local strategic partnerships: lessons from new commitment

i

PPP R E S S

��•POLICY

Local strategic partnershipsLessons from New Commitment to Regeneration

Hilary Russell

ii

Local strategic partnerships

First published in Great Britain in November 2001 by

The Policy Press

34 Tyndall’s Park Road

Bristol BS8 1PY

UK

Tel no +44 (0)117 954 6800

Fax no +44 (0)117 973 7308

E-mail [email protected]

www.policypress.org.uk

© The Policy Press and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation 2001

Published for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation by The Policy Press

ISBN 1 86134 370 1

��is Deputy Director of the European Institute for Urban Affairs, Liverpool John Moores University.

All rights reserved: no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means,

electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior written permission of the Publishers.

The � �� has supported this project as part of its programme of research and innovative development projects,

which it hopes will be of value to policy makers, practitioners and service users. The facts presented and views expressed in this report

are, however, those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Foundation.

The statements and opinions contained within this publication are solely those of the authors and contributors and not of The University

of Bristol or The Policy Press. The University of Bristol and The Policy Press disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property

resulting from any material published in this publication.

The Policy Press works to counter discrimination on grounds of gender, race, disability, age and sexuality.

Front cover: left photo kindly supplied by www.johnbirdsall.co.uk; right photo kindly supplied by www.cadmium.co.uk

Cover design by Qube Design Associates, Bristol

Printed in Great Britain by Hobbs the Printers Ltd, Southampton

iiiiii

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Acknowledgements vGlossary viSummary vii

Part I: Background 1

1 Introduction 2New Commitment to Regeneration 2The evaluation 2Current relevance 3Report structure 3

2 Regeneration policy: where has it come from and where is it going? 4Lessons from the 1980s and 1990s 4The ‘joining up’ agenda 5Challenges today 7

3 The diversity of pathfinder areas 9Diverse districts 9Experience of regeneration 11Strategic areas 11The significance of diversity 11

Part II: NCR experience of strategic partnership 13

4 Partnership: overview of the issues 14Change management 15The elements of change 15

5 Partnership formation 17Triggers for partnership 17Partnership composition 18The significance of institutional boundaries 19Private sector 20Voluntary and community sectors 22Partnership arrangements 22Wider partnership structures 24Making sense of who does what 25

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Contents

iv


iv

6 Strategic planning 26Strategic thinking about regeneration 26Translating partnership into strategy 27Horizontal and vertical integration 30Action planning 32

7 Joined-up delivery 33The partnership as a delivery vehicle 34Executive teams 35Joint working 36Equipping for partnership 39

8 Community participation 40Community 40Community involvement strategies 41Levels and types of involvement 41Engaging the community 42Developing new structures 43Capacity building 44Benchmarks for community participation 44

9 Government as partner 46Looking for a new central–local partnership 46Public service agreements 48

10 Measuring impact 50Benchmarking joint working 50Baseline development 50Performance measures 52Disseminating good practice 53Partnership accountability 54

Part III: Lessons for local strategic partnerships 55

11 Towards local strategic partnerships 56Becoming an LSP 56Geographic coverage 57Engagement 58Rationalising strategies and partnerships 59Accountability 59

12 Conclusions 60Important principles and potential benefits 60A bigger strategic challenge 60Strategic partnership processes 60A development framework 62A matching challenge for Whitehall 63

References 64Appendix A: Profiles of case study pathfinders 66Appendix B: Headline indicators 70

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

vv

Acknowledgements

This study depended on the cooperation of alarge number of people. The Local GovernmentAssociation (LGA), the Joseph RowntreeFoundation and the Department for Transport,Local Government and the Regions (DTLR)commissioned and funded the research. I amgrateful to them and to the members of theSteering Committee. My colleague in theEuropean Institute for Urban Affairs (EIUA), MaryHutchins, carried out work on baseline issues andour former colleague, Stuart Wilks-Heeg,conducted the literature review and some of thefieldwork. Our partners in this research wereBrian Robson, Centre for Urban Policy Studies,University of Manchester, who collaborated overbaseline issues; Tony Travers, London School ofEconomics, who helped in the work on financialflows; and Greg Clarke. The NationalCommitment to Regeneration Phase I Pathfinders– especially those participating as case studies –were enormously generous in giving their timeand help. I want to thank everyone involved, inparticular Roger Sykes and Helen Goody, LGA;John Low, Joseph Rowntree Foundation; GillianSmith and Jane Todorovic, DTLR; MichaelParkinson, EIUA. Their assistance and advice wasinvaluable. However, I remain responsible for theviews expressed in the report and for anyomissions or errors of fact or interpretation.

vi


Glossary

AONB Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

BITC Business in the Community

CBI Confederation of British Industry

CE chief executive

CVS Council for Voluntary Service

DfES Department for Education and Skills(formerly the Department of Educationand Employment)

DTLR Department for Transport, LocalGovernment and the Regions (formerlythe Department of the Environment,Transport and the Regions)

DWP Department for Work and Pensions(formerly the Department of SocialSecurity and parts of the formerDepartment for Education andEmployment and the EmploymentService)

EAZ Education Action Zone

EIUA European Institute for Urban Affairs

EZ Employment Zone

FE further education

GIS geographical information systems

GO-EM Government Office for the EastMidlands

GOR Government Office for the Region

GOSE Government Office for the South East

HAZ Health Action Zone

HE higher education

HImP Health Improvement Programme

ILM intermediate labour market organisation

IMD Index of Multiple Deprivation

LGA Local Government Association

LSC Learning and Skills Council

LSP local strategic partnership

NCR New Commitment to Regeneration

NDC New Deal for Communities

NHS National Health Service

NRF Neighbourhood Renewal Fund

ONS Office for National Statistics

PAT Policy Action Team

PI performance indicator

PIU Policy and Innovation Unit

PPP public–private partnership

PSA Public Service Agreement

RDA Regional Development Agency

RSL registered social landlord

SEEDA South East England DevelopmentAgency

SEU Social Exclusion Unit

SLA service level agreement

SME small- and medium-sized enterprises

SRB Single Regeneration Budget

TEC Training and Enterprise Council

UDC Urban Development Corporation

URC Urban Regeneration Company

vii

Background

This report is based on a research project fromApril 1999 covering the first two years of the NewCommitment to Regeneration (NCR) Phase 1Pathfinders. NCR was developed by the LocalGovernment Association (LGA) with governmentsupport as a new approach to tacklingregeneration through partnership at a strategiclevel. It was distinctive in involving:

• whole local authority areas or combinations oflocal authorities;

• the mainstream programmes and budgets of allpublic sector agencies in the area;

• national government as a key partner;• the exploration of freedoms and flexibilities in

implementing national programmes.

The pathfinders piloting NCR were in very diverseurban and rural areas. They tested the approachin relation to the range of different variables thatlocal strategic partnerships (LSPs) will alsoencounter.

Key findings

The experience of NCR pathfinders supported theprinciples of strategic partnership and underlinedits potential at the same time as showing themassive challenges it presents to traditional waysof thinking and working.

The timing of the study meant that most of theemerging messages concerned process issues.These are highly relevant as LSPs embark onprecisely the same formative and developmentalphases.

For pathfinders, NCR:

• raised the profile of regeneration activities;• gave partnership a clearer focus;• fostered a more integrated approach;• provided a catalyst for joint strategies;• was an impetus to joint working;• enabled earlier and more responses to policy

consultations and developments;• gave a strategic framework for guiding decision

making in individual organisations;• encouraged greater consistency with sub-regional

and regional strategies;• forced partners to focus on outcome delivery;• enhanced the prospects of levering in competitive

funding;• pushed partners to look more closely at what they

can achieve with their mainstream budgets.

Lessons for LSPs

A new order of strategy making

NCR expanded the concept of regeneration toencompass economic, social and environmentalgoals, to integrate it with mainstream activity andmake sustainability the rationale for managing thearea.

LSPs will be working to a similarly wide brief inwhich they will have to balance different rolesand pressures. Factors such as the pattern of localgovernment and institutional boundaries, andtheir relationship to labour and housing marketsand economic development opportunities willaffect what can best be done at different spatiallevels.

Summary

viii


Forming strategic partnerships

It takes time to develop the basis of trust onwhich to build partnerships especially where theirambitions, role and remit will have such profoundimplications for partner organisations. Theprocess cannot be rushed if it is to win ownershipand confidence.

The breadth of membership must match thepartnership’s strategic goals without it becomingso cumbersome that it degenerates into a talkingshop. Policy-making processes must marryinclusivity and focus.

Partnership structures therefore need to combinecapacity for decision making and executive actionwith extending the reach of the partnership,increasing its linkages with member organisationsand giving a range of opportunities forinvolvement. They must be fit for purpose atdifferent stages of the partnership’s evolution.

Although parity of partnership is a goal,leadership is also critical. Given their range ofresponsibilities and resources and theirdemocratic accountability, local authorities areusually expected to lead, but there is a finebalance between leadership and dominance.

Partnerships need to find ways of very disparateorganisations working together whileaccommodating and exploiting their differences inorder to maximise the synergy from theircombined perspectives, expertise and agencyroles.

Executive teams

A critical factor in the progress of pathfinders wasthe amount of dedicated staff time given tosustaining their momentum. A team is essentialto:

• give the partnership its own identity;• service the partnership;• maintain an overview of strategy and progress;• network across sectoral, organisational and

professional boundaries encompassing theroles of broker, mediator, advocate andinterpreter.

Joined-up delivery

After two years most, if not all, NCR pathfinderswere still in transition from action planning todelivery. The complexity of the policy contextmade the process more difficult.

Many individual member organisations were inthe throes of reorganisation, in response to newpolicy pressures such as modernising localgovernment. In addition, the increase of newinitiatives and multiplicity of area-based andthematic partnerships were a distraction. Theycompeted for staff time and attention andcomplicated the quest for strategic integration.Nevertheless, pathfinders were starting to institutea range of joint arrangements:

• co-location of staff;• joint appointments;• joint staff development/training;• data exchange;• joint monitoring/impact assessment;• community consultation and surveys.

Some pathfinders were also using initiatives suchas the New Deal for Communities to road-testnew models in order to derive good practicelessons so that they could be rolled out morewidely on the basis of what works.

Strategic partnerships themselves cannot delivereverything. Their strategic role also depends onidentifying lead players to take responsibility forimplementation and meeting targets andmilestones.

They must be aware of the dynamics oforganisational behaviour and establishprocedures, protocols and service-levelagreements that will smooth the way to jointworking.

Mainstreaming partnership

Pathfinders’ experience shows that there are stilldifferent types of resistance to bending mainprogrammes and budgets. It is a very complextask. Very often organisations have littlediscretion or spare resources to move beyondtheir statutory responsibilities or change the waysthey carry them out.

ix

There was a disappointing response from centralgovernment to granting freedoms and flexibilities.This, in turn, discouraged local players fromexploring areas of change that might already beopen to them.

Key tasks

The experience of NCR pathfinders underlinedsome key challenges that LSPs will also face andtasks that they will have to undertake.

Developing their vision and strategy

• Analysing needs and opportunities• Determining appropriate steps towards desired

change• Developing inclusive planning processes• Creating a strategic framework that ensures a

fit of plans across agencies andneighbourhoods, and consistency with sub-regional, regional and national policy targets.

Achieving whole systems change

• Tackling all the dimensions of change to equiporganisations for partnership working: sharedvalues, style, structure, systems, strategy, skillsand staff.

Engaging private sector partners

• Making the ‘business case’ for involvement,while also having realistic expectations aboutthe role of the private sector

• Developing a menu of ways for companiesand business organisations to participate –strategically, thematically and at differentspatial levels.

Developing community involvement strategies

Encompassing:• Audits of organisations, skills and concerns• Measures to capacity build individuals,

community groups and networks and thepublic sector organisations that work withthem

• Steps towards building voluntary andcommunity sector infrastructure that canprovide routes into and voices for the widerange of organisations concerned

• Protocols for community engagement againstwhich partners can measure levels of localengagement

• Monitoring and benchmarking communityparticipation in the partnership.

Measuring the partnership’s added value

• Establishing indicators to track progresstowards the strategic vision for the area

• Benchmarking the partnership’s capacity interms of its leadership, management,performance, local standing and influence

• Feeding the findings of evaluation into policy.

Accountability mechanisms

• Giving an account of the partnership’sactivities to stakeholders, including informationabout outcomes, changes in the area’ssocioeconomic position and in service deliveryperformance

• Developing new mechanisms for stakeholders,including the general public, to hold thepartnership to account.

Central–local partnership

• Recognising the roles that macro-economic,social and regional policies and publicspending play in setting the context for localaction

• Achieving better coordination betweengovernment departments centrally andregionally

• Halting the proliferation of centrally-drivenspecial initiatives and giving local playersmore scope to determine how best toimplement national policy in the context oflocal needs and priorities

• Adapting administrative procedures andperformance management systems toencourage rather than inhibit partnership.

Summary

x


1

Part I: Background

2


New Commitment to Regeneration

New Commitment to Regeneration (NCR) was notso much an initiative as a new approach totackling regeneration through partnership at astrategic level. The Local GovernmentAssociation (LGA) developed NCR in partnershipwith a range of national and local organisationsand with government support. Applicable in bothurban and rural areas, it was different because itinvolved:

• whole local authority areas or combinations oflocal authorities;

• the mainstream programmes and budgets of allthe public sector agencies in the area;

• national government as a key partner;• the exploration and development of freedoms

and flexibilities in how national programmesare implemented.

Together these design elements provided thebasis for going beyond a ‘hot spots’ approach toregeneration. Deprived areas cannot be treated inisolation; they need to be seen in the context oftheir interrelationship with other neighbourhoodsas part of the wider economic scene. More poorand excluded people live outside than insidedeprived neighbourhoods. Some equity issuesneed to be tackled through wider interventions,mainstream programmes and a differentdeployment of resources at a higher spatial level.Too often, there has been an absence of coherentstrategy and a confusion of responsibilitiesbetween area-based regeneration schemes andcore public services (SEU, 2000a).

NCR gave a framework for making regeneration –in the widest sense of sustainability – the drivingrationale for managing the city, county orconurbation. Although not precluding the need to

target smaller areas for improvement, it allowedfor a more inclusive strategy; it offered thepossibility of a more integrated approach tobalancing social economic and environmentalgoals in widely differing areas.

Over 120 areas applied for ‘Pathfinder’ status.The 22 selected as Phase 1 Pathfinders were thefocus of this evaluation. The LGA encouragedanother group of over 100 Phase 2 Pathfinders toshare in developing the NCR approach. It held anumber of networking meetings from 1999-2001,issued newsletters and ran a website, whichhelped all pathfinders to exchange experienceand lessons.

