Agenda and minutes

In accordance with paragraph 4.13 Harrow Partnership Governance Handbook, to note the appointment of Councillor Bill Stephenson as Chairman of the Board.

AGREED:  That the appointment of Councillor Bill Stephenson as Chairman of the Board be noted.

To note the attendance at this meeting of any Substitute Members, in accordance with paragraph 4.12 of the Harrow Partnership Governance Handbook.

AGREED:  To note the attendance at this meeting of the following substitute members:-

(if any).

AGREED:  To note that no declarations were made.

That the minutes of the Board Meetings held on 11 and 22 March 2010, having been circulated, be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

AGREED:  That the minutes of the Board Meetings held on 11 and 22 March 2010 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

To appoint a Vice Chairman of the Board.

AGREED: That Dr Gillian Schiller be appointed as Vice-Chairman of the Board for the Municipal Year 2010/11.

Report of the Assistant Chief Executive, Harrow Council.

A paper was circulated regarding the Government press release on a £6.2bn reduction in public expenditure.  This included a reduction in the previously announced totals of LAA Reward Grant to Round 2 and Round 3 LAAs.  The Chairman stated that this was a major disappointment and that the officers had attempted to contact all members of the Board to make them aware of the situation in advance of the meeting.

The Assistant Chief Executive informed the Board that the indication was that the £1.7m Reward Grant already received by the Council on behalf of the Partnership remained available.  The claim for the two indicators where further information had been awaited to substantiate performance could still provide a further £600,000.  In the best case this would mean that £2,340,506 was available and, in the worst case £1,705,109.  It was considered prudent to work with the worst case figure until clarification was received

It was recommended that the reduction in grant should be spread across all the Management Groups and Harrow Chief Executives in proportion to their original allocation approved by the Partnership Board.  The scale of the reductions meant that both the Management Groups and Harrow Chief Executives would need to reconsider their recommendations, ideally before the end of June.

It was important that Management Groups and Harrow Chief Executives had the maximum discretion in re-prioritising their allocations.  To ensure that this was the case, no new spending should be entered into until after the final distribution of grant was agreed.  Where expenditure had already been incurred on projects which could no longer be accommodated within the slimmed down programme, these costs should be met from within the relevant Management Group or HCE allocation.

In response to questions, the Board was advised that:

·                    in the absence of any advice to the contrary, the division between capital and revenue would continue;

·                    Management Groups should commence consideration of a reward of £1.7m but be prepared should additional monies become available;

·                    the revised allocation was based upon the realisation of the original targets;

·                    guidance was awaited from London Councils.  Consideration was being given by Harrow Council, London Councils and other bodies to the feasibility of a legal challenge.

AGREED:  That (1) Harrow Chief Executives meet to agree how the fund allocated to themwas divided up amongst projects;

(2)  each Management Group to look at the new allocations and pro rata;

(3)  a meeting of the Partnership Board be convened  to sign off the revised management group allocations.

Presentation by the Corporate Director Adults and Housing, Harrow Council.

The Corporate Director Adults and Housing, Harrow Council, gave a presentation on Reabling Focussed Care and Intermediate Care.

It was noted that the project had secured a LAA award and the presentation had been prepared on that basis.  However, the reduction in the previously announced totals of LAA Reward Grant raised uncertainty as to whether it could proceed.

The project mapped the contact points and pathways from the older people’s point of view, particularly in and out of hospital, but the system could also benefit other client groups.  It was a new way of interacting and was a whole system approach. 

Members of the Board raised the following points:

·                    it was recognised that, whilst the person concerned had a strong preference to remain in their own home,  a lot of older people or those with disabilities could require parallel support in maintaining quality of accommodation;

·                    the project required an injection of funding in order to improve services and subsequently reduce costs.  If the savings could be demonstrated then housing might subsequently wish to look at inter-agency support;

·                    a robust preventative strategy was required with the infrastructure to identify those in need;

·                    it would be possible to broaden the criteria to enable other client groups who would benefit to qualify;

·                    medical partners fully endorsed initiatives that would keep people out of hospital, particularly in view of the corresponding 10% reduction in bedspace and reduced infection rates;

·                    the set up costs had been agreed through the LAA reward grant;

·                    the project would be further considered when the HCE group considered its revised priorities.

AGREED:  That the presentation be noted.

Report of the Assistant Chief Executive, Harrow Council.

