A guide to effective accountability and assurance of delivery in place-based partnerships

Local authorities deliver much of their place-making role and services working in partnership with other organisations. This prompts questions about how local authorities and their partners are accountable for their collective delivery and make arrangements for assurance of their performance. This framework complements the LGA’s 2024 Improvement and assurance framework for local government. It aims to help local authorities consider how to design and maintain accountability and assurance of their local partnership delivery. In order to take account of the diverse nature of partnerships, it sets out principles that can be applied locally to create arrangements that suit different circumstances.

Over the past 25 years, partnership working by local authorities in England has grown significantly, with councils now involved in an increasing number and variety of partnerships. These arrangements cover all aspects of strategy, place-making and service delivery from statutory responsibilities to voluntary arrangements.

As the type and complexity of partnerships evolve, so does the necessity for local authorities to assure themselves that their own involvement is, and remains, consistent with their duties, standards, priorities and purpose, and that they can be held to account for when their objectives are delivered through a partnership. Accountability and assurance are equally important at a partnership-wide level and local authorities need to be able to contribute to holding other partners to account and assure that a partnership operates within its proper remit, whether statutory or otherwise, and delivers the outcomes it has been set up to achieve. Clarifying accountability and assurance working arrangements is also increasingly important for the delivery of local outcomes given the substantial risks that may arise from any failures in local partnership working. In a political sense, the involvement of elected members in partnerships brings a legitimacy to the work that is carried out.

Despite this growth in partnership working, the LGA’s Improvement and assurance framework for local government identified gaps in the guidance available to promote good practice in accountability and assurance within the context of partnerships. It was considered that gaps in guidance risk leading to a lack of consistency in the application of good practice, with implementation dependent on local circumstances, including the resources and requirements of partners. This patchiness in guidance and best practice highlights the need for foundational principles to help local authorities to determine their approach to accountability and assurance in partnership working. These principles need to be flexible to be relevant to the wide variety of partnerships and local contexts. Flexibility is also needed so as not to impede dynamic partnership working which is essential to place-making today.

Partnerships exist in the 21st century context of increasing demand and reducing resources in the public sector. The government has recognised that local authorities have vital roles as the convenors of place to bring together public service providers and other stakeholders to improve outcomes for individuals and communities.

Many partnerships reflect this position and actively promote efficient and coherent spending and use of available resources, on behalf of a place, by the agencies that work there. This in turn helps to promote a better, more ‘joined up’ experience for service users. Accountability and assurance arrangements for partnerships need to work with this grain, helping partnerships to improve outcomes for their people and places, but without adding an undue overhead of resource pressures.

Shared Intelligence was commissioned by the LGA to look at the arrangements for accountability and assurance when local authorities are working in place-based partnerships. This work builds on the LGA’s 2024 Improvement and assurance framework for local government.

This guide first clarifies key definitions and the differences between accountability, assurance, and governance. It describes the building blocks that should be in place for any partnership, which in turn enable the operation of good accountability and assurance arrangements. It explores the spectrum of partnership arrangements, from tightly structured, statutory partnerships to more flexible, less formal arrangements. It then identifies some principles for good accountability and assurance of partnership delivery and provides a series of practical self-assessment questions for councils to consider. This is supported by some case study examples.

This guide is designed to be accessible to members and officers and to be relevant whether they have experience in partnership working or are new to it.

In the research for this guide, Shared Intelligence engaged with a number of council officers and other officers involved with or responsible for local partnerships. It was clear that much attention is paid to setting up overall governance arrangements for partnerships. However, the research team sometimes observed more of a focus on governance in general than on accountability and assurance arrangements in particular. Therefore, to support the sector with a better comprehension of the important roles of accountability and assurance in partnership delivery, we have set out definitions below. These draw on the definitions of accountability and assurance used in the LGA’s Improvement and assurance framework for local government, a National Audit Office definition of governance, CIPFA’s Developing an effective assurance framework in a local authority, as well as insights from the Chartered Governance Institute and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales websites.

Definitions

Governance provides a structured framework for decision-making, oversight and controls within an organisation, encompassing the roles, responsibilities, policies, processes and structures essential for guiding and managing it effectively. For a local authority this means having the proper arrangements in place to ensure that its intended objectives are achieved, and public money is well spent. Key elements of the statutory framework for local government, and therefore of its governance, focus on ensuring that authorities remain financially sustainable. Organisational culture is also an important component of good governance.

