Delivering services in local government has moved on dramatically in the past decade. John Tizard looks at the political difficulties of services supplied across different public and private sector agencies

Today’s council leader has to accept political accountability for a range of outcomes, issues and activities over which he or she has little or no direct control. 
The introduction of local area agreements (LAAs), not to mention multi-area agreements (MAAs) and the comprehensive area assessment (CAAs), will put the spotlight on local authorities and their political leaders in an unprecedented way.
Increasingly, services are being commissioned or delivered on an inter-agency basis – whether this is children’s services commissioned by children’s trusts or crime-reduction programmes involving the police, probation service, local authorities, the NHS and the local third sector, or one of the very many other partnership or collaborative arrangements which dominate every area.
The pressures driving more partnerships and collaborative working will increase over coming years as a result of a greater focus on the service-user and neighbourhood empowerment; of greater financial constraint being outstripped by demand for services; the pursuit of good professional practice; and often, by statute. 
These arrangements may be formal and institutional, but they are as likely to be informal and even hardly visible to those not directly involved.
The leader and his or her political leadership colleagues have to understand this new environment. They must find ways to influence all the agencies and organisations which contribute to commissioning and delivering public services in the area; to the economic and social wellbeing of the area; and to the local environment. 
The council’s own directly-commissioned services may be delivered by directly-employed staff, or they might be procured from other public agencies, the third sector or business providers, or even a combination of these. 
Some of the services will, indeed, be subject to user choice and some form of direct payment mechanism. 
Accountability for securing of services and community wellbeing outcomes cannot be delegated or transferred by the political leadership of a local authority as part of an inter-agency agreement, or an outsourcing contract.
This political environment requires a very different form of political leadership in local government than was the case only a few years ago, let alone 10 or more years ago.
The political leader must be able to lead:
l his/her council and the councillors, including the cabinet
l probably his/her political group
l through the chief executive, the senior management team and staff, although avoiding directly managing them.
In addition, the political leader now has to influence:
l local public sector partners – eg, the police, NHS PCT, Highways Agency, etc – the non-executive and executive board members/decision-    makers
l regional and sub-regional bodies
l central government and Whitehall departments and agencies, and sometimes, the EU
l local businesses and potential investors in the area
l local third sector organisations
l the local population on major strategic issues, such as healthy living, climate sustainability. And the political leader must also set standards and make sure there are mechanisms in place to ensure they are achieved by:
l in-house providers
l contracted service providers
l service delivery partners from the business, public and third sectors
There is also a need to consider how these activities complement the role of councillors as leaders and representatives of their wards and local communities, and how they work with others who have a leadership role locally through third sector and community organisations, faith groups, and other communities with local interests, albeit not democratically accountable representatives.
This is a large and wide canvass for any leader, especially one who may not be full-time. Actually, it is also very challenging to the full-time political leader.
It demands particular skills, competencies and approaches. It certainly requires leaders to be strategic and able to decide their personal priorities at any time. They will need to know what they can delegate and to whom, and how to retain their political accountability when they do delegate.
There are also major challenges beyond the time and skills required. The leader has to be able to make the right judgment call between being close and collaborative with a partner organisation, in whatever sector, maintaining probity standards, and being in a position to judge whether public value is being realised through a relationship – either a relationship held by him or herself or by the council. 
Many local authority political leaders have recognised the benefits of chairing or serving on the local strategic partnership and/or the local public services board, and some of the myriad of other partnership governance boards in their localities or the sub-region or region.  
They have determined that these are forums where they can display their political leadership to maximise influence on behalf of their communities.
They wish to exploit their political and democratic legitimacy to provide the leadership of place in a way that only local government can.
However, there are council leaders and their senior political colleagues who regard LSPs and public service boards as technical rather than political forums. They send their officers to meetings – and sometimes, these are relatively junior and non-corporate officers.  
The impact of global, national, regional and sub-regional issues on a locality, from climate change to the credit crunch, will require nimble and collective inter-agency action in every council area.
This will become clearer as the impact and significance of LAAs and CAA becomes clearer, as well as the emerging outcomes of collaboration with other partners, especially in the context of scarcer resources. 
There will not be any one blueprint – every local authority and political leader should decide to act in a way that is best not necessarily for themselves or the authority but for securing the best-possible services and wellbeing for local people. 
Two-tier shire areas will face specific challenges.
The Centre for Public Service Partnerships has signed a concordat to establish a strategic research partnership with the LGA – this was launched at the recent LGA conference. One of the first research projects to be undertaken through this partnership is a study of political leadership of local cross-agency partnerships, and the changing role of the council leader, as described above.
Research will be based on action research principles and therefore, involve colleagues – both politicians and officers from within local government and from local government’s partners – to shape the research questions, to guide the research, and ensure that the results are a helpful resource for councillors, officers and their partners.
This project was launched at the LGA conference with a lively debate in a breakout session and a call for evidence. We would be keen to hear from colleagues in local government and its partners on:
l what political leadership issues should be the special focus of this research
l examples of and ideas for good practice and innovative approaches
l examples of the barriers – behavioural, political, legislative and resource – to enable political leaders to lead the community wellbeing of their communities and provide effective political leadership of place
l what contribution the LGA and others could make to support these developments.
Whatever our findings and the conclusion of this project, I am confident we will identify exemplary practice across local authorities and one finding will be that the leadership of a council and the community has evolved considerably from when I was a joint leader of a county council 15 years ago. Will the next phase be one of evolution or revolution? n
Send your views to John Tizard, director, Centre for Public Service Partnerships, University of Birmingham. E-mail  j.tizard@bham.ac.uk