Appendix F
North Norfolk District Council
Partnership Framework v2
Version history
Title
Prepared by
Approved by
Partnership Framework v2
D S Ablett
Version
V1
V2
Date
January 2009
Not yet issued
Date
15/11/2011
Summary of changes
Original framework
Redrafted framework document
M:\909\WPDATA\NEW COMMITTEES\Audit Committee\2011-2012\6 December
2011\Draft\Appendix F.doc
1
Appendix F
Index
Section
Detail
Policy Statement
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
App 1
App 2
App 3
App4
App 5
App 6
App 7
App 8
Page
number
3
Introduction
Partnership Assessment
Partnership Agreement
Clear objectives and outcomes
Clear roles and responsibilities
Resources and Financial Management
Performance managagement and monitoring
Risk management
Decision making arrangements
Dissolution arrangements
The partnership register
4
5
6
6
7
7
8
9
9
10
10
Partnership approval checklist
Objectives and outcomes
Roles and responsibilities
Financial management and control
Partnership evaluation
Risk considerations
Draft partnership register
Checklist
11
13
14
17
19
20
21
22
M:\909\WPDATA\NEW COMMITTEES\Audit Committee\2011-2012\6 December
2011\Draft\Appendix F.doc
2
Appendix F
Policy Statement
The engagement of the Council with third parties in delivering services has always
been an important component of the democratic foundation of local government.
The arrangements for partnership working and Members’ deployment to serve on
Outside Organisations are part of this approach.
North Norfolk District Council is committed to partnership working and is already
involved in a number of partnerships within both its own immediate arrangements
and those of the wider community. Effective partnerships are seen as a means to
improve the quality of life of residents and visitors to the District as well as
delivering services that are value for money.
The drivers for partnership working identified by the Council over the recent past
are still present. The Government White paper in 2006 “Strong and Prosperous
Communities” proposed a new approach to give local authorities “more opportunity
to lead in their area”. However the emphasis is now changing, with the
considerable financial pressures local government is currently experiencing and a
revised view by Central Government of how its relationship with Local Government
should develop in the future.
The Big Society has a key component in mentoring and befriending as well as
recognising the current retrenchment in local authority spending around core
services. The Government have also launched a number of initiatives including a
Community Budget Prospectus (October 2011) to open up services to different
providers and improve services for the users.
Partnership working will continue to play an increasingly important role in service
delivery as Councils strive to maintain a breadth of services against a reduction in
the resources they have available.
The reach of the partnership agenda has broadened to include arrangements
between councils to deliver services jointly or to procure a common service
together. Especially at District Council level there is an agenda developing of joint
working for service delivery and for merged management teams.
It is important that both the partnership agenda and that relating to outside
organisations is well defined and that the outcomes continue to deliver their
objectives within budget and in line with their stated aims.
M:\909\WPDATA\NEW COMMITTEES\Audit Committee\2011-2012\6 December
2011\Draft\Appendix F.doc
3
Appendix F
1. Introduction
1.1. This refreshed Partnership Framework(the Framework) establishes a
Council wide approach to partnership working arrangements and a
structure within which partnership working can be developed.
1.2. The Framework also provides practical advice to Members and Officers as
well as prospective partners in setting up a partnership.
1.3. It should also be noted that the British Standards Institution has developed
a new national standard for collaborative business relationship
management (BS 11000). The BSI recognises the need to “harness greater
collaboration across both the public and private sectors” to deal with the
economic challenges that are ahead.
1.4. It is essential to the development, management and performance of
partnerships that a definition is agreed which establishes the parameters
that are embraced in partnership working.
1.5. The Council defines a partnership as follows:
“A partnership is established as a formal working arrangement
between a range of organisations for the delivery of shared goals
and outcomes for the benefit of the community with some pooling
of risk, resources and freedom of action.”
1.6. This framework does not apply to:
• Private Finance Initiatives
• Procurement of contracted services where the Council pays other
organisations to provide goods and services
• Informal discussion/ consultation groups
• Appointments to outside bodies where the Council has no strategic or
policy function
• Short term arrangements
1.7. However, the framework will cover working arrangements where there is:
• Otherwise independent bodies working together
• Shared vision and interdependency
• Co-operation to achieve a common goal
• Joint planning and implementation of an agreed programme
• Collective responsibility
• Pooling of risk and reward
1.8. Partnership working can achieve the following mutual benefits:
• Wider influence: - increased benefits for stakeholders, improved access
to hard to reach communities, achievement of a critical mass beyond
the capabilities of any one partner.
