LOCAL STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP BOARD Agenda · LOCAL STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP BOARD meeting on 3 November...

LOCAL STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP BOARD

Agenda

Date: Thursday, 31 May 2012 Time: 2.00 pm Venue: Room 10

Item Title Page

1. Apologies for Absence

2. Minutes of the meeting held on 1 March 2012 1

3. Declarations of Interest

4. Troubled Families Outline Delivery Model 7

5. More than just a place to live. What's happening to ......housing? - Presentation by Rob Young (Helena Partnerships) and Stephen Tracey (St. Helens Council)

6. Next Meeting – Thursday, 6 September 2012 2.00pm, Room 8, Town Hall, St Helens

This page is intentionally left blank


At a meeting of this Board held on 1 March 2012

(Present) Councillor ME Rimmer (Chairman)

- St. Helens Council

Carole Hudson - St. Helens Council Linda Agnew - Bridgewater Community Healthcare NHS Trust Kath Boullen - St. Helens Chamber Chris Case - Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service Chris Coffey - St Helens CEN John Downes - Langtree Group plc Dympna Edwards - NHS Halton and St Helens Reverend Philip Fell - SHINECouncillor Sue Murphy - St Helens Council Chief Inspector Dave Pryce - Merseyside Police Jim Wilson - NHS Merseyside Sally Yeoman - Halton and St Helens VCA Rob Young - Helena Partnerships

(AlsoPresent)

Andy Dempsey - St. Helens Council Catherine Fletcher - St. Helens Council Bob Hepworth - St. Helens Council Peter Hughes - St. Helens Council Councillor Pearson - St. Helens CouncilSusan Richardson - St. Helens CouncilIan Roberts - St. Helens Council John Skinley - St. Helens Council

-------

19 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for Absence were received from:

Dr Jette Burford - St. Helens College Carol Carroll - Merseytravel Councillor Deakin - St. Helens Council Reverend David Eastwood - St. Helens Parish Church Steve Gange - St. Helens Chamber Steve Spoerry – NHS Halton and St Helens

20 MINUTES

The minutes of the meeting held on 3 November 2011, were approved and signed as a true record.

21 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

No Declarations of Interest were made by Members.

2

1


22 ARMED FORCES COMMUNITY COVENANT IN ST HELENS

Councillor Pearson, Armed Forces Champion and the Head of Administrative Services presented a report on Armed Forces Community Covenant in St Helens.

At a meeting of Council held on 6 July 2011, Members noted the recent launch of the Armed Forces Community Covenant and the ‘Heroes Welcome’ Scheme and instructed the Chief Executive to liaise with the local Service community and other interested parties with a view to establish a St. Helens Community Covenant and consult with local businesses and organisations regarding the implementation of a ‘Heroes Welcome’ Scheme in St. Helens and following consultation, to submit a report to a future meeting of the Cabinet.

The Covenant would be a voluntary statement of mutual support between the civilian community and its local armed forces community. The Community Covenant would work alongside the Armed Forces Covenant to encourage support for the Armed Forces Community working and residing in St. Helens and would include in-Service and ex-Service Personnel, their families and widow(er)s.

The main objectives of the Covenant would be to: Encourage support for the Armed Forces Community working and residing in St. Helens; Develop action plans to support the delivery of agreed priorities to in-service and ex-service personnel and their families; Development of a communication strategy; Encourage the recognition of the Armed Forces; and Work with the St Helens community to deliver financial support to projects

The Head of Administrative Services updated the LSP Board on the progress of the Covenant to date. A consultation meeting held on the 20 September 2011, had been well attended by veterans associations and partners with Helena Partnerships indicating its support in principle.

As part of the commitment to the Covenant the Armed Forces sought the establishment of a Steering Group to co-ordinate and implement the support between the Armed Forces and the community within St. Helens which would report twice yearly to the Chief Executive and Brigade Commander. It was envisaged that the LSP Board could have overarching responsibility for this with a Sub Group set up for this purpose.

In October 2011, in response to recommendations made by Brigadier N O Fitzgerald MBE, Councillor Pearson had been nominated as Armed Forces Champion with a further meeting taking place on 11 January 2012 with Major Mark Austin and Lt Colonel Busby with Councillor Pearson and the Head of Administrative Services.