The evaluation

The national evaluation covered the first twoyears of the pathfinders, coinciding with theirpartnership formation or consolidation and actionplanning processes. Towards the end of theresearch, some pathfinders were moving towardsimplementation, while others remained in atransition phase, some awaiting the publication ofthe Urban and Rural White papers (DETR, 2000a,2000b) and the Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy(SEU, 1998).

The evaluation’s main purpose was to examinethe innovative design features of NCR, assess theirpotential benefits and the pathfinder area’sprogress towards achieving them. The evaluationcombined desk research, surveys and fieldwork toaddress key questions:

• What makes for effective strategic partnership?• What are the implications of partnership for

the partner organisations?• How can government facilitate strategic

partnerships?

Introduction

1

“Critical to the work of the partnership is an approach to integrated working developed by the Local GovernmentAssociation – called New Commitment to Regeneration.”

3

It did not set out to judge or rank individualpathfinders. Rather it sought to explore barriersand success factors, identify good practice anddisseminate key policy messages.

Current relevance

The emphasis of the study was on strategicpartnership. Many of the process lessons applygenerally to partnership working. However,strategic partnerships differ in type as well asdegree from more limited area-based ones. Theirlevel of operation raises issues about role andmembership. They have to find an appropriatebalance between strategic direction and delivery.They have to grapple with the parameters of thepartnership agenda and how far it extends to theseparate agendas of their partner organisations.They have to combine multi-level interventions.They face choices about how to make thepartnership inclusive without becomingunmanageable.

When the LGA designed NCR, it was considerablyahead of the game, although other developmentshave since caught up and overtaken it. The title,‘New Commitment to Regeneration’, is alreadydisappearing in some places, being subsumed bythe term ‘local strategic partnership’ (LSP). LSPs,for which NCR was an influential model, havebecome the government’s chosen vehicle fordelivering local strategies. The introduction ofLSPs has been led by the perceived need forstrategic partnerships. However, much remains tobe learnt about how they will operate and wherethey will sit alongside other structures ofgovernance.

The evaluation has already resulted in twopublications: one put NCR in the context of theevolution of regeneration policy over recentdecades (Wilks-Heeg, 2000); the other gave someinterim conclusions to feed into the policydevelopments around LSPs (Russell, 2000).

NCR lessons are relevant and timely because thestudy covered precisely those phases on whichmany budding LSPs are now embarking. Thisreport draws on the evaluation findings toexamine and illustrate issues of widersignificance. It refers to two frameworks ofthinking and practice:

• looking at the increasing scope of the conceptof regeneration;

• focusing on the issues of organisational changemanagement that need to be addressed foreffective strategic partnership.

Report structure

The remainder of this first section sets the contextof the study:

• Chapter 2 traces the evolution of regenerationpolicy and identifies current principles;

• Chapter 3 examines the diversity of the NCRpathfinders as testbeds for the NCR approach.

Part II of the report looks at aspects of strategicpartnership in the light of the pathfinders’experience:

• Chapter 4 introduces change managementthemes;

• Chapter 5 examines the establishment ofpartnerships, their composition and structures;

• Chapter 6 discusses their strategic planningprocesses;

• Chapter 7 looks at the transition to jointdelivery;

• Chapter 8 focuses on community involvement;• Chapter 9 looks at the role of central

government as partner;• Chapter 10 discusses how to measure the

outcomes of partnership working.

Part III reviews the conclusions and lessons fromthe study:

• Chapter 11 focuses on LSPs;• Chapter 12 summarises the study’s conclusions

and key messages.

Introduction

4


Lessons from the 1980s and 1990s

Regeneration over recent decades has primarilymeant urban regeneration. The history of urbanpolicy over 30 years shows similar questionsrecurring to which governments have respondedin different ways. Policy initiatives andinstruments changed as political priorities andviews about the nature of urban problemschanged. They variously:

• targeted particular social groups;• identified structural or pathological,

socioeconomic or personal causes;• responded to social need or economic

opportunity;• focused on social support or economic

development;• put different players or sectors in the driving

seat.

Policy has generally moved from the piecemeal,project-based and compartmentalised towards theintegrated, strategic and mainstream.

From welfare to enterprise

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, inner citieswere seen as concentrations of deprived peopleneeding a welfarist solution. The 1977 WhitePaper’s greater understanding of the structuralroots of urban decline and its consequences wasjettisoned in 1979 when the incoming

Conservative government redefined the problem.It embarked on the enterprise-led approach of theAction for Cities Programme (Robson et al, 1994)in which the private sector had a leading role. Butthe benefits conspicuously failed to ‘trickle down’.It had little effect on the absolute and relativedisadvantage of the 57 Urban Priority Areas(Willmott and Hutchison, 1992).

A comprehensive approach

Despite reservations about topslicing the moneyfrom existing programmes and allocating fundscompetitively, City Challenge (Russell et al, 1996),introduced in 1991, was more promising thanprevious initiatives. Its strengths informed theSingle Regeneration Budget (SRB) Challenge Fundin 1994. The interim SRB evaluation (Brennan etal, 1998) reinforced earlier findings about CityChallenge. Competitive bidding raised the qualityof proposals and encouraged a more strategicapproach. Partnership working was becomingmore effective, leading to greater synergy acrossagencies and policy areas, better coordination andless duplication. Governments Offices for theRegions (GORs), administering the fund, played avaluable part in improving partnership working,encouraging more appropriate and effectiveschemes and promoting better coordination oflocal and national policy.

But challenges remained to:

• develop successful mechanisms for communityengagement;

Regeneration policy: where hasit come from and where is itgoing?

2

“From the piecemeal, project-based and compartmentalised towards the integrated, strategic and mainstream.”

5

• integrate neighbourhood renewal and partners’main programmes;

• bend mainstream resources;• involve central government departments in

matching the comprehensive approach atnational level.

Becoming strategic: City Pride

City Pride was also introduced in 1994. London,Birmingham and Manchester were each invited todevelop a broad-ranging partnership to produce aprospectus for their city’s development over 10years showing how they would make best use ofmainstream funding and procure new public andprivate investment. No special funds wereattached. The process was clearly most difficult inLondon. Although not formally evaluated, inBirmingham and Manchester it gave a frameworkfor the partners to agree priorities for regenerationand led to vehicles for more integratedapproaches to improving city competitiveness.Success factors (Williams, 1998) included centralgovernment support, scope for regional offices touse policy flexibility to underpin agreed city-widestrategies and capacity for more local policyexperimentation in delivering mainstreamprogrammes more effectively to achieve the CityPride goals.

The ‘joining up’ agenda

Some policy principles survived the change ofgovernment in 1997 to characterise newinitiatives:

• a strategic, partnership-based approach;• the inclusion of a wider range of players and

policy areas;• emphasis on full community involvement;• links to mainstream working.

Emphasis on need

The new government also brought change. Itkept the SRB programme but addressed somepersistent criticisms that SRB:

• spread resources too thinly;• was still not sufficiently involving the

community;• remained disconnected from the wider picture.

In response, the government:

• retained competitive bidding but directed that80% of resources must go to the most deprivedareas;

• allocated more resources for capacity building;• passed SRB administration to the newly

formed Regional Development Agencies(RDAs) from April 1999 to allocate the fund inthe context of regional strategies.

The focus on deprived areas and creation of theSocial Exclusion Unit (SEU) reflected greateremphasis on need. The SEU’s remit was toimprove government action to reduce socialexclusion. It attributed neighbourhood declinenot only to economic and social change but alsoto the failure of public policy to address joined-upproblems in a joined-up way (SEU, 1998).

Multiple policy strands

The SEU’s work was one strand of thegovernment’s pursuit of its core goals of a morecompetitive economy, greater social cohesion andrevitalised governance and citizenship. Othersincluded:

• taxation changes and the introduction of theminimum wage;

• welfare-to-work programmes;• a multiplicity of initiatives: some directed to

areas, such as SRB and New Deal forCommunities (NDC); others targeting groupssuch as New Start and Sure Start; and othersrelating to programmes such as EmploymentZones (EZs), Health Action Zones (HAZs),Education Action Zones (EAZs) (DETR, 2000c;DETR and Regional Coordination Unit, 2000);

• new planning guidance on housing, regionalplanning and retail development;

• Green Papers on housing and localgovernment finance among other measureschanging the way localities are managed.

Improving mainstream services

The government was also determined to improvethe quality and responsiveness of local publicservices. Its modernising approach was intendedto ensure that councils:

• are empowered to lead their communities;• have efficient, transparent and accountable

decision-making processes;

Regeneration policy

6


• continuously improve their services’ efficiencyand quality;

• actively engage local people in local decisions;and

• have the necessary powers to promote andimprove the well-being of their areas andcontribute to sustainable development (DETR,2001a).

The 1999 and 2000 Local Government Actsprovided the statutory underpinning to deliverthese goals, for example, strengthening councils’community leadership role and introducing theBest Value regime.

Power of well-being

The new discretionary power of well-being cameinto force in October 2000 with the purpose ofencouraging “innovation and closer joint workingbetween local authorities and their partners toimprove communities’ quality of life” (DETR,2001a, p 5). As a ‘power of first resort’, it canshape action provided it is not primarily intendedto raise money nor prohibited or restricted byother legislation. Local authorities are alsoencouraged to consider the effects of using thepower on achieving their community strategyobjectives.

In addition, the 1999 Health Act gave health andlocal authorities powers to work together wherethere is a clear overlap between the services theycommission and provide. Joint working can takethe form of pooled budgets, lead commissioningand integrated provision. The well-beingprovision extends the capacity of local authoritiesto work in partnership with other bodies as wellas the National Health Service.

Similarly the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act gavelocal authorities more responsibility forcommunity safety. It provided for them to workin partnership with the police, other organisationsand the public on crime and disorder strategies.Crime and Disorder Partnerships, which arecoterminous with local authorities, have resultedin joint plans and co-funded posts. Home Officeemphasis on greater data sharing and developinggeographical information systems (GIS) is ofwider relevance to strategic partnerships.

New Commitment to Neighbourhood Renewal

The SEU’s consultation processes and the work ofits Policy Action Teams (PATs) over 30 monthsculminated in the National strategy forneighbourhood renewal action plan (SEU, 2001).This strategy aims to improve people’s lives in the10% (roughly 900) most deprived neighbourhoodsand in the rest of the country by raising thestandard of public services and coordinating thembetter. It supports communities by putting themat the heart of the neighbourhood renewalprocess. The plan includes provision for:

• a national Neighbourhood Renewal Unit;• a Neighbourhood Renewal Fund to allocate

£900,000m over three years to the 88 localauthorities with the most deprivation, to helpthem focus their main programme spending todeliver better outcomes in their most deprivedcommunities;

• a Community Empowerment Fund of over£35m to give communities about £400,000each to help them participate in LSPs andCommunity Chests worth about £50m in totalto fund small local grant schemes;

• neighbourhood renewal teams in the regions;• LSPs as a single overarching local coordination

framework;• neighbourhood management;• an Office for National Statistics (ONS)

neighbourhood statistics service.

Initiatives in different policy areas were a mix ofones already in being and others drawn from thePAT recommendations.

In the context of neighbourhood renewal, theLSPs’ key task is to prepare a local neighbourhoodrenewal strategy on the basis of an agreed vision,with agreement and commitment fromstakeholders, and setting out a framework foraction in relation to neighbourhood needs in thecontext of the whole area. Key Public ServiceAgreement (PSA) ‘floor’ targets will govern centralgovernment activity to ensure that departmentsare committed to tackling inequalities in theirservice outcomes.

7

Urban and Rural White Papers

The Urban and Rural White Papers werepublished in Autumn 2000 (DETR, 2000a, 2000b).A report accompanying the Urban White Paper(Robson et al, 2000) pointed to changes inWhitehall thinking critically affecting urbanpolicies. For 20 years, policies were dominatedby an emphasis on a short-term model ofcompetition with economic behaviour somehowdetached from its social context and regenerationessentially seen as rearranging the deckchairs,treating symptoms in the poorest places withoutbuilding up the country’s overall competitiveness.Now, Treasury thinking gives a more positive roleto territorial policies at regional, city andneighbourhood level. It stresses developmentalprocesses, seeing a city’s capacity to respond tonew economic pressures to be as significant asthe pressures themselves. The challenge is toestablish “a national-to-local framework forenabling the exercise of subsidiarity in a strategicfashion” (Robson et al, 2000, p 5), allowing localpolicy choices while ensuring the pursuit of widerstrategic connections and objectives.

This backcloth to the White Paper suggested thechallenges urban policy faced. The White Paperidentified five linked issues that shaped its policyaims:• household growth;• de-urbanisation;• poor quality of life and lack of opportunity

concentrated in some parts of towns and cities;• poor economic performance in some urban

areas;• the adverse impacts of towns and cities on the

environment.

The Urban Task Force agenda (Urban Task Force,1999) drove some policy objectives, emphasisingbrownfield development, physical design andmaking towns and cities attractive. The SEU’swork linked with other issues.

The Rural White Paper was also published inNovember 2000. This built on the extensiveanalysis of the rural policy framework in thePerformance and Innovation Unit (PIU) study,Rural economies (Cabinet Office PIU, 1999), andthe Cross-departmental review of rural andcountryside programmes (HM Treasury, 2000)carried out to inform the ComprehensiveSpending Review 2000. It acknowledged theinterdependence of town and country and the

necessity of addressing their needs together, butrecognised that “there are special problems inrural areas which require a direct response”(DETR, 2000b, p 1). The report identified thechallenges for rural communities as:

• over-stretched basic services;• farming hit hard by change;• considerable development pressures;• environmental degradation.

Challenges today

LSPs

The Urban White Paper referred to LSPs as “thekey to our strategy to deliver better towns andcities” (DETR, 2000a, p 34). They were to bringtogether local authorities, all service providers,local businesses and the full range of voluntaryorganisations and community groups to:

• develop a community strategy, taking a fullyjoined-up approach to economic, social andenvironmental issues;

• agree priorities for action and monitor localperformance against local indicators, takingregional and national targets into account;

• rationalise and coordinate the many existingpartnerships at local level.

The escalating number of partnerships – someareas have 80 or more – and the return to apatchwork of initiatives demands rationalisationand a strategic framework. This is the task ofLSPs en route to increasing the synergy betweenpolicies and programmes. They will facesignificant challenges in achieving strategiccoherence, establishing appropriate structures andprocesses for partner engagement, anddeveloping accountability mechanisms. NCR wasa significant model for strategic partnerships andthe pathfinders’ experience has many lessons forLSPs.

