ill health – and predicted savings of £17,000 for each family helped to stay in their home.

Also in London, Southwark’s scrutiny review explored the impact of improving access to maternal health and early year’s services for local Gypsy and Traveller mothers, babies and young children. The review identified that there were potential savings of £20,930 from implementing its recommendations.

The model developed by CfPS (as part of its support for council scrutiny funded by the Department of Health) takes the ‘return on investment’ concept from the world of economics, business and commerce and applies it to council scrutiny of health and wellbeing.

These, and two other examples of the model in action, are published today (15 May 2013) in the CfPS report: Valuing inclusion – demonstrating the value of scrutiny in tackling inequalities. The six pilots demonstrate savings available to taxpayers if recommendations from council scrutiny about services for the homeless, gypsies and travellers and sex workers are accepted.

Anna Soubry MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Public Health says:
“I am encouraged by the Centre’s continued efforts to improve health and tackle health inequalities. Given today’s challenging financial situation we all need to ensure funding is invested to best effect and to identify where cost savings can be found. CfPS’s latest publication effectively demonstrates the value that scrutiny is bringing to reducing health inequalities, particularly for those vulnerable to the poorest health, and identifies potential financial savings.

“At the time when local government is taking over the leadership of Public Health, this publication shows how scrutiny can play a vital role in helping to find ways to take a council wide approach to improving the health of communities and reducing inequalities.”

Tim Gilling, Deputy Executive Director, CfPS, says:
“These reviews demonstrate real value, challenging the myth that scrutiny is unnecessary red-tape. Our support has helped councils predict savings for taxpayers, presenting a strong case to those in power to implement their recommendations. We urge councils and partner agencies to take the results from the pilots on board and resource scrutiny well, to use the function to tackle inequalities and to be ambitious about the return on investment they can achieve for their residents.”

Ends
For more information call Dushana Pinfield on 020 7187 7363.

Notes to Editors
1. The Centre for Public Scrutiny is an independent charity, focused on ideas, thinking and the application and development of policy and practice for accountable public services. CfPS believes that accountability, transparency and involvement are strong principles that protect the public interest. We publish research and practical guides, provide training and leadership development, support on-line and off-line networks, and facilitate shared learning and innovation.

2. Valuing inclusion – demonstrating the value of scrutiny in tackling inequalities can be downloaded from the CfPS website.

3. The CfPS Health Inequalities Scrutiny Programme supported six pilots: Adur District Council and Worthing Borough Council and Warrington Borough Council (homelessness and rough sleeping); South Somerset District Council and London Borough of Southwark (Gypsies and Travellers); London Borough of Newham and London Borough of Westminster (sex workers)]]> http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=1150 Tue, 14 May 2013 13:25:26 +0000 http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=1150
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/natio...ocial-care

Is anybody up for including council scrutiny in a bid?]]>
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/natio...ocial-care

Is anybody up for including council scrutiny in a bid?]]> http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=1149 Thu, 09 May 2013 14:28:20 +0000 http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=1149
Catherine Howe, Chief Executive, Public-i
Getting re-energised – creative approaches & networked councillors (day two)

Mark Burns-Williamson, Police & Crime Commissioner, West Yorkshire
Are Police & Crime Commissioners delivering public accountability in policing? (day one)

Ian Hickman, Associate Controller, Information & Analysis, Audit Commission
Improving schools through effective local accountability (day one)

Katie Smith, Head of Scrutiny & Investigations, London Assembly
How Police & Crime Panels can both scrutinise and support Police & Crime Commissioners (day one)

View all confirmed speakers here.

‘Decide, Design, Deliver: accountable policies, services and outcomes' takes place on 11-12 June 2013 at Local Government House, Westminster. The conference will shed light on the impact of the reforms and how scrutiny and accountability can help the delivery of effective and responsive public services. Come to meet colleagues, share experiences and find out how others are navigating through the spectrum of reforms, rising public demand and major financial restrictions.

With good governance and accountability needed now more than ever, this is the must attend event for all those who plan, deliver or use public services.