Chief Officer Group held on 25 January 2012 discussed the St Helens Covenant and had recommended that the LSP Board be asked to lead in the development of the St Helens Covenant further.

The letter from Brigadier N O Fitzgerald MBE dated 5 October 2011 and draft Covenant for St Helens were attached to the report at Appendices 1 and 2 respectively.

2

2


LSP Board Members were informed that a separate report in relation to the implementation of a ‘Heroes Welcome’ Scheme would be submitted to a future meeting of this Board.

There was widespread support from the LSP Board in providing services targeted at ex-services personnel.

* Resolved that:

(1) the report be noted;

(2) Councillor Pearson and the Head of Administrative Services be thanked for their attendance;

(3) the Head of Policy liaise with the Head of Administrative Services to establish a Steering Group with nominated membership; and

(4) an update report be submitted to a future meeting of the LSP Board including determination of which organisations / individuals should be signatories to the Covenant.

Councillor Pearson and John Skinley here left the meeting.

23 POLICE REFORM AND SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT - PRESENTATION

The Head of Corporate and Community Safety gave a presentation to the LSP Board on the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act.

The presentation provided an overview of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act and highlighted implications for partners and the Community Safety Partnership.

Police Authorities were due to be abolished and replaced by directly elected Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) who would serve a 4 year term. The PCC would undertake a wide range of strategic duties including:

Appoint (and dismiss) the Chief ConstableDetermine local policing priorities (produce 5-year Police and Crime Plan) Set force budget and determine precept Commission policing and crime reduction services

The work of the PCC would be subject to scrutiny by a Police and Crime Panel comprising of Local Authority Members covering a police force area.

* Resolved that the Presentation be noted.

24 TROUBLED FAMILIES PROGRAMME

The Head of Corporate and Community Safety presented a report to the LSP Board on the Troubled Families Programme.

The report updated the LSP Board on the Troubled Families Initiative (previously Community Budgets) following the LSP Boards consideration of an initial report at its

2

3


meeting on 3 November 2011 and sought support of the LSP partners in developing local arrangements.

Work had been completed to identify a local cohort of troubled families. The distribution of families indicated a strong correlation with areas of deprivation which suggested that the programme could utilise existing arrangements such as Neighbourhood Management, Early Intervention Services and the Stronger Communities Initiatives to engage families in those areas.

Work had now commenced with key partners to map out their involvement with the local cohort, with the Safer Communities Team acting as the co-ordinating lead, using existing information sharing and data management protocols. The cohort would also be cross-referenced with European Social Fund (ESF) programme, co-ordinated by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), which aimed to support families in employment.

In support of work with Troubled Families, the Government had proposed a payment by results model in which Local Authorities could obtain 40% of their costs through the achievement of the outcomes set out in the report. This would require Local Authorities and partners to focus resources on Troubled Families to provide the 60% resource investment to match the 40% offered for the achievement of key outcomes. However, further detail was awaited on how the payment by results model might work.

* Resolved that:

(1) the work undertaken to date to develop a local approach towards troubled families be noted; and

(2) the development of an integrated multi-agency delivery model be supported.

25 NEIGHBOURHOOD MANAGEMENT DELIVERY PLAN

The Head of Corporate and Community Safety presented the Neighbourhood Management Delivery Plan. The report updated the LSP Board on progress with the Neighbourhood Delivery Plans, following the approval of a revised Neighbourhood Management (NM) Partnership Agreement on 14 July 2011.

At its meeting held on 14 July 2011, the LSP Board approved a revised Neighbourhood Management Partnership Agreement which set out how partners would focus resources to deliver improved outcomes for residents in three defined areas of the Borough; Parr and Fingerpost, Thatto Health and Four Acre.

The LSP Board Members were informed that a joint co-ordinating team of Helena Partnership and Local Authority Officers was now in place within each of the three areas and would provide a dedicated resource to engage and co-ordinate the communities and partners.

Area Delivery plans had been drafted for each of the three areas and provided a brief summary of the role and structure of the joint teams working under the re: new brand and evidenced a rich mix of partner activity and engagement with residents.

2

4


Neighbourhood Management Action Plan - re: new Thatto Health and Parr and Fingerpost, Thatto Health and Four Acre Draft Neighbourhood Management Action Plans 2011 – 2012 were attached at Appendix 1 to the report.