• Increased resources: - a wider access to public funding and ability to
deliver joint projects which would not be achievable by a single
organisation.
• Innovation: - different ways of delivering outcomes in a more effective
way where the partners act as a catalyst by challenging existing
arrangements.
M:\909\WPDATA\NEW COMMITTEES\Audit Committee\2011-2012\6 December
2011\Draft\Appendix F.doc
4
Appendix F
•
•
Reduced risk: - a wider group allows for greater flexibility and resilience
with complementary strengths across the partnership.
Reduced costs: - shared facilities, pooled resources, and common
systems.
2. Partnership assessment
2.1. Not all partnerships carry the same degree of risk. A level of pragmatism
has to be built into any arrangements in that smaller or innovative
partnerships are not strangled by inappropriate administrative
requirements or red tape. To achieve this, a risk grading system has been
developed.
2.2. It is important that any partnership is established against a background of a
sound assessment of the proposal.
2.3. This Framework recognises that there is no “one size fits all” model for
governing partnerships and that the arrangements that are put in place are
proportionate to the risks involved and the potential ambitions of the
partnership.
2.4. There are three categories of partnership outlined in this Framework. Their
respective thresholds are as follows:
2.4.1. Major
• Expenditure greater than £100K
• Considerable resource commitment
• If the partnership fails then the fallout could potentially have long
term service implications
• The partnership impacts in a serious way on key priority services or
strategic objectives
• Serious reputation impact (national journals)
• Established / professional
2.4.2. Medium
• Expenditure between £10K and £100K
• Moderate resource commitment
• If the partnership fails then the impact probably short term
• The partnership impacts in a moderate way on key priority services
or strategic objectives
• Moderate reputation impact (local papers)
• Established but reliant on volunteers
2.4.3. Minor
• Expenditure of up to £10K
• Minimal resource commitment
• If partnership fails then the implications are minimal
• The work of the partnership does not impact in a material way on
key priority services or strategic objectives
• Minimal reputation impact
• Low vulnerability, small organization, volunteer based
2.5. The proposed partnership categorisation will determine which elements of
the approval checklist are mandatory together with the commensurate
level(s) of approval required before entering into a new partnership.
M:\909\WPDATA\NEW COMMITTEES\Audit Committee\2011-2012\6 December
2011\Draft\Appendix F.doc
5
Appendix F
2.6. Section one of the checklist covers partnership need and should be
completed for all categories of proposed partnerships. Section two is an
outline risk assessment and should be completed for partnerships that fall
into the Major and Medium categories. Section three of the checklist is
looking for details of significant other considerations and should be
completed in full for any Major proposed partnerships.
2.7. The final part of the assessment would be a partnership sign off. The
appropriate level of this would reflect the category of partnership so that
minor partnerships would be signed off by a Director and Major (strategic)
partnerships would require Member involvement at Cabinet and the
endorsement of the Monitoring and Section 151 Officers.
2.8. Pro-forma assessment checklists are reproduced as Appendix 1 to this
Framework.
3. Partnership agreement
3.1. All partnerships should have a governing document and for all key
partnerships, there should be a formal agreement. The process of agreeing
a document is itself an important element of partnership governance; it
will help clarify roles and relationships and build goodwill and trust.
3.2. The level of detail required will depend on the complexity of the
partnership arrangement. For more complex arrangements it is essential
that Legal Services are consulted during the process of drawing up the
partnership document.
3.3. Whilst there is no single form of document that will suit the size and scope
of all partnerships the process of agreeing a governance document is of
itself an important aspect in developing a sound partnership. The main
components of a partnership should cover the following elements:
• The name of the partnership
• The purpose of the partnership, its aims and objectives
• Roles and responsibilities
• Financial considerations, budget, resourcing and financial management
• Performance management and reporting
• Risk management
• Decision making arrangements
• Arrangements for dissolution
3.4. A partnership checklist is attached at Appendix 8 to this Framework.
4. Clear objectives and outcomes
4.1. One of the main reasons that partnerships fail is the lack of clear
objectives and plans. The first step of setting up a partnership is for
partners to identify the main objectives of the partnership.
4.2. Partners should then turn these objectives into specific outcomes – that is,
answer the question, ‘How will I know when these objectives have been
achieved?’
4.3. The next step is to identify which of these outcomes can be measured and
monitored. This can be done by setting either specific performance
M:\909\WPDATA\NEW COMMITTEES\Audit Committee\2011-2012\6 December
2011\Draft\Appendix F.doc
6
Appendix F
measures or specific milestones. Every attempt should be made to used
SMART (Specific, measurable, Attainable, relevant, time based) targets
where data definitions and source information is fully understood from the
outset.