Regeneration policy

8


Success factors

Effective regeneration strategies:

• cannot be confined to the inner-city areas oflarge cities: outer estates, small towns andsome rural areas have also experiencedeconomic decline, social deprivation andenvironmental degradation;

• require integration across different policydomains and agencies: the problems affectingindividuals, households, groups andneighbourhoods that together amount todeprivation and social exclusion aremultifaceted, interrelated and cumulative;

• will acknowledge and accommodate thedifferent circumstances, needs, opportunitiesand priorities of different areas: this mustextend to central government policies givingroom for local flexibility;

• require coherent and mutually reinforcingpolicies at different spatial levels:neighbourhood, district, sub-regional, regionaland national and the identification of themost appropriate spatial level for tacklingdifferent issues;

• depend on the effective implementation ofmain programmes and deployment ofmainstream resources critical to determiningthe quality of life: their scale is far greatereven in areas receiving regeneration funding;in any case, the regeneration task extends toareas not receiving additional funds and topolicy areas outside the remit of definedregeneration initiatives;

• will apply the lessons of regenerationinitiatives about working horizontally acrosstraditional professional, programme andorganisational boundaries to mainprogrammes that tend to operate vertically;

• depend on effective partnership working,including the community, which extends fromthe development of visions and strategies intojoint working in implementation and delivery.

9

The LGA selected the Phase 1 Pathfinders so thatthe NCR approach could be tested in verydifferent places and circumstances: across all theEnglish regions, including urban and rural areas,London boroughs, cities, towns, conurbations andcounties (see Table 1). Appendix A profiles thecase study pathfinders. They varied in terms oftheir area characteristics, their history of, andapproach to, regeneration and their tradition ofpartnership working. This chapter focuses ontheir socioeconomic characteristics. Later chaptersaddress issues about partnership.

Diverse districts

The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) (DETR,2000d) and the European Institute of Urban Affairs(EIUA) baseline study (Hutchins and Russell,2000) showed the pathfinders’ diverse social and

economic contexts. First, regions variedconsiderably as their positions relative to the 20%most deprived and least deprived in the IMDshow. At the extremes:

• nearly 50% of the wards in the North East,covering 56% of the region’s population, are inthe most deprived 20%, compared with only7.5% of the wards in the South East coveringabout 9% of the residents;

• less than 5% of the wards in the North Eastand an even smaller proportion of thepopulation are among the 20% least deprived,compared with over 40% in the South East inthe least deprived 20%;

• London, the North East and North West containabout 54% of the total wards in the mostdeprived 20%, but only 13% of the leastdeprived; nearly 40% of the least deprivedwards are in the South East region.

The diversity of pathfinderareas

3

Table 1: Phase 1 Pathfinders

Inner London Outer London South East South West Eastern

Lewisham Brent Southampton Plymouth Greater PeterboroughHaringey Croydon Luton and Dunstable

Newham Suffolk

Yorkshire &West Midlands East Midlands Humberside North West North East

Coventry Greater Nottingham Barnsley East Lancashire MiddlesbroughHereford Kirklees Liverpool North TynesideSandwell Salford

West Cumbria

Note: Case study pathfinders shown in italics.

Pathfinders varied in their area characteristics, their history of regeneration and their tradition of partnership

10


Second, most pathfinders lagged behind theirregions in terms of educational attainment,unemployment, people in receipt of benefits,mean full-time earnings, recorded crime andpercentage of house sales below £20,000(Hutchins and Russell, 2000). The exceptionswere Croydon in London, North Tyneside in theNorth East, Herefordshire in the West Midlandsand Kirklees in Yorkshire & Humberside. Theposition in rural pathfinder areas was more mixed.Fewer people had qualifications and more livedon low incomes because of low earnings as muchas unemployment, but crime rates were lower andhealth scores better.

The IMD provides a clear picture of theregeneration challenge facing some pathfinders:

• In London, Brent and Lewisham containseverely deprived wards but, on the fringes ofLondon, Croydon is much less deprived.Newham features in the most deprived 10districts in England for its ward scores. All butone of its wards are in the 10% most deprivedin England. Haringey, another formermanufacturing district, shows particularconcentrations of deprivation.

• Although situated in the most affluent region,Southampton contains some of the SouthEast’s more deprived wards.

• Plymouth, in the South West, has severalseverely deprived wards.

• In the Eastern region, much of the deprivationis located in coastal areas. In Suffolk,therefore, it is especially around Lowestoft inWaveney as well as in some wards in Ipswich.Pockets of deprivation are concentrated in thecity of Peterborough within the GreaterPeterborough partnership area, but this areaalso includes Fenland where there are someclassic symptoms of rural deprivation. InLuton and Dunstable – the largest urban areain the region – deprivation is mainlyconcentrated in Luton itself.

• Within the West Midlands deprivation isparticularly concentrated in the largeconurbations, for example spreading out fromBirmingham to affect Sandwell and in andaround Coventry. The IMD scores acrossHerefordshire are largely clustered betweenthe extremes of greater or less deprivation, butabout a quarter of the county has been a ruraldevelopment area for nearly 20 years andelsewhere the county has Objective 2 status.

• In the East Midlands, deprivation is focused onthe larger population areas includingNottingham and to a lesser extent Ashfield in

Greater Nottingham, which is also a formercoalfield area.

• In Yorkshire & Humberside, high levels ofdeprivation were found in former coalfieldareas such as Barnsley, while Kirkleesmanifested deprivation that was less intensebut widely spread.

• In the North West, Liverpool ranked amongthe 10 most deprived local authority areas onall measures showing that it had large numbersof deprived people, severe pockets and veryhigh overall average levels of deprivation. It isone of the two conurbations (with Manchesterincluding Salford) with more consistently highlevels of multiple deprivation than most otherareas. In East Lancashire, the former textileand industrial areas of Pendle, Hyndburn andBlackburn with Darwen all have several wardswith severe deprivation. As a coastal areaWest Cumbria is more deprived than moreinland parts of the county.

• Middlesbrough, in the North East, ranks asthe most deprived district in England on theLocal Concentration measure, signifying that ithas very severe pockets of deprivation. But italso has a high overall average level withnearly 60% of the population living in one ofthe 10% most deprived wards in England.North Tyneside contains concentrations ofwidespread deprivation.

• Liverpool, Newham, Kirklees, Sandwelland Nottingham all feature in the 10 mostdeprived districts in terms of incomedeprivation.

Eligibility for Neighbourhood Renewal Fund: localauthorities in the top 50 of any of the six IMDmeasures

Allerdale (West Cumbria) LiverpoolAshfield (Greater Middlesbrough Nottingham) NewhamBarnsley North TynesideBrent Nottingham (GreaterBurnley (East Lancashire) Nottingham)Coventry Pendle (East Lancashire)Croydon PlymouthHaringey SalfordKirklees SandwellLewisham

The pathfinders not in this list are:

Greater Peterborough SouthamptonHerefordshire SuffolkLuton and Dunstable

11

The pathfinders contained 30 of the most deprived100 wards on the IMD (DETR, 2000d), including 50%of the worst 10 wards.

• 12 in Liverpool, half of which were in the mostdeprived 20 wards and three in the worst 10

• Three in Middlesbrough, two of which werein the most deprived 10 wards

• Six in East Lancashire: the highest ranking(39th) in Pendle; the rest in the lower half ofthe table; three in Blackburn with Darwen;one in Burnley and one in Hyndburn

• Two in Newham ranked 35th and 79th

• One in North Tyneside ranked 74th

• Two in West Cumbria: both in Copeland (84thand 96th)

• One in Greater Nottingham, one inNottingham City (88th)

• One in Sandwell ranked 92nd

• One in Barnsley ranked 94th

• One in Greater Peterborough ranked 99th.

These wards are deprived on several domains. TheIMD underlines the interconnections betweendifferent types of deprivation as well as depictingthe geography of deprivation.

Experience of regeneration

Not surprisingly, this diversity was reflected in thepathfinders’ access to targeted regenerationfunding in the past. Some had experiencedalmost every initiative from the earliest days ofthe Urban Programme. All currently hadexperience of SRB schemes but many were alsopiloting a high proportion of the initiativesintroduced since 1997, such as EZs, EAZs, HAZs,Sure Start, New Start and the NDC (see DETR,2000c; DETR and Regional Coordination Unit,2000). While bringing welcome resources, theseinitiatives complicated the quest for strategiccoherence because of their different geographiccoverage and timescales and strong centraldirection in the choice of areas, targets andperformance management.

Strategic areas

“Its geographic boundaries are flexible sothat it can be tailored to an arearecognised as meaningful locally.”(Health authority respondent)1

Another variable among the pathfinders was thespatial level of their partnership. Some operatedat town, city or borough level, while also pursuingsub-regional policies. For example, Salfordremains part of Manchester City Pride, Liverpoolbelongs to several groupings operating acrossGreater Merseyside, and Middlesbrough is amember of the Tees Valley Partnership. Similarly,the pathfinders in London maintained involvementin partnerships spanning borough boundaries. Intwo cases – Suffolk and Herefordshire – thecounty was seen as the appropriate level ofoperation. They differed, however, because,whereas Herefordshire is a unitary authority,Suffolk has two-tier local government with thecounty council plus seven district councils. Inother cases, where pathfinders covered multiplelocal authority areas, this was sometimes becauselocal government boundaries did not coincidewith those of the natural conurbation (as inGreater Nottingham and East Lancashire) or didnot comprise a coherent area for economicdevelopment (as in Luton and Dunstable and WestCumbria).

The significance of diversity

These different characteristics of the pathfinderareas provide the context for the rest of thereport. Diverse patterns of deprivation anddifferent spatial levels of intervention link withother equally important factors such as the patternof local government and the degree of fit betweendifferent organisational boundaries. All of theseaffect the nature of strategic partnerships and thechallenges they face.

1 Respondents’ quotations throughout thereport are taken from the EIUA survey.

The diversity of pathfinder areas

12


13

Part II: NCR experience of strategic partnership

14


The first section of this report looked atregeneration policy principles and the challengesfacing different areas. The focus moves now topartnership processes. An outcome-driven,joining-up agenda has been pushing partnershipworking for some time. It has now formallyshifted to a strategic level of working whichmakes new demands and necessitates ‘raising thegame’ of partnership.

Strategic partnership extending to mainstreamprogrammes is qualitatively different from that inspecial initiatives. It calls for a new order ofstrategy making, involves a wider range ofpeople, demands that organisations move out oftheir silos and challenges traditional ways ofthinking and working. Strategic partnerships,therefore, need to be viewed in the context ofchange management.

Partnership: overview of the issues

4

“If local people are to enjoy a sound economy and a better quality of life ... we have to harness the contributionof businesses, public agencies, voluntary organisations and community groups and get them working to a commonagenda.” (Tony Blair, 1998)

Figure 1: Processes of change management

Stage Challenge/tasks

Partnership trigger Identifying opportunities and threatsImplications of new policy agenda for organisations individually andcollectively

Vision Identifying needs and prioritiesDefining direction of desired changeDesigning strategiesDeveloping appropriate partnership and participation structures

Strategy into action Action planningIdentifying lead playersAllocating roles and responsibilitiesSystemic change in partner organisations to adapt to need demands

Review and evaluation Identifying added valueReviewing policies and processesIdentifying what worksMeasuring impactFeeding back into policy makingMaking appropriate changes to programmes, structures and ways ofworking

Source: adapted from Buchanan and McCalman’s (1989) model of perpetual transition management, cited inPaton and McCalman (2000)

15

Change management

Managing change requires recognising the likelyimplications of change and its impact on thoseorganisations and systems most affected. Forstrategic partnerships, it therefore entails movingtowards a shared understanding among thosemanaging the change and those necessarilyinvolved in achieving it both at partnership leveland within partner organisations.

Figure 1 looks at different stages in this process.The stages correspond closely with the keyphases in a partnership’s life, as covered in thenext three chapters:

• their formation and development ofpartnership structures;

• developing their strategies;• moving from joint planning to joint delivery.

These steps are also mirrored in the four key tasksof LSPs in relation to the components ofcommunity strategies (DETR, 2000e):

• a long-term vision focusing on outcomes;

• an action plan identifying short-term prioritiesand activities;

• a shared commitment to implement the actionplan and implementation proposals;

• arrangements for monitoring, review andreporting progress to local communities.

NCR pathfinders found challenges at each stageand in the transition from one to another.

The elements of change

Another framework for looking at these stagesand the challenges they present is McKinsey’sseven ‘S’s, as shown in Figure 2 (Peters andWaterman, 1982). Each element – shared values,strategy, structure, systems, style, staff and skills –is a significant ingredient of change. Togetherthey provide a model for examining theinteraction of the different dimensions ofpartnership.

The context in which this framework is appliedwill radically affect how easy or difficult it is to

Figure 2: McKinsey’s seven ‘S’ framework

structure

systemsstrategy

sharedvalues

skills

staff

style

Partnership: overview of the issues

16


achieve change. For strategic partnerships, theincentives for change come from the urgency ofdelivering better policy outcomes andgovernment’s increasing emphasis on joined-upworking. Achieving the step changes required forstrategic partnership means developing:

• an inclusive and transparent approach withinthe partnership and towards its stakeholders;

• the teamwork and innovation that can lead tonew ways of working.

These entail:

• Cultural and structural changes in partnerorganisations: in hierarchical and internallycompetitive organisations, staff are more likelyto interpret their roles rigidly, be overcautiousabout stepping outside accepted boundariesand reluctant to take responsibility. There isno point in chief executives (CEs) pledgingpartnership allegiance if their middle managersand other staff still play by different rules.

• An appropriate policy and performancemanagement environment: performancemeasures that encourage organisations topursue separate agendas, or focus on orcompete over outputs to the neglect ofoutcomes, will undermine collaboration anddetract from innovation.

Subsequent chapters will look at all these issuesand the way that NCR pathfinders have addressedthem.

17

Triggers for partnership

Why should local authorities and others formpartnerships? Traditionally, agencies anddepartments have been organised aroundproblems instead of people. But people’s livescannot be so neatly categorised. Thegovernment’s mantra of ‘joined-up thinking’expresses more widespread recognition thatorganisations cannot be effective working inisolation. Roles need redefining and boundariesshifting.

Pathfinder areas underlined this challenge. EastLancashire displayed a vicious circle of poorhousing–low skills–low wages that quite clearlyhad to be broken to improve quality of life, thesustainability of neighbourhoods and theeconomic competitiveness of the area. As soon asagencies faced such challenges together, theydeepened their understanding of theinterrelationship between their interventions aswell as the problems. They began to think‘outside their boxes’.

