AGENDA ITEM NO. 8 TITLE: PARTNERSHIP PROTOCOL AND …€¦ · TITLE: PARTNERSHIP PROTOCOL AND GUIDANCE Committee: External Partnerships Review Committee Date: 22nd April 2010 Author:

Agenda Item 8 – page 1

AGENDA ITEM NO. 8TITLE: PARTNERSHIP PROTOCOL AND GUIDANCE

Committee: External Partnerships Review Committee

Date: 22nd April 2010

Author: Partnerships Officer, Policy & Performance[J397]

1.0 ISSUE

1.1 To present a Partnership Protocol and Guidance to ensure that thegovernance arrangements of the Partnerships in which the Council is involvedare robust, with necessary action identified to mitigate any risks highlightedthrough applying the Protocol.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION(S)

2.1 To approve the Partnerships Protocol and Guidance, noting the proposedprocess for approving future participation in Partnerships.

2.2 To note the summary findings of the risk assessment of the Council’sSignificant Partnerships and approve the proposed ‘additional controlmeasures’.

2.3 To recommend the use of the Partnerships Protocol and Guidance to thePolicy Committees of the Council.

3.0 BACKGROUND/OPTIONS

3.1 On 10th December 2009 the External Partnerships Review Committee (EPRC)received a paper identifying the most significant partnerships in which theCouncil is currently involved. It was resolved that a risk assessment becarried out against the Council’s participation in those partnerships and that afurther review of Partnership activity be carried out.

3.2 The Audit Commission has highlighted our lack of Partnership Protocol as anarea for improvement in our ‘Use of Resources Assessment’. A Protocol hasbeen developed to assess the value to ECDC of, and terms of engagementwith any new or existing partnership. It brings together a methodology forexamining partnerships and a risk assessment guide (attached at AppendixA).

3.3 The methodology for reviewing existing partnerships, as detailed at 10.0 in thePartnerships Protocol and Guidance, has been applied to the Council’s‘significant partnerships’. The lead officers for all 11 of these partnershipscompleted the ‘Checklist of Governance Arrangements for ExistingPartnerships’. If the answer to any of the questions detailed within the


checklist was ‘no’ a risk assessment was carried out. The process hasidentified 5 Partnerships where some elements of the governancearrangements are not adequate. These are detailed at Appendix B ‘Summaryof Identified Risks’ (together with proposed additional control measures tomitigate the risk) and summarised overleaf:

Area of governance that needsaddressing

Partnership that needs to takeaction

The Partnership does not haveclearly set out governancearrangements. There are no termsof reference for the PSB, and thisprevents any further assessment ofgovernance arrangements in place.

Cambridgeshire Public ServiceBoard.

There is no robust risk managementsystem in place.

East Cambs and Fenland Childrenand Young People’s AreaPartnership;Cambridge Sub-regional HousingBoard.

The Partnership does not have acode of conduct.

East Cambs Community SafetyPartnership;Cambridge Sub-regional HousingBoard.

The Partnership does not have atraining and development plan.

East Cambs Community SafetyPartnership.

There is no lead partner oraccountable body.

Cambridge Sub-regional HousingBoard.

There is no annual review of thepartnership.

DV Strategy and ImplementationGroups.

There is no formal process forwithdrawal by partners and cleararrangements for the dissolution ofthe Partnership.

DV Strategy and ImplementationGroups.

4.0 ARGUMENTS/CONCLUSIONS

4.1 Partnership working is playing an increasingly important role in achievingoutcomes in future policy development and service delivery for the publicsector. The Council must, therefore, have in place robust mechanisms to dealwith partnership working. The Partnerships Protocol and Guidance provides aframework to the Council’s approach to the evaluation of and commitment topartnerships and aims to ensure that the Council adopts a consistent, efficientand high standard of partnership involvement.

5.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

5.1 The immediate and ongoing financial implications are officer time to completethe checklist and risk assessment. However, there are potential costs to theCouncil should action not be taken to address the identified risks.


6.0 APPENDICES

6.1 Appendix A: Partnership Protocol and Guidance6.2 Appendix B: Summary of Partnership Risk Assessment

Background Documents

Checklist of GovernanceArrangements for theCouncils ‘SignificantPartnerships’.

Location

RoomFF101

Contact Officer

Julie Cornwell, Partnerships Officer(01353) 616352E-mail: [email protected]


EAST CAMBS DISTRICT COUNCILPARTNERSHIP PROTOCOL AND GUIDANCE

1.0 Introduction

1.1 In 2005, the Audit Commission’s report ‘Governing Partnerships: Bridging theAccountability Gap’ recognised that local partnerships are essential to deliverimprovements in local people’s quality of life, but:

Partnerships bring risks as well as opportunities, and governance can beproblematic;

They may not deliver good value for money, so local public bodies should asksearching questions about which partnerships they engage with;

Clear accountability is needed between partners to produce better accountability tothe public, including redress when things go wrong.

