Audit Committee
13 September 2011
Agenda Item No____12_________
PARTNERSHIPS AND THE PARTNERSHIP RISK REGISTER
Summary:
This report reviews the current partnership framework and
its applicability in the financial and organisational
environment. It outlines the further work that is to be
undertaken.
Conclusions:
Further work is to be undertaken to redraft the current
partnership framework in the light of the broad spectrum of
“partnerships” that the Council is currently party to. Particular
attention is to be paid to the governance arrangements and the
involvement of Elected Members.
Recommendations:
That the actions outlined in the report be developed to provide a
revised partnership framework for the Council that recognises
the range of partners and provides a sound basis for assessing
and reporting on partnership risk.
Cabinet member(s):
Ward(s) affected:
All
All
David Ablett, 01263-516055
David.ablett@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Contact Officer, telephone
number, and e-mail:
1. Introduction
1.1. The Internal Audit report (NN10/02) dated October 2009 made a number of
recommendations concerning partnerships. It reviewed the governance
arrangements, performance information and risk management associated with
partnership working in North Norfolk and made eleven recommendations (10 –
medium; 1 – low). These are reproduced at Appendix 1 below.
1.2. In February 2011 the Corporate Risk Officer reported to the Head of
Organisational Development with a status update on partnerships. The last
M:\909\WPDATA\NEW COMMITTEES\Audit Committee\2011-2012\13 September
2011\Draft\Partnership report.doc
Audit Committee
13 September 2011
report on the “Partnership List and Risk Rating” to the Performance and Risk
Management Board was in May 2010.
1.3. 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.
1.4. The drivers for partnership working identified by the Council 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.
1.5. Firstly there has been the formalisation of ideas in respect of partnerships with
the development of the Big Society. And secondly there has been a significant
reduction in financial support to local authorities as the impact of the national
deficit recovery programme hits the public sector.
1.6. 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 “barrier busting” team to help local communities work together to overcome
bureaucracy.
1.7. 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.
2. Going forward
2.1. 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.
2.2. The word partnership has come to be used in an ambiguous way across all
different types of relationship. In local government this can range from the
establishment of a Joint Committee to Members serving on an outside body. In
progressing a revised partnership framework the boundaries of the partnerships
it addresses must be clear.
2.3. The Council currently defines a partnership as follows:
“A partnership involves a formal arrangement with some pooling of risk,
resources or freedom of action.”
M:\909\WPDATA\NEW COMMITTEES\Audit Committee\2011-2012\13 September
2011\Draft\Partnership report.doc
Audit Committee
13 September 2011
2.4. This is the basis of partnership but lacks the elements which underline the
creation of the partnership which set it apart from the individual stakeholders
while maintaining strong governance and resource management.
2.5. The elaboration in the current “Partnership Framework and Principles” does go
some way towards this when it speaks of joint problem solving, shared
governance, collective responsibility, mutual support and shared aims/ vision.
However, for clarity a revised definition should be more explicit in identifying
these elements.
2.6. A revised definition is suggested below:
“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.”
2.7. In essence this establishes the partnership as a discrete entity through which
the Council is working, with other organisations, to deliver a shared objective
which could be a statutory requirement, strategic arrangements, through joint
committees or working with not for profit organisations.
2.8. 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 (probably less than a year)
2.9. However, the framework will cover working arrangements where there is:
• Otherwise independent bodies are working together
• Shared vision and interdependency
• Cooperation to achieve a common goal
• Joint planning and implementation of an agreed programme
• Collective responsibility
• Pooling of risk and reward
2.10.
The result will provide a structure for the Council’s relationships with third
parties that are not in themselves contracts for the supply of goods. Rather there
is an element of mutuality implicit in the terms so that there is a common goal
identified by all parties together with a sharing of accountability and risk.
3. Member appointments
3.1. Councillors play an important role in reflecting both the views of the community
as well as those of the Council as a whole. In this respect they need to have an
awareness of this framework and the part they will be called upon to play in the
governance of partnerships.
M:\909\WPDATA\NEW COMMITTEES\Audit Committee\2011-2012\13 September
2011\Draft\Partnership report.doc
Audit Committee
13 September 2011
3.2. Members must ensure that they understand the role that they are playing when
working with a partnership. This will depend on the nature of the partnership.
3.3. Where the partnership is a joint committee or joint working group Members
serve on them as Council Members and as far as liability is concerned this is
covered by the Council’s insurers.