Accountability is the requirement to provide explanations about the stewardship of public money and how this money has been used. Accountability holds individuals or organisations responsible for their actions through transparent mechanisms. Effective accountability arrangements should help to build stakeholders’ trust and confidence in the organisation or partnership.

Assurance covers the provision of timely and accurate information, evidence and evaluation of how local authorities are delivering their duties, functions and outcomes, which can be used to hold them to account and may give confidence. This includes evaluations, audits and reviews designed to check compliance, that standards are met and that operations align with organisational goals. Assurance incorporates arrangements for checks and balances, which are essential for proactive risk management, ethical conduct and sustained performance.

Local government is increasingly involved in partnership activity, and this is likely to continue further across public services as well as to deliver outcomes.

Partnerships involving local government span a wide spectrum, encompassing a variety of forms, functions and objectives. The spectrum ranges from highly structured partnerships with statutory responsibilities and formal assurance frameworks, to more flexible, informal collaborations driven by common interests among partners. Examples are shown on the table below:

Table 1: Spectrum of partnerships

At one end of the spectrum are highly structured partnerships which operate under clear statutory obligations. These partnerships are often formed to deliver statutory responsibilities with explicit governance structures and an accountable body role for any central funding. Examples include Integrated Care Partnerships (ICPs), which are required to create an integrated care strategy in their Integrated Care Board area, or Health and Wellbeing Boards which are required by statute and have accountability for local use of the Better Care Fund.  

At the opposite end of the spectrum is a wide range of non-statutory partnerships, often characterised as ‘coalitions of the willing’. They can be highly ambitious and large scale, for example, aiming to converge around shared agenda such as local economic development or addressing climate change. They can also be smaller scale, focusing on bringing resources and thinking together for a particular local community. Unless tied to a particular funding pot, they are less likely to have externally defined mechanisms for accountability and assurance.

In the middle of the spectrum are semi-structured partnerships that, while not fully statutory, are still organised around formal objectives and frameworks. Examples include One Public Estate – this is a national programme delivered through more than 60 local partnerships. There is a tight framework for use of centrally provided funds, but programmes delivered under its banner are led by local partnerships – normally a mix of local government, NHS, police and central government organisations with local operations, such as JobCentre Plus, HM Court Service and the Ministry of Defence.  

This broad spectrum creates challenges for devising a framework of guidance that can consistently apply to partnership related accountability and assurance. Therefore, this guidance has been developed to identify a series of building blocks and principles to guide the sector. It is designed to be used in a flexible and adaptable way, informing effective arrangements tailored to a wide range of partnership types, while promoting consistency and alignment with the LGA’s Improvement and assurance framework for local government.

We have identified a set of partnership building blocks which should be helpful in assessing the nature of a partnership, from which accountability and assurance arrangements should flow.

We have identified six building blocks, which cover:

1. the purpose of the partnership
2. the significance of the partnership
3. governance
4. clarity regarding roles and decision-making responsibilities
5. transparency
6. trust and culture.

Purpose of the partnership: It is essential for a local authority to know what a partnership is trying to achieve and what it wants to achieve from its involvement. In a crowded partnership landscape, this is fundamental for knowing that the partnership will help to achieve council or place outcomes and priorities and adds value. Understanding this is a first step to knowing how to measure its progress, knowing when to review the council’s involvement in it, and checking it is acting on the right information.

It is also important to establish clarity about any differences in what individual partners are trying to achieve through a partnership. Understanding individual partner aims and drivers for involvement, and flagging these early on, will help to set expectations about pace and success and give greater understanding of intended outcomes.

Significance of the partnership to different partners: For the appropriate assurance to be put in place, there also needs to be an understanding of the partnership’s significance – to the local authority in the first instance, and then across the different partners. The significance of a partnership will be different for different individual partners. This may be due to a variety of factors including statutory roles, level of financial commitment and policy priorities. The important dimension is that the partners understand these differences and then develop ways of working that reflect them and mitigate associated risks. Assurance arrangements need to take account of any different priorities between partners.