* Resolved that:

(1) the Neighbourhood Delivery plan as attached at Appendix 1 to the report be approved; and

(2) the LSP Board receive twice yearly reports on progress, including a year-end report on achievement against key performance indicators.

Andy Dempsey here left the meeting.

26 PUBLIC HEALTH TRANSITION UPDATES

The Chief Executive presented an update report on Public Health Transitions.

The purpose of the report was to brief Members of the LSP Board on the changes to the public health system and implications for the wider partnership.

Subject to the passage of the Health and Social Care Bill, PCT’s would be abolished and public health functions would transfer to Local Authorities, Public Health England and other agencies. The report set out the functions that would transfer to the Council and provided an overview of the progress made against public health transition locally. One of the key reasons for public health transferring into Local Authorities was due to their range of influence over a wide range of services that had a significant impact upon health and wellbeing. LSP partners contributed enormously to the health and wellbeing agenda and the transition of functions to Local Authorities provided the opportunity to further strengthen existing arrangements.

Health and Well-being Boards would be established as Statutory Council Committees providing a forum to bring together Clinical Commissioning Groups, Health and Social Care Commissioners, Public Health and Elected Members with Patient and Public Champions to join up the public health agenda with the wider work of the NHS, Social Care and Children’s Services. Housing and Faith representatives expressed an interest in being represented on the Health and Well-being Board.

The Department of Health, Public Health in Local Government Factsheet – Commissioning Responsibility was attached at Appendix A to the report.

* Resolved that the report and the transfer of public health functions to the Council be noted.

27 FUTURE MEETING DATES

The Chairman presented the Calendar of Future Meetings.

The following dates were submitted to the LSP Board for approval. All meetings would be at 2.00pm and held in the Town Hall:-

Thursday, 31 May 2012 Thursday, 6 September 2012

2

5


Thursday, 29 November 2012 Thursday, 14 March 2013

* Resolved that the proposed future meeting dates for the LSP Board be approved.

28 NEXT MEETING

Date of next meeting Thursday, 31 May 2012 at 2.00 pm, Room 10, Town Hall, St Helens.

The Chairman informed the LSP Board that at its meeting held on 29 February 2012, Council had resolved to confer the Honorary Freedom of the Borough on a number of recipients, one of which was Langtree Group plc. The Chairman congratulated John Downes, Managing Director of Langtree Group plc who was present at the meeting.

2

6

Local Strategic Partnership Board Troubled Families Outline Delivery Model

31 May 2012

1.0 Purpose

The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the Troubled Families Programme and seek the support of LSP partners for the outline local delivery model as outlined in Section 5.0 of this report.

2.0 Background 2.1 At the time of the launch of the Troubled Families Programme (previously

Community Budgets) in December 2011, the Government provided each Local Authority with an estimate of families in their area falling within that definition, based on the latest national information1. It was estimated that there are approximately 520 troubled families in St.Helens costing £3.9m per year.

2.2 As this was an estimated figure, further work was undertaken locally using Council tax benefits and attendance data for school age children. This identified 519 families, increasing to 727 families when families with pre school children were included, evidencing a close match between the national 'top down' assessment and local data analysis.

2.3 On 28 March 2012, the Government published its financial framework for the Troubled Families Programme, with monies being made available to local authorities through a payment by results model. Confirmation of the success measures within the financial model has required further work to be undertaken on identifying a local cohort and this is set out in Section 4.0 below.

2.4 When publishing the financial framework, the Government also set out a requirement for Local Authorities to confirm their participation in the programme, along with the number of families they would be working with by 31 May 2012. There is an expectation that a minimum of 33% of families (based on the national estimate figure) will be engaged in Year 1. Accordingly, the Council's Chief Executive, Carole Hudson, recently wrote to the Director General Troubled Families Team, Louise Casey, confirming local participation, with an initial commitment to work with 170 families.

3.0 Financial Model 3.1 The incentives outlined within the Troubled Families announcement are

intended to complement and build upon work already underway locally via Community Budgets and the European Social Fund (ESF) Families with Multiple Problems programme (being led locally by Reed Partnership).

1 DfE indicative numbers of troubled families per Local Authority, based on previous Family and Children Survey data, index of multiple deprivation and children’s well being index combined with local population numbers.