4.4. The fundamental test for the partnership is whether the Council can
evaluate how well it is performing at any point in time. This can be
considered at two levels either as a targeted output or a targeted
outcome. Appendix 2 provides an outline for establishing objectives and
outcomes.
5. Clear roles and responsibilities
5.1. Leading a successful partnership requires influencing skills. However, if
people perceive that one person or organisation is becoming too influential
this can lead to tensions within the partnership.
5.2. It is important that representatives of the Council have the right level of
delegation to be able to take decisions which can be challenged and
scrutinised effectively. In preparation for this the partnership ought to be
able to flag up when significant decisions will be required so that individual
partners can prepare and consider their own legal and financial advice.
5.3. Members play an important role in reflecting the views of the Council as a
whole. If they act as a Trustee or a Board member of a charity or similar
body their first responsibility is to that organisation. However, while
working in a partnership they are still bound by the constitution and
policies of the Council and should use their position to ensure that the
partners adopt similar arrangements.
5.4. In the same way Officers remain employees of the Council and must follow
the guidelines, policies and procedures of the Council. Like Elected
Members they should promote similar arrangements with partners and
where they feel that standards fall below the threshold of good practice
should report the matter to the Chief Executive.
5.5. As with Council constitutions the partnership should document how
decisions are to be made, what the quorum is, who minutes meetings, how
decisions are conveyed to all the parties and how the required actions are
undertaken. Appendix 3 provides more detail about the roles and
responsibilities involved in partnership working.
5.6. Formal partnership meetings will require the discipline of agendas and
minutes which can be reported back to the principle body and formally
noted by them.
6. Resources and financial management
6.1. There are a range of financial issues to consider when setting up a
partnership and a number of them are covered below. Appendix 4 sets out
these issues in more detail.
6.2. The resources required by the partnership and the decision on who will
administer the budget (probably the Lead partner/ Accountable Body) must
M:\909\WPDATA\NEW COMMITTEES\Audit Committee\2011-2012\6 December
2011\Draft\Appendix F.doc
7
Appendix F
be agreed at an early stage in assessing the need for partnership working.
Resources requested from the Council will need to be identified from the
relevant service plan(s) to include staff, equipment, fees etc.
6.3. Normally, where projects are funded by external grants, the funding body
requires that one of the partners takes on the role of Accountable Body
(sometimes this is referred to as ‘Host Organisation’). The Accountable
Body is responsible for the financial administration of the grant and any
agreed deliverables / outputs. Accountable Body status can only be granted
to an entity which has a “legal personality” for example, a company
registered at Companies House, a local authority or health trust.
6.4. If the Council takes on the role of Accountable Body it “cash flows”
(bankrolls) the projects pending receipt of the grant. This generates a
small cost. More importantly, it represents a risk in the event of the
project incurring costs which are not reclaimable from the grant funding
body.
7. Performance management and monitoring
7.1. There is an expectation from the Council that it will only become involved
in partnerships that have in place the basic arrangements for performance
management. This means that there should be aims, objectives and
measures (or performance indicators) in place and that performance
against these aims and objectives should be regularly checked.
7.2. These indicators should be quantifiable and unambiguous. It is also
important that the partners recognise the indicators and are committed to
their provision and maintenance.
7.3. Some partnerships with a more formal workload, more onerous
responsibilities and larger resources will have more sophisticated
performance management arrangements in place. Council representatives
on partnerships should give consideration to aligning these arrangements
with the Council’s performance management system.
7.4. Reviewing the partnership itself will provide assurance that proper systems
are in place and that the partnership’s outcomes and performance can be
monitored and evaluated. It will also provide the partnership with
reassurance about the effectiveness and value of its own input, and
whether our requirements are being met.
7.5. The review of partnership operation is important to the partnership and to
the principal authorities. There must be a robust performance framework
against which the partnership can measure its progress and against which
the principal authorities can also be assured that the partnership
objectives are being met.
7.6. Such an evaluation should be able to rely on the performance management
arrangements set up to underpin the partnerships’ governance provisions.
Systematically the evaluation should address:
• the continuing need for the partnership
• that the governance arrangements are in place and operating
M:\909\WPDATA\NEW COMMITTEES\Audit Committee\2011-2012\6 December
2011\Draft\Appendix F.doc
8
Appendix F
•
•
the contributions of all the partners is being made and is inline with the
obligations expressed in the partnership agreement
the aims and objectives of the partnership are being achieved in the
outcomes for the Council and its wider community.
