Contact: Keith Kerslake - [email protected] and Karen Mann [email protected]. ext 7317/6751

1 Introduction.

1.1 The Best Value Review of Community Engagement is a cross-cutting themed review. It is a direct response by the authority to address one of the areas of improvement identified in the CPA Improvement plan in 2002.

1.2 Whilst noting Hampshire's `impressive array of methods of communication and consultation with users and partners' the CPA inspectors recommended that the authority reviewed its practices to:

· `Ensure that it (HCC) consults all relevant stakeholders over strategies, policies and priorities early enough to enable the results of the consultation to influence outcomes'.

· Make better use of existing consultation mechanisms

· Better coordinate the organisation's consultation to inform actions.

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

1.3 The Best Value review team found that, whereas most departments in the County Council do inform their work through regular and systematic consultation with users, partners, stakeholders and residents, it is identifying how improvements can be made to:

· demonstrate the way consultation influences the provision of services.

· provide improved coordination of departmental consultation processes, their planning and financial control.

· To improve transparency, avoid duplication of effort and ensure more efficient use of resources to add value to the provision of services.

2 Statutory Responsibility.

2.1 The statutory responsibilities to consult can be found in the Local Government Act 1999.

3 Corporate Strategy.

3.1 Effective consultation is also a vital element of aims 4, 5 and 6 of the Corporate Strategy; Building Strong and Safe Communities, Improving Services and Developing Councillors and Staff. In fact it could be argued that consultation has a link to all the Corporate aims. It's function is also crucial to the data collection for the BVPIs.

4 The Review Team.

See appendix 1.

5 The Vision of the Review.

5.1 The visioning meeting took place over half a day on 26 March 2004 with the full extended team. The visioning statement for consultation agrees by the team was:-

· ` Consultation is a process by which we listen to what you say, value what you tell us, use this to inform our decisions'.

6 Process of the Review.

6.1 The review team has a core team led by Keith Kerslake and an extended team which includes representatives from all departments, local authorities, an independent research agency and 4 members from across the 3 parties. The extended team met for two half days in June 2004 to begin the process of identifying what information was crucial to inform the next stage of studying options for change. As a result of this process an action plan was written that asked a number of specific questions about consultation practices of Hampshire County Council departments, other local authorities, private organisations, how complaints are monitored and used, existing guidance of best practice from government or Idea, engaging partners and knowledge management.( See appendix 2) Representatives of the extended team were assigned specific information to gather over the Summer of 2004.

7 Key Findings.

7.1 Attached to this report is appendix 3 which outlines the key findings from the action plan in detail. The following are the salient points that arose from the information gathered.

i) Within Hampshire County Council

· Most departments consult with residents, stakeholders etc, but few stated that it was undertaken to inform policy or develop and improve services.

· Most consultation work within departments is undertaken in-house. At present the costs for in house work are not monitored but is likely to be significant.

· Most departments do not have a yearly consultation plan.

· There is an annual Corporate Consultation plan which is agreed by CMT and Cabinet. This covers strategic research work associated with tracking performance against the Corporate Strategy, BVPIs and contributing towards the overall CPA rating.

ii) Consultation within other Local Authorities.

· Consultation structures in other authorities are similar to our own. Although Hampshire is probably in the vanguard of good practice.

· All struggle with disseminating research findings. There seems to be no formal processes within authorities to do this.

· Budgets are not large enough to warrant a yearly consultation plan.

iii) The Private Sector

· The research function is largely centrally managed in the private sector.

· Significant sums of money are spent on research by the private sector.

· A programme of research to support the business is planned each year within the private sector. This is in conjunction with product managers and the MD.

iv) Complaints handling within Hampshire County Council.

Since the findings of the review were analysed complaints handling has progressed, to ensure better mechanisms exist for capturing information.

· Complaints received by Hampshire County Council are handled by departments.

· Those complaints that reach the Ombudsman are a corporate responsibility in conjunction with departments.

· Whilst there is a corporate process for recording and collecting complaints there is no electronic system which would facilitate the process, to collect and identify trends to better inform service development.

· Departmental annual monitoring reports are taken to the policy review committees plus a corporate report to the Standards Committee. These reports have identified lessons learnt. However, awareness of this process and the value it could engineer , is low.

· Early developments with service planning and performance reporting regimes aim to integrate complaints information into the decision making processes.

v) Engaging Partners.

· The County Council has many mechanisms for involving partners and agencies e.g. such as the Compact with the voluntary sector.. How effective these mediums are is not clear.

8 Outcomes.

8.1 The extended team identified the following key outcomes necessary to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of community engagement:

· Consultation is planned and budgeted for as part of the annual planning process.

