Appendix 2.

Best value Review of Community Engagement.

Phase 1 - Consultation.

Actions arising from the workshops held on 28 & 30 June.

1. Consultation in Departments.

The review team recognised that in order to get the best value from consultation activity conducted by the County Council, and to make recommendations for future improvements, the first priority was to map our existing work. It was therefore agreed to explore and assess what consultation activities departments within the authority undertake or have undertaken. This should cover the period from April 2003 to date. The information should be gathered under the following headings:

· What do departments understand consultation to mean?

· How would it be defined?

· What consultation is undertaken-on an ad-hoc or regular basis?

· Is this consultation statutory?

· Who do they consult with and on what?

· Who undertakes the consultation?

· Is there an agreed programme of consultation work?

· Who has overall responsibility for consultation within the department?

· Is the consultation undertaken in-house or contracted out?

· What type of work is undertaken?

· Is any consultation in partnership with others?

· What are the skills of the staff engaged in this work?

· Is there knowledge/awareness of the consultation undertaken corporately ?

· How much is spent on consultation within the department on an annual basis? (This would include officer time whether it is contracted out or carried out in-house). Is this the `spend' each year?

· How are the findings of any consultation disseminated within the department and more widely?

· Are there any examples of where the results of departmental or corporate consultation have had a direct effect on policy or service delivery within the department?

· If so, is this a regular process?

· When consultation is undertaken as part of a project; at what point is it commissioned to effect the decision or outcome?

· How do consultees learn of the outcome?

· What are the negatives about running consultation on a dept basis? What are the positives?

· What does/could the corporate consultation do better to keep departments better informed and improve the use of knowledge in the organisation?

· Has consultation been used as an important tool for service planning in the department?

· Does the department have a policy on e-consultation using Hantsweb?

· Has any consultation been undertaken on the web and what was it?

· What have been the positives/negatives from doing consultation on the web?

· Has this e-consultation been a lone exercise or has it complemented other methods?

Action: Departmental members of the extended Best Value Team are asked to work with their Key Communicators (please find list of representatives on Hantsnet under meetings, groups and forums) and representatives of the Corporate Research Group (please find list of representatives on Hantsnet under meetings, groups and forums) to compile this information. This is required by 30 September 2004. Action:

Nick Gibbins, Peter Brown, Karen Murray, Nicola Horsey, Jo White, Terry Rath, Jane Goodwin, Christina Sell, Hugh Langford.

1a. Verify the costs of consultation throughout the County Council

The review team wished to establish if it was possible to verify the costs of consultation across the authority. Each department are asked to provide figures as part of the mapping process (above) but a cross check by the County Treasurer's department would help identify discrepancies.

Action: Nick Gibbins in Treasurers agreed to investigate what data might be available on consultation spend and report back by 30 September 2004.

2. How consultation is organised in other organisations?

The review team identified the need to assess the structures and practices that other organisations have for undertaking consultation. The fact finding should include other comparable local authorities, such as Dorset CC, Kent CC and Herts CC and organisations in the private sector, such as B&Q, and Norwich Union. The following information should be gathered:

· Is the consultation/research dept run from the centre of the organisation?

· How many staff are employed on research/consultation in the organisation?

· Who has overall responsibility for it?

· How does it sit within the structure of the authority/company?

· Is there a research programme of work each year?

· What is the budget for consultation? Is this the same every year?

· Is research carried out in-house or contracted out?

· How does the research feed into the policy and decision making of the organisation?

· Is there a code of practice for consulting partners?

· Are there changes to services products as a result?

· How effective are the present arrangements for consultation?

· What changes would improve the present arrangements, if any?

Action: The Corporate Communications team will approach each of the organisations with a view to establishing if any would be willing to take part in staging a short collective presentation to members of the Best value review team. If not, individual site visits will be organised to consist of one County Councillor, a member of the extended team and a member of the core team.

To report back by 30 September 2004.

3. Current Information

The review team identified that there is a considerable wealth of current information which might be established through `desk research'. This means identifying and using current information that may exist within the authority to inform decision making i.e. the scope and nature of the complaints the authority receives, both formally and informally (through the Information Centre and Hantsweb), existing research and information from Government (idea) and LGA websites. The following

information should be gathered on complaints handling:

· How does the authority monitor complaints? i.e. centrally

· How many does it receive and who from? i.e. member of the public, partners etc.

· Can this be measured per department?

· How many complaints are made by telephone, in person, and by letter?

· How are they dealt with?

· Does the authority/dept analyse the complaints against findings from corporate or departmental research?

· How often is this done?

· How is the complaints information fed into the dept/organisation.

· Is there a programme developed corporately/departmentally to address any issues that arise?

Action: To ask David Edwards, CX's Department, to provide information on the progress towards corporate complaints and the data available.

Karen Mann to review existing research guidance and information on government and LEA websites.

IT Services-Paul Day or Hugh Langford to provide data on website access information for key areas of community interest.

Shirley Thorne to provide data on Information Centre enquiries.

To report back by 30 September 2004.

4. Engaging Partners.

This relates to a specific finding from the CPA recommendations, that there is evidence to support the view that partners views have not been considered early enough in the process to ensure their views are taken into account. Partners can be a range of organisations, such as the voluntary sector, districts, health, businesses. The following information should be gathered:

· How many partners does the authority consult with?

· How often does this happen and on what issues?

· Do they feel over/under consulted?

· Are they consulted on the areas they need to be consulted on?

· How does the authority currently consult with partners i.e. LSPs over the community strategy ?

· Do they feel it is an effective way of obtaining their views? If not, how would they like to be consulted?

· Do they feel. involved in the whole process.?

· Is evidence available that partners' views and opinions have been considered in the decision-making process?

· Do they receive feedback on the results of the consultation?

Action: Terry Rath and Jane Goodwin agreed to investigate and report back their findings and recommendations by 30 September 2004.

5. Knowledge Management

The review group identified the need to ensure that there were robust systems for accessing consultation findings and other key market intelligence information across the authority and possibly partners.

Action: An exercise will be undertaken to investigate and scope a Knowledge Management system for storing and sharing consultation exercises and other key information. Councillor Mike Roberts and Paul Day from IT Services to undertake the initial work and report back by 30 September 2004.

6. Other Community Engagement Issues.

There was agreement to map any community engagement issues that may have been identified in other Best value Reviews to ensure that they were captured as part of this consultation review.

Action: Katie Crabb to undertake an analysis and report back findings to the review team by 30 September 2004.

Core team.

Best Value Review of Community Engagement-Phase 1 Consultation.

July 2004.