1.2 Partnership working is playing an increasingly important role in achieving outcomes infuture policy development and service delivery for the public sector. The Council must,therefore, have in place robust mechanisms to deal with partnership working. It isimportant to understand that involvement in partnership working initiatives, howeversmall or seemingly insignificant, may carry legal and financial implications for theCouncil.

1.3 This guidance provides a framework and guide to the Council’s approach to theevaluation of and commitment to partnerships and aims to ensure that the Counciladopts a consistent, efficient and high standard of partnership involvement.

2.0 Who should use this Partnership Protocol and Guidance?

2.1 All Officers and Members involved in or considering partnership working initiatives inachieving outcomes for the Council and/or community.

3.0 What does this Protocol and Guidance offer?

3.1 The protocol and guidance will:

Assist any service wishing to review current partnership arrangements;Ensure a Council-wide approach to developing partnership initiatives;Provide advice and guidance for all Council staff involved in or considering a new

partnership initiative;Highlight importance to involve local people, partners and staff;Ensure that partnerships apply principles of good governance.

4.0 Advice on the use of the Protocol and Guidance

4.1 Advice concerning interpretation of any part of the document should, in the firstinstance, be sought from the Partnerships Officer.

5.0 Partnership definitions

5.1 This section is designed to give an overview of what is meant by partnership workingand will help to define partnership types. The terms “partnership”, “partnering” and“partnership working” within a local authority context refer to:

“A relationship between two or more independent legal bodies, organisations orindividuals working together to achieve a common vision with clear aims and objectivesand outcomes agreed”.

APPENDIX A


6.0 Definitions NOT covered by this Partnership Protocol

6.1 This guidance document is not applicable to:

Groups where the Council has direct control over budgets or decision making; Informal groups set up to discuss and consider specific topics (consultation/working

groups);Appointments and/or financial commitments to outside bodies where the Council

has no strategic or policy function; “Commercial partnerships” with a view to make a profit, which are subject to the

Partnership Act 1890;Other commercial agreements;Contracts and arrangements defined as a legally binding agreement which:May be oral, written, partly oral and partly written or implied from conduct

between the Council and another legal body or individual.Gives rise to obligations that are enforced or recognised by law.Commits the Council to make payment or provide some other consideration

(e.g. the provision of a service).

7.0 Working arrangements defined as partnership working initiatives

7.1 This guidance document is only concerned with arrangements where the Council is‘working with’ other parties towards ‘joint objectives’, sharing responsibilities, risk andsometimes resources. These partnerships are generally about benefiting thecommunity and not making a profit. Therefore, the types of partnership arrangementscovered are:

Strategic alliances Partnerships required or covered by law Not-for-profit organisations

7.2 Brief explanations of these types of partnerships are given below:

Strategic Alliances (formal forums, joint committees, management committees,local strategic partnerships).

i) Formal Forums. These forums are a medium for open discussion and debatewhich play an important key role in identifying/achieving service and strategicpriorities and shaping/developing policies, strategies and services.

ii) Joint Committees. This type of partnership may be appropriate where two ormore local authorities wish to undertake joint activities, e.g. to combine theirresources to obtain economies of scale and greater commercial bargainingpower.

iii) Management Committee. A management committee is a steering group thatworks together to support the management of a particular project ororganisation. Generally, management committees do not have independentlegal status and, therefore, each member will have to recognise what individualresponsibilities and liabilities they could encounter.

iv) Local Strategic Partnership. Local Strategic Partnerships aim to bring togetherthe public, private, voluntary and community sectors to improve the delivery ofpublic services and the quality of life for people at a local level.

A Local Strategic Partnership is defined as a single body that:


brings together, at a local level, different parts of the public sector as wellas the appropriate/relevant private, business, community and voluntary

sectors so that different initiatives and services support each other and worktogether;

produces the statutory Sustainable Community Strategy; operates at a level which enables strategic decisions to be taken and is close

enough to individual neighbourhoods to allow actions to be determined atcommunity level; and

should be aligned with local authority boundaries.

Partnerships required or encouraged by law

An example of this type of legislation is the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 whichencourages partnership working between all local authorities and the police forces, asit places joint responsibility on these organisations to work together with other relevantorganisations to develop strategies to reduce crime.

Not for profit organisations that are conducted for the benefit of the community

Examples of these organisations include the following:

Trusts: A Trust is an unincorporated association which is a collection of individualsdrawn together to pursue a common purpose which is often charitable in nature.Furthermore, a Trust does not have the advantage of a limited liability status1. Thismeans that individuals (i.e. trustees) will be personally liable for any liabilities of theTrust, which is clearly a concern for the individuals. However, the trustees will alsoown, in a fiduciary capacity2, all the assets owned by the Trust. Trusts are oftenproperty-based and are created where property is either being held for particularpurposes or on behalf of others. It should be noted that Companies Limited byGuarantee that have a charitable trust status may be permitted to use “trust” in the title(e.g. development trusts).

Companies Limited by Guarantee. A company limited by guarantee is incorporatedunder the Companies Act 1985. Generally, these companies will be established on anot-for-profit basis with the aim of advancing or promoting a charitable, social or othernon-trading purpose. In the event that any profit is made by such a company theprofits will be used to further promote and achieve the company’s objectives asopposed to being shared amongst its members by way of dividends (as is the case in‘Companies Limited by Shares’).