Partnership formation

5

Public, private, community and voluntary organisations all have a part to play in improving quality of life. Themore they can work together, with local people, the more they can achieve.... (Government guidance on LSPs,DETR, 2001b, p 4)

structure

systemsstrategy

sharedvalues

skills

staff

style

18


East Lancashire’s industrial legacy directly orindirectly resulted in:

• old, high-density housing stock: 20% unfit(99% of which was privately owned); 5.5%empty;

• an economy dominated by low-value-added,low-wage manufacturing industries;

• severe deprivation;

• average earnings 10% below the nationalaverage and 31% below national average forminority ethnic communities;

• low educational attainment and skill levels;

• poor health rates and high death rates;

• poor public transport links;

• high levels of derelict land.

Origins of the pathfinders

Many pathfinder partnerships existed prior toNCR, variously established to:

• respond to economic restructuring;• coordinate regeneration initiatives;• formalise existing joint working.

West Cumbria Partnership, established in the late1980s when traditional industries were threatenedby decline, expanded its scope and breadth ofmembership when it gained NCR pathfinder status.

Coventry City Forum was overseeing the CoventryCommunity Plan. NCR was seen as a catalyst to dobetter what they would have done in any case;especially, adding value by developing closer relationswith central and regional government.

Greater Peterborough Partnership Forum grew outof concern to draw a range of area-wide and localpartnerships into a coherent, coordinated framework.

Suffolk Pathfinder was about:

• real partnership working at all levels oforganisations (including central government)and with local people;

• influencing mainstream budget spend;

• promoting regeneration in its widest sense;

• seeking flexibilities and freedoms to breakdown barriers to better partnership working.

In Barnsley, NCR pathfinder status was a catalyst forresponding to various factors requiring changes tothe arrangements for managing regeneration activity:

• community planning and the duty of well-being;

• the council’s commitment to modernisation;

• the growing South Yorkshire dimension andits Objective 1 status;

• the advent of the RDA and a regionaleconomic strategy;

• the increasing complexity and multiplicity ofgovernment initiatives and the need toembrace wider agendas such as lifelonglearning.

Partnership composition

Appropriate composition for strategic partnershipsdepends on their intended scope.

Southampton Community Regeneration Alliancewas developed after acquiring pathfinder status. Itscriteria for membership, and the process offormulating those criteria, had to take account of itsambition to provide an inclusive, overarchingregeneration framework for the city. Consultantsinvestigated the optimum configuration andmembership by comparing with other areas andtaking into account existing structures andpartnerships in the city and the objectives of theGovernment Office for the South East (GOSE) andSouth East England Development Agency (SEEDA).

19

Spread of membership

Pathfinders needed to connect with differentsectors, policy areas and levels of intervention.For those existing prior to NCR, their compositionoften stemmed from their earlier rationale. It wasalso apparent that those organisations with a keyrole in area-based regeneration or thematicinitiatives such as welfare-to-work were widelypresent. At first, the step change in the strategicrole of the pathfinders was not necessarilyreflected in any revisiting of the breadth ofmembership though this emerged as an issuelater.

• faith groups, young people and voluntary andcommunity organisations reflecting thediversity of the wider community.

�� Partnership Body

• Leader, deputy leader and one other councilmember

• Director, Royal Docks

• Benefits Agency

• Youth Parliament

• Large business representatives x 3

• Small business representatives x 3

• London East TEC

• NEWVIC (Sixth Form College)

• Newham Healthcare

• Government Office for London

• Employment Service

• Newham College of FE

• Newham Primary Care Group

• Newham Trades Council

• Stratford Development Partnership

• Faiths representatives x 3

• Voluntary/community sector representativesx 3

• University of East London

• Metropolitan Police

• East Thames Housing Group

• Borough MPs x 3

The significance of institutionalboundaries

Several pathfinders spanned different localauthority areas because this made sense inregeneration terms. The downside waspotentially disproportionate preoccupation withinter-authority relationships. Smaller councils inGreater Nottingham suspected the city council ofmetropolitan ambitions. Similarly, in Suffolk,district councils were ambivalent about the countycouncil’s role.

More generally, lack of coterminosity amongmajor agencies complicates collaboration.Addressing broad thematic issues and potentialchanges to main programmes is more feasible inlarger metropolitan authorities or a unitary county

Table 2: Partner organisations in 18 pathfinders

Local authority 18 TEC 18Health authority 18 Police authority 16Voluntary sector 16 FE institutions 15Employment Service 12 Chamber of Commerce14GORs 11 HE institutions 10Major employers 10 Other private sector 10Community sector 6 RDA 5RSLs 5 Health trusts 5Benefits Agency 4 Primary care groups 4Housing Corporation 4 Churches 4Other 4 Public transport 3Probation service 2 Fire authority 1

Table 2 shows that local, health and policeauthorities and training and enterprise councils(TECs) formed the early core of pathfinders. Mosthad voluntary sector representation, usuallythrough an umbrella organisation such as aCouncil for Voluntary Service (CVS). Only onethird had separate community sector involvement.Further education (FE) colleges were wellrepresented as were higher education (HE)institutions where these existed. GORs wererepresented on two thirds, while, at that time,RDAs were only directly involved in five.

Newham Partnership Board exemplified thepotential spread:

• elected members as well as local governmentofficers

• other public sector organisations• different types of private sector organisations

and interests• trades union as well as employer perspectives• a sectoral partnership – in this case, a housing

group


20


such as Herefordshire with coterminousboundaries with major partners.

In rural areas, distance makes the logistics ofpartnership more difficult and costly in time andresources (Edwards et al, 2000). This has variousimplications:

• clarifying the distinctive role of the partnershipso that it can be appropriately streamlined;

• establishing wider partnership structures thattake account of the particular conditions inwhich they are operating and looking at theopportunities for sectoral/area-based working;

• developing greater capacity for e-networking;• allowing suitable lead-in times for involving

dispersed rural communities.

Private sector

“More needs to be done to create anenvironment where local businesses feelcompelled to join the partnerships.”(Public sector respondent)

Barriers to involvement

Some discussion about private sector involvementis based on confused and unrealistic expectations.Private sector organisations will not fully engageunless they see the partnership as action oriented,its activity having direct relevance to them andtheir presence making a difference. Theyfrequently become frustrated by what theyperceive as fragmented structures andcumbersome and overly bureaucratic decision-making processes. As with other partners, formalmembership does not necessarily signify realinvolvement.

Securing and maintaining private sectorinvolvement in area-based regeneration hasproved problematic in the past. Even where plansrelate to their immediate operational environment,it has often been hard to persuade localbusinesses to engage in, or take ownership of, theoverall initiative. Most NCR pathfinders foundquestions of who to involve, who would bestrepresent the sector and how to sustain theirinvolvement, just as difficult at a strategic level.

The private sector is as heterogeneous as anyother group. Businesses have different,sometimes competing, interests; they bring

different perspectives and have diversecontributions to make. Intelligence about theirexternal environments and markets, their localinfrastructure needs, their skill and trainingrequirements can help to inform acompetitiveness strategy. But many private sectormembers struggle to make the connectionsbetween their own business interests andpractices and wider considerations, either abouteconomic competitiveness or social exclusion.

It is more feasible to find people who can speakabout the sector than for it. Active and committedindividuals may have no representative standing.In one or two pathfinders, such as Lewisham andLuton and Dunstable, specific individuals,businesses or organisations played a prominentrole. But still this does not necessarily lead tomore broad-based involvement. Similarly, wherelarge firms are involved, local managers cannotautomatically align multinational or nationalcompany policies with local interests. Having amanager from Vauxhall on the Luton andDunstable Partnership Board did not avert thedecision to close the local Vauxhall carmanufacturing plant. However, the partnershipwas able to mobilise more coordinated jointforward planning in response to the projectedclosure.

Various factors affect the likelihood ofengagement: the type or size of business; theconstituency of business organisations; whether ornot an area has a clear identity, such as Plymouth,or more indeterminate boundaries, such asSandwell.

Chambers of Commerce are most often the chosenrepresentative bodies, but their main constituency– small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) –may think they have little to gain by engaging at astrategic level. They are more likely to becomeinvolved in their own neighbourhood or businesscatchment area than feed into overarching plans.They may have little or no spare capacity. Inmany regeneration areas, lack of capacity (lack ofenterprise and business growth) is part of theproblem. This underlines the importance ofbringing in other organisations such as theConfederation of British Industry (CBI) orBusiness in the Community (BITC), sectoralgroups or other local business leaders’ groups.

It is sometimes said that the private sector’sentrepreneurial culture could usefully infuse the

21

public sector. While any encounter betweendifferent approaches can be stimulating, it isimportant not to have over-inflated expectations.The private sector seldom brings distinctivelytransforming qualities and, in any case,entrepreneurialism and innovation equally featurein other sectors.

Making the business case for involvement

As strategic partnerships take on moreresponsibility for decisions affecting the allocationof mainstream resources, their role will becomemore significant for all sectors. They must reach aconsensual view about why businesses shouldparticipate, what they can bring, what they canexpect to gain and what strategic role they canplay.

Very often, business managers believe their bestcontribution to the locality is to maintain athriving business, not be diverted into activitieswith no obvious business returns. It is importantthat companies recognise ‘corporate socialresponsibility’ as a matter of self-interest, notaltruism; that “it brings business benefits andimproves their competitive position” (SEU, 1999b,p 139). In other words, the business case forinvolvement needs to be made to:

• assist individuals once they are at thepartnership table;

• clarify which parts of the sector will mostappropriately represent it and indicate therange of ways in which people can participate;

• indicate the information and support needs ofprivate sector members if they are to make avalid contribution.

A breadth of involvement opportunities

Croydon exemplifies a partnership:

• engaging a wide range of businesses – majorcompanies and SMEs with different sectoralinterests;

• ensuring that they have multiple routes toinvolvement in aspects of the partnershipagenda central to their interests.

Over half the 24 members of Croydon PartnershipBoard were from the private sector, includingrepresentative bodies such as the Chamber ofCommerce, large firms such as Nestlé (UK) Ltd andBritish Telecom, SMEs, retailers and developers,manufacturing and service sectors. Other ways inwhich business could be involved were through:

• a marketing company – Croydon Marketingand Development – sponsored by the 28town-centre businesses and the council;

• an ‘ambassadors’ scheme to promote Croydonto business;

• specialist working groups to strengthen smallbusinesses, secure inward investment and raiseawareness about social exclusion.

Such a range of options can lead to otherdimensions of corporate social responsibility suchas:

• local sourcing;• involvement in training, community

development and other initiatives;• sponsorship/support to local projects and

organisations;• mentoring new businesses;• local accountability tools such as social

auditing and reporting pioneered by the NewEconomics Foundation;

• benchmarking good practice through schemessuch as Race for Opportunity.

The BITC idea of ‘business brokers’ to mediatebetween partnerships and SMEs was picked up bythe SEU. This recognises the need to capacitybuild and the problems of developing anyrepresentative structure given the reluctance ofSMEs to attend meetings. BITC and Chambers ofCommerce are seeking government fundingsupport – parallel to the CommunityEmpowerment Fund – for training provision andsupport for SMEs, particularly for neighbourhoodrenewal, but also for more strategic engagement.


22


BITC has been working with Coventry City Counciland the Chamber of Commerce to build up a businessgroup and local small business forums fordevelopment areas in the city to complement therepresentation of major businesses on the CoventryCommunity Forum (CCF). As CCF moves towards LSPstatus, it is looking for better private sector coverageacross the city through a ‘business champion’ for eacharea.

The role of employers

Businesses have a major role as employers inrelation to recruitment and training policies andissues such as healthy workplaces. But so doother partners. It is important that public sectoragencies recognise their role as often the largestemployers in the area as well as their servicedelivery functions.

Voluntary and community sectors

“We are increasingly moving from a three-legged stool to a four-legged one – seeingthe community sector as separate from thevoluntary sector.” (Plymouth NCRrespondent)

When public–private partnerships (PPPs) firstbegan to embrace the third sector, the voluntaryand community sectors were often perceived assynonymous. There is overlap, but also importantdistinctions. Voluntary sector organisations differin size, roles and functions. Many have paid staff;some, but not all, use volunteers; they may ormay not include service users on their voluntarymanagement committees. Community groups aremore characteristically self-help and self-controlling groups, usually wholly reliant onvolunteers. While some are well-establishedgroups or networks, they can be more ephemeral.Invariably they are very under-resourced whichlimits their capacity for wider participation.

What voluntary and community organisationsusually share is an advocacy role on behalf oftheir members or users. Part of their strength liesin their independence from the state that they andothers within a partnership need to recognise toavoid them being co-opted to someone else’sagenda. This, along with other issues, isaddressed in Chapter 8.

Partnership arrangements

Shared values

Partnerships operate on the basis of a mix offormal and informal expectations, understandingsand arrangements. Formalising everything wouldbe impossible and stifling; however, articulatingshared values and expectations is usefulsymbolically and practically as organisations learnto trust and work with one another.

Barnsley partners have signed up to shared values:

• openness and honesty;

• trust;

• respect for the position of others;

• willingness to enter into frank butconstructive debate;

• willingness to be open to challenge andchange.

The corporate role of the partnership

Partners need a common understanding of theircollective role. Pathfinders generally aspired to:

• achieve a consensus about a vision for thefuture;

• make and review policy;• ensure its implementation;• set and monitor measurable targets;• promote the area: its identity – resident self-

esteem and business confidence – and itsexternal image;

• ensure horizontal integration across initiativeswithin the area and vertical integration withsub-regional, regional and national policies.

23

Sandwell Strategic Protocol1. Work together to continuously develop and

implement action to achieve the Vision.

2. Adopt, monitor and develop the SandwellPlan as the strategic framework for individualand joint action.

3. Develop the Sandwell ‘family of partnerships’to take responsibility for the development andimplementation of the Sandwell Action Plan.

4. Review and monitor corporate strategies andbusiness plans to maximise their contributionto achieving the shared Vision and Action Plan.

5. Jointly review the availability and use ofresources to focus on the Sandwell Plan.

6. Seek and enter into appropriate joint planningand management arrangements.

7. Work together to ensure the Sandwell Plan isaccountable to the community of Sandwelland their aspirations.

8. Work together to promote the SandwellVision and implementation of the plan withother agencies in the borough and at sub-regional, regional, national and internationallevels.

9. Work with government to develop the‘Sandwell Compact’ to secure alignment ofall public resources spent in Sandwell.

10. Work with thematic and area partnerships andensure each produces an annual statementon progress and issues for civic partnershipconsideration.

Role of members

As well as agreeing their corporate role, membersneed to know what is expected of themindividually. Southampton CommunityRegeneration Alliance (SCRA) specified thatpartners:

• subordinate agency/sectional interests to thoseof the city and the partnership;

• could speak with authority about what theirorganisation could deliver;

• carry their involvement through into activeimplementation of the strategy;

• take community engagement seriously.