4

7

3.2 Central Government estimates that the average unit cost of intensive interventions that are known to work with this group of families, including family intervention projects and others, is around £10,000.

3.3 DCLG will make available up to £4,000 for each troubled family in St Helens

that is eligible for the payment by results scheme, with the expectation that resources and intervention work by local authorities and partners make up the rest of the investment.

3.4 DCLG acknowledge that there will be upfront costs associated with

restructuring services, taking on new staff or commissioning services and that risks will be greater in the early years of the programme, until intervention work is stabilised and longer term savings can be realised.

3.5 On that basis, it is proposed that a proportion of the £4,000 funding will be

paid up front as an ‘attachment fee’ for the number of families that local authorities successfully work with, with the balance paid once positive outcomes have been achieved with that family. The table below sets out the balance between the attachment fee and the results based payment in arrears, with the 2012/13 attachment fee to be paid as a single grant.

The attachment fee will be paid as a single grant payment. Total funding available per family = £4000 Year % of payment

offered as upfront attachment fee

% of payment offered as a results- based payment in arrears

2012/13 80% 20% 2013/14 60% 40% 2014/15 40% 60%

3.6 In acknowledgement of the tight programme timescales, the measures and

definitions for the payment by results model (and by implication the criteria for cohort identification) have been selected, so far as is practicable, from within existing administrative systems.

3.7 Based on the average length of a successful intervention with a family and a

timeframe for showing results, it is anticipated that results based payments will be available to claim around 12 months after the intervention has commenced. However, there will be variables relating to the complexities associated with some families and the length of time necessary to achieve results.

3.8 For the crime, ASB, education and progress to work results, if one of the

measures is not relevant, the full results payment will still be made. As an example, if a family does not have a youth offending problem but does satisfy

4

8

the ASB and education criteria and enters the programme on this basis the £700 payment by results could still be claimed provided the education and ASB results have been achieved (and that youth offending had not subsequently occurred). The table below identifies the desired outcomes and the balance between attachment fee and payment by results.

4.0 Local Cohort

The financial framework has now clarified the measures underpinning the payments by results model, all of which fall within the previously published strategic programme objectives set out below:

• Getting children back into school • Reducing their criminal and anti-social behaviour • Getting parents on the road back to work • Reducing the costs to the taxpayer and local authorities.

This has required further analysis of datasets from the Youth Offending Service, Anti-social Behaviour Unit and Education Welfare Services in order to identify families with truancy and/or criminality and disorder issues. Set out below are the results from that process.

4

9

4.1 Youth Offending

Analysis of YOIS (Youth Offending Information System) has identified 171 young offenders over 2011/12, who committed 401 offences. The majority of offences were related to violence, theft, drugs or public order. Of the 171, 21 were LAC, and therefore not part of a defined ‘household’ giving a cohort of young offenders of 150. Of these 150, there are several pairings/siblings which when taken into account leave 145 families/households in this category.

4.2 Anti Social Behaviour

The Safer Communities ASB Team have identified 19 nominals subject to ASBO over 2011/12. 2 are now out of area, leaving 17 nominal – of these, 4 are u-18 (and interestingly 8 are IOM). In addition, 19 nominals (including 2 brothers) are subject to an ABC – all u-18, giving 18 households – and related to at least 44 ASB calls for service.

This leaves 35 ASB-related households in this category.

4.3 Truancy

The baseline criteria for truancy is a young person with more than 15% unauthorised absence across three consecutive school terms, which has identified over 2,000 households. To further refine the cohort to a manageable size the data was filtered on the basis of households in which more than 2/3rds of the children of school age were above the threshold which encompasses over 900 households.

4.4 Worklessness

As a part of the national arrangements put in place to support local delivery DCLG have brokered a personalised data sharing agreement with DWP to allow for cross matching between worklessness and the crime, attendance and ASB domains.

A secure GSCX licence application is in process to facilitate this with cross referencing the final element in determining the programme cohort in the interim take up of Council Tax and Housing Benefits has been used as a proxy measure. Reed Partnership have been appointed as the local provider for the ESF work programme for Families with Multiple Problems and information sharing, referral and safeguarding procedures are all now in place to support local delivery.