Social Enterprise. Businesses set up to tackle a social and/or environmental need.The main aim of social enterprises is to generate profit to further their social and orenvironmental goals.

8.0 Procedures for entering into a Partnership

8.1 It is important to fully consider and investigate the need and working arrangements fora partnership before entering into such an agreement and, once entered into, toadhere to a regime of monitoring the use of resources and outcomes. This protocolsets out the requirements for carrying out the investigation, approval and monitoringprocesses.

8.2 The Protocol will apply to those partnerships that meet the definition as described in5.0 – 7.0 above.

1 ‘Limited liability’ is a type of investment in which a partner or investor cannot lose more than the amountinvested. Thus, the investor or partner is not personally responsible for the debts and obligations of the company inthe event that these are not fulfilled.2 A person is said to act in a fiduciary capacity when business is transacted, or money and property are handled forthe benefit of another.


9.0 Appraisal process – new Partnerships

9.1 Before considering a partnership working initiative it is important to fully assess theneed, objectives, resource requirement, risks and expected outcomes of a potentialpartnership, together with establishing whether the partnership will address orcontribute to the delivery of the Council’s priorities and commitments.

9.2 A ‘Partnership Assessment Initial Checklist’ is attached at Appendix A for completionand submission to Joint Management Team/Heads of Service. Any ‘no’ or ‘don’t know’answers will require a risk assessment to be carried out (see Risk Managementsection below and Appendix C, Annex 1).

10.0 Governance and review arrangements for existing partnerships

10.1 A checklist for the review of governance arrangments for existing partnerships isattached at Appendix B and expects there to be in place: accountability, legalcompliance, formal agreements, financial reporting mechanaisms, asset management,insurance arrangements and performance management.

10.2 It is particularly important that the expectations placed on elected members areconsidered. The Council’s decision making arrangment is ‘4th option’ i.e. the Counciloperates using an ‘Alternative Arrangement’ based on a streamlined committeesystem. This means that Members are not constitutionally empowered to makedecisions on behalf of the Council and partnerships will need to ensure theirgovernance arrangements reflect this.

10.3 The Council’s Constitution also considers the governance arrangements relating topartnerships. These are set out in 9.0 of the Financial Procedure Rules as follows:

“Executive Directors/ Heads of Service shall not enter into any partnerships or jointventures without first consulting the Head of Finance.

The Head of Finance shall ensure that the accounting arrangements to be adoptedrelating to partnerships and joint ventures are satisfactory. The Head of Finance shallalso consider the overall corporate arrangements and legal issues when arrangingcontracts with external bodies, and shall ensure that the risks have been fullyappraised before agreements are entered into with external bodies.

Executive Directors/ Heads of Service shall ensure that appropriate approvals areobtained before any negotiations are concluded in relation to work with externalbodies”.

10.4 It is the responsibility of the officer that represents the Council on the partnership tocarry out a review of governance arrangements every two years using the checklist.Any ‘No’ answers will trigger off a risk assessment (see Appendix C, Annex 1). Theresults of this should be presented to the Partnerships Officer.

11.0 Risk Management

11.1 Effective risk management is one of the principle elements of good corporategovernance. The process involves identification, analysis, control and monitoring ofrisks and the maximisation of opportunities that can impact on the Council’s aims andobjectives.

11.2 The Council’s Risk management Strategy (Appendix C) is a key part of strategicplanning and an integral part of the service planning and performance managementprocesses. Therefore all new partnerships that do not demonstrate good governancearrangments (See ‘Appraisal process – new Partnership’s above) are required to carry


out a risk assessment to identify any potential concerns, thus allowing Members to makeinformed decisions about the forward work programme.

11.3 The bi-annual review of existing partnerships (See ‘Governance arrangements forexisting partnerships’ above) will identify any areas of risk associated with continuedparticipation in the partnership. The Partnerships Officer will present a report toExternal Partnerships Review Committee (EPRC) summarising the risks associatedwith the Council’s participation in (or withdrawal from) those partnerships identified assignificant (see 13.0 below).

11.4 The Council will encourage active risk management within partnerships to enableeffective decision-making, service planning and delivery and to safeguard the well-being of its stakeholders.

12.0 Information Sharing

12.1 Information is an asset of the Council and it is important that responsibility is assignedand appropriate controls are adhered to. This section only applies to partnershiparrangements that involve the sharing, storing or collecting of information.

12.2 The Legal team can provide guidance on aspects such as:

Legal Compliance – Data Protection Act, Freedom of Information Act(disclosure), copyright – software licensing, databases;

Records management – creating an inventory, managing the lifecycle of recordsfrom creation to disposal;

Security – classification of information including risk management.

12.3 Working protocols will need to be specific to the particular operational requirementsarising from the client group concerned, should be developed with the support ofrelevant professionals and representatives of the client group and agreed by allpartners and stakeholders, in accordance with proper governance arrangements.

