http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/ Thu, 17 May 2012 09:36:34 +0000 MyBB http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=940 Tue, 15 May 2012 11:15:07 +0000 http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=940
To book your place at the CfPS Annual Conference and Good Scrutiny Awards ceremony please visit our conference webpage here.

The shortlist for the Good Scrutiny Awards 2012 is:

Innovation

• Brighton and Hove City Council – Traveller Scrutiny Panel
• Chesterfield Borough Council – Appreciative Inquiry
• Scottish Borders Council – Commuting and Impact of Modern Working Practices
  

Involving Communities

• Gloucestershire County Council – Severn Estuary Commission
• London Borough of Redbridge – End of Life Care
• North East Lincolnshire Council – Coal Dust Select Committee
  

Raising the Profile

• Birmingham City Council – A Music City
• Cardiff Council – Night-time Economy
• London Borough of Ealing – August 2011 Riots
  

Transforming Services/Responding to Change

• Bassetlaw District Council – Future of Services at Bassetlaw Hospital
• Stoke-on-Trent City Council – Business Services Committee
• Surrey County Council – Review of Winter Maintenance Service
  

Working Together

• Bradford City Council – Food Strategy
• Hartlepool Borough Council – Looked After Children and Young People
• North Central London JHOSC
  

In addition there are two further awards which will be given out on 12th June at the Good Scrutiny Awards ceremony.

The 'Scrutineers’ Choice’ awards will be selected by delegates at the CfPS 2012 conference, Powerful, Accountable, Local, from those entries which make the category shortlists. This award is selected by your peers and will be based on short video presentations that will be shown during the conference.

The judges will also present an ‘Overall Impact’ award for the entry which they believe best shows how scrutiny can make a positive contribution to a local area or service.

The standard of entries, as ever, was very high. Congratulations to those organisations that have been shortlisted.

For those who did not make the shortlist this year, commiserations and thank you for taking part. We recognise that a lot of effort goes in to submitting to the awards and that not being shortlisted is disappointing. We hope you will try again next year.

The awards will be presented at a ceremony which follows the CfPS Annual Conference - Powerful, Accountable, Local - more information about the conference can be found here. Details of the categories available to download or view here.]]>
To book your place at the CfPS Annual Conference and Good Scrutiny Awards ceremony please visit our conference webpage here.

The shortlist for the Good Scrutiny Awards 2012 is:

Innovation

• Brighton and Hove City Council – Traveller Scrutiny Panel
• Chesterfield Borough Council – Appreciative Inquiry
• Scottish Borders Council – Commuting and Impact of Modern Working Practices
  

Involving Communities

• Gloucestershire County Council – Severn Estuary Commission
• London Borough of Redbridge – End of Life Care
• North East Lincolnshire Council – Coal Dust Select Committee
  

Raising the Profile

• Birmingham City Council – A Music City
• Cardiff Council – Night-time Economy
• London Borough of Ealing – August 2011 Riots
  

Transforming Services/Responding to Change

• Bassetlaw District Council – Future of Services at Bassetlaw Hospital
• Stoke-on-Trent City Council – Business Services Committee
• Surrey County Council – Review of Winter Maintenance Service
  

Working Together

• Bradford City Council – Food Strategy
• Hartlepool Borough Council – Looked After Children and Young People
• North Central London JHOSC
  

In addition there are two further awards which will be given out on 12th June at the Good Scrutiny Awards ceremony.

The 'Scrutineers’ Choice’ awards will be selected by delegates at the CfPS 2012 conference, Powerful, Accountable, Local, from those entries which make the category shortlists. This award is selected by your peers and will be based on short video presentations that will be shown during the conference.

The judges will also present an ‘Overall Impact’ award for the entry which they believe best shows how scrutiny can make a positive contribution to a local area or service.

The standard of entries, as ever, was very high. Congratulations to those organisations that have been shortlisted.

For those who did not make the shortlist this year, commiserations and thank you for taking part. We recognise that a lot of effort goes in to submitting to the awards and that not being shortlisted is disappointing. We hope you will try again next year.

The awards will be presented at a ceremony which follows the CfPS Annual Conference - Powerful, Accountable, Local - more information about the conference can be found here. Details of the categories available to download or view here.]]> http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=935 Fri, 27 Apr 2012 11:03:20 +0000 http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=935
CfPS is seeking to recruit six to eight interested councils to take part in a national learning set programme.

Participants will be asked to attend up to three face-to-face meetings (reasonable travel expenses will be met) and take part in telephone conferences to support the work. Local areas will also be asked to implement the learning locally, to aid the development of protocols.

For more information visit the scrutiny and CQC webpage]]>
CfPS is seeking to recruit six to eight interested councils to take part in a national learning set programme.

Participants will be asked to attend up to three face-to-face meetings (reasonable travel expenses will be met) and take part in telephone conferences to support the work. Local areas will also be asked to implement the learning locally, to aid the development of protocols.