3.4. Where the partnership is independent of the Council and a Members
appointment is as a representative rather than an executive one, the purpose of
the appointment is to speak on behalf of the Council.
3.5. Finally where the Member is placed to act as a Trustee or member of the
Management Committee they do not act as Council representative but work in
the best interest of the partnership rather than the Council. In these
circumstances the Council insurance will not cover them and they cannot be
indemnified by the Council.
3.6. A comprehensive list of outside organisations and the Members who sit on them
is attached at appendix 2.
4. Draft improvement plan
4.1. Improved partnership working that focuses on the corporate aims of the Council
will require a fresh look at service aims and ambitions. A simple list of all outside
organisations with which the Council has a relationship will not be sufficient to
identifying the significant partnerships and will not, by itself, inform the
partnership risk index.
4.2. The protocol will need to draw on the revised Corporate Plan and other
strategies as well as Service Plans.
4.3. The key components in a framework are that it is graded and applicable to each
relationship. In this way the degree of emphasis required and the level of
governance arrangements can be assessed rather than a “one size fits all”
approach.
4.4. A draft review framework is attached as appendix 3 to this report.
4.5. The eventual outcome of the review is to present to Members a protocol that will
allow the Council to adopt a secure framework when working in partnership with
other organisations. It will identify the level of financial control, governance and
transparency that is required and the standards of conduct that the Council will
expect from its partners.
4.6. There are a number of challenges implicit in partnership working which if not
addressed could leave the partnership and the Council exposed to risk. For
example:
4.6.1. Failure to understand the extent of Members involvement in partnership
and the financial and legal implications.
M:\909\WPDATA\NEW COMMITTEES\Audit Committee\2011-2012\13 September
2011\Draft\Partnership report.doc
Audit Committee
13 September 2011
4.6.2. Partnerships operating in isolation often duplicating effort.
4.6.3. Weak alignment between the partnership and the Council’s corporate
plans aggravated by poor or non existent “reporting back” mechanisms
4.6.4. Limited use of Specific, Measurable, Achievable, realistic and Timely
(SMART) action plans
4.6.5. Ambiguous responsibility for partnership scrutiny.
4.6.6. Lack of an agreed exit strategy, ownership of assets, definition of the
accountable body etc.
5. Conclusion
5.1. The review is to be undertaken to redraft the current partnership framework in
the light of the broad spectrum of “partnerships” that the Council is currently
party to. Particular attention is to be paid to the governance arrangements and
the involvement of Elected Members.
5.2. The proposals contained in this paper outline a methodology and a programme
that will identify partnerships, grade them apply appropriate risk analysis and
allow for an annual review of each partnership.
6. Recommendation
6.1. That the actions outlined in the report be developed to provide a revised
partnership framework for the Council that recognises the range of partners and
provides a sound basis for assessing and reporting on partnership risk.
M:\909\WPDATA\NEW COMMITTEES\Audit Committee\2011-2012\13 September
2011\Draft\Partnership report.doc
Audit Committee
13 September 2011
Appendix 1
No.
Recommendation
Deadline
1 Management should ensure that the Partnership
22/09/09
Framework compiled in January 2009 is reviewed
and approved by Scrutiny Committee. Furthermore,
the framework should be presented to the Senior
Management Team.
2 Management should ensure that partnership 28/02/10
assessment questionnaires are completed for the
remaining significant partnerships.
See also recommendation 5 for retaining evidence
of assessments and approval by Cabinet.
3 Management should ensure that the Council
maintains a central, detailed register of all
partnerships which includes details of the role,
significance to the Council, financial contribution
and other resources to be provided by the Council
to the partnership. The register should be refreshed
in a timely manner to reflect the changes, and
ensure there is sufficient clarity between what
constitutes a “partnership” and what is a “contract”.
Response
The Framework was presented to, and agreed by,
Senior Management Team on 17th July 2009 and
reported to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on
22nd September 2009 (Agenda item 10).
The Corporate Risk Officer will ensure that partnership
assessment questionnaires are completed for all five
significant partnerships (as currently identified) working
with the lead officers for each partnership.
31/12/09
The Partnership Risk Register includes all partnerships
rated by risk. It is intended to keep one list rather than
duplicate. The Corporate Risk Officer is undertaking a
review with the lead officers to determine whether there
are any new partnerships which need to be added,
current ones amended or deleted. The complete list will
initially be agreed with the Performance and Risk
Board. There has been significant discussion as to the
inclusion of certain ‘contracts’ on the Partnership
register. In the instances where a contract has been
included it is because it is considered that that contract
is “delivering major services in a strategic arrangement”
(page 5 of the Partnership Framework).