13.0 Principles of Community Engagement

13.1 Councils are at the heart of local democracy and it is therefore essential for us toensure that all sections of our local community have the opportunity to engage with us.Engagement should occur in a systematic way that is integral to everyday workingpractices. Engagement should not be a one-off activity, but provide the fundamentalbasis of everything we do. Therefore the principles within the Councils CommunityEngagement Strategy should be applied to all partnership working to ensure thatpartnerships:

Strengthen the democratic legitimacy of government and the civic life of thecommunity;

Produce more efficient and effective services that better reflect the needs of serviceusers and have higher levels of customer satisfaction;

Reduce community inequalities;Create safer and stronger communities, with a more attractive built environment

that meets the people’s needs;Provide improved local ownership of Council (and other partners) services; Improve the local reputation of partners involved;Provide greater job satisfaction for partners who see that the services they provide

are meeting expressed local needs.


14.0 Significant Partnerships

14.1 Once approved by EPRC, new partnerships requiring Member representation will beadded to the ‘Representation on Outside Organisations’ List. This list will be reviewedevery year.

14.2 EPRC will concentrate on the monitoring and evaluation of the Council’s top 25 mostsignificant partnerships.

14.3 To determine whether a partnership is significant, the procedure at Appendix D shouldbe followed.

15.0 Terms of Reference

15.1 The Terms of Reference for significant partnerships must be agreed by all parties andshould include the following main elements:

The name of the partnership;Aims and Objectives;Membership, including the status of different members;Roles;Meetings: notice and frequency; quorum rules; chairing arrangments; voting

arrangments;Governance arrangements for elected Members from 4th Option Councils;Decision making processes;Administration;Exit strategy/arrangements for dissolution.

16.0 Equality and Human Rights

16.1 The Protocol has undergone an Impact and Needs/Requirements Assessment (INRA)Initial Screening, which demonstrates that the Protocol is fair and that there is norequirement to proceed to a full Equality Impact Assessment.

17.0 Protocol Review

17.1 This protocol is the responsibility of the Head of Policy and Performance. It will bereviewed every two years (in the ‘off year’ of checking governance arrangements andrisk assessing significant partnerships) from the date of adoption. The Head of Policyand Performance will have delegated power to make any minor amendments andupdates. Substantial changes will require the approval of EPRC.


Appendix A

Partnerships Assessment Initial Checklist

For an informed decision to be made as to whether it is appropriate for the Council to attend orbe involved in a partnership working arrangement, the following information should beprovided:

Name of the Partnership

Issue or service delivery improvementto be addressed

Aims and objectives of the Partnership

Why does this require a partnershipapproach?

How does the Partnership assist theCouncil to achieve one or more of itscorporate objectives andcommitments?

Council’s role on the Partnership (e.g.lead organisation/accountable body,major/minor partner, observer)

Other partners involved

Duration of Partnership

Geographical area covered by thePartnership

Frequency of meetings

Role description of itsMembers/officers (including dutiesexpected)

Resources required (direct funding orindirect e.g. officer/Member time)

Legal status of Partnership

Insurance arrangements

Financial accountability arrangements


Yes No CommentsIs there a Partnership already in place which has asimilar remit and which could take on this work?Has the added value that the prospectivePartnership will bring been identified?Will the prospective Partnership contribute tostreamlining existing partnerships?Will the anticipated benefits outweigh the likelycosts (direct and indirect) of a partnership?Could all the benefits be achieved in a simpler ormore cost effective way?Does the prospective Partnership have clear,realistic and measurable objectives that areaccepted by all prospective partners?Does the prospective Partnership have agreedterms of reference that meet the requirements of15.0 of the ECDC Partnerships Protocol?Does the prospective Partnership have a clearaction/delivery plan and is this reflected in theappropriate ECDC service plan?Are all partners clear about their roles and theresources they will need to commit?Is there a commitment to evaluating theperformance of the Partnership and clearidentification of the outcomes?Are there clear procedures for making decisionsand resolving conflict?Does the Partnership meet a statutory duty orgovernment requirement?Does the prospective Partnership cover theexpenses of its Members?

If the answer to any of the questions above is ‘no’ a risk assessment should be completed andadditional clarification about the partnership should be sought.


Appendix B

Checklist of Governance Arrangements for Existing Partnerships

Name of Partnership:

Yes No Comments

Has participation in the Partnership beenapproved by EPRC?

Are the governance arrangements for thePartnership clearly set out?

Are responsibilities and accountabilities clearlydefined and allocated?

Is there a lead partner or accountable body?

Do partner organisations send representativeswho are empowered to make decisions onbehalf of their organisations?

Do the Terms of Reference allow for electedmembers from ‘4th Option’ Councils toparticipate fully and appropriately?

Does the partnership have audit arrangementsin place?

Is there a formal process for withdrawal bypartners and clear arrangements for thedissolution of the Partnership?

Is there an annual review of the partnership?

Is partnership funding clearly monitored?

Does the partnership have arrangements toensure compliance with financial regulations?

Does the Partnership have clear administrativearrangements in place includingresponsibilities for producing agendas andminutes?