Book your place today]]>
Catherine Howe, Chief Executive, Public-i
Getting re-energised – creative approaches & networked councillors (day two)

Mark Burns-Williamson, Police & Crime Commissioner, West Yorkshire
Are Police & Crime Commissioners delivering public accountability in policing? (day one)

Ian Hickman, Associate Controller, Information & Analysis, Audit Commission
Improving schools through effective local accountability (day one)

Katie Smith, Head of Scrutiny & Investigations, London Assembly
How Police & Crime Panels can both scrutinise and support Police & Crime Commissioners (day one)

View all confirmed speakers here.

‘Decide, Design, Deliver: accountable policies, services and outcomes' takes place on 11-12 June 2013 at Local Government House, Westminster. The conference will shed light on the impact of the reforms and how scrutiny and accountability can help the delivery of effective and responsive public services. Come to meet colleagues, share experiences and find out how others are navigating through the spectrum of reforms, rising public demand and major financial restrictions.

With good governance and accountability needed now more than ever, this is the must attend event for all those who plan, deliver or use public services.

Book your place today]]> http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=1147 Fri, 26 Apr 2013 15:26:30 +0000 http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=1147
Thanks]]>
Thanks]]> http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=1146 Fri, 26 Apr 2013 13:12:37 +0000 http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=1146 http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=1145 Thu, 25 Apr 2013 16:45:34 +0000 http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=1145
These will be supplemented, in mid / late May, with rewrites of the Good Scrutiny Guide and the Members' Guide to Scrutiny.

The aim of our practice guides will be to provide pithy, relevant and practical assistance on common scrutiny issues. Our experience has been that the same queries keep coming to us again and again - questions about call-in, co-option, writing effective recommendations, particular powers over partners - and while a lot of this stuff is covered in a number of our publications from over the years, we think there is a need to bring this all together, and bring it up to date.

The guides will not present a doctrinaire approach to what good scrutiny might arbitrarily look like but will explore some of the common approaches that councils have taken towards tackling issues and problems - providing you with the information that you will need to do so in your own authorities.

I am drawing together a topic list at the moment but if there are any practical matters that you think that this series needs to consider get in touch.

Each guide will be reproduced on the web on separate pages, with hyperlinks in the text to take you to other places on our site, and elsewhere, for more information (very web 1.0 of us). The electronic versions will be continually(ish) updated as councils come to us with their views on these issues, and as we provide assistance to councils in the form of workshops, seminars and so on. The paper versions will be updated about once a year.

This is supplementary to our existing, and continuing, series of policy briefings, publication of which will recommence next week after an admittedly rather long hiatus.]]>
These will be supplemented, in mid / late May, with rewrites of the Good Scrutiny Guide and the Members' Guide to Scrutiny.

The aim of our practice guides will be to provide pithy, relevant and practical assistance on common scrutiny issues. Our experience has been that the same queries keep coming to us again and again - questions about call-in, co-option, writing effective recommendations, particular powers over partners - and while a lot of this stuff is covered in a number of our publications from over the years, we think there is a need to bring this all together, and bring it up to date.

The guides will not present a doctrinaire approach to what good scrutiny might arbitrarily look like but will explore some of the common approaches that councils have taken towards tackling issues and problems - providing you with the information that you will need to do so in your own authorities.

I am drawing together a topic list at the moment but if there are any practical matters that you think that this series needs to consider get in touch.

Each guide will be reproduced on the web on separate pages, with hyperlinks in the text to take you to other places on our site, and elsewhere, for more information (very web 1.0 of us). The electronic versions will be continually(ish) updated as councils come to us with their views on these issues, and as we provide assistance to councils in the form of workshops, seminars and so on. The paper versions will be updated about once a year.

