1 CYP Executive Changes to Governance

2 Proposal Best possible services for CYP Most efficient and effective use of funding Single system approach Decision making partnership –Slim structure –Decisions made by funders –Users and providers have strong influence –Right balance between strategic and local decisions

3 Issues arising from the Board workshop

4 Do you agree with the recommendations from the Executive? Need for differentiation of Groups Keep number of Groups to minimum Explain the ambition to move from 20% to 80% pooling Who decides - Board or Executive? –Should the Board be about assurance and the Executive directing? Should the 'Strategy and Monitoring' Groups be about Shaping and Delivery? –Called 'Planning and Monitoring' or 'Delivery' instead? –Should they be 'Task and Finish' groups instead of standing groups?

5 Do you agree with the recommendations from the Executive? (2) Need to explain linkages to the other Boards –Should some Strategy and Performance Groups report to more than one Board?

6 What other Groups may be needed? Similar structure to HWBB Who holds the LSCB to account and should it be more integrated?

7 Which stakeholders should be included within which groups? Questions about representation –Where should users be represented? –Where should the VCS be represented? –Where do acute consultants/schools/colleges/police fit in? Board Membership –· Strategic = Small - 8? - with collective responsibility 1 CYPS 1 Health 1 Police 1 Social Care 1VCS 1 LSCB (independent Chair) 1 Educator 1 Districts –Others mentioned Colleges/schools PCC LINks/Health watch DPH

8 Which stakeholders should be included within which groups? (2) Executive Membership –General Same as Board plus providers Locality partnerships representation on Exec Group Bigger [than Board] Preserve what’s working Flexibility - review regularly –Roles/agencies mentioned · Chief Officers (CYP) · DPH · C. Const [?] · NHS providers · Job Centre Plus · Schools · Connexions · Voluntary Sector · Locality Reps

9 Which stakeholders should be included within which groups? (3) Strategy/Monitoring –· Delivery Groups (aka Strategy & Monitoring) operate at locality level unless as a County agree it should be standardised –· All Board members –· NHS providers –· JobCentre Plus –· Schools –· Connexions –· Voluntary Sector –· Locality Reps Locality –· Schools/Colleges –· Youth Groups –· Pre-school groups –· GPs –· District –Police

10 How should Locality Groups fit in with this structure? Use District boundaries They should deal with the activities identified by the circle model At present it doesn’t fit with the structure as it currently stands. Role of DIG - seen as good vehicle to standardise (e.g. safeguarding) –or LPG but bigger = local differentiation –and Community Forums - to reflect variations/needs within localities High Priority areas where inequalities need to be further addressed. –Link to GP Consortia = clusters which reflect priority neighbourhoods –Challenge of cross-border services for GP registered population

11 How should locality Groups fit in with this structure? (2) Lines of Communication –oversight of the work - Monitoring (top down) –information on local priorities (bottom up) Clear sense of Roles and Responsibilities Involve “localities” in devising solutions

12 How should conflicts be managed Acute/Targeted vs Universal Services –Don’t set impossible targets –Focus on needs of child Clarity of Purpose –Agree common purpose (linked to JSNA evidence) and clear outcomes - is it making a difference? –decision making –purpose Open culture - transparency –Accepting different and conflicting objectives are ok –Communication strategy –Good communications

13 How should conflicts be managed (2) · Conflict Resolution needs to be facilitated –· Conflicts between Theme Boards - Leicestershire Together [resolves] –· Clear resolution processes in Localities –· Clear Resolution procedure - ends at Board –· Protocols to manage disagreement –· Establish a tool kit for this process –· Where there is conflict, a risk assessment should be undertaken –- escalation

14 Main points Children at the centre –Where are the users: children/young people and employers –Voice of the Customer –Focus on outcomes for Children (outcomes that are tested) Board - Assurance/Direction/Delivery –Safeguarding - accountability to Board? More integrated? Whole System approach –Properly resourced –Think Locality first Small Board –Keep it Simple –Third Tier [other Groups] based on Needs Analysis –Clarification of CVI Role on Board

15 Planning & Monitoring Groups with CYPS element Youth Offending Management Group Stronger Communities Partnership Rural Partnership City/County Transport Partnership Staying Healthy Partnership (inc Tobacco Alliance) Sports Partnership Mental Health & Learning Disability Joint Children & CAMHS Prevention & Early Intervention Programme Board Substance Misuse Partnership Skills Partnership

16 Some Key Questions What are the distinct roles of the 3 levels Same or differentiated membership at different levels Standing or task and finish groups? –CYP only or shared? Locality - CYP only or cross cutting? Locality - how represented at strategic levels? Where and how will young people be involved? How and where will VCS be involved? How and where will providers be involved?