Does the partnership have arrangements tomeet obligations with respect to humanresources where staff are directly employed bythe Partnership?


Does the partnership have a code of conduct?

Does the partnership have a training anddevelopment plan?

Are responsibilities for insurance cover (forElected Members) defined if appropriate?

Is there a clear process for decision-making tothe satisfaction of the Council?

Are decisions scrutinised?

Are partnership targets clearly monitored andoutcomes reported?

Is there a robust risk management system inplace?

Can ‘added value’ be clearly identified?

If the answer to any of the questions above is ‘no’ a risk assessment should be completed.


Appendix CEAST CAMBRIDGESHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL RISK

MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

IDENTIFICATION OF RISK

A risk is an event, which may occur that will have an impact on the achievement of ourcorporate and service objectives. This impact could be positive or negative. In this context, it isequally important to assess what might happen if a particular course of action is followed aswhat could happen if no action is taken. This will assist in living with risks and exploitingopportunities.

It is important to distinguish between a risk and an issue in this context. An issue is a concernthat cannot be avoided, whereas a risk may not actually materialise. Risks can becomeissues, but issues cannot become risks.

The types of risks are detailed below:

Strategic riskOperational riskReputation riskRegulatory riskInformation riskFinancial riskPeople riskEnvironmental

- doing the wrong things; missing opportunities- doing the right things the wrong way (failure to meet targets)- related to the Council's image; loss of public confidence- related to the regulatory environment- loss or inaccuracy of data, systems or reported information- losing monetary resources or incurring unacceptable liabilities- staff, management and councillors- environmental impact

Although not exhaustive, it will provide a starting point for those seeking to identify potentialrisks in their areas of work. The process is not the sole domain of senior management orelected members, however; the identification of risks, particularly at the operational level, isundertaken by all staff during the development of departmental service plans and projectinitiation documents.

ASSESSING RISKS

The Council adopts a 'bottom up' and 'top down' approach to the identification and assessmentof the risks facing it. This is done by utilising existing departmental service planningworkshops, project planning meetings, Management Team discussions and meetings involvingelected members for these purposes.

In considering the identified risks, the impact of the risk materialising and the likelihood of thethreat being realised is assessed as follows:

Table 1: Assessing the Likelihood of the risk occurringLikelihood Level

Rare May occur only in exceptional circumstances 1Unlikely Is unlikely to occur, but could, at some time 2Possible Fairly likely to occur at some time, or in some circumstances 3Likely Will probably occur at some time, or in most circumstances 4Almost certain Is expected to occur in most circumstances 5


EAST CAMBRIDGESHIRE DISTRICT COUNCILRISK MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

Table 2: The Impact of the risk should it occur

Impact Giving rise to one or more of the following Score

Insignificant Insignificant disruption to internal services – no impact oncustomersNo injuriesRequires management intervention (Informal HR procedureinvoked)Insignificant environmental damageNo reputational damageLow financial loss up to £5,000

1

Minor Some disruption to internal services – no impact oncustomersMinor injury (first aid)Requires management intervention (Formal HR procedureinvoked)Minor reputational damage (some local press coverage)Minor environmental damageMinor financial loss up to £20,000

2

Moderate Noticeable disruption to services (loss of services of up to 48hours)Serious Injury (Medical treatment required)Requires management intervention (Disciplinary / Capabilityprocedures invoked)Moderate reputational damage (extensive front page localpress coverage; national press or TV coverage)Moderate environmental damageModerate financial loss up to £100,000

3

Major Major disruption to services (loss of services of up to sevendays)Extensive multiple injuriesCould lead to resignation of Executive DirectorCoverage in national press and / or TVMajor local environmental damageMajor financial loss £100,000 to £1,000,000

4

Catastrophic Serious disruption to services (loss of services for more thanseven days)Loss of lifeCould lead to resignation of Chief ExecutiveExtensive coverage in national press and / or TVMajor regional/ national environmental damageHuge financial loss over £1,000,000

5


EAST CAMBRIDGESHIRE DISTRICT COUNCILRISK MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

PRIORITISING RISKS

From these factors we establish a risk rating (by multiplying the Likelihood scale by Impactlevel) which allows us to make decisions about the significance of those risks to the Counciland to prioritise action.

Table 3: Risk Rating and Prioritisation

LIKELIHOOD

Rare Unlikely Possible Likely AlmostCertain

Catastrophic 5 10 15 20 25

Major 4 8 12 16 20

Moderate 3 6 9 12 15

Minor 2 4 6 8 10

Insignificant 1 2 3 4 5

Table 4: Managing the Risk

Level of Risk Rating How the risk should be managed

Very High Risk 16 – 25 Requires Active Management (Consider termination ofthe activity or project)

High Risk 10 – 15 Contingency Plans – robust plan in place to detect anydeviation from expectations

Medium Risk 5 – 9 May require some mitigation to reduce likelihood (if costeffective). Reassess frequently to ensure no change tounderlying risk or control measures

Low Risk 1 - 4 Review Periodically


EAST CAMBRIDGESHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL

RISK MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

ADDRESSING RISKS

Our goal in responding to a risk is to ensure that it does not develop into an issue, where apotential threat is realised or opportunity missed.