4 Management should ensure that clear links 28/02/10
between partnership objectives and the Council's
corporate
objectives
are
established
and
The Corporate Risk Officer is drawing up a Partnership
Review Evaluation Template (recommendation 2)
which will be completed by the lead officer for the
M:\909\WPDATA\NEW COMMITTEES\Audit Committee\2011-2012\13 September 2011\Draft\Partnership report.doc
Audit Committee
No.
Recommendation
documented.
13 September 2011
Deadline
Response
partnership. This identifies key aims and alignment with
NNDC’s objectives.
5 Partnership initiation assessments/ business cases 31/03/10
should be carried out and retained for independent
inspection and scrutiny. Furthermore, the
assessments should be endorsed by the Cabinet as
acceptable to the Council. This should include all
new partnerships and respective approval where
evidence cannot be located for all current
partnerships.
The frameworks risk grading (page 6) expects an initial
review of the type of partnership it is and whether it
needs robust governance from the Council. This review
should be undertaken before any significant work is
undertaken on business cases. Once the framework is
up and running then this would form the initial
assessment and would be completed and retained for
each partnership. For existing partnerships,
retrospective approval will be confirmed by completion
of the evaluation template – once completed for each
partnership, this will then go to Members via the
PRMB.
6 Formal ToR should also be produced/in evidence
for all existing Partnerships, including the
Community Partnership, and where they are found
not to exist, once produced, should be formally
approved by all relevant parties.
31/03/10
This will be addressed through the completion of the
'partnership review evaluation template'.
7 The Corporate Risk Officer or other suitably
approved designated officer(s) should liaise with
lead officers of significant partnerships, and
partnerships that are entered into in the future, in
order to conduct a strategic review of governance
arrangements. This should incorporate reviewing
existing partnership boards and risk assessments.
The outcome should be reported to the
Performance and Risk Management Board and
28/02/10
Agreed - this will be completed using the 'partnership
review evaluation template' for existing significant
partnerships and by completion of the 'partnership
checklist (page 38 of the framework) for new
partnerships.
M:\909\WPDATA\NEW COMMITTEES\Audit Committee\2011-2012\13 September 2011\Draft\Partnership report.doc
Audit Committee
No.
Recommendation
Cabinet through an annual report which will feed
into the Annual Governance Statement.
13 September 2011
Deadline
8 Management should monitor the action plan to
Implemented
ensure the Partnership Framework is completed
28/08/09
and approved within agreed timescales. Once
approved, the Partnership Framework should be
made available on the Council's intranet as
identified in the action plan.
9 Management should ensure that partnerships that 28/02/10
make a significant contribution towards the
performance of the Council are recognised within
NNDC's performance indicators on the TEN system
and reported to the Performance and Risk
Management Board and Scrutiny Committee
through the quarterly reports.
Response
There needs to be a new action plan produced to
ensure that the framework is being followed. It was in
place for the Scrutiny Committee (22nd September
2009) – this will then be available on the intranet.
10 Management should ensure that an action plan is
agreed and documented in the Corporate Risk
Register under the 'Partnership Working' risk.
30/11/09
The Performance and Risk Management Board are
reviewing all Corporate Risks as they are being input to
the Ten system and need to include specific actions to
reduce those risks that can be reduced.
11 A comprehensive partnership risk register should
be produced capturing the key risks posed to the
Council by the significant partnerships. These risks
should be assessed in line with Council's risk
management strategy and a process should be
established to escalate key partnership risks to the
Corporate Risk Register.
30/11/09
See recommendation 3. The Partnership Risk Register
includes all partnerships rated by risk. It is intended to
keep one list rather than duplicate. Agree that there is a
need to identify a procedure to escalate significant risks
to the Corporate Risk Register, where appropriate.
M:\909\WPDATA\NEW COMMITTEES\Audit Committee\2011-2012\13 September 2011\Draft\Partnership report.doc
Audit Committee
13 September 2011
Appendix 2
Appointment of Members to outside organisations is usually undertaken by full council on an annual basis. In this way the appointment
process is transparent and where it calls for political balance this can be evidenced in the proceedings of the council and the minutes of the
meeting.