This is supplementary to our existing, and continuing, series of policy briefings, publication of which will recommence next week after an admittedly rather long hiatus.]]> http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=1144 Thu, 25 Apr 2013 15:12:51 +0000 http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=1144 Measles; Frequently asked questions - Briefing for councillors

CfPS is also planning to update its 10 questions guide on scrutinising local immunisation services, written by by leading immunisation experts and produced in partnership with Sanofi Pasteur MSD to relect changes to the public health landscape and this will be available soon, in the meantime you can download 10 questions to ask if you are scrutinising local immunisation services here]]> Measles; Frequently asked questions - Briefing for councillors

CfPS is also planning to update its 10 questions guide on scrutinising local immunisation services, written by by leading immunisation experts and produced in partnership with Sanofi Pasteur MSD to relect changes to the public health landscape and this will be available soon, in the meantime you can download 10 questions to ask if you are scrutinising local immunisation services here]]> http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=1143 Mon, 22 Apr 2013 13:15:23 +0000 http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=1143 Good scrutiny - award winner's review continuing to have an impact
[this article by Jessica Crowe originally appeared in the Municipal Journal in March 2013]

When scrutiny sceptics ask me, “Where are the good examples of scrutiny? What can scrutiny actually do?”, my response is to reach for our latest edition of Successful Scrutiny. Packed with the winners and runners-up from the Centre for Public Scrutiny’s annual Good Scrutiny Awards, this provides compelling evidence of the difference that active, engaged, creative overview and scrutiny members and officers are making in local communities up and down the land. As entries are now open for the 2013 Good Scrutiny Awards, it seemed timely to revisit one of last year’s winners – Cardiff City Council – to ask what had happened one year on: was their major review of Cardiff’s night time economy still having an impact?

Cardiff won the Scrutineers’ Choice award for their review, an attempt to fully evaluate the economic impact and management of Cardiff’s growing night time economy. Its particular priority was to gather and assess the breadth and depth of the public’s views on this often divisive issue, which the review did to stunning effect. Using internet and social media, an online questionnaire, local radio debates and close press liaison, they had nearly 3000 public responses and a week’s consistent coverage of the review’s findings by the South Wales Echo.

As a result of the review, city partners are together developing a night time economy strategy, the licensing policy was amended with the addition of two new Saturation Areas, and the way the local press report night time economy stories changed, following the review’s analysis of a monetary value for the night time economy’s contribution to the city’s economy overall. One year on and the impacts are still being felt. Operation Mistletoe – the key practical outcome of the review’s recommendation for more joined-up enforcement and management of the night time economy – has run twice, with extra late night street cleaning, street pastors, a community payback team, portable public conveniences to reduce street urination and joined up enforcement and safety operations involving targeted policing and checks on taxis and licensed premises.

Like all good scrutiny committees, Cardiff continues to monitor the outcomes from their work – not just the changes in policy and activity. Tangible reductions in crime as a result of Operation Mistletoe include:
• 50% reduction in robbery offences
• 17% reduction in public order offences
• 10% reduction in anti-social behaviour incidents
• 273 arrests

In addition, the review’s recommendations led to 200 people being assisted by the street pastors, and the review’s success in using social media to change perceptions and awareness has continued: over 28,000 people followed Operation Mistletoe on Twitter and an astonishing 79,000 people re-tweeted the operation’s tweets.

It is fair to say that Cardiff have traditionally ensured that scrutiny members’ work is properly resourced and given senior officer support. However, Successful Scrutiny and the Good Scrutiny Awards recognise the work of smaller authorities, including District and Borough Councils such as South Cambridgeshire, Adur and Worthing, and Basildon. Reviews by these authorities’ scrutiny committees have saved their councils money, engaged local community groups and improved conditions for their residents through imaginative and tenacious work, all with significantly less resource than other authorities who might say they struggle to get scrutiny to make a difference and can’t justify resources for scrutiny in a time of cuts.

For scrutiny to make a difference and have the kind of impact recognised by our Awards, councils could do worse than follow the principles of another of our winners, Gloucestershire County Council, whose Severn Estuary Commission changed the policy and practice of the Environment Agency in how they consult local communities about flood risk management. Gloucestershire tests any request for a new scrutiny task and finish group against the following questions:

1. Is there public demand / need for the review, giving scrutiny a powerful mandate to demand change from policy-makers and service providers?
2. Is there a genuine opportunity to influence policy and practice, i.e. will recommendations have a chance of making a difference?
3. Is there a clear focus for the review, recognising that going ‘deep and narrow’ can have more impact than ‘broad but shallow’?
4. Have we thought about the most effective format and approach to the review, ensuring it is tailored to the particular subject i.e. not just carrying out all reviews in the County or Town Hall committee room, receiving officer presentations or commenting on cabinet reports?