The following general approaches to address risks are, therefore, adopted:

Transfer the risk - insurance, alternative service delivery arrangements.Tolerate the risk - where the costs of taking action may be disproportionate to the potential

benefit gained or our ability to take effective action is limited.Treat the risk - a planned series of mitigation actions to contain the risk to an acceptable

level.Terminate the risk - quick and decisive action to eliminate the risk altogetherTake the opportunity

RECORDING RISKS

Having identified risks or opportunities it is important that they are properly recorded in therelevant risk register. The template for this is attached at Annex A. The following should berecorded: Description of the risk in terms of an event (what might happen) leading to a consequence

with a particular outcome An identification of the existing controls and contingency plans The relevant assessment of the likelihood and impact taking those controls into account Who is managing the risk (the risk owner) Any additional controls or plans that could be implemented to mitigate the risk further The resource implications of the additional controls proposed A re-evaluation of the likelihood and impact taking those additional controls into account How and, at what frequency, the risk will be reviewed

REVIEWING AND REPORTING RISKS

Appropriate and effective review and reporting arrangements reinforces and supports our riskmanagement activities. Management Team will identify the most significant risks that contain thegreatest threat to the Council's objectives. These strategic risks are kept under regular review byManagement Team and a quarterly report by the Chief Executive will be made to Policy &Resources Committee reviewing and reporting their current status. Executive Directors with theirstaff will monitor their operational risks at frequencies set out in their service plans and detailedrisk registers and review formally annually as part of the service planning process.

COMMUNICATION AND LEARNING

Communication and learning inform each step of the risk management process and ensure that:

A common approach to risk is taken across the Council in a way that is understood by allthose who have a role.

Inappropriate levels of control are not employed

Partnership working is facilitated

Lessons are learned

Each level of management receives appropriate and regular assurance about themanagement of risk within their area.


A mechanism is provided for escalating important risk issues when they develop.Communication and Learning will be facilitated through:

Effective leadership in risk management by Management Team and the Council’s MemberChampion

Annual review of the operation of the strategy

The use of common formats and standards for identifying, recording and analysing risks

Regular refresh training for risk owners and members

Service based risk management workshops, facilitated by external specialist support ifappropriate

Generic Council-wide workshops for all risk owners

Reference to best practice exemplars in other local authorities

The Council will seek to employ its Performance Management Systems to capture keymilestones and activities within the risk management activity to ensure these are adequatelymonitored reported and managed. This will enable appropriate escalation to take place andprovide management information on the relevant key risks.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PARTNERSHIP WORKING

This strategy is concerned with the way in which the threats and opportunities facing the Councilare managed in the achievement of its strategic and operational objectives. To the extent thatthese objectives are delivered in partnership with others, the application of this strategy mayextend outside the Council’s direct control. A two-stage approach is, therefore commended tothose managing the Council’s relationships with partners:

Firstly identify and assess, from the Council’s perspective, the risks and opportunities that face theCouncil from participating in the partnership. This analysis should identify the controls andmitigating contingency plans (including an appropriate exit strategy) that are or should be in place.This “Outside-In” view will be informed by the extent to which the partnership has effective controlsand risk management procedures in place and whether it is able to provide the Council with therelevant assurances in this regard.

Secondly, from the “Inside-Out”, to champion effective risk and performance managementprocedures within the partnership so that the threats and opportunities to the achievement of thepartnership’s objectives are properly identified, assessed and managed.

A pre-requisite for this approach is that the Council must have identified all the partnerships inwhich it participates and have an understanding of its involvement and the implications of thatinvolvement in each partnership. Equally, each of the partnerships must have clearly set outobjectives and an understanding of the Council’s role in the partnership.

External Partnerships’ Review Committee considers these issues as part of its regular programmeof review of the Council’s partnerships and will make recommendations to the partnership body orthe relevant policy committee as necessary.


RISK REGISTER TEMPLATE

Corporate or Supporting Objective

Description ofRisk( D e s c r i b e e v e n t ,c o n s e qu e n c e a n d o u t c o m e )

SuppObjRef

Control Measuresin place

Risk ScoreRiskOwner/ReviewFrequency

Additional ControlMeasures

Additional Adjusted RiskCost ScoreResourcesRequired

Likelihood LikelihoodImpact ImpactRisk RiskLikelihood LikelihoodImpact ImpactRisk RiskLikelihood LikelihoodImpact ImpactRisk RiskLikelihood LikelihoodImpact ImpactRisk Risk


Appendix C, Annex 1RISK REGISTER TEMPLATE FOR PARTNERSHIPS

Name of Partnership: _______________________________________

Description ofRisk(i.e. ‘nos’ takenfrom thePartnershipsChecklist)

Risk Event(describe the event,consequence andoutcome)

ControlMeasures inPlace

Risk Score Risk Owner/ReviewFrequency

AdditionalControlMeasures

AdditionalCostResourcesRequired

AdjustedScored

Risk

Likelihood 4 Likelihood 0

Impact 2 Impact 0

Example:The Terms ofReference do notallow for electedmembers from‘4th Option’Councils toparticipate fullyandappropriately.