Southampton Community RegenerationAlliance role specification for members• Ability to take an overview of the city as a

whole and represent the public interest ratherthan a single issue or locality

• Ability and authority to represent their ownagency or group in strategic matters, includingresource decisions where appropriate

• Ability to further the implementation of thestrategy through communication within theirown agency and organisational support forthe executive and local boards

• Ability to communicate with others about thework of the SCRA, while respectingconfidential information where disclosurewould be detrimental to the public interest

• Providing information to the SCRA as required

• Attending community conferences andlistening to the views of those present

• Taking into account the views of the publicput forward other than at the communityconference.

Leadership

“A potential weakness of NCR is that itdepends too much on local government’scapacity and commitment.” (Highereducation respondent)

Paradoxically, partnerships need strong leadershipas well as parity among partners. Localauthorities are invariably cast in the leadershiprole. Given their wide range of responsibilities,significant resources and democratic legitimacy,they are expected to lead and shoulder much ofthe responsibility and outlay for strategyimplementation. This can lead to them being, orbeing perceived to be, over-dominant. Relevantfactors in achieving the right balance are:

• the personal and institutional style ofleadership;

• the clarity of mutual expectations about rolesand responsibilities;

• the extent to which other partners areprepared to invest resources and time in thepartnership;

• the pace of development: avoiding pushingpartners too quickly but not being held backby the slowest.


24


Marks of maturity

Partnership cannot be rushed. Building trust takestime. Even for longstanding pathfinderpartnerships, creating a partnership vehicle to fittheir strategic ambitions was a lengthy process.Trust and unity will also be tested at each stage ofthe partnership’s transition, especially as it movesinto delivery mode. New external pressures, suchas national policy developments, provide animpetus to building solidarity just as they mayhave triggered partnership in the first place.

Adapting to partnership does not mean movingtowards sameness. A mark of maturity is how farpartnerships are able to accommodate and exploitdifference. The goal must be to maximise thesynergy from combined perspectives, expertiseand agency roles.

A related criterion of maturity is how far thepartnership can cope with conflict. Progressrequires candour, ascertaining members’reservations about partnership as well as theiraspirations, confronting rather than side steppingconflict. Trust must extend to confidence andmechanisms for resolving differences.

Suffolk Pathfinder discussed the possibility of a broadoverarching member-led body for the county. Issuesabout two-tier local government were a stickingpoint, but it was seen as a good test of the Pathfinderthat it could withstand such disagreements.

Wider partnership structures

Strategic partnerships’ breadth of agenda makestheir potential membership huge, but too manymembers around a partnership table can result ina talking shop. Pathfinders extended their rangethrough two-way representation with otherpartnerships, such as HAZs and Learning andSkills Councils (LSCs), and wider partnershipstructures provided opportunities for differentlevels of involvement and more organisations toparticipate.

Tiered structures

Tiered decision making can allow breadth ofpartnership to be combined with executivecapacity and marry political and officer-ledgroups.

• Kirklees Partnership , comprising 26organisations, meets quarterly.

• Kirklees Partnership Executive, with 10member organisations and chaired by theLeader of the Council, meets bimonthly.

• Liverpool Partnership Group, chaired by theCity Council Chief Executive, comprises CEsor equivalent of the partner organisations. Itmeets monthly or bimonthly.

• Liverpool First Board, comprising boardmembers or equivalents, with their CEs, ischaired by the Leader of the Council and meetsquarterly.

Subgroups

Pathfinders also established thematic or strategygroups: some to do detailed work on specificobjectives or sections of the action plan, others fordesignated tasks such as marketing or settingperformance indicators.

Haringey Regeneration Partnership Group has sixthematic boards, each supported by the Council’s CE’sservice and other agencies. They are:

• neighbourhood renewal group

• raising achievement theme group

• competitiveness and sustainability themegroup

• community safety executive board

• employment pact

• health and social care board.

West Cumbria Partnership is a partnership ofpartnerships which works through its memberorganisations. It has four thematic groups broadlyaligned to the four main priorities in the North WestRegional Economic Strategy, plus an outer groupingof 12 free-standing partnerships linked to the 12objectives of the partnership strategy.

25

These wider structures extend the breadth anddepth of partnership. They:

• enable more organisations to participate;• involve more people from different levels or

departments within organisations;• tap into a wider range of expertise;• promote more in-depth understanding across

disciplinary and agency boundaries;• encourage new forms of joint working.

Structures should not be set in stone. They needto be fit for their purpose at different stages in thepartnership’s life cycle.

Making sense of who does what

The explosion of initiatives and partnershipworking has made it harder to keep track of rolesand responsibilities and the personnel involved.

West Cumbria produced a directory of organisationsinvolved in regeneration, and is pioneering thedevelopment of an activity map that should enableorganisations to identify potential partners.

Kirklees Partnership Mapping Exercise shows thevalue of mapping for highlighting gaps as well asfacilitating links. It shows the interrelationship ofinitiatives and partnerships and overlappingmemberships. It can be interrogated in a numberof ways. As an interactive tool, it should be easierto keep up to date.

Kirklees Partnership Mapping Exercise

The map shows:

• regional and sub-regional thematicpartnerships = 12

• district-wide thematic partnerships = 23

• area-based partnerships = 15

• regional and sub-regional strategicpartnerships = 4

Thematic partnerships:

• economy = 5

• engagement = 4

• personal development = 12

• community well-being = 4

• environment = 5

• quality of life = 5

The audit already has 600 records, listingpartnerships and their individual members.Currently it can be examined by partnership andby individual, but the aim is for greater flexibilityso that enquirers will also be able to interrogate itby spatial area and themes. Once ready thedatabase will be put onto the local authoritywebsite and there will be an accompanying CDROM.

This chapter has looked at the ways in whichpathfinders have laid the foundations of theirpartnerships. The next chapter examines theirapproach to strategic thinking.

Key points• Building trust and partnership takes time

• The breadth of membership must match thepartnership’s strategic ambitions

• Partners must reach a consensus about theircorporate role and mutual expectations

• Strong committed, but not over-dominantleadership is critical

• Maturity in a partnership means being ableto accommodate difference and cope withconflict

• Wider partnership structures serve animportant purpose in extending the range ofthe partnership and providing appropriatevehicles through which it can work.


26


NCR shifted partnership up a gear. LSPs also facethe challenge of a new order of strategy makingand making partnership integral to agencies’ corebusiness.

Strategic thinking about regeneration

“NCR allows a borough-wide perspectivewhich enables inclusion of the needs ofthe slightly less deprived communities notcovered by neighbourhood-basedregeneration programmes.” (Tenants’ andresidents’ association respondent)

Successive grant regimes have specified the goals,activities and partners for regeneration. NCR wasnot driven by funding; pathfinders could adopttheir own definition based on their overall needsand opportunities.

Area factors also affected policy emphasis andapproach. Pathfinders sometimes sawregeneration primarily in terms of tacklingdeprivation, that is, one set of activities amongmany. For others, it signified sustainability in itswidest sense, the rationale for managing the area,the glue holding everything together. Thepossibility of different perspectives meant that

Strategic planning

6

“A strength of NCR is that it can set a wider framework and definition of regeneration. It is not bounded byinflexible delivery plans and performance reporting.” (Health authority respondent)

structure

systemsstrategy

sharedvalues

skills

staff

style

27

reaching a consensus vision was not necessarilyeasy.

Within and across pathfinders different degrees ofpriority were given to:

• an overall vision for the area to which eachpartner could contribute and within which theycould fit local plans;

• prioritising future targeted regeneration, say,by a phased approach to identified areas,focusing particularly on tackling socialexclusion;

• economic development, especially trying tolink people in high unemploymentneighbourhoods to employment opportunities;

• finding different ways of mainstream workingincluding more compatible operationalboundaries;

• connecting new forms of policy developmentand delivery with new forms of communityengagement.

In Kirklees, NCR brought a strategic approach forthe first time. Although partnership working waswell established, existing partnerships were eitherthematic or area-based. NCR’s aims to encouragegreater partnership, coherence, flexibility andinnovation in regenerating communities werebuilding blocks of the Kirklees vision and strategy.Kirklees adopted a definition of regeneration coveringsocial, environmental and economic goals, and astrategy based on a shared partnership vision andcommon priorities, making better use of existingfinancial resources and a closer working relationshipwith central government. Partners recognised thevalue in working together at a strategic level on awhole range of crosscutting issues to test out betterprocesses for working together using mainstreamresources.

Luton Dunstable Partnership strategy was a 10-yearregeneration plan for the conurbation, reflecting ashared approach to reverse the fortunes of a majorsub-regional employment centre, heavily dependenton manufacturing industry that had been in declinefor 20-30 years.

Greater Peterborough Partnership faced a mix ofurban and rural deprivation alongside areas ofdynamic growth, which, together with theredesignation of Peterborough City Council as aunitary authority, required a review of objectives andpriorities, and strategic ways of delivering themthrough partnership.

Translating partnership into strategy

Pathfinders sought an inclusive process oftranslating partnership intent into joint strategy.Shortcuts were counterproductive. Brent, forexample, found that commissioning consultants toproduce a strategy was a mistake, not through anyfault of the consultants, but because it was anexternal exercise. Strategy has to take account ofwider contextual matters: local politics,organisational perspectives and capacities, andinteragency relationships as well associoeconomic circumstances, problems andopportunities. Producing it externally can serveto focus dissent and generate disillusion so thatpartners lose their sense of involvement and driftaway. Partners themselves may have to gothrough the ground-clearing and learningprocesses necessary to ‘grow their own’ strategy,as Brent subsequently attempted. Although moreprotracted, the slower pace allows time to workthrough disagreements and overcome barriers,and is more likely to build relationships, producegreater ownership and generate a more promisingstrategy.

Brent Council produced a Green Paper in July 2000,Addressing social exclusion through regeneration,as the first step in the development of a newregeneration strategy. Its purpose was to stimulatewidespread debate, especially in forums such as theNCR Partnership and the Inter-Agency SeniorManagement Group. It began from the premise thatsolutions had not worked in the past because theytreated symptoms not causes; they imposed solutionswithout first defining the problem properly. TheGreen Paper therefore sought to ask the questionsthat would help define the issues.

Strategic planning

28


The maturity of a partnership is also significant. Afully overarching strategy may be out of reach inthe early stages when it is more feasible to pursuea limited number of realistic goals that coulddemonstrate the added value of partnership.People usually come to the partnership table forhighly instrumental reasons. Success will keepthem there.

Strategy planning processes

A strategy should serve to cement the partnership(Carley et al, 2000) and the process of itsdevelopment should also strengthen rather thanweaken the partnership. Strategic planningcannot be a wholly centralised or centrallycontrolled activity. It must balance direction withresponsiveness and flexibility, ascertain what ispracticable as well as desirable and use theknowledge and awareness of people in keypositions throughout the relevant organisations.Planning processes must be sensitive to thestatutory and territorial roles of individualagencies to avoid duplication or conflict andensure that emerging strategies can influence and/or be thoroughly embedded in existing activity.The partnership structures – sectoral, strategic orthematic groups – should serve to involve a widerrange of organisations, people and expertise, andgain broader ownership.

Strategic partnerships cannot stake everything onbecoming all-singing, all-dancing themselves.They are as much about bringing others togetherand relating to other strategies and plans. Thisentails, not only multilateral, but also bilateralplanning processes to explore where and howdifferent agendas converge or diverge, and revealhow existing areas of work lend themselves to anew joint approach and partnership branding.Bilateral discussions can also make planning morerealistic: it is easier for organisations to be candidabout who they will work with, what they candeliver and where they can add value.

Multilevel strategic planning

Sandwell, Kirklees and Coventry illustrate a multi-layered approach to establishing a vision andpriorities for the strategy, combining differentways of involving a wide range of stakeholders.

Sandwell Civic Partnership adopted a set of principlesto guide all its collective action and that of individualpartners:

• Inclusive society: empowering people to beas involved as they want to be throughdeveloping their own abilities and theactivities of partners to involve communitiesin the planning and delivery of services andactivities.

• Equality of opportunity: all sections of thecommunity to have access to servicesappropriate to their needs.

• Sustainable development: implementing theSandwell Plan in accordance with LocalAgenda 21 principles.

• Evidence-based action: drawing onknowledge of what works from elsewhere, aswell as on accurate information aboutSandwell trends and the wider socioeconomicand institutional context.

• Effectiveness and efficiency: a process ofcontinuous service improvement to ensureaction is appropriate, accountable, effectiveand efficient.

Kirklees Vision and Strategy “is based on theunderlying principle that it needs to be developed,agreed and owned by local people and businesses,and by the agencies and organisations which servethem”.

• A ‘visioning’ conference was held in November1998 at which nearly 100 people from 60organisations achieved a broad consensusabout key issues and identified 11 priorities.

• A working group for each priority convenedto establish a baseline position, define a ‘vision’and identify actions to achieve it.

• A ‘competitiveness audit’ was commissionedto benchmark performance in the districtagainst a range of socioeconomic indicators.

• A public expenditure audit was carried out toestablish volume and flows of spend.

• Deprivation was mapped using a range oflocally available data.

29

• A community open day was held in March1999 at which over 400 local people and 160representatives of partner organisationsreached general agreement about prioritiesand ways of tackling them, and added twopriorities about inequalities and transport.

• A draft summary of the Vision and Strategywas circulated in July 1999 to everyhousehold, receiving over 2,000 responses –most broadly supportive.

• The Vision and Strategy were amended on thebasis of responses.

• Responses and their geographical origins wereanalysed in detail to assist future serviceplanning.

Coventry Community Plan – one of the first in thecountry, launched February 1998 – was distinctiveas a city not a city council plan. The council gavecoordination and strategic leadership. The Leaderinvited 150 key, cross-sector stakeholders to aconference in July 1997, to identify key issues andpotential ways to address them. A wider consultationprocess over the next three months included:

• invitations to over 250 organisations toparticipate;

• ward-based consultation events held byelected members;

• people in some of the city’s more marginalisedcommunities contributing through thelocality-based area coordination structure;

• two well-attended youth conferences;

• general public participation through the localmedia.

Coventry University analysed the findings before asecond city conference in November 1997, whichestablished priorities for the Community Plan andthe City Forum as the body to oversee its developmentand implementation. The Community Plan wascomplemented by locality-based action plans: a‘periphery-in’ approach to balance a ‘centre-out’ one.Area coordination, which began in 1994 in the sixmost deprived areas covering about half thepopulation, was to be extended city-wide through amultiagency planning and service coordinationmechanism based on partnership, also involvingresidents in planning and delivering local actions.