Only carrying out scrutiny reviews that met these principles might result in less scrutiny (incidentally thereby answering the challenge about resourcing scrutiny in a time of cuts) but it would probably be better scrutiny. It would be more likely to win a Good Scrutiny Award, and – importantly – more likely to have a beneficial impact on local communities. I look forward to some great award entries this year to enable us to populate Successful Scrutiny 2013.]]> Good scrutiny - award winner's review continuing to have an impact
[this article by Jessica Crowe originally appeared in the Municipal Journal in March 2013]

When scrutiny sceptics ask me, “Where are the good examples of scrutiny? What can scrutiny actually do?”, my response is to reach for our latest edition of Successful Scrutiny. Packed with the winners and runners-up from the Centre for Public Scrutiny’s annual Good Scrutiny Awards, this provides compelling evidence of the difference that active, engaged, creative overview and scrutiny members and officers are making in local communities up and down the land. As entries are now open for the 2013 Good Scrutiny Awards, it seemed timely to revisit one of last year’s winners – Cardiff City Council – to ask what had happened one year on: was their major review of Cardiff’s night time economy still having an impact?

Cardiff won the Scrutineers’ Choice award for their review, an attempt to fully evaluate the economic impact and management of Cardiff’s growing night time economy. Its particular priority was to gather and assess the breadth and depth of the public’s views on this often divisive issue, which the review did to stunning effect. Using internet and social media, an online questionnaire, local radio debates and close press liaison, they had nearly 3000 public responses and a week’s consistent coverage of the review’s findings by the South Wales Echo.

As a result of the review, city partners are together developing a night time economy strategy, the licensing policy was amended with the addition of two new Saturation Areas, and the way the local press report night time economy stories changed, following the review’s analysis of a monetary value for the night time economy’s contribution to the city’s economy overall. One year on and the impacts are still being felt. Operation Mistletoe – the key practical outcome of the review’s recommendation for more joined-up enforcement and management of the night time economy – has run twice, with extra late night street cleaning, street pastors, a community payback team, portable public conveniences to reduce street urination and joined up enforcement and safety operations involving targeted policing and checks on taxis and licensed premises.

Like all good scrutiny committees, Cardiff continues to monitor the outcomes from their work – not just the changes in policy and activity. Tangible reductions in crime as a result of Operation Mistletoe include:
• 50% reduction in robbery offences
• 17% reduction in public order offences
• 10% reduction in anti-social behaviour incidents
• 273 arrests

In addition, the review’s recommendations led to 200 people being assisted by the street pastors, and the review’s success in using social media to change perceptions and awareness has continued: over 28,000 people followed Operation Mistletoe on Twitter and an astonishing 79,000 people re-tweeted the operation’s tweets.

It is fair to say that Cardiff have traditionally ensured that scrutiny members’ work is properly resourced and given senior officer support. However, Successful Scrutiny and the Good Scrutiny Awards recognise the work of smaller authorities, including District and Borough Councils such as South Cambridgeshire, Adur and Worthing, and Basildon. Reviews by these authorities’ scrutiny committees have saved their councils money, engaged local community groups and improved conditions for their residents through imaginative and tenacious work, all with significantly less resource than other authorities who might say they struggle to get scrutiny to make a difference and can’t justify resources for scrutiny in a time of cuts.

For scrutiny to make a difference and have the kind of impact recognised by our Awards, councils could do worse than follow the principles of another of our winners, Gloucestershire County Council, whose Severn Estuary Commission changed the policy and practice of the Environment Agency in how they consult local communities about flood risk management. Gloucestershire tests any request for a new scrutiny task and finish group against the following questions:

1. Is there public demand / need for the review, giving scrutiny a powerful mandate to demand change from policy-makers and service providers?
2. Is there a genuine opportunity to influence policy and practice, i.e. will recommendations have a chance of making a difference?
3. Is there a clear focus for the review, recognising that going ‘deep and narrow’ can have more impact than ‘broad but shallow’?
4. Have we thought about the most effective format and approach to the review, ensuring it is tailored to the particular subject i.e. not just carrying out all reviews in the County or Town Hall committee room, receiving officer presentations or commenting on cabinet reports?

