Appendix 3.

Best Value Review of Community Engagement.

Action Plan - Key Findings.

Introduction.

The Best Value Community Engagement Review is tasked to look at the authority's mechanisms and systems to consider the following weaknesses following the CPA assessment in 20002.These are:

· Ensuring the authority consults all relevant stakeholders over strategies, policies, and priorities early enough to enable the results of the consultation to influence the outcome.

· Make better use of existing consultation mechanisms

· Better coordinate the organisations' consultation to inform decisions

· Improve the mechanisms for disseminating the findings of consultation to ensure they inform policy and service development across the organisation and partners.

Progress.

The initial meeting of the extended team met on 11 February 2004 to decide the purpose and scope of the review. The team also agreed on a number of key people who should form part of the extended team for future meetings. This was to ensure that there were appropriate levels of challenge and comparing.

The visioning meeting took place over half a day on 26 March 2004. This exercise involved all members of the extended team. A visioning statement was derived from the discussions which incorporated most of the elements of the group work.

This was:

`A process by which we listen to what you say, valuing what you tell us, using this to inform our decisions'.

The extended team then spent two half days in June 2004 looking at applying the 4c's using the EFQM model. These two sessions resulted in an action plan (attached) to collect all the relevant information required by the extended team before recommending possible options for moving the review forward.

Summary of Findings.

Consultation in Departments.

All departments were given a number of questions relating to the present mechanisms for consultation within their service. Each extended team member was responsible for assembling the departmental material together. This is the summary of findings:

· Overall most departments consider consultation to mean a process of asking residents or target groups their views and opinions on services etc. Few specifically stated to inform or change services.

· Most departmental consultation is ad hoc , with the exception being Education Social Services and Environment. There are statutory requirements to consult given by the government for these depts. However, the consequences of most of this statutory work was not reported. Most staff in social services are also required to consult and engage users as part of their PDR process.

· Most work, but not all is undertaken in-house utilising a range of staff. Some with research expertise and some with none.

· In the main, the amount spent on consultation has not been quantified. However where it can be quantified , the amount varies from 10k to the corporate spend of 170k a round figure from Environment of 1.16m on comms generally.

· Some depts are able to demonstrate how consultation can effect service change or development.

· Varying opinions on the role of corporate research and how relevant it is to departments and staff.

· Some views that consultation is a service-specific function and is therefore most appropriately undertaken in departments.

· Generally, the methods used for the collection of material do not seem to take account of the subject matter or target group being consulted. e.g regardless of the target group a questionnaire is regarded as the way to collect information. This may not necessarily be the most appropriate method to obtain the desired information.

· Overall, there is little evidence of web consultation at present.

· Dissemination of the findings varies across departments. Some claim they give extensive feedback and others do admit that it is an area where they can do better.

Costs.

There is no accounting mechanism for recording the costs for consultation if it is undertaken in house. Consultancy costs may be possible to track down, although the costs for using consultants have been largely reported by departments for this exercise.

Consultation in other organisations.

Public Sector

· Consultation structures in other authorities are similar to our own; a corporate function plus departmental research personnel.

· Commonly, the centre is often unaware of the work in depts and visa versa.

· Budget spend also varies from 100k over 3 years to small pots of money to access when undertaking the strategic work such as the BVPIs.

· All local authorities struggle with disseminating research findings. There is also an aversion to tackling negative findings.

· The corporate function varies where it sits within the different authorities. In the majority of cases it is within the CX's dept. One or two sit within the community services division.

· One local authority has the Leader as it's Cabinet champion.

· One or two also have a Director representing them on the equivalent of CMT.

· Most other authorities talked to do not have a programme of consultation work throughout the year as budgets don't permit. They rely on the Citizens' panel for tracking services and topical issues.

· Most corporate consultation functions have a role of giving advice to departments; though in an ad hoc way.

· Hertfordshire and West Sussex claim a very productive relationship with working with partners on a number of projects. e.g. areas of deprivation in Crawley, West Sussex. Herts work well with the local LSP's.

· Most authorities do not have a corporate consultation strategy . Dorset are the exception here. It was written by an outside research agency (ORCI) and provides the platform for what, why, and how consultation is carried out throughout Dorset. It also details how the findings should be reported and used in the organisation.

Private Sector.

· Research is a corporate function. It is planned and managed solely on a corporate basis. Otherwise `things go wrong'.