An outside organisation often provides services that either complement or supplement those provided by the council. They can include
voluntary organisations, local government associations and companies.
In some cases the person appointed will be a council representative and speak for the council at meetings and look after the council’s
interests. On other bodies Members will be nominees and their main responsibility will be to the organisation to which they have been
appointed.
Ref.(+)
Organisation
No.
of
reps.
1 Fakenham Area
Partnership
2
2 Griffon Area Partnership
2
Members
Ms B Palmer
Partnership
Officers
P’ship
ref.
Fakenham Area Partnership
Beatrix Ward
22
Holt Area Partnership
Beatrix Ward
23
Norfolk Coast Partnership
Rob Young
29
Mr S Ward
Mr T Ivory
Mr N Smith
3 Holt Area Partnership
2
Mr P W High
Mrs L Brettle
4 Norfolk Coast Partnership
1+2
Subs
Mrs A M FitchTillett
(Mrs L Brettle)
(Mr P
Terrington)
M:\909\WPDATA\NEW COMMITTEES\Audit Committee\2011-2012\13 September 2011\Draft\Partnership report.doc
Audit Committee
Ref.(+)
Organisation
5 North Norfolk Business
Forum
13 September 2011
No.
of
reps.
1
Members
Mr N Smith
Partnership
Officers
P’ship
ref.
Business Forum
Robin Smith
7
6 North Norfolk Community
Partnership (to be
reviewed)
North Norfolk Community
Partnership
Beatrix Ward
1
7 North Norfolk Skills
Partnership (to be
reviewed)
Learning and Skills partnership
Robin Smith
8
Stalham with Happing Partnership
Beatrix Ward
18
Wells Area partnership
Beatrix Ward
19
(and Tourism Sector Round
Table)
8 Poppyland Partnership
2
Mrs S A Arnold
Mrs H
Thompson
9 Stalham with Happing
Partnership
10 Stalham Sports Hall
Development Group
2
Mr B Jarvis
Mr R C Price
3
Mr B Jarvis
Mr R C Price
Mr R Stevens
11 Upcher Partnership
2
Mr B J Hannah
Mr Richard
Shepherd
12 Wells Area Partnership
2
Mr T FitzPatrick
M:\909\WPDATA\NEW COMMITTEES\Audit Committee\2011-2012\13 September 2011\Draft\Partnership report.doc
Audit Committee
Ref.(+)
Organisation
13 September 2011
No.
of
reps.
Members
Partnership
Officers
P’ship
ref.
Mr J D Savory
Supporting People
Karen Hill
6
Norfolk Safer Communities
Partnership
Teri Munro
9
Norfolk Resilience Forum+ 8 sub
groups
Dave McQuirk
10
Bacton Emergency Services Liaison
Group
Dave McQuirk
11
Rural East Anglia Partnership
Karen Hill
13
Sanctuary Project
Karen Hill
14
Developing Partnership with RSLs
(4+)
Karen Hill
15
Multi Agency Public Protection
Karen Hill
16
North Walsham Area Partnership
Beatrix Ward
17
Cromer Area Partnership
Beatrix Ward
20
Sheringham Area Partnership
Beatrix Ward
21
Norfolk Rural Housing Enabler
Advisory Group
Nicola Turner
25
Bacton Woods Countryside
partnership
Paul Ingham
26
North Norfolk Community
Paul Ingham
28
M:\909\WPDATA\NEW COMMITTEES\Audit Committee\2011-2012\13 September 2011\Draft\Partnership report.doc
Audit Committee
Ref.(+)
Organisation
13 September 2011
No.
of
reps.
Members
Partnership
Officers
P’ship
ref.
Woodlands Trust
Investing in Communities
Robin Smith
30
North Norfolk Shell Fisheries
partnership
Robin Smith
31
M:\909\WPDATA\NEW COMMITTEES\Audit Committee\2011-2012\13 September 2011\Draft\Partnership report.doc
Audit Committee
13 September 2011
Appendix 3
No
1 Review framework
Deadline
Definition
Categories of partnership
Outside bodies
Consultation and feedback
2 Checklist
Best practice
Short version
Long version
3 Evaluation
Flow chart
Annual review
4 Partnership risk register
Categories of partnership
Area partnerships
Partnership/ contracts
5 Performance
Measurements
Terms of reference
6 Corporate risk
M:\909\WPDATA\NEW COMMITTEES\Audit Committee\2011-2012\13 September 2011\Draft\Partnership report.doc