Governance: Clear and explicit governance arrangements are essential for the smooth running of partnerships. This includes terms of reference, understanding the links to partner bodies’ constitutional arrangements and working and decision-making processes. Establishing and documenting these clearly is also an important foundation for accountability and assurance.

Governance arrangements identify accountabilities of individual partners (such as for finance or partnership staff management) and also where they are accountable together. To avoid misunderstanding or frustration about the pace of progress among partners, there also needs to be clarity on when partnership decisions need to be referred back or ratified by a partner’s own organisation.

Clear governance arrangements also allow the partnership to identify what will be made visible and open to public scrutiny (accountability) and where checks and balances, including audit arrangements, will focus (assurance). In the most developed examples of this, we have seen councils undertake an internal process of mapping out all partnerships they are involved in and the accountability and routes for assurance for each.

Clarity about decision making and roles: There needs to be a mutual understanding among partners of the decision-making delegations of representatives in order to set expectations prior to detailed partnership activity. This includes establishing clarity concerning the ‘hats’ that representatives wear when they attend partnership meetings, what that means for their responsibilities to their own organisation and the partnership and whether it requires declaration of interests. From the local authority point of view, this applies whether a partnership representative is an elected member or officer. It is also important that terms of reference state whether a partnership is decision-making or advisory, for example being clear whether decisions about spending or strategy are required to go back to the constituent organisations.

Developing this clarity also helps to establish what parts of a process should be subject to an authority’s own assurance arrangements. Finally, local authorities and their partners should provide support and training to their representatives so that they fully understand their role and responsibilities when serving on a partnership.

Transparency: Because partnerships bring different organisations and working cultures together, it is particularly important that there is an emphasis on transparency. This covers a whole range of operational and governance factors, including access to data and information among the partners, how decisions are made and published and financial flows. Transparency helps to build mutual trust among partners. Establishing effective arrangements for accountability and assurance should be seen as part of the process of contributing to transparency, which in turn helps develop a context of trust that helps partnerships to deliver.

Trust and culture: Establishing common positive trust and culture is crucial to effective partnership working. The effectiveness of accountability and assurance arrangements will be influenced by this. Opening up the work of a partnership to scrutiny is easier if the data that influence its decisions and the language used to conduct its business are common to all partners – or at least understood by them – rather than shaped by the culture of one. This needs to be complemented by a culture of compliance by all partners and the ability to discuss difficult partnership decisions both formally and informally.

In the next section, we set out a set of principles which focus on the nature of accountability and assurance arrangements that can be applied to partnership working.

These general principles are designed to provide guidance on where to start when working through how to create the right accountability and assurance arrangements for a particular partnership. They can be adapted locally to suit the needs of partnerships wherever they sit on the spectrum and to acknowledge the reality of partnership working.

We have designed these principles to be consistent with those developed in the LGA’s Improvement and assurance framework for local government. A summary version of those principles is included here:

1. Clarity: Understand who is accountable for what.
2. Proportionality: Assurance activity must add value, be cost-effective and be proportionate to the level of risk.
3. A whole-council approach: Assurance isn’t just the responsibility of the Monitoring Officer or the Head of Internal Audit.
4. Monitoring against standards, benchmarks and local targets: Some elements of what good performance looks like change over time: understanding how the authority performs in terms of value for money should be a constant endeavour.
5. Credible, quality data and information: Elected members and the public can only be assured where they are confident in the quality of the information on which assurance judgements are based.
6. Transparency, accessibility and intelligibility of information: A commitment to transparency is a fundamental element of good governance.
7. Seeking and engaging with external challenge and support: There are multiple opportunities for peer challenge and support at (sub)regional and national levels, for individual services and at a corporate level.
8. Independent assurance: Assurance should be proactively sought from a variety of sources.

In many cases, the essence of these principles applies to partnership working but needs to be adapted for that context.

The principles

For each principle below, there is a description, followed by a short explanation of the rationale for it and some key implications. We have also indicated some questions for local authorities to ask, as an aid to consideration of how to apply the principles to their own partnership contexts. The questions are not an exhaustive list.  Equally, how applicable each question is will vary depending on where a partnership sits on the spectrum.