4.5 Households with Multiple Factors

In light of the large number of households above the baseline criteria for inclusion within the programme based on truancy a further sift of the cohort data was undertaken in order to identify households meeting one or other of the criteria for inclusion in the programme. This process has now been completed and has identified:

4

10

• 23 households meeting all three of the above criteria • 67 households meeting the criteria for crime/ASB and worklessness

(based on access to benefits) • 684 households meeting the criteria for non-attendance and

worklessness

This gives a total cohort of 774 households which, allowing for some non-engagement, should provide sufficient scope for us to meet the Government’s expectation that we engage 520 local families over the three year programme.

5.0 Outline Delivery Model 5.1 In order to meet the extremely challenging timescales imposed by

Government, it is proposed to use existing intervention processes, information sharing and case management systems in order to develop a local delivery model for work with troubled families.

5.2 It is evident from the data analysis outlined above that many of the families falling within the troubled families definition are currently being worked with by one or more local agencies and local authority services with the opportunity to better co-ordinate existing effort to improve outcomes and/or reduce costs. The evidence from the Stronger Communities Initiative (SCI) at Four Acre is that significantly improved outcomes were achieved with some families and individuals through a more focussed approach in which existing intervention work was directed towards a tighter, shared set of aims, therefore avoiding duplication and, in some cases contradictory effort. The SCI has been highlighted across Merseyside as a model of best practice and has contributed to significant reductions in crime and ASB on the estate over the past 2 years.

5.3 DCLG Guidance has highlighted Section 115 of the Crime and Disorder Act as providing the key underpinning mechanism for data sharing to support the development of a single intervention plan for each family. It is also the case that the financial model and the desired outcomes are imbued with a strong sense of crime and anti-social behaviour reduction.

5.4 In light of the above and building upon the local learning from delivery of the SCI at Four Acre, it is proposed that local delivery arrangements are developed utilising the following elements:

• The Community Safety Partnership Executive chaired by the Chief

Executive to provide for strategic oversight of St Helens Troubled Families Programme on behalf of the LSP. Working beneath the CSP Executive would be a quarterly Trouble Families Co-ordinating Group chaired by the relevant Cabinet Member and comprising of senior partner representatives including Police, Local Authority, DWP etc. and relevant Council services.

• The Community Safety Team to be reconfigured as the Troubled Families

and Safer Communities Team and, building upon existing performance management and information sharing systems, will provide the co-ordinating function for the programme including collective case

4

11

management, performance monitoring and data returns. This is likely to require a dedicated Programme Manager and co-ordinating post.

. • The Community Safety Manager to take on an expanded role as the co-

ordinating lead for the Troubled Families (TF) Programme including chairing multi-agency case management meetings, liaison with partners and ensuring that a single co-ordinated plan is in place for each family. Additional co-ordinating resources to support the necessary expansion of data sharing and multi-agency case management to be put in place using some of the pump priming money made available to support programme development.

• Whenever practicable multi-agency working with each family will be

coordinated and enhanced via existing collaborative mechanisms (with proven effectiveness) at a local level. There are now three SCI areas in place in Parr, Thatto Heath and Four Acre and it is proposed to commence the programme by working with families meeting the criteria located in those areas. Partner agencies including police, schools, education welfare, social care, Job Centre Plus and registered social landlords are already committed to participating within the SCI’s which will reduce the additional demands placed on them through participation in the Troubled Families Programme. Where this is not practicable, a Troubled Families Case Management Group will be convened by the Troubled Families Lead Officer bringing together relevant agencies.

• Rather than developing a bespoke planning format for the Troubled

Families Programme, it is proposed that the Common Assessment Framework (CAF) is used whenever practical, with the aim of having a jointly agreed plan in place for each family, led by an agreed Lead Professional, with a focus on improving the success measures set out in the TF Financial Framework.

• The Troubled Families Lead Officer (Community Safety Manager),

working through the multi agency case management approach developed via the SCI, will hold agencies and services to account for the delivery of each plan. The work undertaken to identify the local troubled families cohort has identified that in many cases a range of Council services and agencies are already involved with many of the families and therefore the initial focus will be on the better co-ordination of existing effort.