7.7. An outline of the evaluation tests is attached as Appendix 6 to this paper.
Each test should score evidence on a scale of one to five where one
indicates sound evidence and five means there is no evidence that the test
is being met.
8. Risk management
8.1. Risk management is about identifying and managing significant obstacles
and weaknesses that exist within the partnership and could inhibit delivery
of partnership objectives. Appendix 5 sets out some of the typical risks
that should be evaluated for any partnership.
8.2. When the obstacles have been identified the next stage is to prioritise
them by reference to likelihood and impact and compare their level of
priority against the partnership or organisation’s appetite for risk. Once
prioritised it is essential that steps are taken to effectively manage those
risks.
8.3. The aim is that major obstacles that exist within the partnership can be
mitigated to provide it with a greater chance of being able to achieve its
objectives.
8.4. All partners should achieve a common understanding of the potential
business risks associated with achieving the partnership’s objectives, their
relative seriousness, and how they can be managed. Whilst all partnerships
need to consider risk for the Major and Medium partnerships it is
appropriate to carry out a formal risk assessment and to maintain a joint
partnership risk register which should also specify which agency is
responsible for managing the action plan to reduce individual risk.
8.5. A designated member of the partnership management group should be
named as being accountable for maintaining the risk register and for
ensuring it is completed and reviewed on a timely basis by the partners.
8.6. The partnership agreement should identify when and in what format the
risk assessment and risk management plan will be monitored and reviewed,
as well as the individual who is responsible for these actions. In any event
the risks should also be reviewed in the light of significant events,
milestones or incidents that may indicate the need for the partnership to
review its risks at particular times.
9. Decision making arrangements
9.1. Partnerships either take executive decisions themselves, or make decisions
that will affect executive decisions in other service areas. They need clear
lines of accountability and a transparent decision-making processes,
particularly for the decisions on committing and allocating partnership
resources.
M:\909\WPDATA\NEW COMMITTEES\Audit Committee\2011-2012\6 December
2011\Draft\Appendix F.doc
9
Appendix F
9.2. A partnership’s work can be seriously hindered if decisions have to the
separately ratified by the partners in advance and if the partner’s decision
making processes or timetables are not integrated. It is important
therefore that agents representing the Council and other partnership
members have the delegated authority to take decisions on its behalf and
that those decisions can be scrutinised and challenged effectively.
9.3. Partnerships should also plan their work carefully so that they know well in
advance when decisions with significant policy or financial implications will
need to be made. It is important that all partners have sufficient time to
evaluate the implications of major prospective decisions and to consider
their own legal and financial advice.
10. Dissolution arrangements
10.1.
The partnership agreement should include provisions for both the
planned and unplanned end of the partnership. While it may not be
necessary to cover all aspects, even smaller partnerships should agree
termination provisions.
10.2.
Even if the partnership is due to run for an indefinite period,
termination provisions should still be identified, e.g. minimum notice
period. The partnership may also wish to include provisions for termination
on other grounds e.g. legislative changes, overspends or breach of
regulation.
10.3.
A clear exit strategy should address how to deal with ongoing
commitments and liabilities that have been entered into during the life of
the partnership. In particular it should cover:
• Informing the funders
• How partner contributions will be distributed and a model for the final
apportionment of resources
• Outstanding contractual liabilities
• Personnel issues e.g. redundancy, notice periods etc.
• Property issues e.g. property transfers, including surrender of lease.
• Informing all stakeholders, service users and so on.
• Any ‘guarantee’ period i.e. a period during which the partners continue
to accept a measure of responsibility
• A date from which each partner acts independently; and
• Post closure appraisal
11. The Partnership Register
11.1.
The Partnership Register provides access for basic information about
the Council’s partnerships. The register identifies the partnerships that the
Council is involved in together with an assessment of their category (Major,
Medium and Minor).
11.2.
As a reference point the register also contains the base data against
which the Council can monitor and evaluate progress in particular
partnerships as well as establish its overall involvement in partnership
working.
11.3.
Appendix 7 sets out a possible pro forma for a partnership register.
M:\909\WPDATA\NEW COMMITTEES\Audit Committee\2011-2012\6 December
2011\Draft\Appendix F.doc
10
Appendix F
Appendix 1
Partnership approval checklist
Name of partnership:
Checklist completed by:
Financial contribution:
Ref
£
Question
Date:
Officer time:
X Hours
Answer
Major, Medium and Minor categories
1.1
What is the issue to be
addressed by forming a
partnership?
1.2
Do other organisations share this
concern and are they willing to
work together?
