1 Summary

The following decisions are sought.

1.1 That partnership manager posts are re-designated Project Director.

1.1.1 That the Project Manager posts are created subject to negotiation with partners, the workforce plan and available budget as outlined in paragraph 5.2.

2 Reason(s)

2.1 Significant changes in the Primary Care Trust arrangements.

2.1 The report outlines changes in the NHS and in the care groups which lead to the re-designation of the post of Partnership Manager to that of Project Director (Partnership).

2.2 The report addresses the gaps in cross cutting local activity and proposes the establishment of four 0.5 WTE assistant posts to work with the Project Director.

1.4 Links to Corporate Strategy

This proposal is expected to improve community functioning and to improve services in a targeted way, thus supporting Corporate Aims 1, 4 and 5.

1.5 Race Impact Assessment

The posts will be expected to ensure specific needs of Black and Minority Ethnic communities are addressed in any projects.

3 Other options considered and rejected

None

4 Conflicts of Interest declared by the decision-maker or other Executive Member consulted

None

5 Dispensation granted by the Standards Committee

None

6. Reason(s) for the matter being dealt with if urgent

Not applicable

Approved by: Date of decision:

Councillor Felicity Hindson

1. Summary

The following decisions are sought.

1.1 That partnership manager posts are re-designated Project Director.

1.1.1 That the Project Manager posts are created subject to negotiation with partners, the workforce plan and available budget as outlined in paragraph 5.2.

2. Introduction

2.1 The post of Partnership Manager was introduced in 2001 as part of a significant remodelling of the Social Services Department. The primary objective in creating the posts was "to achieve organisational arrangements which offer the best opportunities for building on current partnerships with health, at the same time preserving strong working arrangements with District Councils, the voluntary and private sectors". ¹

2.2 The remodelled department was organised on care group lines. The partnership manager role was the exception as it works across care groups and organisational boundaries. The posts covered the boundary and organisational disposition of the Primary Care Trusts (PCTs).

2.3 In 2004 the Strategic Health Authority (SHA) made arrangements to realign PCTs under its "Beyond Healthfit" arrangements. As the Partnership Managers were aligned to PCTs, a review of the post was commissioned by DMT "to examine the current role and deployment of Partnership Managers with reference to the original objectives for the posts and to Beyond Healthfit & the Children Bill."

3 The Review of the Partnership Manager role

3.1 Since their inception, the post holders have worked with partners to achieve the following.

· improved cross agency understanding

· local prevention and public health strategies & services

· facilitating joined up commissioning agendas

· the local implementation of the nursing homes project and the Children's Trust

PCT initiatives

· raising awareness of social care issues in the NHS

· the LIFT project in SE Hampshire

· the Innovation Project in its early days

· raising awareness of the needs of Children Looked After in the NHS

· communicating, trouble shooting, problem solving

3.2 The PCTs in Hampshire are now grouped in four clusters:
NE Hampshire; Mid Hampshire; SW Hampshire; and SE Hampshire.
The Senior Leadership and Management posts have been appointed. Three of the Partnership Managers have been appointed to Senior posts in two of the clusters.

3.3 The review indicated that the wide ranging brief of the partnership manager post together with its lack of formal management link with the care groups led to unnecessary complexities. It was recommended that role clarification as well as realignment with PCT was needed.

4 The proposed model

4.1 It is proposed to modify the Partnership Manager role and re-title it Project Director. The new role will manage projects between agencies in accordance with agreed agendas and objectives. Such projects will be negotiated with care group Assistant Directors and will be under their management responsibility for the duration of the project. There are significant issues facing the SSD and partner agencies, some of which are likely to require the involvement of Project Directors:

· managed care

· children with disabilities

· health of Children Looked After

· delivery of 24/7 services

· delivery of community leadership

In addition, significant local projects like Local Strategic Partnership (LSPs), the new pilot Area Committees, Local Improvement and Finance Trust (LIFT), Crime and Disorder partnerships and housing related strategies would also be covered. This would enable the Council to take advantage of the natural links that exist between each of these areas aligned to the cross cutting role of the proposed officers.

4.2 This report proposes four Project Director posts to be jointly funded with the PCTs and their role would include providing representation on PCT Professional Executive Committees (PECs). However the sheer number of cross cutting initiatives (some outlined at the end of 4.1) make it impossible for Project Directors to cover all local arrangements. This would be a gap that the Corporate Centre in its role of servicing LSPs and the Health PRC would find unhelpful. In addition, District Councils are likely to be concerned that local initiatives are uncovered by the local SSD care groups, either because of time or because the topic is broader than one care group. Accordingly, it is proposed that each Project Director has a Project Manager (0.5 FTE) post attached who can cover some of the local initiatives and ensure appropriate response. The provision of these posts would be subject to funding and further negotiations with the Corporate Centre (Chief Executive's Department) and PCTs. In addition, these posts would need to be considered in the workforce plan, or at a P&R decision day.

5 Financial Implications

5.1 The financial implications of the above proposal is set out in Table 1 below:

Table 1: Expenditure and Expected Income from the Proposal

Area	Expenditure (£)				Expected Income (£)		NET COST
	Project Director	Project Manager	Other Cost*	Total Cost	Health Cont	Corp. Cont	SSD
N Hants	67,573	21,767	9,930	99,270	36,282	12,039	50,949
Mid Hants	65,963	21,767	9,930	97,660	35,477	12,039	50,144
SE Hants	69,189	21,767	9,930	100,886	26,572	12,039	62,275
SW Hants	65,963	21,767	9,930	97,660	35,477	12,039	50,144
Total	268,688	87,068	39,720	395,476	133,808	48,156	213,512

*Other costs include IT, travel & accommodation

5.2 Budget Implications

The net cost of the proposal, £213,512, can be met from existing Social Services budget. As highlighted in paragraph 4.2 this proposal would be dependant on successful negotiation corporately and with Health. Should the actual contributions be significantly different to the figures in Table 1 this proposal would need to be reconsidered.

6 Conclusion

Since 2001 there have been significant changes in the NHS. The care groups have established productive partnerships to address their agendas. The proposed model will facilitate joint working within clearer managerial accountabilities.

Recommendations

1. That partnership manager posts are re-designated Project Director.

2. That the Project Manager posts are created subject to negotiation with partners, the workforce plan and available budget as outlined in paragraph 5.2.

Section 100 D - Local Government Act 1972 - Background Documents

The following documents discuss facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and have been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report.

NB the list excludes:

1. Published works

2. Documents which disclose exempt or confidential information as defined in the Act

NONE