• In some cases, additional support may be required and the Government

has indicated that upfront funding will be available in the form of an attachment fee, with approximately £450k being made available to St Helens for 2012/13. This is based on an estimate of the number of families that achieve successful outcomes and it is not clear whether a clawback will be applied if success is not achieved or whether an adjustment will be made to the attachment fees made available in subsequent years. On that basis, it is proposed that a precautionary approach is adopted in which these funds are utilised in exceptional cases in which existing intervention work is not achieving the desired outcomes. Existing funds such as the Youth Offending prevention budget would also be re-directed towards young people within the identified cohort of families.

4

12

• The robust information sharing (personalised data) arrangements already in place for the Stronger Communities Initiative will be amended to support the Troubled Families Programme, with the addition of the DWP data on worklessness provided under the GSCX licence arrangement.

6.0 Monitoring, Evaluation & Governance 6.1 DCLG have signalled an expectation that local authorities will self declare

results and that the DCLG Troubled Families Team will issue results payments on the basis of those declarations. As part of that process there is an expectation that LA Internal Audit teams will have a quality assurance role on behalf of the Chief Executive in order to ensure the validity and accuracy of any return. Alongside this, DCLG will carry out a small number of spot checks in a sample of LA areas.

6.2 The work already undertaken confirms that data recording systems are in

place across key partners, primarily police and local authority services to enable us to track the progress of families against the success criteria set out above and to provide for reporting through to the CSP Executive and thereafter the LSP.

6.3 The CSP Executive is proposed as the most appropriate existing group to

provide for strategic oversight of the Troubled Families Programme but it is acknowledged that similar reporting lines will need to be created with the Children’s Trust and potentially other LSP Thematic Groups.

7.0 Recommendations

7.1 St Helens LSP is recommended to:

• Note the further work undertaken to identify a local cohort of families suitable for participation in a local Troubled Families Programme, and;

• Give its support to the outline delivery arrangements set out in Section

5 of this report.

8.0 Conclusions and Next Steps 8.1 The late publication of the financial model and clarification of the reward

elements has required further work to be undertaken to identify a local cohort of families for inclusion within the programme. This has now been completed and indicates that persistent non-attendance and worklessness (as determined by the proxy measure of access to Council Tax benefits) are the most significant criteria, with a much smaller overlap with crime and anti-social behaviour than anticipated. Feedback obtained via Interface Associates, who are the Government’s designated support agency, suggests that this mirrors the experience in other areas. The cross referencing of data information with the Department of Work and Pensions will shortly commence under an agreed batch process (99 households per time) but this is not likely to significantly change the cohort profile.

8.2 The scaling up of existing multi-agency case management and intervention

arrangements developed under the Four Acre SCI would appear to provide the best option in developing a programme that matches the scale of the

4

13

Government’s ambitions, within the extremely tight timescales being imposed. Under the proposed model, the Council’s Safer Communities Team would continue to provide the underpinning co-ordination and data sharing processes with participating agencies coming together to develop an agreed approach towards participating families. In many cases it is likely to involve reconfiguring existing engagement work towards the reward criteria set out in the financial model although in some cases it is also the case that additional work may be required.

8.3 Although additional funding has been provided in the form of an attachment

fee (yet to be received) it is suggested that a cautious approach be adopted towards its use as the Government is yet to clarify if and how any clawback or adjustment might be applied, in the event that successful outcomes are not achieved. In the initial phase, the TF programme will focus on the direction of existing effort towards families already engaged in services with the learning feeding into longer term service re-design particularly for existing early help and prevention services, with a particular focus on the problems of persistent non-attendance. The active involvement of Sutton Academy in the SCI at Four Acre is a good example of how non-attendance issues can be addressed as part of the programme.

8.4 A proportion of families within the Troubled Families Programme will also meet the eligibility criteria for the ESF Programme and referrals will form part of the offer to those families. However, they will not be eligible for payment under the Troubled Families financial framework. The local ESF provider is now working through our local Children’s Centres in order to engage relevant families and to-date over 40 referrals have been made to the programme.

Andy Dempsey Acting Director Children and Young peoples Services

4

14

LOCAL STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP BOARD Agenda · LOCAL STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP BOARD meeting on 3 November...

Documents

Transcript of LOCAL STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP BOARD Agenda · LOCAL STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP BOARD meeting on 3 November...