Example:A decision toprogress a project ismade that cannot bebinding on theCouncil, leading toCouncil withdrawal,the failure of theproject andassociated financialloss and damage toreputation.

Example:Annual reviewof terms ofreference andannual refreshof significantpartnershipsand‘Representationon OutsideOrganisations’List.

Risk 8

Example:Lead Officer from ECDCon the Partnership and repfrom agency that takesresponsibility for providingadmin support for thepartnership.

Annual basis or ascircumstances dictate.

Example:Terms ofReferenceareamendedand agreedby allpartners andallowappropriateparticipationin decision-making.

Example:

None

Risk 0

Likelihood LikelihoodImpact ImpactRisk RiskLikelihood LikelihoodImpact ImpactRisk RiskLikelihood LikelihoodImpact ImpactRisk Risk


Appendix DPartnership Review Methodology

Each partnership is scored from 0-3 in terms of their importance, using the scoring categories below:

Spending InfluenceWhether the partnership has influence over the spending of the Council, or vice versa. Movement of resources to reflect the agenda of a partnership isa significant commitment by the Council.

Cash AttachedTo what extent there is potential for the Council to access funding through the partnership, or to what extent the Council contributes finances to thepartnership.

Service DeliveryTo what extent the partnership is concerned with delivering a service direct to the general public, or what influence over that service delivery thepartnership may have.

Statutory DriverWhether the partnership is required by legislation.

Good PracticeTo what extent the partnership represents accepted good practice. Whether good practice or not, statutory partnerships do not score in this category.

Policy InfluenceTo what extent the partnership influences / has influenced the Council’s policy development, or vice versa.

Savings / Adding ValueTo what extent involvement in the partnership may produce savings for the Council, either direct cost savings, or increases in service for the samespend.

Public InfluenceTo what extent the public is aware of the partnership, or to what extent the strategies and policies of the partnership impact upon the public (this isrelated to service delivery).

The matrix below shows how each score would be achieved when assessing a partnership.


Score

Category 0 1 2 3

Spending Influence

No influence either way Occasional influenceover spending, usuallywithin projects

The partnership hasinfluence over ECDCspending / ECDC hasinfluence overpartnership spending.Spending is largely atdistrict level and mainlyshort-term

The partnership hasinfluence over ECDCspending / ECDC hasinfluence overpartnership spending.Spending is strategic andmay be cross district /county level and medium– long term

Cash Attached

No cash available fromthe partnership / No cashcontributed to thepartnership

The amount of spending/ potential spendingassociated with thepartnership is smallcompared to ECDCmainstream budgets

The amount of spending/ potential spendingassociated with thepartnership is not largeenough compared toECDC mainstreambudgets to have strategicpotential

The amount of spending/ potential spendingassociated with thepartnership is largecompared to ECDCmainstream budgets /has strategic potential

Service Delivery

No connection to publicservice delivery

The partnership is notdirectly concerned withpublic service delivery,but may influence itindirectly

The partnership hasinfluence over servicedelivery standards andlevels

The partnership isconcerned largely withdirect public servicedelivery

Statutory Driver

Not associated with astatutory function

The partnership is anentirely local initiative todeliver a statutoryfunction

Partnership isrecognised as aneffective way ofdelivering this statutoryfunction, but is not arequirement

The partnership isrequired by legislation


Score

Category 0 1 2 3

Good Practice

This partnership isrequired by legislation

Partnership is one goodpractice solution todelivering this function

Partnership is therecognised best practicemethod of delivering thisfunction

This partnership isrecognised as bestpractice

Policy Influence

No policy influence eitherway

Any policy influence isthrough informationsharing and bestpractice.

The partnership hasinfluence over ECDCoperational policy /ECDC has influence overpartnership operationalpolicy

The partnership hasgreat influence overECDC strategic policy /ECDC has greatinfluence overpartnership strategicpolicy

Savings / Adding Value

Partnership has littlepotential to improveservices or save money

Some savings may occurthrough informationsharing and best practice

Working in thispartnership improves thevalue / has potential toimprove the value ofservices for same ECDCspending

Working in thispartnership saves / haspotential to saveconsiderable fundscompared to deliveringthe function alone

Public Influence

No public facingstrategies / Noconnection with deliveryof services

Little public awareness /partnership has littleinfluence over servicedelivery or strategy

Partnership isrecognised by the public/ influences servicedelivery

Partnership has a highpublic profile / is involvedin significant work thatdirectly affects the public/ is involved in significantstrategic work thataffects the public

Agenda Item x – page 24

Appendix BSUMMARY OF IDENTIFIED RISKS

Name of Partnership: East Cambs and Fenland Children & Young People’s Area Partnership





Additional ControlMeasures


AdjustedScored

Risk

Likelihood 2 Likelihood 1Impact 2 Impact 2

There is norobust riskmanagementsystem in place.

The Partnershipagrees an action andfails to assess theassociated risks. Theaction fails leading tothe failure of theproject/task. This inturn could result indamage to reputationand financial losses.