1. Accountability and assurance should be proportionate to the size and significance of the partnership.

Rationale

The nature and scale of assurance should be proportionate to the scale of the partnership. It should focus on what adds value in the light of the level of risk, resource and/ or financial investment, and the partnership’s strategic influence and objectives. It should not be unnecessarily burdensome - if it is, it risks being off-putting to partners and may inhibit the joined-up outcomes the partnership is aiming to deliver. For example, there should be a lighter touch for a small scale geographically restricted pilot initiative with limited funding than for a major partnership regeneration initiative with large investment. Whether the partnership is responsible for a statutory duty or finances will also determine the level of accountability and assurance required.

Implications

A local authority’s direct input into assurance should be influenced by the nature of its own involvement in the partnership and where it sits on the spectrum of formality. It would be responsible for significant amounts of assurance for a large partnership to which it makes a leading contribution and it may deliver less of the assurance to a partnership in which it has a role more as a consultee than a leading player.

The scale and nature of assurance activity should change as the risk and scale of partnership activities change. Assurance (and overall governance) should be reviewed periodically, to ensure that it continues to be effective. Assurance will operate in different ways in the same authority for different partnerships.

2. The nature of accountability and assurance mechanisms used should be tailored to fit with the purpose of the partnership.

Rationale

Understanding the purpose and context of the partnership will help to establish what its overarching accountability and assurance arrangements need to cover. There needs to be an understanding of factors including:

• statutory or funding requirements where they apply
• the role of the different partners on the partnership
• key workstreams and outputs
• the importance of the partnership and delivery of place plans and strategies.

Implications

As per the building blocks section of this paper, it is essential that the local authority knows what a partnership is trying to achieve and what it wants to achieve from its involvement. This should be covered in key governing documents such as terms of reference.

Where an existing partnership takes on a new role, for example a new responsibility or significant new funding stream, it should ensure that there is governance for the new role, and that wider existing governance arrangements and documents remain appropriate. It should also check how its assurance fits with the updated purpose and partners’ roles in delivering it.

3. Elected members should have the opportunity to be part of the accountability and assurance processes in relation to all significant partnerships.

Rationale

A local authority’s involvement in partnerships needs to connect to its overall decision-making and democratic arrangements. Elected members should be part of the accountability and assurance arrangements for partnerships in a way that is proportionate to the nature of the work.

Member involvement can take different forms, notably:

• Member involvement on partnership governance bodies. This will usually necessitate inclusion in the council’s constitution.
• Decisions relating to partnership activity which need to come back to the council for decision.
• Opening up partnership activity to scrutiny (it is for scrutiny committees, where they exist under the council’s governance arrangements, to determine whether to put a partnership’s work on their work programme).

Implications

Flowing from the building blocks of governance, clarity of roles and transparency, it will be necessary to be clear with partners from the outset about the role of elected members.  Effective communication can help partners understand how this can enhance the overall accountability of a partnership.

4. Partnerships should use data which is credible and ideally from public sources.

Rationale

Assurance requires confidence in the quality of data on which it is based. This will be enabled if partnerships use data that is robust and widely accepted by different partners and are transparent with their members about how data is gathered. Using public sources, such as data from the Office of National Statistics, where it is available and relevant, helps to promote transparency and shared understanding.

Implications

Whether convening or participating in a partnership, local authorities should contribute to ensuring the use of robust data in making decisions and presenting information about outcomes.

5. Partnerships should be open to external challenge.

Rationale

External challenge should play a role in accountability and assurance of the delivery of partnerships. This can provide an additional and independent perspective to assess delivery and the effectiveness of how the partnership works. The nature of external challenge can take a variety of forms, including peer review, a commissioned external evaluation and external audit.  It is also supported by transparency and engagement with the wider public.

Implications

As part of the process of reviewing the effectiveness of partnership arrangements, consideration must be given to where external contribution would add value. An external perspective is important and can add a fresh perspective, for example in reviewing long-standing arrangements.

6. Partnership business should, as far as possible, be conducted in a way that builds on the accountability and assurance mechanisms of the different partners.

Rationale

There needs to be a shared understanding among partners of the different accountability and assurance regimes that each uses so that partnership business is conducted in a way that supports it.