Only carrying out scrutiny reviews that met these principles might result in less scrutiny (incidentally thereby answering the challenge about resourcing scrutiny in a time of cuts) but it would probably be better scrutiny. It would be more likely to win a Good Scrutiny Award, and – importantly – more likely to have a beneficial impact on local communities. I look forward to some great award entries this year to enable us to populate Successful Scrutiny 2013.]]> http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=1142 Fri, 19 Apr 2013 16:11:04 +0000 http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=1142
Our Chief Finance Officer wants to give our Performance and Audit Scrutiny Committee authority to approve the annual accounts, up until now it has simply scrutinised them and recommended approval to full Council. We want to cut out the Council stage.

Our Solicitor had a look at the Accounts and Audit regulations and found that it was in order for a Committee to approve them. All fine and dandy.

Now someone else has said, oh but it isn't in the spirit of scrutiny to actually take decisions. But I didn't think there was any rule preventing an overview and scrutiny committee from being given delegated authority to take a decision?

I would be most grateful for thoughts on this, as I have to give a response by Tuesday! Duh Duh DUUUH!

Many thanks

Adriana]]>
Our Chief Finance Officer wants to give our Performance and Audit Scrutiny Committee authority to approve the annual accounts, up until now it has simply scrutinised them and recommended approval to full Council. We want to cut out the Council stage.

Our Solicitor had a look at the Accounts and Audit regulations and found that it was in order for a Committee to approve them. All fine and dandy.

Now someone else has said, oh but it isn't in the spirit of scrutiny to actually take decisions. But I didn't think there was any rule preventing an overview and scrutiny committee from being given delegated authority to take a decision?

I would be most grateful for thoughts on this, as I have to give a response by Tuesday! Duh Duh DUUUH!

Many thanks

Adriana]]> http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=1141 Fri, 19 Apr 2013 08:46:52 +0000 http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=1141
The deadline for responses is close of play on 30 April. We really want every council in England and Wales to submit a full response, which will take you between fifteen and twenty minutes (only one full response is required per authority). We can accept abridged responses – which focus on perceptions of the function and its future – from as many people as wish to submit them. Our thanks go to those who have already submitted responses – 268 individuals from 129 councils at last count.

You can fill in the survey online here or contact Ed Hammond for a Word version. If you prefer you can even give us your responses over the phone.

As an added incentive, all those who fill in the survey, leaving their name, are entered into a draw to win a place at this year’s Annual Conference in June (this is additional to any place(S) at the Conference that you have already bought).]]>
The deadline for responses is close of play on 30 April. We really want every council in England and Wales to submit a full response, which will take you between fifteen and twenty minutes (only one full response is required per authority). We can accept abridged responses – which focus on perceptions of the function and its future – from as many people as wish to submit them. Our thanks go to those who have already submitted responses – 268 individuals from 129 councils at last count.

You can fill in the survey online here or contact Ed Hammond for a Word version. If you prefer you can even give us your responses over the phone.

As an added incentive, all those who fill in the survey, leaving their name, are entered into a draw to win a place at this year’s Annual Conference in June (this is additional to any place(S) at the Conference that you have already bought).]]> http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=1140 Thu, 18 Apr 2013 11:33:12 +0000 http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=1140 Members Scrutiny Leadership Academy will provide practical support and share learning to help you navigate through the new reforms that are having an impact on your communities. Take a look at the programme and book now. It’s not to be missed.

Our members day is part of the CfPS annual conference 11-12 June 2013: Decide, design, deliver – accountable policies, services and outcomes.]]> Members Scrutiny Leadership Academy will provide practical support and share learning to help you navigate through the new reforms that are having an impact on your communities. Take a look at the programme and book now. It’s not to be missed.

Our members day is part of the CfPS annual conference 11-12 June 2013: Decide, design, deliver – accountable policies, services and outcomes.]]> http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=1139 Wed, 17 Apr 2013 11:27:28 +0000 http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=1139
For more information please visit the NHS Specialised Service website]]>
For more information please visit the NHS Specialised Service website]]> http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=1138 Tue, 16 Apr 2013 15:23:02 +0000 http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=1138
We are a district council and have formed a time and task limited panel to consider how the council can work to reduce obesity. We plan to write to key MP's and government offices appealing to them to encourage better marketing and enforcement of supermarkets. What I'm not too sure about is how can district council services work to reduce obesity or encourage residents to buy food more responsibly?