For more information visit the scrutiny and CQC webpage]]> http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=932 Thu, 26 Apr 2012 12:49:22 +0000 http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=932


Freedom from central control means that local accountability needs strengthening so that local people have confidence that commissioners and providers are focused on safe services that provide good quality and value. Communities need confidence that public services are focused on sustainable long term improvement not short term financial gain. Councillors – with their unique democratic mandate to speak up for people about everything that happens in an area - should be at the heart of this new approach. Building on the theme of councillors as ‘guardians’ of people and places, it is important to be clear about how they can use processes for challenge and accountability to provide assurance for local people that their needs and aspirations are understood, that services are being planned and delivered around their long term needs and that public agencies understand (and are working together to mitigate) risks to the resilience and prosperity of communities. Councillors will have an important role helping local people to navigate the increasingly complex service landscape and they will be able to provide a highly-visible source of accountability for wider, strategic issues arising from the increase in choice, personalisation and more complex delivery partnerships. Councillors should be ‘people’s voice to services’ rather than ‘services voices to people’ and need to make sure their councils build dynamic and proportionate governance frameworks to maximise accountability and transparency, while not imposing bureaucracy or slowing down decision-making. Relying on traditional forms of governance will not be sufficient to be truly enabling, transparent and accountable to local people.



In concluding our submission, we emphasised our thoughts about the principles we believe should underpin public sector reform and local governance in the 21st century. We believe that councillors have a unique role to play to tackle the challenges everyone encounters wherever they live and to help communities build resilience and secure prosperity and we included some examples of councillors using different ways of working, going beyond traditional methods, to make a difference in their areas.]]>


Freedom from central control means that local accountability needs strengthening so that local people have confidence that commissioners and providers are focused on safe services that provide good quality and value. Communities need confidence that public services are focused on sustainable long term improvement not short term financial gain. Councillors – with their unique democratic mandate to speak up for people about everything that happens in an area - should be at the heart of this new approach. Building on the theme of councillors as ‘guardians’ of people and places, it is important to be clear about how they can use processes for challenge and accountability to provide assurance for local people that their needs and aspirations are understood, that services are being planned and delivered around their long term needs and that public agencies understand (and are working together to mitigate) risks to the resilience and prosperity of communities. Councillors will have an important role helping local people to navigate the increasingly complex service landscape and they will be able to provide a highly-visible source of accountability for wider, strategic issues arising from the increase in choice, personalisation and more complex delivery partnerships. Councillors should be ‘people’s voice to services’ rather than ‘services voices to people’ and need to make sure their councils build dynamic and proportionate governance frameworks to maximise accountability and transparency, while not imposing bureaucracy or slowing down decision-making. Relying on traditional forms of governance will not be sufficient to be truly enabling, transparent and accountable to local people.



In concluding our submission, we emphasised our thoughts about the principles we believe should underpin public sector reform and local governance in the 21st century. We believe that councillors have a unique role to play to tackle the challenges everyone encounters wherever they live and to help communities build resilience and secure prosperity and we included some examples of councillors using different ways of working, going beyond traditional methods, to make a difference in their areas.]]> http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=931 Thu, 26 Apr 2012 12:29:08 +0000 http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=931 ‘Musical Chairs’ on 19 April 2012 and we have now published the report on our website, along with two appendices which show a ‘spectrum of council governance’ and the report methodology. Coverage of the report was the first item in the printed version of the LGC magazine and on the website LGCplus.com. The report has been keenly awaited as a contribution to the debate about the opportunities and pitfalls presented by freedoms in the Localism Act 2011 to move away from leader and cabinet models.

The report sets out key findings about how some councils are approaching the opportunity to choose a committee style of governance, in particular the extent to which governance arrangements are seen in the wider context of checks and balances in local government. The report warns that, far from being an internal administrative exercise, changing governance arrangements needs to be seen in the context of the wider implications and impacts on planning and delivering services. Councils hoping to solve organisational and/or political problems, or become more democratic, through a committee system, should first consider their organisational culture and values before deciding to change structures and processes.

The report identifies four key messages for council leaders and senior managers:

- be clear about the reasons for change, the expected outcomes and plans to evaluate against them. Being clear about culture and values will help councils assess how councillors can best add value to their communities and to the running of the council.

- get others involved. The public sector has changed significantly since councils last changed governance arrangements - different approaches to service planning and delivery (for example through commissioning, partnerships or innovative collaborations) may significantly influence the style of governance councils adopt.

- forward planning and effective delegation are crucial so that councillors focus on strategic issues where they can add value, fitting in with the business cycle of partners and presenting citizens' views when they can best have influence.

- there is a clear case for maintaining a “scrutiny” function. Councils should be clear about what checks and balances service committees will employ to mitigate risks and drive improvements. Citizens need assurance that scrutiny is empowered to horizon-scan and investigate cross-cutting issues of community interest, for example crime and disorder, health and other partners.

Download Musical chairs here
To complement the publication of the report there is a discussion thread running on our website]]> ‘Musical Chairs’ on 19 April 2012 and we have now published the report on our website, along with two appendices which show a ‘spectrum of council governance’ and the report methodology. Coverage of the report was the first item in the printed version of the LGC magazine and on the website LGCplus.com. The report has been keenly awaited as a contribution to the debate about the opportunities and pitfalls presented by freedoms in the Localism Act 2011 to move away from leader and cabinet models.