1.3
Could an existing partnership be
adapted to deliver the outcome?
1.4
Is there a clear vision for the
partnership?
1.5
Does the proposed partnership
contribute to the Council’s
corporate plan
1.6
Does the law allow the
partnership to proceed?
1.7
What is the impact of not setting
up a partnership?
Major and Medium categories
2.1*
Full financial implications
including any available
“external” funding
2.2*
Availability of performance
indicators to measure success
and outcomes
2.3*
Impact on existing programmes
of work
2.4*
Impact on core services and
priorities
2.5*
The appropriateness of any
proposed partner
2.6*
Reputational risk if the
partnership objectives are not
delivered
Major categories
3.1
Who is the partnership leader
and what other organisations
will be represented?
3.2
What are the resource
implications?
3.3
Are there any other sources of
funding?
M:\909\WPDATA\NEW COMMITTEES\Audit Committee\2011-2012\6 December
2011\Draft\Appendix F.doc
11
Appendix F
Ref
Question
3.4
What are the future budget
implications that need to be
considered
Have the partnership proposals
been the subject of consultation
with other council services?
What are the proposed
partnership’s financial
arrangements?
3.5
3.6
Answer
*A risk matrix needs to be set up covering likelihood, impact and outcome, for each
of the headings in this section.
Partnership sign off:
Approval of relevant Head(s) of Service
Date:
Approval of Monitoring Officer
Date:
Approval of Section 151 Officer
Date:
Approval of Resources Portfolio Holder
Date:
Approval of cabinet/ Full Council
Date:
M:\909\WPDATA\NEW COMMITTEES\Audit Committee\2011-2012\6 December
2011\Draft\Appendix F.doc
12
Appendix F
Appendix 2
Objectives and Outcomes
Step 1 - Defining objectives
Objective – what does the service hope to achieve and how does this link to
corporate and community objectives?
•
•
Targeted output - what level of output is expected. Outputs may be
quantifiable levels of service, such as number of families re-housed or the
occurrence of single event. Output targets should be SMART (specific,
measurable, achievable, realistic and time bound). This will mean that part
of a targeted output will include an indication of how the performance will
be measured.
Targeted outcome – what is the expected impact as a result of a key action
or group of actions. Outcomes may be less easy to define with
straightforward quantifiable measures, but clear indicators of performance
will be included as part of the targeted outcomes. For example, a targeted
outcome could be about reducing homelessness, which might be measured
by specialist survey or a reduction in the number of registered homeless.
Step 2 converting the objectives into specifics
•
•
•
•
Task – a brief, one-line description of the planned activity. Include only key
tasks for this level of plan.
Completion deadline or milestone - date by when the task is to be
completed or in certain cases (for example: improvement to be achieved in
a PI) a milestone per quarter etc. could be set for regular monitoring.
Lead person – a named person responsible for ensuring the task is
completed
Resources – what resources will be required to complete the task? These
resources will be about people as often as about money. What skills will
staff need to ensure success? If any development is required (whether
through training, mentoring or even learning on the job) is this reflected in
their personal development plans? The bottom line has to be reflected in
terms of financial, personnel and other resources. And if all actions can’t be
adequately resourced, that’s an indication that prioritisation must be more
robust. Final implications of the plan have to be clearly demonstrated.
M:\909\WPDATA\NEW COMMITTEES\Audit Committee\2011-2012\6 December
2011\Draft\Appendix F.doc
13
Appendix F
Appendix 3
Roles and responsibilities
Officers
When working on behalf of a partnership Officers remain employees of North
Norfolk District Council and are governed by the same arrangements as their work
for the Council through financial regulations and codes of conduct as well as the
other policies adopted by the Council from time to time.
There are three key roles in setting out the management arrangements for
partnerships:
• The Partnership Officer
• The Performance and Risk Management Board
• The Cabinet
The Partnership Officer is the fundamental role which sets the tone for the
partnership. The role covers the following points:
• To provide a point of contact between the council and the partnership
• To assist the partnership work
• To facilitate the Council’s input into the partnership
• To review performance against agreed procedures and targets and to report
regularly.
• To report on an exception basis if any issues arise between regular reports
• To alert relevant officers to any issues e.g. Internal Audit, Personnel etc.
• To facilitate an annual self-assessment of the partnership’s activity and
make recommendations about any action required.
• To report on progress with ‘their’ partnership
• To assess findings of review and evaluation and make formal
recommendations
• To contribute to overall assessment of effectiveness of partnerships
• To action any points arising from the review and/or evaluation
• To identify any learning issues
• To ensure organisation benefits from learning
• To troubleshoot any problems that arise in the day-to-day operation of the
partnership which impact on or involve the Council.
