Contact officer: Sebastian Johnson, Strategic Policy and Partnerships Officer

01865 252317; srjohnson@oxford.gov.uk;  Val Johnson, Policy Team Leader  01865 252209  vjohnson@oxfiord.gov.uk

 

Background Information

The Committee selected Community Engagement as one of its themes for the year.  Of particular interest was partnership working and increasing public involvement in decision making.

Why is it on the agenda?

The Head of Policy, Culture and Communications  was asked to provide information in response to the following questions:-   Partnership Working The committee's overall objective is to understand and critically appraise our engagement with partners, and understand the tangible value to Oxford's residents from this. ·        Accepting that partnership working is somewhat in flux because of changing government directives and local/county priorities, what are the current arrangements for partnership working and how are things likely to "settle"?  Can you include in this the partnerships that are in operation, who are our representatives (officer and member) and what are the reporting back mechanisms? ·        What is the City Council hoping to gain from the partnerships it is involved in - i.e. what are our priorities for engagement and outcomes? Can you include in this how we make judgements about progress towards our priorities, and how strategies for engagement are developed as the partnership progresses? ·        How much money do we spend on each of the partnership structures? ·        What are the priorities for the Oxford Strategic Partnership for the coming year and how does this group fit with, and influence, our decision making process? Public input into policy and decision making: ·        The assessment of how much influence the public have currently and, assuming this is variable across our different activities, where is our focus for improvement? ·        What are the plans to deliver on this objective and within what terms and targets?

Who has been invited to comment?

Sebastian Johnson, Peter McQuitty and Val Johnson will attend the meeting and present the report to the Committee.   Councillor Bob Price (Board Member for Corporate Governance and Strategic Partnerships) will also attend the meeting.

What will happen after the meeting?

Any recommendations will be passed to the appropriate Board Member or City Executive Board for consideration.

 

The Head of Policy, Culture and Communications submitted a report (previously circulated, now appended) concerning the current arrangements for the Council’s partnership work in the City and County. The Committee welcomed Peter McQuitty, Val Johnson and Margaret Melling (all from Policy, Culture and Communications) to the meeting. Apologies from Sebastian Johnson and Mark Fransham were noted. The Committee also welcomed Councillor Bob Price (Board Member for Corporate Governance and Strategic Partnerships and Leader of the Council).

 

 Peter McQuitty and Val Johnson introduced the report and gave a short presentation to the Committee.  They, along with Councillor Price, provided the following additional information:-

 

• Policy review work now relies more on data gathering and analysis;
• There is no longer a requirement to have a city-wide community partnership and strategy;
• All the current Oxford Strategic Partnership (OSP) priorities were under review, and there was a desire to engage the public in this process;
• The OSP had existed for about 9 years. Some of its areas of work would continue independently, but there was a desire to refresh the other priorities to make them fir for the next 10 years;
• Each board and sub group consisted of different people who represented the wider community of Oxford. A new Health and wellbing board was being established and the City council wanted a strong voice on any new structures;
• The Policy team felt it was important to ensure City officers and Councillors were aware of decisions taken in the partnership groups and boards so that they could take appropriate action where needed;
• The Oxfordshire Partnership was felt to be less effective than it might be, but some of the boards that sat beneath it were more interesting and effective;

 

Councillor Campbell reminded the Committee that its purpose at the meeting was to look at two aspects of this issue: the City’s partnerships, and means by which the public could become more involved with decision making. Members of the Committee made the following points and received the following additional information (where given) in response:-

 

Public participation and managing expectations

 

It was difficult to involve people in the formation of structure plans because these had a relatively long life – local plans were an easier thing to deal with. There was a question around the means by which we handle the different issues of the strategic and the local.

 

There was a need to involve people in making constrained choices. They needed to know what was both legally and physically possible, and this was a learning process requiring intensive action from those seeking public involvement.

 

Expectations had to be managed well – people lost faith if the Council failed to deliver on its promises, so it was vital not to give people false hopes.

 

The various partnership boards published agendas and minutes which varied in quality.

 

How often was the Talkback Panel refreshed?

 

Response:

 

OSP was a well-run organisation. The Oxfordshire Partnership was in the hands of individual secretariats. Some areas of work were well publicised.

 

It was unclear what the long term future of Spatial Planning and Infrastructure Partnerships (SPIP) would be. They had been formed because of a need for local authorities to discuss housing needs and priorities across their area with the Homes and Communities agency; but this was no longer required.  It was likely to be less easy to contain conflicts that would arise between different local authorities concerning the placing of housing within the County.

 

It was clear that only a tiny proportion of people would ever be involved with consultation. Consideration was being given to presenting specific pieces of data to the public for debate, as a means of engagement in the consultation process.