The report sets out key findings about how some councils are approaching the opportunity to choose a committee style of governance, in particular the extent to which governance arrangements are seen in the wider context of checks and balances in local government. The report warns that, far from being an internal administrative exercise, changing governance arrangements needs to be seen in the context of the wider implications and impacts on planning and delivering services. Councils hoping to solve organisational and/or political problems, or become more democratic, through a committee system, should first consider their organisational culture and values before deciding to change structures and processes.

The report identifies four key messages for council leaders and senior managers:

- be clear about the reasons for change, the expected outcomes and plans to evaluate against them. Being clear about culture and values will help councils assess how councillors can best add value to their communities and to the running of the council.

- get others involved. The public sector has changed significantly since councils last changed governance arrangements - different approaches to service planning and delivery (for example through commissioning, partnerships or innovative collaborations) may significantly influence the style of governance councils adopt.

- forward planning and effective delegation are crucial so that councillors focus on strategic issues where they can add value, fitting in with the business cycle of partners and presenting citizens' views when they can best have influence.

- there is a clear case for maintaining a “scrutiny” function. Councils should be clear about what checks and balances service committees will employ to mitigate risks and drive improvements. Citizens need assurance that scrutiny is empowered to horizon-scan and investigate cross-cutting issues of community interest, for example crime and disorder, health and other partners.

Download Musical chairs here
To complement the publication of the report there is a discussion thread running on our website]]> http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=930 Thu, 26 Apr 2012 09:56:54 +0000 http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=930
You can fill in the survey here


We’d like to take the opportunity to sincerely thank those who have submitted responses so far, and who have taken the time to provide us with detailed information on scrutiny in their authority.]]>
You can fill in the survey here


We’d like to take the opportunity to sincerely thank those who have submitted responses so far, and who have taken the time to provide us with detailed information on scrutiny in their authority.]]> http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=929 Thu, 26 Apr 2012 08:48:16 +0000 http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=929
The committee has not heard a great deal of evidence yet about FOI and local government, or wider issues of transparency insofar as they affect local government. I'm advised that the session in which we will participate will focus on these issues, and as such I'm keen to gather evidence from practitioners - both informal and formal - that we can use to give the committee a rounded view of the challenges and opportunities around transparency in local government. I'm keen to encourage the committee to think about FOI less in the context of the mechanics of the FOI regime itself, and more about how the Government has sought to build on FOI through measures such as the code of practice on information and other injunctions from DCLG about publishing more local information. It's only by examining the wider issues, I think, that a rounded view of FOI can be reached.

As such, any thoughts and views on these issues would be valued. You can contact me directly on ed.hammond@cfps.org.uk or 020 7187 7369 if you would prefer not to post below!]]>
The committee has not heard a great deal of evidence yet about FOI and local government, or wider issues of transparency insofar as they affect local government. I'm advised that the session in which we will participate will focus on these issues, and as such I'm keen to gather evidence from practitioners - both informal and formal - that we can use to give the committee a rounded view of the challenges and opportunities around transparency in local government. I'm keen to encourage the committee to think about FOI less in the context of the mechanics of the FOI regime itself, and more about how the Government has sought to build on FOI through measures such as the code of practice on information and other injunctions from DCLG about publishing more local information. It's only by examining the wider issues, I think, that a rounded view of FOI can be reached.

As such, any thoughts and views on these issues would be valued. You can contact me directly on ed.hammond@cfps.org.uk or 020 7187 7369 if you would prefer not to post below!]]> http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=925 Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:04:29 +0000 http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=925
Funded by the Inclusion Health team and the Department of Health, the programme will recruit six new scrutiny development areas (SDAs), to use scrutiny to investigate the health outcomes and inequalities of 3 vulnerable groups;

Homeless and rough sleepers (two development areas)
Gypsies and travellers (two development areas)
Sex workers (two development areas)

SDAs will receive 5 days support from one of our expert advisers to carry out a scrutiny review about one of the above vulnerable groups using the new model of impactful scrutiny developed in phase two, and building on Peeling the Onion, developed in phase one.

Applications are welcome from all local authorities wishing to scrutinise health inequalities experienced by the above vulnerable groups

For more information, bidding guidance and application form, please use the links below. The closing date for applications is Thursday 17th May.

  Application Form FINAL.doc (Size: 105 KB / Downloads: 19)

  Info and Bidding guidance for new SDAs FINAL.doc (Size: 153.5 KB / Downloads: 29)

For more information on the health inequalities programme (phases one to three) click here]]>
Funded by the Inclusion Health team and the Department of Health, the programme will recruit six new scrutiny development areas (SDAs), to use scrutiny to investigate the health outcomes and inequalities of 3 vulnerable groups;

Homeless and rough sleepers (two development areas)
Gypsies and travellers (two development areas)
Sex workers (two development areas)

SDAs will receive 5 days support from one of our expert advisers to carry out a scrutiny review about one of the above vulnerable groups using the new model of impactful scrutiny developed in phase two, and building on Peeling the Onion, developed in phase one.