· There is regular consultation feedback both corporately and departmentally to ensure a coordinated approach within the authority.

· Ensure that there is support and guidance for good practice.

· Consultation is used to inform strategies and policies at the appropriate stage in the process.

· A formal process for disseminating results of consultation across the authority is established to inform members and officers.

· Establish an annual plan of departmental consultation that is linked to the corporate consultation plan that is produced on a yearly basis for CMT and Cabinet approval.

· Use of approved research contractor list where appropriate to ensure the consultation is robust and impartial.

· Develop a website for corporate and departmental research programmes.

· A stakeholder list so that consultations are well managed and targeted to the right audience.

9 Options for delivering the outcomes.

The extended team deliberated at some length the possible solutions to deliver a sharper and more timely coordinated approach to consultation and the increased value and efficiency it could bring to the authority. The team concluded that the probable remedy for addressing the CPA Improvement Plan would be a new structure to strengthen and enhance the existing arrangements. The options listed below reflect the discussions on each of the possible solutions:

9.1 Option one : Strengthen the current arrangements.

9.2 The CPA assessment cited some present weaknesses in the timing of our consultations, how that information is used in the decision making process, and how the information is disseminated within the authority. The mechanisms for much of the consultation were not singled out for criticism. They were seen as comprehensive and robust. On that basis the team discussed the option of strengthening the present arrangements. This would be to tighten and enhance the remit of the Corporate Research Group. This group draws together departmental representatives with a responsibility for consultation and statistical research. It was felt that this group might provide a catalyst for coordination of market research. Consideration is already being given to the composition and remit of the group, so that it can support the development of key strategies and initiatives with appropriate research information. At present the group composition is not entirely homogenous , with research specialists and those with a loose remit for information rather than purely research. This option was considered to be a more subtle change to the existing arrangements. However, it was felt that there needed to be a more radical solution to improve the present arrangements.

9.3 Option two : Central Consultation Team.

9.4 Discussion surrounded the option of a Central Consultation Team to pull together both corporate and departmental consultation. Those presently responsible for consultation in departments, where they can be identified, would join the centre to coordinate and commission research on behalf of the whole authority/departments. Thus drawing on existing expertise in individual departments to benefit the whole authority. The team thought consideration should be given to appropriate training and development to existing staff within departments on consultation methods and techniques. It was thought that staff would also have different levels of knowledge and skills. However staff often have consultation as part of their role and there would be questions over the levels of expertise.

9.5 Option three: Contracting out

9.6 The team discussed the option of contracting out the research and consultation functions within the County Council. The overall conclusion was that the nature of work that is undertaken is the decision of the organisation or the department. It should be part of the service planning process. However, the method, and who carries out the work is something that can, and in many cases should be, contracted out. The findings have shown that much of the day to day work is undertaken in house. Professionally conducted research provides robust information upon which to base decisions. The discussion on this option also included what the levels of spend on market research are at present. Although the Corporate work can be quantified in financial terms, the departmental picture is more blurred. It was decided that these issues would need to be explored further using the County Treasurer's consultancy.

9.7 Option four: Central Market Research Coordinator.

9.8 Much discussion surrounded this final option. It was also the one that seemed to find most favour amongst the team. The creation of a new post would establish a strong link between the corporate centre, the Corporate Consultation Programme and departments. Early indications are that a `spend to save' approach may provide the funding for this post. The role of this post would be to:-

· assist in identifying the relevant personnel whose responsibility it would be to commission consultation on behalf of departments

· develop expertise within departments on consultation and research through best practice, training etc.

· strengthen the working relationship and understanding between the centre and departments.

· look at effective ways of ensuring that all research is timely, coordinated and disseminated both from the centre to departments and visa versa

· that research is used for service development and improvement throughout the organisation, ensuring that the customer is at the heart of policy making.

9.9 In order to produce a business case for this post some work needs to be undertaken on assessing the cost of all the work that is handled in house. As explained some preliminary work has been completed by Treasurer's consultancy on the `in-house' costs of consultation. This exercise proved to be inconclusive in harnessing the costs of consultation within the authority. The exception being the corporate work and research commissioned outside by departments on an ad hoc basis by consultants. However, the conclusion was that the likely costs for consultation within departments `are significant'. The opportunity costs of officer time engaged in consultation is across all levels of seniority, a wide range of services, and teams.