· Reporting line to either the MD or sector manager. Both contacts believed this to be a privileged position.

· Wella spend ¾ m on research and HSA 1.5% of turnover.

· Research findings are used and valued to make improvements to products or services. It's an intrinsic part of the organisation.

· They commission a programme of qual/quant work each year. This is planned in conjunction with the marketing mangers and MD's.

· They look at the negative findings and often commission further analysis with a view to putting things right, which might mean considerable changes.

· They both have websites but it is not used for consultation purposes. It is an product/service, careers ,information and help desk tool.

· Both sometimes felt that there were tensions between depts re the findings and the implications. However, the common goal of the success of the company usually overrides these tensions.

· Both have a staff of 2 people.

Current Information

Complaints monitoring.

· Responsibility for complaints lies with departments.

· Complaints that have reached the Ombudsman is a corporate responsibility in conjunction with departments.

· Some depts report to DMT's on a quarterly basis.

· There is no universal mechanism for dealing with complaints within the authority.

· Members of the public can access a complaints form via the web. There is also e-mail, telephone, letter etc.

· Complaints are usually resolved at source and few reach the Ombudsman. Most that do are often `knocked on the head'.

· No mechanisms for sharing best practice within the authority at present. Work is underway to address this.

· Silo working prevents a universal approach.

· Data is collected in different ways.

· Some scope for benchmarking with other local authorities which is being developed.

Existing research guidance.

From the IDEA , Government and Audit Commission websites, there is a plethora of information on consultation; how to do it, what works etc.

· The IDEA website have several examples of the consultation process , but is thin on the evidence of how consultation is used/has been used to improve performance.

· Examples from Bristol claim that consultation has been used in decision-making. e.g. transport plan, services to older people etc. However, IDEA say, even authorities with good mechanisms for consulting need to improve the credibility of their consultation to make it meaningful to the public and across the organisations as a whole.

· The IDEA website looks at communicating the outcomes and doesn't look so much at the quality of the consultation undertaken.

· The Audit Commission have produced guidance on conducting consultation and why it should be done, but again, examples about using it to inform decisions is thin.

Engaging Partners.

· Some consultation amongst all LSP's across Hampshire.

· Some confusion between awareness raising and information-giving, and what is thought to mean consultation.

· Some consultation methods are therefore questionable.

· Difficult to assess whether the County is successful at engaging partners from what has been collected.

· Some informal feedback from the voluntary sector suggests that the Compact is a good mechanism for consulting them. They are surprised that it hasn't been adopted for engaging all stakeholders.

· The HSP seems to inform local LSP's, rather than consult to obtain their views.

Knowledge Management (KM).

· Distinction between information and knowledge.

· HCC not good at coordinating the gathering consultation outcomes that informs the whole organisation.

· Is a knowledge management system able to solve the problem?

· Some systems available to buy off the shelf.

· To be successful at implementing a KM, a culture shift is required. A recognition of the need to share knowledge to be endorsed by officers and members.

Other Community Engagement Issues.

Other Community Engagement issues identified in other reviews to be considered as part of this review.

· Democratic Services Best Value Review-

1. publication of executive and committee agenda by the Chief Executive, to meet or exceed legal requirements.

2. availability of agenda, minutes and reports on Hantsnet.

3. Initiatives implemented corporately by the County Council via Hampshire Now

4. other information published by the County Council by way of fact sheets, guidance and advice.

5. the local work done by Members and departments to inform people about major events in their areas such as road schemes and school reorganisations.

Corporate Communications-Best Value Review November 2004.

Best Value Review- Options to consider.

The outcomes necessary to improve Community Engagement.

1. regular consultation feedback loop.

2. local customer focus/coordinated results

3. good practice guide/support.

4. mechanism to gather results and feedback from varied sources.

5. systematic dissemination of results.

6. annual plan of activity

· corporate activity

· departmental activity.

7. consistent use of approved contractor list.

8. website for corporate and departmental research programmes.

9. clear definitions for `consultation' and `research'.

10. stakeholder list so that consultations are well managed.

Options to deliver

Option 1.

· Central team with link to nominated professional researcher in each dept.

Option 2. (status quo).

· Silo activity

· Coordination group.

Option 3.

· Contract out whole function.

Option 4.

· Completely central resource.

· Sitting where in the organisation?

· Amalgamated with any other function.