Applications are welcome from all local authorities wishing to scrutinise health inequalities experienced by the above vulnerable groups

For more information, bidding guidance and application form, please use the links below. The closing date for applications is Thursday 17th May.

  Application Form FINAL.doc (Size: 105 KB / Downloads: 19)

  Info and Bidding guidance for new SDAs FINAL.doc (Size: 153.5 KB / Downloads: 29)

For more information on the health inequalities programme (phases one to three) click here]]> http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=923 Fri, 20 Apr 2012 10:55:43 +0000 http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=923 Practical issues for local authorities in moving to a committee system
This report is designed to help councillors and officers who expect to be actively involved in developing new governance arrangements where their authority chooses to adopt a "committee system" under the Localism Act 2011.

The report is now available - to download or view here.

To view the appendices - please click here.]]> Practical issues for local authorities in moving to a committee system
This report is designed to help councillors and officers who expect to be actively involved in developing new governance arrangements where their authority chooses to adopt a "committee system" under the Localism Act 2011.

The report is now available - to download or view here.

To view the appendices - please click here.]]> http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=917 Thu, 12 Apr 2012 09:16:37 +0000 http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=917
We are encouraging as many people as possible to respond. It is divided up into two sections - a longer, technical section (which we only require one person in every authority to fill out) and a shorter section mainly focusing on perceptions of O&S and the scrutiny function, which we want as many people as possible to fill out.

This is for local government O&S practitioners (officers and members) only.

You can access the survey by following this link:

http://svy.mk/yHTOBo

If you have any queries please call 020 7187 7369]]>
We are encouraging as many people as possible to respond. It is divided up into two sections - a longer, technical section (which we only require one person in every authority to fill out) and a shorter section mainly focusing on perceptions of O&S and the scrutiny function, which we want as many people as possible to fill out.

This is for local government O&S practitioners (officers and members) only.

You can access the survey by following this link:

http://svy.mk/yHTOBo

If you have any queries please call 020 7187 7369]]> http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=915 Wed, 11 Apr 2012 10:37:49 +0000 http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=915 here

  uksi_20121021_en.pdf (Size: 50.49 KB / Downloads: 149)

  uksi_20121022_en.pdf (Size: 48.3 KB / Downloads: 98) ]]> here

  uksi_20121021_en.pdf (Size: 50.49 KB / Downloads: 149)

  uksi_20121022_en.pdf (Size: 48.3 KB / Downloads: 98) ]]> http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=912 Tue, 03 Apr 2012 17:12:20 +0000 http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=912
It's not an area that scrutiny has got its teeth into in the recent past (with some notable exceptions). The briefings aims to explore what the policy context is and why it's an important issue for scrutiny to have on its radar.

http://www.cfps.org.uk/publications?item...ter=policy briefings&filterfrom=issue_name&match_all=true&offset=0]]>
It's not an area that scrutiny has got its teeth into in the recent past (with some notable exceptions). The briefings aims to explore what the policy context is and why it's an important issue for scrutiny to have on its radar.

http://www.cfps.org.uk/publications?item...ter=policy briefings&filterfrom=issue_name&match_all=true&offset=0]]> http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=911 Tue, 03 Apr 2012 15:56:04 +0000 http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=911
The guidance covers a wide range of issues - our response focuses just on scrutiny and democratic services. English colleagues may like to "compare and contrast" these proposals with those in the Localism Act.

  2012-03-23 - welsh consultation FINAL.pdf (Size: 88.92 KB / Downloads: 27) ]]>
The guidance covers a wide range of issues - our response focuses just on scrutiny and democratic services. English colleagues may like to "compare and contrast" these proposals with those in the Localism Act.

  2012-03-23 - welsh consultation FINAL.pdf (Size: 88.92 KB / Downloads: 27) ]]> http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=908 Mon, 02 Apr 2012 14:08:10 +0000 http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=908
'Musical Chairs', to be published later this month, examines the opportunities and pitfalls presented by freedoms in the Localism Act 2011 to move away from leader and cabinet models - a decision some councils have already taken.

The report warns that approaching governance arrangements as an internal, administrative exercise risks missing wider implications and impacts on planning and delivering services. Councils hoping to solve organisational and/or political problems, or become more democratic, through a committee system, should think about leadership and management culture and values rather than structures.

The report will set out some key messages for council leaders and senior managers:

- be clear about the reasons for change, the expected outcomes and plans to evaluate against them. Being clear about culture and values will help councils assess how councillors can best add value to their communities and to the running of the council.

- get others involved. The public sector has changed significantly since councils last changed governance arrangements - different approaches to service planning and delivery (for example through commissioning, partnerships or innovative collaborations) may significantly influence the style of governance councils adopt.

- forward planning and effective delegation are crucial so that councillors focus on strategic issues where they can add value, fitting in with the business cycle of partners and presenting citizens' views when they can best have influence.

- there is a clear case for maintaining a “scrutiny” function. Councils should be clear about what checks and balances service committees will employ to mitigate risks and drive improvements. Citizens need assurance that scrutiny is empowered to horizon-scan and investigate cross-cutting issues of community interest, for example crime and disorder, health and other partners.]]>
'Musical Chairs', to be published later this month, examines the opportunities and pitfalls presented by freedoms in the Localism Act 2011 to move away from leader and cabinet models - a decision some councils have already taken.