Implications

Partnership working, processes, reporting and decision papers should be constructed in a way that anticipate the assurance needs of different partners.

Expectations need to be managed about what accountability and assurance requirements mean for the speed of decision-making. This is particularly important in partnerships related to the economy or regeneration where non-public sector partners may be surprised by the lead times for and number of approval steps needed by their public sector counterparts as well as requirements for the public scrutiny of decisions.

7. The focus of accountability and assurance mechanisms should be informed by user / stakeholder needs and views.

Rationale

Much place-based partnership activity is informed by exercises to hear voices from the community about their priorities. This may cover service users, residents generally, or stakeholder communities, such as local businesses. In turn feedback from these groups should inform assurance and they should have the opportunity to contribute to the partnership’s mechanisms for accountability.

Traditional controls may be poor at providing outcome evidence in this context.

A careful, joint focus including on identifying priority outcomes and planning their delivery may also help to bind a ‘coalition of the willing’ together.

Implications

More innovative accountability and assurance methods may be needed, such as involving experts by experience or advocates of service users to give feedback on their perspectives. Careful consideration will be required to ensure that user and stakeholder engagement is effective both to inform the partnership’s activity and to inform evaluation of its success.

This section presents a selection of examples and illustrations of tools and practice in place-based partnership accountability and assurance, drawn from some of the various councils who contributed to the research for this guidance note. These short case studies demonstrate ways to foster robust partnerships, drive community outcomes while also ensuring accountability and assurance.

Gravesham Borough Council – partnership register and framework

Gravesham Borough Council, located in north-west Kent, has implemented a proactive approach to overseeing its partnership working arrangements through a partnership framework, including the creation of a dedicated partnership register. The partnership register maintains a comprehensive list of all partnerships and shared working arrangements involving the Council. The register distinguishes between ‘significant’ partnerships – those with a resource provision of £50,000 or greater and partnerships that are fundamental to the delivery of a Council corporate objective – and ‘key other’ partnerships. This distinction of partnership significance provides a building block to achieving good assurance of the Council’s involvement.

Working in partnership framework

Supporting the register, the ’Working in partnership framework’ provides guidance for officers and members on establishing and monitoring partnership activities. The framework is owned at the corporate centre of the council, by its Corporate Change Manager, demonstrating a clear commitment to accountability and consistent application of the partnership framework across Gravesham.

Assurance in partnership management

Gravesham Borough Council also integrates assurance into its partnership management. Cabinet Portfolio holders keep partnerships within their own remit under regular review. Should they feel it necessary, they may also seek the advice of members within their Cabinet Committees. Additionally, as part of the annual work programme of the Overview Scrutiny Committee, any partnerships that are related to the topic areas chosen by the committee form part of the overall review. If selected, the partnership’s responsible officer will provide additional detailed information on the partnership to the Scrutiny Committee.  

Additionally, an annual review of governance arrangements in partnerships is conducted by the Corporate Change Manager. This results in a revised register which is reported to the Leader of the Executive and Cabinet Committees while also feeding into the council’s Annual Governance Statement. This annual review seeks assurance from responsible officers and managers (Directors, Assistant Directors, Heads of Service) that each partnership has appropriate governance arrangements in place and that the partnership arrangement is still meeting its set objectives. As an additional control, the council’s internal audit team may conduct targeted audits if specific assurance is identified either through the annual audit needs assessment or when the organisation seeks assurance on implementation of the partnership framework or regarding individual partnerships. This approach ensures effective assurance to align partnership arrangements with the council’s goals.

Watford Borough Council

In recent years, Watford Borough Council, in southwest Hertfordshire, has reset its external relationships with a focus on building the systems, and partnerships to deliver for Watford. Partnerships are critical for a collective understanding of place, co-creating solutions and jointly delivering where it makes sense. Watford’s place leadership provides the catalyst for bringing together key partners to support the ambitions for the borough. This bold and collaborative approach is underpinned by robust assurance to ensure the right outcomes for residents.

What is meant by partnership assurance in the context of the partnership and/or place?

The key to Watford’s approach is to underpin partnerships with proportionate assurance. It recognises that joint ventures need higher levels of assurance, while other partnerships will need a lighter-touch approach. This understanding comes from a robust approach to risk management which helps Watford to achieve a balance between being bold and progressive on the one hand and managing an appropriate level of risk on the other.