New approaches to urban–rural issues

Several NCR pathfinders cover urban and ruralareas. Their different mix of town andcountryside affects the challenges they face. But,for all of them, “the local partnership is seen as amechanism for forging a new relationshipbetween urban and rural policy agendas andspecifically to challenge what is seen as a falsedivide between the two” (McLean, 2000, p 25).

Thematic as well as spatial approaches toregeneration are particularly relevant in ruralareas. Rural communities are dispersed, problemsare less concentrated and therefore more difficultto measure. Herefordshire, especially, is trying toconvince government that the different form ofrural social exclusion makes it important to “testout the viability and effectiveness of reaching themost marginalised groups by targeting‘communities of need’” (McLean, 2000, p 26).

Herefordshire Partnership’s response to the Nationalstrategy for neighbourhood renewal consultation(SEU, 2000a) indicated that, while many issues forthe most excluded groups in the countryside are thesame as urban ones,

the individual experience of these problemsis often exacerbated by the very fact of livingin a sparsely populated area. Both invisibilityand isolation bring added difficulties for themost excluded in our rural communities. Theopportunities to access information andadvice are likely to be less, the availability ofservices and facilities (eg childcare, transport)are poorer, and the chances of being able toreceive support from others in a similarsituation more remote than for those livingin an urban environment.

A successful SRB 6 bid was the cornerstone of EastLancashire Partnership’s wider strategy to build adynamic city-region, which embodied their conceptof ‘city living in a rural context’. It proposed a regionalpark covering the whole of East Lancashire, includingthe Rural Priority Area, the Forest of Bowland Areaof Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), West PennineMoors and South Pennine Heritage Area, butconcentrating much of the activity in a broad bandof urban fringe land adjoining very deprived wards.

Strategic planning

30


Greater Nottingham NCR

Community plan

Corporate plan

Areaactionplans

Areaactionplans

Policy-led budget

Best Valueperformance plan

Serviceplans

Serviceplans

Serviceplans

Serviceplans

Corporatepolicies

Plans

Fitting the plans together in Nottingham

Horizontal and vertical integration

Pathfinders sought to ‘nest’ strategies effectivelyand ensure consistency across partnerships andagencies within their area.

Salford Partnership’s regeneration strategy expressedthe different ‘directions’ of integration:

• upwards by ensuring clear and effectivechannels of communication to enable localcommunities to shape and influence thestrategy;

• inwards through the strategy becoming partof the fabric of each partner organisation sothat all partners work towards the same goals;

• outwards through key partners committingthemselves to developing and implementingthe strategy across the city, and the city itselfplaying an active part within the region.

Luton and Dunstable Partnership (LDP) establishedlinks and clarified respective roles with localauthority-level multi-interest partnerships inresponse to health and local authority policydevelopments, such as health improvementprogrammes and community planning. They agreedthe division of responsibilities:

• the proposed South Bedfordshire PartnershipBoard (SBPB) and Luton Forum to be theprimary focus for multi-agency working;

• key agencies to remain independentlyresponsible for delivering strategic vision andaction plans on the ground;

• duplication to be avoided;

• the NCR role of LDP was to foster conurbation-wide links on chosen issues and seek toinfluence debate in other partnerships andagencies so that their strategies reflect thoselinks;

• LDP to take forward SRB projects generatedin consultation with the community and arange of partners;

• the NCR strategy to be developed jointly withSBPB and Luton Forum as a loose federationof agencies with a common agenda, deliveredby the various agencies involved.

31

Suffolk Pathfinder works at different levels:

• strategic work around the interrelationship ofbudgets, strategies, plans, policies and data;

• zone work around small geographicneighbourhoods or single themes.

Middlesbrough Direct endorsed the WestMiddlesbrough NDC Delivery Plan and made it apriority. The NDC objectives closely match those forthe whole town. Key agencies are involved in bothpartnerships.

East Lancashire Partnership saw itself as having arole in interpreting and influencing regional strategiesand setting the sub-regional guidance for local ones.

West Cumbria integrated its 12 pathfinder objectiveswith the four key themes of the North WestDevelopment Agency’s regional economic strategy:

• community development

• business development, education and training

• built environment

• infrastructure and investment.

Strategic planning

Herefordshire Action Planning

A coordinated approach to action planning was agreed across the (themed) ambition groups. Although they wereat different stages of planning, the linkages already promised improved joining up on the ground. They intendedto move towards an electronic version of the action planning process: to use ‘Mindmanager’ or similar software toprovide links to relevant databases, strategies and plans. The map and its links could be put on a website.

Each of the ambitions in Hereford’s Plan (for example, improving health and welfare) led to the key issues (such as,tackling drug supply and misuse), further broken down into issues (such as, public awareness campaigns) andthen into tasks. At every level, the plan would identify measures of success with indicators and targets, responsibilityfor coordination or delivery as appropriate ,and links both to the next level and to associated databases, plans andstrategies.

Herefordshire Plan

Ambition

VisionGuiding principles

Ambitionsx 10

Measure

How?What?

IndicatorMilestone

What?Timescale

Target

Key issues

Outcome AmbitionsPrinciples

Risk

Standard

Specific issuesWhoseresponsibility

ResourceTasks

MoneyPeopleTimeFacilities

Links

{{

{

{

{{

{

32


Action planning

Turning strategies into action plans can exposeweaknesses, tensions or unresolved conflictsbecause delivery mode requires moving fromabstract generalities to concrete specifics.

From wish lists to action plans

Herefordshire’s planning process shows thequestions that action plans need to answer if theyare to be capable of implementation:

• Who are the lead players to deliver specificinitiatives and actions?

• Who is responsible for specific targets andmilestones?

• What are the arrangements for monitoring?

These lead to other questions, for example:

• Do activities rely on new money? If so, is thisa realistic option?

• Does the plan require new contracts or servicelevel agreements (SLAs) and are these beingdeveloped?

• How far does it rely on a culture change yet tobe achieved?

Adapting the structures

Action planning and implementation also raisenew questions about delivery structures.Establishing delegated delivery vehicles can allowthe main partnership to concentrate on itsstrategic role.

In Liverpool, strategic issue partnerships, such as theCrime and Disorder, Strategic Housing, LifelongLearning and Strategic Employment Partnerships arebecoming coordinating bodies to ensure delivery ofkey elements of the strategy. Where there are gaps,they are being filled either by new groups, such asthe Business Development Forum, or throughreconfiguration as with the Health and SocialRegeneration Partnership to deliver joint planningand the Health Improvement Programme (HImP).

This type of move towards new deliverystructures leads directly to the subject of the nextchapter: joined-up delivery.

Key points• Strategic partnerships face a new, all-

encompassing order of strategy making basedon a more expansive concept of regeneration

• To be effective and draw widespreadownership, the planning process must beinclusive and take account of a wide range ofcontextual issues

• The goal is a strategic framework that ensuresa fit of plans across agencies andneighbourhoods, and objectives that areconsistent with sub-regional, regional andnational policy targets

• Translating strategies into action plans canreveal the faultlines of partnership because itrequires partners to turn their general supportinto specific commitments.

33

This chapter encompasses the whole McKinseyframework. It looks at turning a strategicpartnership into an effective delivery vehicle andthe parallel processes necessary within partnerorganisations. During the research, fewpathfinders were deeply into implementation sothe lessons here are still more about planning forjoint delivery than the fruits of extensiveexperience.

Joined-up delivery

7

NCR has been a good springboard for [our] Partnership ... in guiding the development of joint working. ThePartnership has now achieved a momentum of its own. (Chamber of Commerce respondent)

structure

systemsstrategy

sharedvalues

skills

staff

style

34


The partnership as a delivery vehicle

The challenges in making the partnership’sstructures and processes fit for new roles andpurposes are to:

• widen the partnership while remaining focusedand action-oriented;

• adapt wider partnership structures to focus ondelivery;

• resource the partnership;• develop and coordinate empowerment and

participation strategies across the partnerorganisations;

• link with other overarching plans andprocesses;

• rationalise the plethora of other partnerships;• resolve issues of power, influence and

accountability;• retain and extend the trust and involvement of

all interested parties;• address the democratic deficit and develop

new democratic mechanisms;• identify and address the implications of the

partnership’s agenda for organisational changeand staff development in individualorganisations;

• define the added value of the strategicpartnership and put in place monitoring,evaluation and review systems.

A whole systems approach

Problems arise in implementing strategies ifstrategic formulation ignores the conditions inwhich implementation is to take place and thecapacity available (Mintzberg, 1994). A ‘wholesystems’ approach is necessary to understand thedrivers and counter-drivers on organisationalbehaviour (DETR, 1999). Pathfinders reflectedthis in articulating their shared values,commitments and progression to protocols andservice-level agreements.

Partners in Barnsley recognised that their sharedvalues had to be translated into shared action forpartnership to work properly. Partner boards (orequivalent) agreed to underwrite partnership by:

• early notification when new programmes, newpolicies or changes of direction are beingconsidered;

• willingness to debate and review policy;

• a coherent service package;

• exchanging financial planning information(where joint interests are involved) at an earlystage in the budgetary process;

• data exchange (within Data Protection Act limits);

• developing joint information systems fordeveloping services and planning delivery.

Sandwell Operating Protocol1. Members of the Partnership will be Chairs/

Leaders/Chief Executives of partner agencies,with delegated authority to effect change inthe way agencies work together.

2. The Partnership will nominate representativesto regional and sub-regional bodies who arenormally the most senior person responsiblefor the organisation’s work in Sandwell.

3. Members of the Partnership will make apersonal commitment to the work of the CivicPartnership, that is, to attend meetingspersonally and regularly and to prioritise CivicPartnership business.

4. The Civic Partnership will meet every eightweeks.

5. Partnership Chief Executives will meet todetermine the agenda for Civic Partnershipmeetings.

6. The partnerships comprising the Sandwell‘family of partnerships’ will report regularlyto Civic Partnership meetings on progress,achievements and issues.

7. Partners will fund jointly and/or contributeresources to the effective establishment of aSecretariat to support the work of the CivicPartnership.

8. Partners will work collaboratively inpartnership to bid for resources that willcontribute to the achievement of the SandwellVision and Plan.

9. Partners will assess jointly socioeconomicconditions and influences on Sandwell’s well-being.

35

Kirklees

Key areas of work

• Providing information to develop communitydebate and input to policy planning andservice delivery

• Integrated planning to improve planningprocesses, such as joint research activity;models for community planning at local level;coordinated approaches to obtaining externalfunding; input to regional planning processes

• Joint service delivery: particularly key strategicprojects to test new ways of working anddevelop mechanisms for better integratedmainstream services

• Monitoring, reviewing and evaluating theimplementation of the Vision and Strategy.

Achieving the outcomes

• Committing staff resources to implementprojects

• Developing project action plans and aframework for monitoring and evaluating theinitiatives and effectiveness and impact

• Developing appropriate reporting and reviewprocedures

• The Executive to have a role in advising andsupporting initiatives and, where necessary,the Partnership to involve the GOR toinfluence and pull down resources frommainstream programmes and relax regulationsto support initiatives

• Tools such as SLAs and protocols.

Executive teams

“The recruitment of staff to carry thisforward is essential. Momentum haswaxed and waned in relation to whetherthere was anyone in post. It is necessaryto have a link between partnership tiers –to get views through to the Board andgain ownership and motivation at otherlevels.” (Local authority respondent)

Progress towards joint working will be impeded ifstaff have to juggle competing demands and theirmain loyalties lie elsewhere. Strategicpartnerships need dedicated staff to:

• establish the partnership’s identity, avoidingover-identification with one partner, usuallythe local authority;

• service the partnership;• maintain an overview of the strategy and

progress;• act as a spur to counter any loss of

momentum;• network across sectoral, organisational and

professional boundaries;• take responsibility for monitoring

arrangements.

In Coventry, the City Forum, the programme deliverygroups and working groups all have designatedofficers to support their work. During the earlyperiod, these were all senior City Council staff thoughthis was anticipated to change.

Kirklees Partnership had 1.5 dedicated officerpositions employed by the Council but directlyresponsible to the Partnership. The operation wasfunded primarily by Kirklees Metropolitan BoroughCouncil, with contributions from partners based ontheir size and ability to contribute.

Liverpool was unusual in having an Executive teamas soon as it gained pathfinder status. The originalteam, although largely resourced by the City Council,also drew on staff from other organisations. It tookforward the process of developing the Liverpool Firststrategy and action plan. When moving toimplementation, the team’s role was reviewed toidentify the skills and expertise appropriate to thisnew phase. Although the City Council continued tomake the largest single contribution, 10 othermember organisations also committed resourcestotalling nearly £100,000, for assembling a new team.It is located in Liverpool Health Authority adjacentto the Merseyside HAZ team, in space freed by co-locating the Liverpool Health Authority Drug ActionTeam in the City Council.

Joined-up delivery

36


Meta-networking

Partnerships have frequently brought CEs togethereffectively and achieved good collaboration atproject level. But there has been a ‘missingmiddle’ and people at intermediate levels inmember organisations have remained outside theloop. Horizontal links across organisations at alllevels, and vertical links within them, arenecessary both to deliver the strategic intentionsof the CEs and incorporate on-the-groundmessages about effectiveness. Networking istherefore a core role and competence.

In the ‘virtual’ community of partner organisations,meta-networking is required to develop processesfor maintaining and managing connections acrosssystems, “facilitating those links made difficult byorganisational procedures, culturalmisunderstandings or fear” (Gilchrist, 2000, p271). ‘Networking the networks’ means“providing boundary-spanning links andidentifying the beacons, barriers and bridges thatenable others to navigate across unfamiliar andhazardous terrain” (Gilchrist, 2000, p 271). Itencompasses roles of broker, mediator, advocateand interpreter. It is important for allorganisations, but especially for effectivecommunication with, and greater involvement of,businesses and voluntary and communityorganisations.

The Liverpool Partnership Group Director’s key tasksincluded leading the team, ensuring theimplementation of the programme and its monitoringand evaluation and establishing mechanisms forconsulting and involving the community. The personspecification stressed a track record in cross-agencyworking and communication, mediation andnegotiating skills.

Joint working

“A strength of NCR is the attempt to co-ordinate mainstream activity in support ofcommon objectives: its lateral thinkingand move away from ‘chimneys’ such ashealth, crime, housing.” (Benefits Agencyrespondent)

It is difficult to isolate the NCR effect becausepartnership is generally more widespread. But ithas certainly facilitated integration even thoughthere remains a long way to go to make theconnections between strategies and achieving realchanges on the ground.