The Performance and Risk Management Board Terms of Reference
The Performance & Risk Management Board is composed of the following
members:Leader of the Council
Portfolio Holder
Chief Executive
Strategic Director - Community
Strategic Director - Environment
Strategic Director - Information
Deputy Chief Executive
The Board will request the attendance of other Officers, Members or contractors to
their meetings where their input will be of assistance to the work of the Board.
M:\909\WPDATA\NEW COMMITTEES\Audit Committee\2011-2012\6 December
2011\Draft\Appendix F.doc
14
Appendix F
The Board is accountable to the Cabinet and has a relationship with the Audit
Committee, particularly on risk-related matters.
Purpose
The purpose of the Performance and Risk Management Board is to embed
performance and risk management within the culture of the Council as a means of:
•
•
•
Driving organisational improvement forward;
Providing evidence of priority achievements; and
Minimising and managing the Council’s on-going risk exposure.
Objectives
1. To maintain a performance management framework that is
understood and implemented by all.
2. To identify and manage the Council’s strategic and operational risks
and strengthen business continuity.
3. To ensure that all staff and Members have a shared understanding of
the council’s priorities and of what is needed to be done to realise
those priorities.
4. To ensure that the commitment given to performance and risk
management is commensurate with the importance placed on
embedding a successful performance and risk management culture.
5. To ensure that services deliver the corporate objectives by
challenging the measures and targets put forward by service heads /
managers.
6. To ensure that management and Council decisions are based on
valid, accurate and timely information.
Tasks
1. To review performance and risk management information monthly,
in accordance with the Performance Management Framework.
2. To review service business plans to ensure that appropriate
performance measures, indicators and targets have been set and to
monitor progress on key activities within the plans, which contribute
to the delivery of the Corporate Plan.
3. To look at and consider value for money in delivery of projects and
improvements plans.
4. To review the risks identified in the service business plans to ensure
that appropriate action is taken to mitigate significant risks.
5. To review and update the strategic risk register half-yearly.
6. To ensure the Council discharges its Health and Safety obligations
and delivers an agreed development programme.
7. To ensure that effective business continuity plans are established
and implemented and that the Council discharges its Civil
Contingencies obligations.
8. To raise awareness and understanding of the importance of
performance and risk management amongst staff and Members.
9. To ensure that a corporate approach is taken to developing project
management by maintaining a current project management toolkit
and supporting processes to improve skills and techniques.
10. To establish project groups as required and agree and monitor
detailed project plans for the work of those groups.
M:\909\WPDATA\NEW COMMITTEES\Audit Committee\2011-2012\6 December
2011\Draft\Appendix F.doc
15
Appendix F
11. To take appropriate action in response to external assessment of
performance and risk management.
(19th September 2008 as amended November 2011)
The Cabinet
The role of the Cabinet is to:
1. Receive reports annually from the Performance and Risk
Management board or Chief Executive (as appropriate) on the
effectiveness of partnership arrangements. While commenting on
the overall operation of partnerships the report should draw out any
concerns that should be addressed by individual Portfolio holders.
2. To agree the future direction and action plans produced as a result
of the evaluation process to ensure that they address the concerns
of cabinet and individual portfolio holders
3. To assess and challenge the continued involvement in partnerships.
M:\909\WPDATA\NEW COMMITTEES\Audit Committee\2011-2012\6 December
2011\Draft\Appendix F.doc
16
Appendix F
Appendix 4
Financial management and control
The Accountable Body implements the partnership’s reasonable decisions. This
means it will do things like securing and signing contracts or service level
agreements and paying out funds. This involves:
•
•
•
•
Administering and taking responsibility for the funding
Providing resources (e.g. staff, facilities) to carry out the obligations of the
partnership (Inc. procurement, finance, information systems support)
Ensuring that the grant allocated is spent according to the agreed plan
Establish and maintain effective systems for monitoring and auditing spend
In order to qualify as or be appointed an Accountable Body, the organisation must
be:
•
•
•
Nominated to act on behalf of the partnership
A legal entity
Capable of meeting legal obligations
An Accountable Body may either be the partnership itself (if it has formed a
company limited by guarantee) or one of the members of the partnership acting on
behalf of the rest of the partners. Before taking on the role of Accountable Body
there must have been prior approval of the Cabinet or, where deemed appropriate,
the Monitoring Officer and Section 151 Officer.
