Caroline Sinclair
Chief Officer
Orkney Health and Care
(01856) 873535 ext: 2601
OHACfeedback@orkney.gov.uk

Agenda Item 10.2

Integration Joint Board

Date of Meeting: 10 March 2017

Subject: Alcohol and Drugs Partnership Governance Arrangements

1. Summary

1.1

This report advises members of the need for a change in approach to the governance of the local Alcohol and Drugs Partnership (ADP) arising from the Scottish Government direction that ADP funding and functions are to be delegated to Integration Authorities (Appendix 1 – Scottish Government Funding Letter January 2017), and sets out a recommendation for the new approach, for consideration by members.

2. Purpose

2.1

This report recommends a revised approach to the governance arrangements of the local ADP.

3. Recommendations

3.1

The Integration Joint Board is invited to:

3.1.1

Note Scottish Government direction that ADP funding and functions are to be delegated to Integration Authorities;

3.1.2

Note the consequent requirement for a change in local governance arrangements; and

3.1.3

Consider the options for revised governance as set out in this paper.

It is recommended:-

3.1.4

That the Orkney ADP be reformed as a sub group of the IJB’s Strategic Planning Group, described as option 2 at section four of this report, effective from 1 April 2017;

3.1.5

The terms of reference of the ADP be revised to reflect this change; and

3.1.6

A scheme of delegation be developed to enable the ADP to be responsive and timely in its actions, within an agreed strategy direction set by the IJB.

4. Background

4.1

The Scottish Government has confirmed that funding for alcohol and drug services in Scotland, as delivered through local Alcohol and Drugs Partnerships (ADPs), will be transferred to NHS Boards as part of their baseline budget.

4.2

The Scottish Government has specified that this funding is to be delegated to Integration Authorities. In Orkney terms this mean delegation to the Integration Joint Board.

4.3

The Scottish Government also advise that supporting the delivery of agreed service levels for alcohol and drug partnerships is to be a priority for Integration Authorities in 2017-18. Appendix 1 – Scottish Government Funding Letter January 2017.

4.4

This brings about the need for a change to the current local arrangements for governance of the ADP, which has to date sat as an autonomous decision making group with full budget setting and management responsibilities.

4.5

The ADP Strategy Group meeting of 13 February 2017, informed by submissions received from group members not able to be present, considered a range of options for revised governance arrangements. A resulting paper setting out two options was subsequently circulated virtually to members for further consideration and comment.

4.6

Option 1 as described the ADP sitting as a direct advisory group / sub committee of the IJB. The new configuration would be as follows.

IMAGE: Organisational chart for option 1. The Integration Joint Board is at the top, with the Strategic Planning Group, ADP, and Other Committees of the IJB directly beneath it. The Commissioning Group is shown as a group beneath the Strategic Planning Group.

4.7

Option 2 describes the ADP as a dedicated sub group, or thematic group of the Strategic Planning Group (SPG). The new configuration would be as follows;

IMAGE: Organisational chart for option 2. The Integration Joint Board is at the top, with the Strategic Planning Group and Other Committees of the IJB beneath it. The ADP and Commissioning Group are shown as sub groups beneath the Strategic Planning Group.

4.8

Feedback on the options from ADP members was mixed. Some recommended option 1 as the preferred model. Members who supported this model felt that it gave ADP matters an appropriately high level of priority and visibility in the governance structure of the IJB and that it offered the best option for ADP members to continue to feel that their contributions and advice were giving best benefit.

4.9

Those who preferred option 2 highlighted that there was a risk that separating ADP planning from the more broad planning role of the existing IJB Strategic Planning Group would result in options for joined up planning and thinking being missed, making neither group as effective as it could be. It was also highlighted that in opting to accept another direct sub committee of the IJB a precedent may be set that would see growth in this type of cub committee approach, making the work of the IJB more challenging through receipt of growing numbers of directly reported agendas, and the work of the Strategic Planning Group increasingly less effective.

4.10

It must be acknowledged that given neither model has been tested locally to date, it remains to be seen whether any of the concerns expressed would indeed come to pass.

4.11

Consideration of the views expressed and the findings from other areas leads to a recommendation that the ADP should be reformed to become a sub group of the IJB’s Strategic Planning Group. While this option does not have unanimous support from ADP members, the IJB has to consider not just the priorities of the ADP members, but the structure that best support the effective functioning of the IJB as a whole. The Strategic Planning Group which, by merit of legislation and national guidance, is established and described as the key planning forum of the IJB. Alignment of the ADP under the Strategic Planning Group would therefore fit with the overall purpose of that group and would support joined up planning across the remit of the IJB. It would enable the ADP to directly benefit from the emerging approach to locality level planning, which is channelled through the Strategic Planning Group and is something the ADP is not currently linked into. It would also indicate a reasonable development approach to the working of the SPG which may see a number of thematic sub groups emerge in response to the breadth of the agenda that the SPG has.

4.12

In recommending option 2 as the revised approach it is important to try to address as many of the concerns as possible from ADP members about the model. Therefore it is also recommended that a scheme of delegation be developed to enable the ADP to be responsive and timely in its actions, within an agreed strategy direction set by the IJB. This should address some of the concern that ADP members have about the potential for the change in governance to dilute their ability to make a positive and effective contribution to the alcohol and drugs strategy in Orkney as a whole. The ongoing requirement to set out and have approved by the Scottish Government a local ADP delivery plan should continue to ensure a clear and focussed direction to the work of the ADP.

5. Contribution to Quality

Please indicate which of the Our Plan 2013-2018 and 2020 vision/quality ambitions are supported in this report by ticking the relevant area(s):-

6. Resource Implications and Identified Source of Funding

6.1

The budget for ADP funded activities in Orkney is delegated to the Integration Joint Board. The activities funded by the ADP, and the support provided to the ADP and ADP functions must be met from within this available budget.

7. Conclusion

7.1

The arrangements for governance of the Orkney ADP require changing to reflect the delegation to the Integration Joint Board. This paper recommends an option for governance which sees the ADP reformed as a sub group of the Strategic Planning Group. While this option does not have unanimous support from ADP members, it is the option that provides the best fit with the role of the Strategic Planning Group as the key driving forum for planning for the IJB and is therefore most appropriate governance structure fit for the IJB as a whole. An additional recommendation has been made in relation to the development of a scheme of delegation to ensure that ADP members continue to be able to play a key and driving role in the new structure.

8. Author

Caroline Sinclair

Chief Officer

Integration Joint Board

9. Contact details

caroline.sinclair@orkney.gov.uk

01856 873535 ext 2601

10. Supporting Documents

10.1

Appendix 1: ADP Funding 2017-18 Letter