107 Accountability has three elements: giving an account, being held to account, and complaints and redress (Table 7).
Table 7 Levels and types of accountability LSPs and their partners can respond to accountability challenges | ||||
Challenge | Strategic | Executive | Operational | |
Giving an account | Report on activities, successes and failures to the partner organisations and to the public. | • Report to the executive on how partners use their resources to meet LSP goals. • Councils give an account to central government for LAA performance. • Councils and other partners also give accounts to the public, regulators, and government for a variety of measures. | ||
Being held to account | Respond to overview and scrutiny. Challenge between partners. | • Account for day-to-day performance through the partner organisations' management structures. • Respond to overview and scrutiny and partnership challenge. • Respond to auditors, inspectors, and other stakeholders. | ||
Complaints and redress Source: Audit | Review complaints and redress information. Commission, 2008 | • Use complaints and redress data to manage performance and report to strategic layer. | • Ensure that complaints are dealt with and suitable redress offered. • Use data to improve services. | |
Source: Audit Commission, 2008
108 Statutory partners are accountable to different government departments. The police report their performance through assessments of policing and community safety (APACS) (Ref. 40), and health partners report through Vital Signs (Ref. 41). These accountabilities sit outside the LAA framework. Partners can see them as obstacles to closer integration of performance systems:
'We have tried to get involved, but I think the police have three main targets, we have 139, and accountability for us to the Department of Health is more complicated.'
PCT chief executive
'It's harder for me to be in partnership with the PCT because they're always driven by a slightly different agenda.'
Council chief executive
'Some partners are happy with the LAA, but sometimes people find there is a tug between their own government department and what CLG hopes to get out of partnerships.'
LSP director
'Certain government departments are finding it very difficult to let go of control.'
Government office locality manager
109 Overview and scrutiny enables councils to hold LSPs to account for local action and local public spending. The LGPIH Act 2007 and the Police and Justice Act 2006 give councils power to scrutinize the activities of LAA named partners (Ref. 11).
110 Overview and scrutiny of an LSP can:
• focus on one-off activities or events;
• review systems and risks;
• assess performance in different themes; and
• review performance data from LSPs and partners.
111 Councils need to be clear about their objectives for overview and scrutiny of their LSP. Some areas have developed scrutiny processes that reinforce the democratic oversight of the different layers of collaborative working (Case study 16). Overview and scrutiny can also overcome some of the challenges of multi-tier working (Case study 17). The City Partnership in Derby has jointly trained partner representatives and scrutiny members so they can improve LSP performance and risk management.
Case study 16 Oldham's scrutiny of partnerships Councillors in Oldham reviewed their overview and scrutiny arrangements in 2006. They agreed that previous arrangements were inward looking and had no links to the LSP. In 2007 Oldham established three elected member scrutiny bodies (Scrutiny Management Board, Performance and Value for Money Select Committee, and a Project Board). The Scrutiny Management Board decides on the issues to cover and its remit includes the LAA and the Oldham Partnership (the LSP). The chair of the Oldham Partnership is a member of the Scrutiny Management Board. The 2007/08 work programme included a scrutiny review of the impact of vacant and derelict land on neighbourhoods. It recommended a land bank of vacant and derelict land and buildings; and the transfer of council-owned sites to social or community use. The new structure costs about £42,000 a year to run - the same as the previous arrangements. Local stakeholders think it is far more effective. Source: Audit Commission, 2008 |
Case study 17 A county approach to partnership scrutiny In Dorset the chairs and vice chairs of the scrutiny committees of the county council and the six district councils meet as an informal networking group. In 2006 the group jointly scrutinised the Dorset Strategic Partnership (DSP). The county council's Audit and Scrutiny Committee led the scrutiny: all six district councils participated. The group met monthly to scrutinise the: • support and development of the DSP; • performance management arrangements of the DSP and the LAA; • community strategy implementation; • DSP governance and use of resources; and • the future role of scrutiny to monitor and develop the partnership. The review recommended: • a DSP communications strategy to raise its profile and achievements (including regular information to all elected members in the county); • training for DSP board members to increase their understanding of resources; • a performance framework for the thematic partnerships; and • a programme of reviews of each district LSP and its community planning capacity. The LSP and partners accepted the recommendations. The LSP has a communications strategy and a performance framework. Source: Audit Commission, 2008 |