A “pooled budget” is purely an amount of money placed in a common fund by each
partner. However, where partnerships include a partner from a health trust then
reference is sometimes made to two types of pooled budget:
• ‘Parallel Budget’ with discretely identifiable resources – where
contributions made to the “pool” do not lose their identity to the funding
partners, i.e. expenditure is separately accounted for against each
individual contribution to the pool.
• Pooled Budget – where on pooling, all resources will lose their identity to
the funding partner.
From the outset agreement must be reached on each partner’s contribution to the
partnership as well as deciding who will administer the pooled budget.
It is essential that regular monitoring reports are produced as an aid to good
financial management. In broad terms the detail and frequency of financial reports
will increase in direct proportion to the partnership risk category.
Additionally, as general good practice, there should be an annual report to the
Cabinet/ Board of each of the partners.
The procurement framework of the partnership should be comparable to the
Councils. The proposed arrangements must be agreed in advance.
VAT is a complicated area and advice must be sought for individual partnerships as,
generally speaking, no two partnerships are exactly the same. Without proper
adherence to VAT legislation the “partnership” may find that its funding is less
then expected, and if VAT rules are not followed this might mean that interest and
penalties have to be paid.
M:\909\WPDATA\NEW COMMITTEES\Audit Committee\2011-2012\6 December
2011\Draft\Appendix F.doc
17
Appendix F
From the outset, the “partnership” agreement must provide both Internal and
External Auditors with rights of access to all documents. The wording for each
agreement must be obtained from the Internal Audit service.
It will need to be established who is going to be responsible for holding documents
and for that party to be aware of the legal requirements of retaining documents for
various statutory and grant body requirement periods.
Quite often, grants form the main funding for partnership arrangements and the
terms and conditions of those grants, including document retention must be clear.
It is also necessary to avoid the potential claw back of any grant monies.
Throughout the planning and implementation stages of the partnership, there must
be thorough and comprehensive attention to liability issues.
In the first instance legal advice must be sought. Considerations include:
•
•
•
Infringement of legislation by staff or members of the partnership.
If staff are paid from petty cash, this is a contravention of Inland Revenue
regulations.
Need to consider being indemnified against any actions that a partner (or
partnership) may make. In terms of accountability it is essential that a
Budget Holder is appointed to the “partnership” with clearly defined duties
and responsibilities.
M:\909\WPDATA\NEW COMMITTEES\Audit Committee\2011-2012\6 December
2011\Draft\Appendix F.doc
18
Appendix F
Appendix 5
Partnership evaluation
Need
1. The partnership continues to address the original objectives and deliver
better service outcomes for the Council
2. There remains a commitment to devote time and resources to this
partnership
3. The members of the partnership continue to value its operation
4. The work of the partnership continues to complement the Corporate
aims of the Council
Governance
1. The partnership agreement is still current
2. The partnership agreement has only been modified with the correct
level of approval
3. The partnership outcomes are SMART
4. Delegation to officers and members on the partnership board can be
scrutinised and challenged
Contribution
1. Financial controls continue to operate including regular financial reports
2. Risk management is regularly considered by the partnership board
3. Partnership meetings are attended by all partners and minutes are
provided to agenda led meetings
Outcomes
1. SMART outcomes are regularly revised and updated
2. It is clear where partnership responsibility and accountability lies
3. The outcomes remain relevant to the service delivery and community
needs
4. The partnership is responsive to user needs and this is reflected in
responsive action plans prepared by the partnership
M:\909\WPDATA\NEW COMMITTEES\Audit Committee\2011-2012\6 December
2011\Draft\Appendix F.doc
19
Appendix F
Appendix 6
Risk considerations
Typical risks associated with partnership working include the following:
• Unclear governance arrangements
• Unclear financial and legal liabilities
• Service delivery failures
• Differing cultures – poor relationships
• Incompatible systems and processes
• Failure of partners to perform
• Lack of commitment from other partners
These risks should be considered prior to entering into the partnership and the
level of risk that the Council is exposed to helps to inform the decision whether to
engage in the partnership or not. Any significant risks that are to be accepted and
managed should be recorded in a risk register.