The report warns that approaching governance arrangements as an internal, administrative exercise risks missing wider implications and impacts on planning and delivering services. Councils hoping to solve organisational and/or political problems, or become more democratic, through a committee system, should think about leadership and management culture and values rather than structures.

The report will set out some key messages for council leaders and senior managers:

- be clear about the reasons for change, the expected outcomes and plans to evaluate against them. Being clear about culture and values will help councils assess how councillors can best add value to their communities and to the running of the council.

- get others involved. The public sector has changed significantly since councils last changed governance arrangements - different approaches to service planning and delivery (for example through commissioning, partnerships or innovative collaborations) may significantly influence the style of governance councils adopt.

- forward planning and effective delegation are crucial so that councillors focus on strategic issues where they can add value, fitting in with the business cycle of partners and presenting citizens' views when they can best have influence.

- there is a clear case for maintaining a “scrutiny” function. Councils should be clear about what checks and balances service committees will employ to mitigate risks and drive improvements. Citizens need assurance that scrutiny is empowered to horizon-scan and investigate cross-cutting issues of community interest, for example crime and disorder, health and other partners.]]> http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=907 Mon, 02 Apr 2012 12:11:06 +0000 http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=907
Councillor Richard Stay (Lead Member for Improvement) got things going by suggesting that there have been enough government commitments, enough academic analysis and enough media comment about these issues. Local councils want to make things happen, they welcome government commitments to make it easier for them to respond better to their residents but he identified a contrast between the rhetoric of ‘devolution and localism’ and the reality of Ministers and civil servants ‘letting go’. He contended that an imbalance in the relationship between central and local government in the UK was at the heart of this contrast. It was different in the USA he argued, where central government exists through the collective will of the States – in the UK, local councils exist at the will of central government. Local communities want ‘additionality’, the capacity to respond quickly to local issues and add value. He concluded by asking whether Parliamentary processes, for example the Public Accounts Committee, could help establish a new approach?

Richard Bacon MP (Member of the Public Accounts Committee) spoke about the centrality of accountability to the relationship between Parliament and government. With the majority of spending on public services generated through national taxation, Parliament would always want to hold Ministers and accountable officers in Departments of State accountable for policy priorities and value for money. The challenge of localism is that diversity in commissioning services (for example through GP commissioning) and delivering services (for example through Foundation Trusts or Academies) makes accountability less clear – Parliament needs to be satisfied that mechanisms exist across government to identify and mitigate risks and that there is evidence of the benefits of localism (for example in terms of outcomes, information on performance, handling governance and failure and evaluation). He concluded that in the new public services landscape, where information would become a vital but perhaps scarce resource, central oversight remained essential to secure value for taxpayers and citizens.

David Walker (Contributing Editor, Guardian Public Leaders Network) set accountability in the context of challenging economic circumstances. With little trust in politicians or privacy for them to debate policy options, he asked whether accountability has become about ‘blame’ and whether structures for accountability have become more important than principles? He questioned the evidence for different forms of accountability (for example through elected mayors) and what he called the ‘heroic assumption’ that accountability can bring about change.
Do 21st century economics dictate a trade off in accountability to avoid profitability, quality and value being compromised? Is the imperative for infrastructure investment likely to weaken accountability? He concluded by suggesting that, in fact, investment was needed in the capacity for accountability – the extent to which people understand information and data and can analyse it and use it in effective ways.

Tim Gilling (CfPS Acting Executive Director) thanked the Chair and speakers for a stimulating discussion. Accountability isn’t about bureaucracy or opposition but is about people coming together to solve problems. Accountability is complex – getting the choreography right (for example between central and local; between professionals and people who use services; between public and private) is tricky. Even in austere times accountability needs investment, balanced by an imperative to demonstrate value. Ultimately what is important is the extent to which principles of accountability are hardwired into the culture and values of public services. Accountability is vital – whether in Parliament; in local government; the media; in hospitals and care homes; in schools; and on housing estates. Accountability matters to public servants or private income generators – and CfPS is well placed to keep making the case through a vision of transparent, inclusive and accountable services; through a mission to influence policy and promote practice; through the concept of the web of accountability; through strategies for thought leadership and practical action.]]>
Councillor Richard Stay (Lead Member for Improvement) got things going by suggesting that there have been enough government commitments, enough academic analysis and enough media comment about these issues. Local councils want to make things happen, they welcome government commitments to make it easier for them to respond better to their residents but he identified a contrast between the rhetoric of ‘devolution and localism’ and the reality of Ministers and civil servants ‘letting go’. He contended that an imbalance in the relationship between central and local government in the UK was at the heart of this contrast. It was different in the USA he argued, where central government exists through the collective will of the States – in the UK, local councils exist at the will of central government. Local communities want ‘additionality’, the capacity to respond quickly to local issues and add value. He concluded by asking whether Parliamentary processes, for example the Public Accounts Committee, could help establish a new approach?