Plymouth Integrated Planning for Childrenand Young People (PIPC&YP)

The merger of the Plymouth HAZ Programme Boardand the Children’s Services Planning Groupsignificantly improved planning for children’s servicesin Plymouth. Having a single body including all keypartners with strategic responsibility for planning anddevelopment of services in Plymouth reducedduplication and began the process of integration.

Croydon was a Beacon Council 2001/2 for localhealth strategies. Healthy Croydon Partnershipillustrated the value of vehicles fit for theirpurpose, and personal as well as strategic linksbetween partnerships.

37

Healthy Croydon Partnership set up in 1999 as aborough-wide partnership comprises board membersof Croydon Health Authority, Croydon Council,primary care groups, local NHS trusts, CroydonCommunity Health Council, police, probation, thevoluntary sector and a business representative. Chiefofficers are in attendance. Having as its chair aCroydon Partnership board member, facilitatescommunication, strengthens networking and ensureslinks with the overarching regeneration strategy. Theprimary purpose of the Healthy Croydon Partnershipis to develop and approve Croydon’s strategic Planfor Health and Social Care, which is a joint HImP andCommunity Care Plan. The Partnership is supportedby a unit which is jointly financed by the healthauthority and the council, with additional supporton specific themes provided by the appropriatepartner organisation. The support unit’s workincludes:

• Strategic planning: developing the HImP;helping the development of Croydonregeneration strategy and Croydoncommunity strategy; advising on supportingstrategies such as the mental health strategy,joint investment plans and children’s plans.

• Joint planning for health and social carethrough approximately 15 interagency jointplanning teams.

• Coordinating the work of the CommunityInvolvement Strategy Group , which isdeveloping improved methods of involving allsectors of the community in planning andpolicy decisions.

• Promoting joint work between agencies,especially the Partnership in ActionProgramme, to utilise the flexibilities in the1999 Health Act for commissioning andprovision.

• Coordinating funding programmes anddeveloping policy and criteria for use ofexternal funds and of funding applications formajor interagency projects, such as SRB Round6, a network of healthy living centres (NewOpportunities Fund) and an older people’sone-stop service (‘Invest to save’).

• Initiating and supporting interagency projectsuntil they are independently staffed.

• Providing information through bulletins,formal reports, seminars, workshops andpresentations at national and regionalmeetings.

Test-beds for joint working

Strategic partnership can potentially revolutionisethe way in which regeneration is addressed andservices are delivered. But, all the possiblechanges cannot be introduced universally orsimultaneously. Some pathfinders, such asMiddlesbrough and Liverpool, are therefore usingspecific initiatives to test new approaches.

The partners in Middlesbrough Direct are committedto realigning their mainstream funding programmesto commonly agreed goals. West Middlesbrough NDCscheme is a means of achieving this at aneighbourhood level and testing a new collaborativeframework for bringing together various zones, pilotsand initiatives.

Liverpool First is using existing initiatives (SpekeGarston, Liverpool Vision Urban RegenerationCompany and Kensington Regeneration NDC) to‘road-test’ new models and derive good practicelessons so that they can be rolled out more widelyon the basis of ‘what works’. The cross-cutting themesof ‘innovation’, ‘integration’ and ‘implementation’provide a framework for testing their effectiveness,synergy and practicality.

Financial flows

Even pathfinders with well-developed actionplans had scarcely tackled joint budgeting exceptwhere it was already in place. They had yet toexamine how their main programmes and budgetsmight be effectively reconfigured. Although therewas some room for local action, the issue hadbecome synonymous with freedoms andflexibilities. Having been invited to identifyfreedoms and flexibilities that would enable themto deliver regeneration more effectively,pathfinders were discouraged by the lack ofprogress at national level and did little themselvesin this area.

However, some, such as Suffolk, started gatheringthe necessary data to be able to understand theflow of resources, modelling their exercise on theEIUA workshop. This exercise, in itself, requiredconsiderable work and commitment from partnerorganisations.

Joined-up delivery

38


The EIUA financial flows workshop explored:

• the scale and deployment of partners’budgets;

• existing examples of joined-up financialworking;

• obstacles to joining up, and the changesrequired to overcome them.

This ongoing exercise has already been valuable.Constraints identified include:

• different management and operating cultures;

• data protection;

• lack of resource flexibility;

• nationally not locally directed programmes;

• conflicting rules and regulations;

• mismatching timetables;

• different monitoring and accounting regimes.

Influencing the mainstream

“The reality of bending mainstreambudgets is a vision it will take years toimplement but is worth holding onto.”(Local authority respondent)

The importance of aligning mainstream resources wasborne out by an analysis of resources in Sandwell.The partners spent £755 million in the borough, 75%of it on people with additional expenditure throughother public, private and voluntary sector agencies.70% of civic partners’ spend came from centralgovernment, less than 2% from special programmes.

Although few pathfinders were undertaking large-scale reviews of financial flows, there wasevidence that NCR was having a piecemealinfluence on budgets and programmes. Thesecond EIUA survey asked about effects on thedeployment of mainstream budgets and conductof main programmes. Over one third of the localauthorities responding said it had already had aneffect and nearly two thirds anticipated change inthe next 12 months. Similarly, nearly a third saidit had already influenced their budget deploymentand nearly half that it would do so in thefollowing year. Among the health authorities, halfnoted that their main programmes were alreadyaffected, although less than 30% thought that theirbudget deployment had been influenced. Again,half the respondents anticipated future

programme changes. Fewer expected budgetarychanges, although about 60% of local authoritiesand health authorities had either developed orplanned to develop arrangements for pooledbudgets.

It would be unsafe to draw general conclusionsfrom the limited number of responses from otherorganisations and the picture was clearly patchy,but overall there was evident movement withinthe public sector in the localities. Notably,however, respondents from GORs or centralgovernment departments had very lowexpectations about any influence on theirprogrammes or budgets.

Perceptions about potential changes in their mainprogrammes could have been influenced byindividual respondents’ concept of regeneration.Another interesting finding was that people in thesame organisations in different locations differedabout whether they saw regeneration as part oftheir core business. For instance, respondentsfrom the Employment Service, HAZs, NHS trusts,FE colleges, the police and Chambers ofCommerce in different areas gave contrastingreplies. Apart from reflecting individualperspectives, this may signal that, in areas ofwidespread deprivation, no agency can fail torecognise its relevance whereas elsewhere theymay take a more limited view.

Joint arrangements

The EIUA survey asked partners whether NCR hadled to new joint arrangements or whether thesewere planned. Although not universally,developments were taking place in relation to allthe following arrangements:

• co-location of staff;• joint appointments;• joint staff development/training;• data exchange;• joint monitoring/impact assessment;• community consultation;• community surveys.

In Kirklees, joint projects between partners, such asmanagement training and cooperation on researchand information, have led to pooling of resourcesand helped to promote partnership working at lowerlevels of the partner agencies.

39

Greater Peterborough’s cross-agency ‘practitioners’group’ looked at specific situations in which jointworking needed to be improved. Group memberswere frontline workers. The group had the blessingof, but excluded, managers.

Equipping for partnership

... recognising that real change in largeinstitutions is a function of at least sevenhunks of complexity. (Peters andWaterman, 1982, p 11)

The wider the remit of partnership working, themore it entails change within partnerorganisations, in their governance structures andexternal relationships. A partnership culture mustpermeate whole organisations. Partnership can bejust as difficult within as between organisationsbecause there are the same sorts of jockeying forposition, squabbling over resources and policydisagreements. McKinsey’s framework applies tomember organisations as much as the partnershipitself.

Strong but responsive leadership is key, plus thecapacity to drive the process of embedding newways of working throughout the organisation.Satisfactory partnership working will remainelusive if different departments or levels of theorganisation have disparate attitudes andapproaches. Established strategic groups ofsenior people can be a useful tool for breakingdown departmentalism.

Research from the Institute of Local GovernmentStudies (INLOGOV) at the University ofBirmingham identified success factors forinnovation in local government that have widerrelevance (Newman et al, 1999). The fourdimensions of capacity for change are to:

• adapt to external forces;• be able to deliver business results;• ensure accountability and control;• develop cultural capacity for the future.

This entails:

• Internal synergy: cross-departmental working,consensual culture, learning across team anddepartmental boundaries and effectivecorporate focus.

• Appropriate human resource processes:recruitment geared to future needs,participative decision making, development offuture leaders and a leadership style thatbuilds commitment and trust.

Haringey Council’s new strategic frameworkfor managing regeneration must becharacterised by:

• the quality of its strategic thinking and intime its ability to lead through partnership;

• the capability of its organisation tocommunicate its ideas and coordinate itsprogrammes;

• the sensitivity of its operation to the needsof those it serves – the people, communitiesand neighbourhoods – and of its partners;

• the singularity of its structures andorganisation in taking responsibility for allregeneration activities in their widestsense. (Haringey’s Regeneration Strategy,November 2000)

Chapters 5-7 have discussed the stages inpartnership development. The next looks at anissue fundamental to their approach and likelysuccess: community participation.

Key points• Joined-up delivery requires a whole systems

approach to change within the partnershipand its member organisations

• Dedicated staff are essential for thepartnership to help drive the process forwardand facilitate the necessary linkages betweenpolicies and people

• Fundamental changes to mainstream workingrequire partners to work together tounderstand and adapt resource flows

• Partner bodies need to examine their capacityfor change and its implications for theirculture, leadership, structures, workingpractices and staff development.

Joined-up delivery

40


Regeneration initiatives have long been trying todevelop a model of participative democracy. Thedifficulties of involving people in a properlyrepresentative way at small-area level aremultiplied for strategic partnerships dealing with alarger population and wider range of interests andpolicy issues.

Community

Community has a diverse range of meanings.There are communities of place and interest.When geographically based, shared experience ofplace is assumed to carry a sense of identificationand belonging. But, within and acrossneighbourhoods, different groups may havedifferent agendas based on factors such as gender,ethnicity, age, faith, employment status, disabilityor sexuality. Communities are as much subjectiveas objective. They can be sources of socialsupport but, equally, they can be oppressive ordivisive. Community development aims to buildsocial capital, that is, the ties within and acrosscommunities and promote the active involvementof people in the issues that affect their lives.

What is participation?

Regeneration partnerships have aspired tocommunity participation, but seldom fully satisfiedcommunity hopes and expectations for variousreasons:

• unsatisfactory participation structures; or• participation restricted to certain policy and

programme areas; or• participation remaining token.

Participation is problematic when mutualexpectations and understandings about theparameters, purpose and likely outcomes remainunclear. Community consultation has often beenmore a matter of imparting information thanseeking views. Or residents have been askedopen-ended questions about the sort ofneighbourhood they wanted when the only scopefor choice was about the colour of their frontdoors.

It is easier to involve voluntary organisations thancommunity groups. Participation is hard forcommunity groups themselves because theirresources are over-stretched and accountability totheir ‘constituency’ entails more time and greaterexposure. Even where groups are represented, itcan be as largely passive players with the agendaset by others, whereas participation suggests, notonly being active within a process, but havingsome power and influence within it.

Local authorities and others have frequently donetoo little too late. Bruising experiences in the pastcan deter them from renewed efforts. Empoweringcommunities and enabling participation tests theircommitment and capacity because:

• it is a labour and resource intensive activity;• it requires skills and experience that the staff

concerned do not necessarily possess;• staff sometimes do not know where to start if

the community is not already well organised andif no audit has been carried out to map groups;

• the process is open-ended so there isuncertainty about where it might lead or whatconflict it might generate;

• there are sensitive issues about representivity/democratic accountability: who legitimatelycan speak for the community?

Community participation

8

“Local communities deserve more. This is an initiative that could deliver.” (Public sector respondent)

Community involvement enhances the effectiveness of regeneration programmes by encouraging better decisionmaking, fostering more effective programme delivery, and helping to ensure the benefits of regenerationprogrammes are sustained over the long term. (DETR, 1998, Annexe E)

41

Greater Nottingham Partnership (GNP) has aprotocol for community engagement against whichall GNP main partners can measure levels of localengagement.

Community involvement strategies

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation hascommissioned much research focusing on the roleof local residents and community organisations.The DETR, therefore, requested JRF to prepareguidance on community involvement strategiesfor SRB bidders (JRF, 1999). Table 3 shows theareas covered by the guidance, all of which arealso relevant to strategic partnerships.

Levels and types of involvement

“NCR places community governance highon the agenda which hopefully mobilisespeople towards participative democraticapproaches – reducing the ‘them’ and ‘us’culture.” (Voluntary sector respondent)

Table 3: Community involvement strategies

Getting started

• Map local organisations• Understand local priorities and skills• Build confidence through early project work• Develop a vision and action plans with local communities.

Involving communities in partnerships

• Create partnership structures that work for local communities• Make resources available for community groups• Arrange training for both community activists and professionals• Assist community groups with administrative and financial procedures.

Creating strong local organisations with their own assets

• Develop a partnership ‘forward strategy’, including a strong role for community groups• Consider possible models for successor organisations including development trusts, neighbourhood

management organisations, LETS and credit unions.

Developing an infrastructure to build and sustain community organisations

• Accept that community organisations need long-term support• Contribute to the better coordination of training and support services• Take steps to secure pre-bid resources for community groups.

Monitoring progress

• Establish a framework for evaluating both concrete outputs and key processes in community involvement• Ensure appropriate monitoring of progress both by the partnership and by GORs/RDAs.


42


Using a matrix, such as the one above adaptedfrom a Best Value matrix (Wilkinson andAppelbee, 1999, p 128), can be helpful forexploring who is being involved and how inparticular services or projects. However, thisshould not just be a matter of ticking the boxes,but the methods used should be detailed and theireffectiveness reviewed.

• Consultation through surveys, focus groups,website discussion groups, citizens’ juries andcitizens’ panels.

• Representation of groups on relevant boards,partnership groups or area committees.

• Participation through managing or deliveringprojects, handling resources, conductingsurveys, or carrying out project appraisals orevaluation.

Boundaries between consultation andparticipation can be very blurred as someplanning for real exercises demonstrate. Nosingle method is the answer. There should be:

• a range of mechanisms with the flexibility tomeet different needs, and a continuing questto develop and refine them;

• a basis of trust;• a meaningful context for involvement – the

family, school, organisation or neighbourhood;• opportunities to develop the skills required to

exploit the opportunities and maximise thebenefits of participation.

The danger of poachers turning into gamekeepers– that is, individuals becoming divorced from their‘constituency’ and having their distinctivecommunity insights supplanted by theprofessional perspective – is more likely to occurif there is:

• inadequate infrastructure;• too little capacity building;• too much reliance on too few people, with

insufficient support.