M:\909\WPDATA\NEW COMMITTEES\Audit Committee\2011-2012\6 December
2011\Draft\Appendix F.doc
20
Appendix F
Appendix 7
Draft Partnership register
Name of
Partnership
Directorate
Responsible
Officer(s)
Cabinet/ Portfolio
holder
Legal status
Aims and
objectives of the
partnership
Expected
outcomes
Links to Corporate
Plan
Resources
allocated
Name of partners
Governance
arrangements
Reporting and
review
arrangements
Risk assessment
outcomes
Performance and
monitoring
arrangements
Date partnership
approved
Reference
number
Category
Date partnership
terminates
M:\909\WPDATA\NEW COMMITTEES\Audit Committee\2011-2012\6 December
2011\Draft\Appendix F.doc
21
Appendix F
Appendix 8
In establishing a partnership the following questions and statements will provide an
agenda to assist in forming an initial partnership assessment followed by a formal
partnership agreement
Rationale for the Partnership
Why does this partnership exist?
What are the partnerships shared vision, values and, if appropriate, agreed service
principles?
What are its agreed aims and objectives? Are they realistic and measurable?
Is there a documented options appraisal?
Is there a strong and robust business case?
Where and how was the decision to go into partnership agreed by our organisation?
How does the partnership help to achieve organisational objectives?
Added Value from the Partnership
How does the partnership add value?
How do you demonstrate this added value?
Governance Arrangements
Does the governing document address key elements?
Are accountabilities clearly stated and understood?
Are each partner’s areas of responsibility clear and understood?
Are all partners signed up and committed to these arrangements?
How often are the governance arrangements reviewed?
How are decisions made? How are they recorded?
To whom are decisions reported and how?
Have scrutiny arrangements been developed?
How does the partnership account for its activity?
How do your partnership’s corporate governance arrangements link to our
organisation?
Membership
The make up of the partnership, and who is invited to participate, (usually
individuals are included, as their personal contribution will impact on the purpose
of the partnership).
Elected Members and Officers of the Council need to ensure they follow the
appropriate code of conduct.
Members of the partnership and the organisations must be non-party political in
this role and the partnership must not have been established for purely religious
reasons.
MANAGEMENT
Business Planning
Does the partnership have an agreed action plan or business plan?
How often is it reviewed?
How are new opportunities planned and assessed?
How are decisions taken on new opportunities?
Who scrutinises those decisions?
Project Management
Are activities project managed where appropriate?
Does the partnership have a formal, consistent project management methodology?
M:\909\WPDATA\NEW COMMITTEES\Audit Committee\2011-2012\6 December
2011\Draft\Appendix F.doc
22
Appendix F
How are projects monitored and reported?
Performance Management
Does the action plan or business plan include clear milestones, outcomes,
performance indicators and delivery dates?
What arrangements are in place to monitor and review how successfully targets are
being met?
What arrangements are in place to ensure that monitoring and review findings are
widely shared and disseminated amongst the partners?
Are partnership aims, objectives and working arrangements reconsidered and,
where necessary, revised in the light of monitoring and review findings?
Is the partnership clear what it will do if poor performance is reported?
Financial Management and Planning
Is it clear what financial resources each partner and other organisations are
contributing to the partnership?
Are timescales around funding adequately planned for?
Can the money be reallocated?
Are budget setting and monitoring procedures in place?
Who is responsible for administering the budget?
Are effective systems in place for monitoring and auditing spend?
What are the financial reporting arrangements?
Who is the accountable body?
Risk Management
How are risks identified, prioritised and managed?
How are risks allocated? Is there clear allocation of risk?
Do the risk management procedures meet our standards?
Does the partnership have appropriate business continuity arrangements in place?
Stakeholder Management
What consultation has been undertaken with key stakeholders about the outcomes
and objectives that the partnership wants to deliver?
How have service users and the wider public been communicated with to explain
how the partnership works and where responsibility and accountability lie?
Does the partnership have a joint complaints procedure? If not, how can redress be
obtained?
Frequency of Meetings
A schedule of meetings is to be produced, where possible. The frequency of
meetings to be dependant upon the partnership’s action and implementation plans.
There will be a requirement for an agreed period for special or emergency
meetings.
Quorum
To be determined by the partnership.
Terms of Reference
Any changes will need to be agreed by all parties, in the case of the Council
approved by their Legal Services.
The Terms of Reference will be reviewed annually and so noted in the minutes.
CLOSING
M:\909\WPDATA\NEW COMMITTEES\Audit Committee\2011-2012\6 December
2011\Draft\Appendix F.doc
23
Appendix F
Termination arrangements
What are the arrangements if this partnership comes to an end, be it planned or
unplanned? How often are these arrangements reviewed?
What are the arrangements for our organisation leaving the partnership?
How will resources be reallocated back to partners?
Who do any residual liabilities rest with?
How will the impact of the cessation of the Partnership be assessed?
M:\909\WPDATA\NEW COMMITTEES\Audit Committee\2011-2012\6 December
2011\Draft\Appendix F.doc
24