Richard Bacon MP (Member of the Public Accounts Committee) spoke about the centrality of accountability to the relationship between Parliament and government. With the majority of spending on public services generated through national taxation, Parliament would always want to hold Ministers and accountable officers in Departments of State accountable for policy priorities and value for money. The challenge of localism is that diversity in commissioning services (for example through GP commissioning) and delivering services (for example through Foundation Trusts or Academies) makes accountability less clear – Parliament needs to be satisfied that mechanisms exist across government to identify and mitigate risks and that there is evidence of the benefits of localism (for example in terms of outcomes, information on performance, handling governance and failure and evaluation). He concluded that in the new public services landscape, where information would become a vital but perhaps scarce resource, central oversight remained essential to secure value for taxpayers and citizens.

David Walker (Contributing Editor, Guardian Public Leaders Network) set accountability in the context of challenging economic circumstances. With little trust in politicians or privacy for them to debate policy options, he asked whether accountability has become about ‘blame’ and whether structures for accountability have become more important than principles? He questioned the evidence for different forms of accountability (for example through elected mayors) and what he called the ‘heroic assumption’ that accountability can bring about change.
Do 21st century economics dictate a trade off in accountability to avoid profitability, quality and value being compromised? Is the imperative for infrastructure investment likely to weaken accountability? He concluded by suggesting that, in fact, investment was needed in the capacity for accountability – the extent to which people understand information and data and can analyse it and use it in effective ways.

Tim Gilling (CfPS Acting Executive Director) thanked the Chair and speakers for a stimulating discussion. Accountability isn’t about bureaucracy or opposition but is about people coming together to solve problems. Accountability is complex – getting the choreography right (for example between central and local; between professionals and people who use services; between public and private) is tricky. Even in austere times accountability needs investment, balanced by an imperative to demonstrate value. Ultimately what is important is the extent to which principles of accountability are hardwired into the culture and values of public services. Accountability is vital – whether in Parliament; in local government; the media; in hospitals and care homes; in schools; and on housing estates. Accountability matters to public servants or private income generators – and CfPS is well placed to keep making the case through a vision of transparent, inclusive and accountable services; through a mission to influence policy and promote practice; through the concept of the web of accountability; through strategies for thought leadership and practical action.]]> http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=905 Thu, 29 Mar 2012 17:07:53 +0000 http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=905
You can access it here - http://bit.ly/HslOLm

Another policy briefing will be out early next week, looking at the future for scrutiny in the context of increased sub-regional and supra-local working (don't fall asleep - it's actually quite interesting).]]>
You can access it here - http://bit.ly/HslOLm

Another policy briefing will be out early next week, looking at the future for scrutiny in the context of increased sub-regional and supra-local working (don't fall asleep - it's actually quite interesting).]]> http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=904 Thu, 29 Mar 2012 16:49:45 +0000 http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=904 Scrutiny Development Areas’ to develop their scrutiny role in relation to the modernised NHS. The Scrutiny Development Areas have been recruited from across the country allowing a geographical spread and reflecting all types of authority. The programme and support will focus on 3 primary areas of work:

• Enabling councils to develop their scrutiny role in relation to the modernised NHS and how best to use the scrutiny function to improve the health and wellbeing of local people.

• Supporting councillors in relation to consultations about substantial developments and reconfigurations of health services, supporting their understanding of and participation in the process of commissioning health and social care services and enabling them to work with local Healthwatch, Health and Wellbeing Boards and other key local partners (including regulators) to hold local services to account.

• Supporting “development areas” to enable early learning around wider scrutiny and accountability arrangements and service change to be captured and fed back to the Department of Health to inform policy development.

The areas are: Warrington Borough, Warwickshire, Central Bedfordshire, Calderdale, Oldham and Bury , LB Croydon, North East Lincolnshire, Birmingham City, Cornwall, West Sussex, Yorkshire and Humber, Bristol City, Plymouth, Staffordshire, and Lincolnshire.]]> Scrutiny Development Areas’ to develop their scrutiny role in relation to the modernised NHS. The Scrutiny Development Areas have been recruited from across the country allowing a geographical spread and reflecting all types of authority. The programme and support will focus on 3 primary areas of work:

• Enabling councils to develop their scrutiny role in relation to the modernised NHS and how best to use the scrutiny function to improve the health and wellbeing of local people.

• Supporting councillors in relation to consultations about substantial developments and reconfigurations of health services, supporting their understanding of and participation in the process of commissioning health and social care services and enabling them to work with local Healthwatch, Health and Wellbeing Boards and other key local partners (including regulators) to hold local services to account.

• Supporting “development areas” to enable early learning around wider scrutiny and accountability arrangements and service change to be captured and fed back to the Department of Health to inform policy development.

The areas are: Warrington Borough, Warwickshire, Central Bedfordshire, Calderdale, Oldham and Bury , LB Croydon, North East Lincolnshire, Birmingham City, Cornwall, West Sussex, Yorkshire and Humber, Bristol City, Plymouth, Staffordshire, and Lincolnshire.]]> http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=903 Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:26:25 +0000 http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=903
Health overview and scrutiny: Exploiting Opportunities at a time of change shares the learning from seven scrutiny development areas CfPS recruited to help to carve out the best ways that scrutiny, clinicians and boards can work together and support each other to achieve good outcomes across health and social care.