Each partnerorganisation has itsown riskmanagementsystem.

Risk 4

Lead Officer from ECDCon the Partnership andrep from agency thattakes responsibility forproviding admin supportfor the partnership.

As circumstancesdictate.

The partnershipagrees theapproach it wantsto take with regardsto risk managementand applies itaccordingly. Termsof Reference areamended to reflectthis.

Risk 2

Name of Partnership: East Cambridgeshire Community Safety Partnership







AdjustedScored

Risk


The Partnershipdoes not have acode of conduct.

A member of thepartnership behavesin a way that iscontrary to the aims ofthe partnership, orcreates adversepublicity for thepartnership, leading topublic embarrassmentand loss of reputationand or loss ofconfidence inpartnershipeffectiveness

PartnershipBoard membersare subject totheir ownorganisationalcodes of conductor professionalstandards

Risk 4

Partnership SupportOfficer

Annually

If assessed asincreasing risk,include inpartnershipdevelopmentplan, as revisionto ToR

(Note no changeto risk score)

None.

Risk 4








AdjustedScored

Risk


The Partnershipdoes not have atraining anddevelopmentplan.

Unaware of properpractice or legislativeresponsibilities, amember of the CDRPBoard advises a thirdparty incorrectly, ormakes a publicstatement as above,leading to publicembarrassment andloss of reputation andor loss of confidencein partnershipeffectiveness

PartnershipBoard membersoperate at astrategic leveland are notinvolved inmakingoperationaldecisions.

At delivery level,all appropriateofficers are inreceipt ofrequired and / ornecessarytraining.

Risk 4

Partnership SupportOfficer

Annually

If a new trainingneed is identified,include inpartnershipdevelopment plan

(Note no changeto risk score)

Risk 4

Name of Partnership: Public Service Board







AdjustedScored

Risk


The Partnershipdoes not haveclearly set outgovernancearrangements.

A decision is made –or not made – by thePublic Service Board,that contradicts astated aim ofCambridgeshireTogether, or leads toa project failure – orvice versa , leading toadverse coverage andassociated loss ofreputation.

PSB tasked byCambridgeshireTogether Boardto address Termsof Reference andoperatingconventions.

Risk 6

Terms ofReferenceare agreed byall partners

Risk 3


Name of Partnership: Cambridge Sub-regional Housing Board







AdjustedScored

Risk


The partnershipdoesn’t have acode of conduct.

Discussions in thepartnership are veryfrank and open. Thereis a risk of indiscreetdiscussion away fromthe partnership whichcould threatenindividual members ororganisations

The TOR has asection on‘responsibility ofmembers’, whichdescribes the roleof members butdoes not refer toexpected conduct.Most officers arebound by the localgovernment codeof conduct

Risk 4

Individual members each ownthe risk. This would bereviewed annually at theaway day

Thepartnershipholds anannual reviewmeetingwhich wouldput measuresin place tocontrol anybreachesshould anyoccur

Nil

Risk 1


There is norobust riskmanagementsystem in place.

The Partnershipagrees an action andfails to assess theassociated risks. Theaction fails leading tothe failure of theproject/task. This inturn could result indamage to reputationand financial losses.

Each partnerorganisation has itsown riskmanagementsystem andindividual partnersare not bound bycollective decisionsin this partnership

Risk 4


Head ofHousing willremind thepartnership ofthe need toconsider risksin their ownriskassessmentprocedures

Nil

Risk 0


There is noidentified leadpartner oraccountablebody.

There is no clearaccountability andthus it would bedifficult to hold anyagency to accountshould anypartnership activityfail.

The chair and vicechair are elected bythe partnershipannually and theminutes and papersare published onCambridgehorizons’ web siteThe TOR makesthe accountabilityclear within thiscontext

Risk 0


Not required Nil

Risk 0


Name of Partnership: DV Strategy and Implementation Groups







AdjustedScored

Risk

Likelihood 1 Likelihood 0Impact 3 Impact 0There is no

annual review ofthe partnership.

The Terms ofReference will nolonger reflect thepurpose or structureof the group. Thiscould lead to a lack ofcommon purpose anda risk of challenge tothe working practicesof the group that coulddamage the reputationof the Council andultimately prevent DVwork being carried outeffectively.

There areknowledgeableofficers workingwithin the DVpartnership thatrecognise whenthe TOR needupdating.

Risk Low

Partnerships Officer(Community Safety) and theDomestic AbusePartnerships Manager.


Update theterms ofreference sothat theystate thatthere will bean annualreview.

None

Risk -


There is no aformal processfor withdrawal bypartners andcleararrangements forthe dissolution ofthe Partnership.

The partnershipcollapses or becomesin effective if a keypartner withdraws. Ifthere are noarrangements in placefor the dissolution ofthe partnership, itwould continue whenno longer required,thus usingunnecessaryresources.

None.

Risk Low

Partnerships Officer(Community Safety) and theDomestic AbusePartnerships Manager.


Update termsof referenceso that theyhave asection onwithdrawalanddissolutionand getagreement byall partners.

None

Risk -