In Watford’s approach to partnership assurance, and in line with CIPFA best practice, they are cognisant that there needs to be a shared understanding and management of risks facing the partnership, in addition to those faced by each partner, including through shared oversight of contract risk registers. Where funding is provided to partnerships, agreements are in place to ensure compliance with governance and monitoring arrangements. This includes contracts between the Council and voluntary sector organisations which are commissioned to deliver local priorities as part of a wider framework. The approach to data sharing is compliant with the council’s responsibilities but does not create undue barriers to delivery.  

How does this work in practice?

Watford’s place board, One Watford, demonstrates how the council has supported the development of a systems leadership approach to place. A key part of this approach was to bring the partners together early on to develop a vision for Watford in 2040, identifying strengths and assets alongside a comprehensive assessment of risks and opportunities. Beginning the process with this exercise, built trust and relationships in order to move forward together.

Watford has developed a shared understanding, monitoring the existing performance metrics to give an insight into areas that inform the board’s priorities. This is not about creating additional layers of bureaucracy but building on the assurance that is already in place. The board has undertaken shared training and works to collective frameworks – most recently in relation to the community response to emergency planning. The board works collaboratively to oversee progress and consider how assets and budgets might be shared to deliver better outcomes.  

Watford prioritises democratic oversight

Watford has a number of joint ventures that enable it to improve the economic, social and environmental wellbeing of Watford. Watford recognised the increased risk environment for these arrangements post-Covid. Recognising the importance of both clear member oversight and good governance and leadership arrangements, the Shareholder Board, a sub-group of Cabinet, was established to hold the joint ventures to account and ensure that the interests of the council and its responsibilities are exercised in accordance with shareholders’ and members’ wishes. A key role of the Shareholder Board is to seek assurance from each joint venture and make sure that there are appropriate controls in place for good governance and risk management matters. The Shareholder Board’s remit covers all joint ventures (and also applies to council companies).  

Key principles in use for accountability and assurance

Watford’s approach to partnerships is underpinned by key principles:

• The approach is collaborative by default. This means delivering with partners and understanding partners’ priorities and unblocking issues in the system.
• Not being limited by institutional boundaries, Watford considers place, rather than individual organisations. Watford supports place-owned strategies and leveraging partners’ strengths.
• Respecting good governance but focusing on outcomes not structures.
• Holding themselves and partners to account; starting with a strong relationship enables the trust required to challenge a lack of delivery, if it arises.

Buckinghamshire LEP and Buckinghamshire Council: Assurance framework

In April 2024, the Buckinghamshire Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) was incorporated into Buckinghamshire Council, with its assets and responsibilities transferred across to the local authority.

The LEP had used an Assurance and Accountability Framework which set out the assurance arrangements for delivering economic growth in Buckinghamshire, via the LEP itself, subgroups and partner organisations. The aim of the Assurance and Accountability Framework was to establish suitable systems and processes for ensuring value for money, greater visibility and transparency of LEP activities and high-quality delivery across interventions.

A key feature of the Buckinghamshire LEP Assurance and Accountability Framework was the iterative process of its development. Iterations included responses to the government’s National LEP Assurance Framework, which asked all LEPs to develop a single assurance framework covering all government funding flowing through them, ensuring robust processes for determining value for money.

Ensuring transparency after LEP integration

Following integration, the activity of the Buckinghamshire LEP now sits under a local Growth Board structure, with an overarching place-based agenda. The Growth Board has four sub boards – including the Enterprise and Investment Board, which manages former LEP functions.  As part of the integration process the council conducted a full audit of the LEP programme as part of its duties as accountable body. After integration, the relationship with business remains critical. A local business leader has been appointed as deputy chair of the Growth Board, the Enterprise and Investment board is chaired by another business leader and business representation is at the heart of the Skills Board. In addition, the Council also meets regularly with a forum of business representative organisations operating across the county.

As part of the process of LEP integration there was a push to make existing assurance processes even more transparent with all key decisions going through Cabinet. This came as part of a wider commitment to transparency – including using the public-facing data observatory to ensure that economic data was accessible for the wider business community.