Accountability and the New Structures was published with the BMA and looks at why accountability is important, and provides definitions of the terms used when discussing accountability. It looks at the structures involved in holding Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) to account, and presents the shared views of the The Centre for Public Scrutiny (CfPS) and the British Medical Association (BMA) that good accountability relationships will be central to the success of CCGs.

Achieving an effective health and well being board sets out some key questions that overview and scrutiny committees can ask about how Health and Wellbeing Boards are developing. This publication is based on ‘Operating Principles for Health and Wellbeing Boards’ and laying the foundations for healthier places.

10 questions to ask around arrangements for local healthwatch helps OSCs learn from the experiences of others and to assist them to scope scrutiny reviews, based on some key questions. It aims to cover all the relevant issues, but please adapt it to suit local circumstances.

CfPS has also delivered Expert Adviser support to Kent around the formation of healthwatch, and a key findings document is available here

CfPS has a team of expert advisers , including six regional advocates who work in your area (map attached) who can help you to understand the health reforms in your area. Support can be tailored to suit your needs to help your authority to start to develop the health reforms.

  L12-96 Regional Map FINAL.pdf (Size: 391.93 KB / Downloads: 65) ]]>
Health overview and scrutiny: Exploiting Opportunities at a time of change shares the learning from seven scrutiny development areas CfPS recruited to help to carve out the best ways that scrutiny, clinicians and boards can work together and support each other to achieve good outcomes across health and social care.

Accountability and the New Structures was published with the BMA and looks at why accountability is important, and provides definitions of the terms used when discussing accountability. It looks at the structures involved in holding Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) to account, and presents the shared views of the The Centre for Public Scrutiny (CfPS) and the British Medical Association (BMA) that good accountability relationships will be central to the success of CCGs.

Achieving an effective health and well being board sets out some key questions that overview and scrutiny committees can ask about how Health and Wellbeing Boards are developing. This publication is based on ‘Operating Principles for Health and Wellbeing Boards’ and laying the foundations for healthier places.

10 questions to ask around arrangements for local healthwatch helps OSCs learn from the experiences of others and to assist them to scope scrutiny reviews, based on some key questions. It aims to cover all the relevant issues, but please adapt it to suit local circumstances.

CfPS has also delivered Expert Adviser support to Kent around the formation of healthwatch, and a key findings document is available here

CfPS has a team of expert advisers , including six regional advocates who work in your area (map attached) who can help you to understand the health reforms in your area. Support can be tailored to suit your needs to help your authority to start to develop the health reforms.

  L12-96 Regional Map FINAL.pdf (Size: 391.93 KB / Downloads: 65) ]]> http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=902 Thu, 29 Mar 2012 09:07:07 +0000 http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=902
The Ageing Well programme supports local authorities to prepare for an ageing society. The Centre for Public Scrutiny has been commissioned by Local Government Improvement and Development as part of the national Ageing Well programme; which was launched by the Government in July 2010 and is sponsored by the Department of Work and Pensions.

CfPS have delivered four regional events during 2011, and provided 26 OSCs with Expert Adviser support, based around two guides we published earlier this year; ‘A Good Place to Grow Older?’ 10 questions and practice guide for OSCs.

The support was designed to help councils appreciate the value that their scrutiny functions can add to tackling the challenges of the ageing society, by using the published guides as a springboard to action.
A publication is due in early April which summarises what happened in the 26 areas, setting out special attributes, the lessons and the early impacts by highlighting a selection of examples. You can find more information on what they did and how to get support here.]]>
The Ageing Well programme supports local authorities to prepare for an ageing society. The Centre for Public Scrutiny has been commissioned by Local Government Improvement and Development as part of the national Ageing Well programme; which was launched by the Government in July 2010 and is sponsored by the Department of Work and Pensions.

CfPS have delivered four regional events during 2011, and provided 26 OSCs with Expert Adviser support, based around two guides we published earlier this year; ‘A Good Place to Grow Older?’ 10 questions and practice guide for OSCs.

The support was designed to help councils appreciate the value that their scrutiny functions can add to tackling the challenges of the ageing society, by using the published guides as a springboard to action.
A publication is due in early April which summarises what happened in the 26 areas, setting out special attributes, the lessons and the early impacts by highlighting a selection of examples. You can find more information on what they did and how to get support here.]]> http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=900 Tue, 20 Mar 2012 21:32:06 +0000 http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=900 Do you want to make a difference to public scrutiny and accountability?
Join CfPS as one of our Independent Trustees - we are seeking to recruit two new trustees to our Board.

The CfPS Independent Trustees are members of a small strategic Board with responsibility to provide oversight and advice about the work of the Centre for Public Scrutiny, working with the Directors from our founder members (LGA, CIPFA and LGIU) to ensure effective control, accountability and high standards of conduct and probity.