10 Conclusion.

It is clear that while there are examples of good practice, greater efficiencies can be made in terms of engaging and consulting with the public. Better organisation will ensure that timely findings are available to help inform decisions across the authority and demonstrate improved efficiency and value for money. To achieve this requires the establishment of a hub to oversee and coordinate consultation work. This hub can be' virtual', as in option one. This means that each department undertaking research checks what others are doing to ensure there is no duplication, possibilities for joint exercises, etc. This maybe overseen by a research group or `real' in that one person takes responsibility for advising departments and coordinates research across the authority; as in option four. Alternatively another scenario would be to pool all research resources to create one central area of expertise, as in option two.

10.1 The extended group preferred option 4 in recognition of the findings from the action plan (appendix 3) which pointed to consultation being in the main ad hoc, unplanned and undertaken largely by those unskilled in research methods and techniques, with little relationship to the corporate research programme. There is also no real evidence to demonstrate how that research is used departmentally or indeed shared with others. Most importantly also, initial investigation by the County Treasurers Consultancy group have highlighted although much consultation is handled in-house the costs of officer time and associated costs are likely to be significant, but at present they are not recorded. The team felt on the evidence presented that greater coordination, and expertise was required to meet the CPA requirements.

10.2 The review has revealed opportunities for considerable improvement in the area of consultation. However, this should be treated as `work in progress'. The improvement plan sets out the next steps to ensure the review team meets the vision, addresses the CPA recommendation, whilst achieving greater efficiency and effectiveness.

Recommendations:

1 That the Leader and Executive Members of Cabinet note the progress of the Best Value Review.

2 That there is agreement to undertake further work which will involve a study of the consultation work undertaken in Social Care and the Environment Departments to ascertain the costs both in terms of staff time and actual `cash' expenditure. It is anticipated that in order to capture the`whole' picture the exercise will need to run for most of the next year, ending in June 2006.

3 That Executive Members agree that a final recommendation is made when this exercise has been completed.

Best Value Review of Community Engagement.

Improvement Plan.

Outcome 1: Consultation is planned and budgeted for as part of the annual planning process across the authority.

Performance Indicator 1. Number of consultation plans approved and published on Hantsweb. A corporate consultation plan plus departmental plans.
Actions	Cost	Target Date	Responsibility
To gather information from departments on the plans for consultation over the next year in connection to the service planning cycle and corporately and make recommendations. Investigate types of work that will be undertaken, when and with who.	Officer Time	June 2006	County Treasurers Consultancy Team.
Departmental research officers, together with the Corporate Centre to assess the research requirements for each department for the year ahead.	Officer Time	June 2006	New Market Research Coordinator
Ensure that the corporate and departmental plans are linked to ensure the objectives are consistent with the corporate priorities.	Officer Time	June 2006	New Market Research Coordinator
To increase access to information gathered from research exercises from Residents, Stakeholders and Business. To develop better mechanisms for capturing views and opinions from the public electronically. (e-government targets)	Officer Time	June 2006	New Market Research Coordinator/Market Research Manager
To gather names of partners and stakeholder organisations who should be regularly involved in consultation on specific issues. To develop a mechanism of monitoring when and how these organisations are being consulted on various issues to prevent overload.	Officer Time	June 2006	New Market Research Coordinator

Outcome 2. That consultation is co-ordinated and information shared.

Outcome 3. Officers responsible for Consultation are skilled in research methods and techniques and knowledgeable about good practice.

Outcome 4. Consultation approaches are cost-effective, efficient and appropriate.

Performance Indicator 4. Monitor the levels of spend on research contractors.
Action	Cost	Target date	Responsibility
To promote and encourage the use of the approved contractor list via the research network of staff to ensure research work is professionally undertaken and impartial.	Officer Time	June 2006	New Market Research Manager/Market Research Manager
To advise on the agency most suitable for the work to be undertaken.	Officer Time	June 2006	New Market Research Coordinator/Market Research Manager.
Contact the Corporate Procurement Network to undertake research to ascertain overall spend with `call off' contractors on a regular basis.	Officer Time	June 2006	New Market Research Coordinator.

Appendix 1.

Best Value Review Team.

Core Team

Keith Kerslake - Review Leader

Karen Mann - Project Manager

Paul Day - External Review Leader

Jenny Heath - Corporate Performance Team.

Extended Team.

Core team plus:-

Nick Gibbins County Treasurers

Peter Brown Environment Department

Karen Murray PBRS

Nicola Horsey R&H

Jo White Community Strategy

Terry Rath Education

Christina Sell Social Care

Hugh Langford E- government

Jane Goodwin Human Resources (Staff Rep).

David Keddy Dorset County Council

Dr Lynne Miller Miller Associates

Councillor Dr Ellis

Ex County Councillor Roberts

Councillor Davidovitz

Councillor Dash