The Policy and Partnership Service Manager, Harrow Council, introduced the report and explained that the Harrow Strategic Partnership Governance Handbook had been updated as a result of discussions on the allocation of Local Agreement Reward Grant during which it had become apparent that the current financial protocol for the Partnership was not robust enough.  In addition the decision making processes and role of members required strengthening to ensure transparency and clarity of responsibilities.  Comments from the Partnership Board were sought by the Policy and Partnership Team by 15 September 2010.

In order to assist the Partnership members to identify the proposed amendments, the officer undertook to circulate a copy that highlighted the changes.

It was suggested that at the December Partnership Board meeting the urgent decision sub group and substitution list be finalised.

AGREED:  That (1) Board members advise the Policy and Partnership Team of any comments by 15 September 2010;

(2)  a further report be submitted to the Board meeting in December 2010.

Report of the Borough Commander, Harrow Police.

Report of the Assistant Chief Executive, Harrow Council.

The Board received and discussed the Annual Report which set out the progress made in the previous year and indicated areas of future work.  Once the Annual Report had been endorsed by the Board a copy would be published on the Harrow Council’s website and constituent organisations were requested to do likewise.

It was noted that an amendment would be required due to the cessation of the Comprehensive Area Assessment.

AGREED:  That the Harrow Strategic Partnership Annual Report be endorsed and published.

Presentation by the Corporate Director Community and Environment, Harrow Council.

The Corporate Director for Community and Environment, Harrow Council, gave a presentation on Total Place. During the presentation he stated that:

Total Place was a brand new way of working which Harrow was pioneering.  As a result of analysis of expenditure in Harrow, two areas had been identified for partnership working:

·                   top 100 families that used services regularly

·                   pathways in and out of hospital for the elderly

The aim was to simplify pathways through the services, reduce duplication and share information, and prevent people becoming dependent on services.

London Councils had undertaken work on Anti Social Behaviour, health, chronic care and worklessness.  Excellent work on anti social behaviour would be taken forward, work on chronic care had begun with the reablement project and recession busting.

With regard to the top 100 families, who were the most costly to manage and support:

·                    Croydon Council had undertaken work with families who were identified as coping well, barely coping or vulnerable;

·                    workstreams, with local agency input, had identified those with the highest need.  It was necessary to establish how data could be shared and records matched to bring together all information on the families;

·                    early findings indicated a complexity of engagements for which the provision of private diary management could assist;

·                    in order to make provision to meet with a family, gain knowledge of their situation and what help could be provided, a case manager could be more useful than diary management;

·                    intensive work was required to develop a business case.  Early intervention should result in savings in the system but the profile was not yet as comprehensive as for enablement;

·                    the reduction in LAA reward funding would slow down the work significantly.

Following questions from members of the Board, it was noted that:

·                    joint tasking raised awareness of the impact of such families on neighbours or others;

·                    mediation was a possibility only where there was a willingness to use this approach;

·                    there was some correlation between costs borne by the police, Harrow Council and the health service;

·                    services were currently delivered according to the configuration as determined by the Government.  There was therefore a need to design a prototype to change the way of working.

AGREED:  That the presentation be noted.

Report of the Assistant Chief Executive, Harrow Council.

The Divisional Director of Partnership, Development and Performance, Harrow Council, introduced the report which outlined the work undertaken by Harrow Chief Executives at their meeting held on 24 May 2010.

Partners were advised that should they wish to be involved in any of the actions from the performance report they should contact the relevant person highlighted.

In response to a question it was noted that the NHS white paper was expected to result in significant change in NHS Harrow.  This would need to be taken into account prior to further integration.  There were no plans currently for budget integration.

AGREED:  That the report be noted.

The Voluntary and Community Sector representatives expressed concerns that had been discussed at the Voluntary Sector Forum meeting:

·                    concern was expressed that there had been a lack of proper consultation and assessment of impact regarding the review by NHS Harrow;

·                    the Director of Public Health noted the concern raised by the Sector representatives and the new and former Portfolio Holders and agreed to raise the matter with the appropriate people;

·                    concern that no further information had been provided regarding Compact development;

·                    concern at the amalgamation of management boards without consultation with the voluntary sector.

The next Board Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday 14 December 2010.

It was noted that the next scheduled meeting was due to be held on 14 December 2010.  A further meeting would be held to sign off the revised management group LAA allocations.