 

The Talkback Panel was refreshed a year ago, and was not due to be reviewed this year – however, the profile of the panel was regularly tracked to see the current age range etc.

 

Means of public engagement

 

It seems as though a lot of consultation takes place, but it also seems that it does not reach a very large number of people. It should be acknowledged that not everyone has internet access. There is a need to think of imaginative ways to reach people with whom we wish to engage.

 

The monthly charts produced by the Social Research officer deserved wider publicity, and could be used to attract more comments and public interest.

 

Response

 

Thames Valley Police had considered this and now targeted their approaches adapting it differently for different areas and different target audiences. In some areas, leafleting would work well, but for others, social media was a way to reach a greater number of people. The policy team was looking to use intelligent data in the same way.

 

 

 

 

BME and “hard to reach” communities.

 

The next Census for Oxford was likely to show that approximately 25% of the population was from the BME community. There was a need to consider what was being done to ensure their needs were met. It would be useful to know how the City worked with the BME communities, which communities it engaged and upon what issues. There was concern about how BME communities were reached, and how consultation could be facilitated and made more accessible. Some communities had individuals who were very active in various fields of interest and they could be a useful contact.

 

There was a need to be more proactive in order to reach the BME community. It would be useful to know how this community was engaged with the various partnership boards.

 

This issue and especially that of “hidden communities” could usefully return to scrutiny for further consideration at some point in the future.

 

Response:

 

Thought is being given to a programme for communication with different communities. Recently, approaches to the BME communities have been through Age Concern UK, which already had specific BME workers. The policy team was keen to develop this area of work and understand people’s needs. The Consultation Officer was keen to speak to concerned Councillors in more depth outside the meeting.

 

Partnership Boards

 

Did all thematic groups and boards have targets? On which boards had the City Council the most power to get things done?

 

How was partnership working with Oxfordshire County Council progressing?

 

Response

 

Every partnership board/group was different, but most would have plans and targets. The City Council had more influence in areas in which it delivered services, such as spatial planning and waste management. It had less influence on issues around children and older people – however it recognised that these issues were important and had, for example, its own Children and Young People’s Plan.  The City council also supported some partnerships within its service areas, and Val Johnson represented the Council where 1 officer could not take on the role.

 

Unfortunately, Oxfordshire County Council seemed to be moving away from partnership working with the City Council. It did not seem to see City issues as a priority, expect from education, which had become the subject of a number of taskforces recently.

 

Role of “Backbench” Councillors and scrutiny involvement

 

Was there a role for backbench Councillors is policy development, and if so, how could they best be involved? How could the Committee better support partnership working?

 

If scrutiny did wish to be more closely involved with partnership working, what options were open to it? It was suggested that it could look at the emerging priorities of the OSP and choose those it felt most important to focus on, or it could shadow the OSP over a period and monitor its work.

 

Response:

 

Exploration of the OSP’s priorities by scrutiny was a useful suggestion, and now was a good time to do it

 

The Committee system would, arguably, have given “backbench” Councillors a greater role, but scrutiny can allow them an important role in developing and reviewing policy at an early stage. Scrutiny is especially important early on, when there is a chance to shape policy as it develops. Scrutiny work on educational attainment amongst the BME community was an example of especially valuable work.

 

Educational attainment was generally a major issue in Oxford which the City Council’s corporate plan recognised. It also recognised that many corporate objectives could only be carried out in partnership with others. The City had taken part in a useful seminar on educational attainment in July 2011, and was trying to take things forwards with Oxfordshire County Council. There should be a revised educational strategy released very soon.  The local press had played a useful role in highlighting educational issues within Oxford.

The Local Enterprise Partnership had no power, but it represented the business community, and had expressed concerns about the skills gap that existed in the City

 

Older People

 

It was important that older people were not overlooked. Many did not have access to the internet, and they could be excluded from consultation because of this. The percentage of older people in the City was increasing all the time and it was important to reach out to and include them.

 

Costs, gains and accountability

 

There was concern about partnership work, in that it could erode direct lines of accountability and transparency. It was also hard to itemise costs. Scrutiny needed to focus on these issues.

 

It was important to know, when entering a partnership, what the City Council’s key aims were, and what it hoped to gain from being in the partnership.

 

Response

 

There was no erosion of transparency - the Council entered into partnerships with aims agreed by Council as laid out in the corporate plan.

 

RESOLVED:

 

(1)     To thank Peter McQuitty, Sebastian Johnson, Val Johnson, Margarate Melling and Mark Fransham for all their hard work;

(2)     That Councillor Campbell (Chair), Councillor Sinclair (Vice Chair) and Pat Jones (Principle Scrutiny Officer) would formulate recommendations that reflected the issues raised above, circulate them to all members of the Committee for agreement, and then pass them to the Board Member for Corporate Governance and Strategic Partnerships.