If anyone has experience of carrying out a similar review I would be very grateful to hear from you.

Many thanks
Stacy]]>
We are a district council and have formed a time and task limited panel to consider how the council can work to reduce obesity. We plan to write to key MP's and government offices appealing to them to encourage better marketing and enforcement of supermarkets. What I'm not too sure about is how can district council services work to reduce obesity or encourage residents to buy food more responsibly?

If anyone has experience of carrying out a similar review I would be very grateful to hear from you.

Many thanks
Stacy]]> http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=1137 Tue, 16 Apr 2013 15:17:46 +0000 http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=1137
We will be looking specifically at the in-house grants programme that aims to support community-led activities. We currently offer Revenue grants up to 25% of project costs/£20,000 maximum and Capital grants up to 20% of project costs/£5,000 maximum. Demand has outstripped the budget this year considerably therefore we need to undertake a detailed review of the scheme.

Any advice would be extremely welcomed.
Thank you
Stacy]]>
We will be looking specifically at the in-house grants programme that aims to support community-led activities. We currently offer Revenue grants up to 25% of project costs/£20,000 maximum and Capital grants up to 20% of project costs/£5,000 maximum. Demand has outstripped the budget this year considerably therefore we need to undertake a detailed review of the scheme.

Any advice would be extremely welcomed.
Thank you
Stacy]]> http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=1136 Wed, 10 Apr 2013 14:42:38 +0000 http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=1136
Read more in the attached flyer.

CfPS can also be commissioned by scrutiny committees wishing to build relationships with their Clinical Commissioning Group(s). You can read more about how we have worked with scrutiny committees in building relationships in our publication ‘Spanning the System.’

  L13-192 CfPS clinical commissioners web.pdf (Size: 584.74 KB / Downloads: 91) ]]>
Read more in the attached flyer.

CfPS can also be commissioned by scrutiny committees wishing to build relationships with their Clinical Commissioning Group(s). You can read more about how we have worked with scrutiny committees in building relationships in our publication ‘Spanning the System.’

  L13-192 CfPS clinical commissioners web.pdf (Size: 584.74 KB / Downloads: 91) ]]> http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=1135 Wed, 10 Apr 2013 14:39:28 +0000 http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=1135
CfPS can also be commissioned by scrutiny committees wishing to build relationships with their foundation trust.

Read more in the attached flyer.

  L13-116 CfPS case study NHS Foundations_A4_4pp_v7_web.pdf (Size: 569.14 KB / Downloads: 73) ]]>
CfPS can also be commissioned by scrutiny committees wishing to build relationships with their foundation trust.

Read more in the attached flyer.

  L13-116 CfPS case study NHS Foundations_A4_4pp_v7_web.pdf (Size: 569.14 KB / Downloads: 73) ]]> http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=1134 Mon, 08 Apr 2013 08:47:15 +0000 http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=1134
At the next meeting of our Health Scrutiny Panel we will be looking at Never events which have taken place at out local hospital. This is the third time the issue has come to the panel.

Apart from providing a public discussion around the issue the panel feel fairly toothless when it comes to making recommedations. I would be really interested to hear if anybody else has dealt with the issue of never events and how your committee was able to add value. I have attached the report from the hospital for information.

thanks

Ross

  OSC Report 04 04 2013.doc (Size: 79 KB / Downloads: 62) ]]>
At the next meeting of our Health Scrutiny Panel we will be looking at Never events which have taken place at out local hospital. This is the third time the issue has come to the panel.

Apart from providing a public discussion around the issue the panel feel fairly toothless when it comes to making recommedations. I would be really interested to hear if anybody else has dealt with the issue of never events and how your committee was able to add value. I have attached the report from the hospital for information.

thanks

Ross

  OSC Report 04 04 2013.doc (Size: 79 KB / Downloads: 62) ]]>