The Centre became a charity in 2010 and is now seeking two new independent trustees to join the Board. We are particularly keen to fill identified gaps in the knowledge, skills and experience in the current Board of Trustees:
• Health sector
• Public-private partnerships
• Addressing diversity issues, notably gender

The trustees provide strategic advice to the Centre’s staff on policies and plans to help the Centre deliver its charitable mission to promote public scrutiny, accountability, transparency and involvement for the public benefit, through:

• Advancing education in the principles and practice of public scrutiny and accountability, maintaining a national centre of expertise and promoting national debate and networks; and
• Promoting the development of and improving the practice of public scrutiny and accountability within government and public services, including promoting standards of professional practice.
  

The Board meets four times a year in Westminster, under our independent Chair Nick Raynsford MP, to oversee the good governance and management of the Centre’s assets in support of its objectives. Trustees are also encouraged to attend other Centre events and activities and to take a championing role around particular aspects of the Centre’s work, according to availability, interest and expertise. There is a stakeholder Advisory Board which provides advice to the Trustees about the needs that the Centre seeks to meet.

Joining the CfPS Board offers a unique opportunity to contribute to policy and practice in improving the governance and accountability of government and public services. The Centre has a strong base of practical work in local government and the health service and is now strongly developing its work in charity, housing, policing and education governance and accountability.

If you want to make a difference to the accountability, transparency and inclusiveness of any of our public services, becoming a CfPS Trustee is the ideal way to contribute. See last year's Annual Trustees' Report for more on what the Centre does and what it has achieved.

Closing date: 16 April 2012 5pm
Interviews: 26 April 2012 (am)

How to apply

Download the job description, person specification and application form attached to this message and email a completed form (no CVs please) to fateha.begum@cfps.org.uk by 5pm on Monday 16 April 2012.

  1203020 Trustee Job Description.pdf (Size: 14.67 KB / Downloads: 59)

  120320 Trustee Person Specification.pdf (Size: 13.59 KB / Downloads: 61)

  2012 trustee application form.doc (Size: 147 KB / Downloads: 40) ]]> Do you want to make a difference to public scrutiny and accountability?
Join CfPS as one of our Independent Trustees - we are seeking to recruit two new trustees to our Board.

The CfPS Independent Trustees are members of a small strategic Board with responsibility to provide oversight and advice about the work of the Centre for Public Scrutiny, working with the Directors from our founder members (LGA, CIPFA and LGIU) to ensure effective control, accountability and high standards of conduct and probity.

The Centre became a charity in 2010 and is now seeking two new independent trustees to join the Board. We are particularly keen to fill identified gaps in the knowledge, skills and experience in the current Board of Trustees:
• Health sector
• Public-private partnerships
• Addressing diversity issues, notably gender

The trustees provide strategic advice to the Centre’s staff on policies and plans to help the Centre deliver its charitable mission to promote public scrutiny, accountability, transparency and involvement for the public benefit, through:

• Advancing education in the principles and practice of public scrutiny and accountability, maintaining a national centre of expertise and promoting national debate and networks; and
• Promoting the development of and improving the practice of public scrutiny and accountability within government and public services, including promoting standards of professional practice.
  

The Board meets four times a year in Westminster, under our independent Chair Nick Raynsford MP, to oversee the good governance and management of the Centre’s assets in support of its objectives. Trustees are also encouraged to attend other Centre events and activities and to take a championing role around particular aspects of the Centre’s work, according to availability, interest and expertise. There is a stakeholder Advisory Board which provides advice to the Trustees about the needs that the Centre seeks to meet.

Joining the CfPS Board offers a unique opportunity to contribute to policy and practice in improving the governance and accountability of government and public services. The Centre has a strong base of practical work in local government and the health service and is now strongly developing its work in charity, housing, policing and education governance and accountability.

If you want to make a difference to the accountability, transparency and inclusiveness of any of our public services, becoming a CfPS Trustee is the ideal way to contribute. See last year's Annual Trustees' Report for more on what the Centre does and what it has achieved.

Closing date: 16 April 2012 5pm
Interviews: 26 April 2012 (am)

How to apply

Download the job description, person specification and application form attached to this message and email a completed form (no CVs please) to fateha.begum@cfps.org.uk by 5pm on Monday 16 April 2012.

  1203020 Trustee Job Description.pdf (Size: 14.67 KB / Downloads: 59)

  120320 Trustee Person Specification.pdf (Size: 13.59 KB / Downloads: 61)

  2012 trustee application form.doc (Size: 147 KB / Downloads: 40) ]]> http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=899 Tue, 20 Mar 2012 10:49:24 +0000 http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=899
http://www.local.gov.uk/about-lginform

Naturally this will have an impact on scrutiny, which does use benchmarked as part of some elements of research. It also has an impact on local people, given the assumption that local residents will be able to use benchmarked information to hold their authorities to account as armchair auditors.

I'd encourage scrutiny practitioners to look at the LGA's proposals. We are not planning to provide them with a response ourselves, but if you plan to respond, please copy us in.]]>
http://www.local.gov.uk/about-lginform

Naturally this will have an impact on scrutiny, which does use benchmarked as part of some elements of research. It also has an impact on local people, given the assumption that local residents will be able to use benchmarked information to hold their authorities to account as armchair auditors.

I'd encourage scrutiny practitioners to look at the LGA's proposals. We are not planning to provide them with a response ourselves, but if you plan to respond, please copy us in.]]>