Engaging the community

“A strength of NCR is placing thevoluntary and community sector at thepartnership table as an equal.” (Avoluntary sector respondent)

NCR pathfinders recognised the importance ofhaving a variety of consultation and engagementmechanisms. When surveyed, some were startingto use community planning and Best Valueprocesses, either through existing mechanisms orby setting up new ones. Others’ plans were stillembryonic.

Newham 2020 Community Event enabled localpeople to speak directly to public policy planners. Atotal of 500 people attended the first event in June1999: 350 of these were from a broad cross sectionof the local population, including some from theYouth Parliament; 150 were from borough agenciesand community groups. The audience was able torespond to issues raised in the presentation usinghandsets so that the responses could be immediatelyrelayed onto screens. Views were recorded both foruse in the Community Plan and as a means to checkin the future that opinions had been heeded.

When the Coventry Community Plan was written,about 1,000 residents were involved in areacoordination. The aim to increase this to 4,000 intwo years was advanced by including staff to supportcommunity initiatives in Area Coordination Teams.

Involvement matrix

Individual Individual Communities Geographicservice users citizens User groups of interest communities

Consultation

Representation

Participation

43

Barnsley engaged the community in relation to theCommunity Plan by:

• using Barnsley Forum, a twice-yearly openinvitation event for the general public to puttheir views to the Council and partnerorganisations;

• a workshop for young people on Barnsley’sfuture, their problems and other relevantissues;

• summarising the approach with examples ofthe types of action plans envisaged;

• after a second Forum meeting, circulating adraft plan widely and inviting comments;

• summarising the draft in Barnsley Matters,the Council newsletter;

• surveying the Citizens’ Panel about thestrategic goals.

Pathfinders have learnt from examples of goodpractice within their areas about the way theinvolvement mechanisms can lead to greatercitizen activism.

Tynemouth Conservation Area Partnership Scheme(CAPS) in North Tyneside was a three-year schemebringing stakeholders together to improve the builtfabric and community spirit in Tynemouth Village.It brought together residents, businesses, Englishheritage, North East Civic Trust, Friends of TynemouthStation, the village association, police, council officersand members. CAPS became a catalyst for communityactivism and partnership resulting in:

• revitalisation of the village association;

• the formation of a new group to produce aVillage Character Statement adopted by thecouncil as supplementary planning guidance;

• a bid by Friends of Tynemouth Station toheritage Lottery Fund money;

• the formation of ‘Friends of NorthumberlandPark’ to produce a masterplan to regeneratethe Victorian park;

• participation in a ‘Placecheck’ pilot with theUrban Design Alliance;

• villages taking responsibility for unsocialparking and other issues;

• local involvement in design and timing ofenvironmental works.

A coordinated approach

Potential ‘consultation fatigue’ was an early issuefor pathfinders because so many public sectororganisations were separately required to consult.The problem was not only duplication;consultation processes needed designing andmanaging to avoid generating inter-neighbourhood or group conflict. A number ofpathfinders recognised and started to address theneed for:

• an explicit partnership approach based oncollaboration;

• developing and utilising voluntary andcommunity infrastructure;

• staff with appropriate skills in dedicated roles.

Developing new structures

Relying on the ‘usual suspects’ or on communityparticipation at neighbourhood level is insufficientfor strategic partnerships. For legitimacy andaccountability, and to ensure the inclusion ofgroups who often remain outside participation,such as black and minority ethnic groups, capacityneeds to be built and new infrastructuresdeveloped. Mapping the spread of the sectorsand potential linkages quickly reveals thecomplexity.

Voluntary and community sectors include:

• intermediate bodies such as CVSs, ACRE,tenants’ federations, community forums;

• service organisations such as social workagencies;

• neighbourhood organisations such ascommunity associations, tenants’ groups andneighbourhood forums;

• interest groups serving or bringing togethergroups such as lone parents or people withdisabilities;

• social enterprise/not-for-profit businessessuch as intermediate labour marketorganisations (ILMs) and credit unions;

• arts, cultural and recreational organisations.


44


Liverpool deliberately avoided attempting a ‘quickfix’. Instead, the voluntary and community sectorswere invited, with support, to design their ownmeans of enabling such hugely diverse sectors toparticipate in planning and delivery.

Liverpool Partnership Group (LPG) sought asustainable means of involving its large, well-established, diverse and vocal voluntary andcommunity sectors. It rejected a ready-made, top-down standing conference structure in favour of abottom-up evolutionary process supported by theLPG executive team, to address the followingquestions:

• What are the ‘representation’ needs?

• What forms/structures of representationwould work best?

• What support, information, networking andfacilitation resources will be needed?

A group drawn from the voluntary and communitysector is working with a facilitator on designing a‘search conference’ – a highly participatory model,aiming to achieve shared understanding, commonground, innovative ideas, commitment and supportand cover:

• where partnership working currently stands;

• where people would like it to be in 3-5 years;

• the steps required to go forward.

The standing conference aims would be to:

• create a shared understanding of voluntaryand community sector involvement in LPG;

• create a shared understanding of thedeveloping strategic agenda;

• clarify the significance for the sectors of thedifferences between LSP and SRB-type area-based partnerships;

• link with other developments relating to thelocal government modernisation;

• explore the practical realities of involving thesectors at strategic, area and operationallevels;

• manage expectations about this long-termenterprise: to promote trust while interimarrangements are in place and ensureconfidence in the developmental process.

Capacity building

“A cultural shift is required to makecommunity development work andtraining an integral part of what we do.”(Suffolk Pathfinder progress report)

A prerequisite of community participation isincreasing

the capacity of local communities tocontribute to regeneration and thestrengthening of local fabric, for example,through training of staff and volunteers incommunity groups, through thestrengthening of networks, forums andrepresentative structures. (DETR, 1997)

Capacity building can take place on individual,group and sector levels (Table 4).

Benchmarks for communityparticipation

The need for capacity building extends to otherorganisations, especially the major public sectorones. If community participation is a goal and aprecondition of effective working (SEU, 1999a),partnerships need to understand what is entailedin working with communities and to developappropriate skills, rather than doing things tothem or for them.

Yorkshire Forward (Yorkshire Forward andYorkshire and Humber RDA, 2000) developedbenchmarks for community participation aroundfour core dimensions – influence, inclusivity,communication and capacity – and combinedthem with questions and suggestions about goodpractice (Table 5). In addition to a full discussionof the concept of benchmarking and ways ofusing benchmarks, there is a clear and easilyreproduced summary to facilitate their use.

Achieving accessible structures and workableparticipation mechanisms is central to thelegitimacy of LSPs and fulfilling the government’saim to revitalise local democracy. NCRpathfinders’ experience shows that there is plentyof scope, but also that there is a long way to gotowards putting the structure and mechanisms inplace.

45

The next chapter moves to another dimension ofstrategic partnership working that requires radicalchange if LSPs are to be fully effective: central–local partnerships.

Table 4: Levels and goals of capacity building

Increasing capacity to:

• Understand how local affairs are controlled• Identify with the locality and concerns of

other residents• Develop new skills• Become more employable• Get involved in a group• Respond to consultations• Start a group

• Be effective in activities• Attract and keep volunteers• Hold dialogue with authorities• Cooperate with other groups/participate in

networks• Secure funding, use it well, account for it• Develop new activities• Create jobs/employ workers

• Serve members• Attract/develop new members• Create a sense of sectoral identity• Resolve differences between organisations,

reach common positions• Negotiate with authorities• Attract/disburse funding

Source: Skinner (1997)

Key points• Community participation is critical to

partnership working for achieving betterstrategies and more effective policy deliveryleading to more sustainable outcomes.

• Community participation in strategicpartnerships entails all the challenges thatapply at neighbourhood level with additionalones stemming from the greater diversity ofinterests across a larger area.

• Community involvement processes must beginearly and be properly resourced.

• Capacity building needs to happen within thecommunity and within partner organisations.

• Developing infrastructure and processes is anongoing task which needs to be benchmarkedand monitored.

Indi

vidu

alG

roup

s/or

gani

sati

ons

Sect

orTable 5: Yorkshire Forward benchmarks forcommunity participation

• The community is recognised and valued asan equal partner at all stages of the process

• There is meaningful communityrepresentation on all decision-making bodiesfrom initiation

• All community members have theopportunity to participate

• Communities have access to and control overresources

• Evaluation of regeneration incorporates acommunity agenda

• The diversity of local communities andinterests are reflected at all levels of theregeneration process

• Equal opportunities policies are in place andimplemented

• Unpaid workers/volunteer activists are valued

• A two-way information strategy is developedand implemented

• Programme and project procedures are clearand accessible

• Communities are resourced to participate• Understanding, knowledge and skills are

developed to support partnership working

Infl

uenc

eIn

clus

ivit

yCo

mm

unic

atio

nCa

paci

ty


46


Looking for a new central–localpartnership

NCR aimed to change the relationship betweencentral government and local players. Some of itsarchitects were inspired by the Contrat de Ville inFrance. The Contrats are five-year plansnegotiated between national government, regionaland local authorities – “a means of integratinghorizontally and vertically public sector partners,including government departments and thedifferent layers of local government” (Parkinson,1998, p 19).

Local players welcomed recent Cabinet Officereports (PIU, 2000a, 2000b) calling for betterleadership and increased capacity in Whitehall tomanage cross-cutting policies and services, andbetter integration at regional and local level. Butthey also want a looser rein: less governmentprescription about what is done and the way it isdone, fewer ‘one-size-fits-all’ policies. Pathfinderssought:

• better coordination between governmentdepartments centrally and regionally;

• recognition of the roles that macro-economic,social and regional policies, and publicspending play in setting the context for localaction;

• scope to respond to local circumstances.

They felt constrained by:

• policies that purport to be national ones – forexample, housing finance – but wereperceived as geared to the South East;

• central control over the agendas of individualorganisations, such as health authorities

(reflected in their performance indicators),limiting how far they are able to accommodatelocal priorities and a partnership approach;

• the proliferation of initiatives: the opportunitycosts of bidding; the divisiveness of selectingtarget areas when several neighbourhoodscould potentially qualify; the multiplication ofpartnerships;

• complex administrative procedures andaccountability systems which are costly in timeand effort, and are a barrier to private,voluntary and community sector partners.

They pointed to the need to mainstreamregeneration activity.

Freedoms and flexibilities

“Freedoms and flexibilities are a keyfactor to eventual success, but where arethey? ... if we are able, as a partnership,to reduce the paperwork element of allour jobs, the resultant ‘gain’ (or moreaccurately the opportunity costs wonback) could be far better used inregeneration terms.” (Police respondent)

Exploring flexibilities in the way national policiesare carried out locally was to be a tangibleexpression of government accommodation tolocal requirements. When the LGA consultedpathfinders about their priorities for freedoms andflexibilities, the resulting proposals were a mix ofones that would require:

• primary legislation;• changes in interpretation or working practice;• relaxations in rules and regulations.

Government as partner

9

Central government will establish the right conditions for LSPs to take a genuinely joined-up approach.(SEU, 2000b)

“NCR should be linked to partnership agreements with government.” (Local authority respondent)

47

The survey of Phase II Pathfinders produced proposalsunder four headings:

Funding/financial

• longer-term funding

• more flexibility to pool budgets

• more flexibility around housing finance

• a desire for a single ‘capital’ pot

• more flexibility generally on how money canbe spent

• more flexibility about how SRB funds can bespent.

Exchange of information between partners, perhapsrequiring changes to the Data Protection Act.

Reduction/flexibility in the number and type of planswhich authorities have to produce.

Administrative procedures

• simplification in relation to managingregeneration funds and projects

• common application and monitoring systemsfor funding regimes.

A frustrating dialogue

Pathfinders achieved few changes. Sometimesthey were unaware of the implications, technicalcomplexity or knock-on effects of requests. Butthe problems the LGA encountered in finding theright level of discussion – between the verygeneral and the very particular – seemed todenote government reluctance to engageseriously. Later, the protracted run up to theUrban and Rural White Papers and the PublicSpending Review made progress difficult. Thebasis of the LGA/DETR dialogue then switched tolocal PSAs.

The one or two success stories (such as thoseillustrated by Greater Nottingham and Croydon)were negotiated at regional level and theflexibilities granted related to specific area-basedregeneration programmes.

In Greater Nottingham , early work with theEmployment Service and Benefits Agency highlightedthe real problems of the benefit trap as an obstacleto employment. Both agencies provided case historiesto illustrate the problems. The Government Officefor the East Midlands (GO-EM) mounted briefingseminars chaired by the regional director, and invitedsenior managers from the DfEE and the DSS as wellas local partners to examine possible solutions. Theseled to lobbying from all quarters including theNottingham NDC which eventually achieved benefitrule changes starting in 2001 that were a real boostto the morale of local partners:

• the automatic extension of housing benefitfor those going into work

• a £100 Job Grant for people aged over 25gaining a job

• easy in/easy out rules for those acceptingtemporary or seasonal work.

Croydon used its pathfinder status to secure arelaxation in the SRB annuality requirement. TheGovernment Office for London (GOL) agreed tore-profile a £250,000 grant for South Wandle SRBover a three-year period.

Respondents in all the surveys expresseddisappointment about government’s lack ofcommitment as a partner, and the non-delivery offreedoms and flexibilities. As already stated, thisdisappointment deterred pathfinders from, orconveniently mantled their own reticence about,exploring custom and practice to determine theexisting scope for change.

An aspiration unfulfilled

Sandwell Civic Partnership was unusual in makinga direct bid to government for a compact to turnthe rhetoric of government backing for localstrategic partnership working into active support.Although unsuccessful, Sandwell’s proposalillustrated the different dimensions of a changedrelationship. It had some lessons for publicservice agreements, that:

• joint strategy making needs to be reflected inresource allocation;

• performance targets and management systemsand funding frameworks need to encouragerather than inhibit partnership.


48


Sandwell Civic Partnership proposed a SandwellCompact with government: a radical new relationshipbringing together local agencies with regional andcentral government to agree a single strategy for thefuture of Sandwell backed by priority allocation ofresources to deliver that strategy. It proposed thatprogress be assessed through a single set of high levelindicators and a single inclusive approach toperformance management. It aimed to enlistgovernment as a full partner in the process to:

• develop the strategy;

• identify indicators and targets;

• review and direct resources to achieve thosetargets;

• monitor change and progress over the next20 years.

It specifically proposed that Sandwell be grantedpreferred investment status as a national Best Valuetest-bed for an alternative to bidding processes – adeprivation-adjusted capitation-based top-slice ofany special monies to assist the delivery of an agreedstrategy.

Variable involvement of GORs

In 1999, the interdepartmental support unit forarea-based initiatives issued a guidance note onthe role of GORs in relation to NCR pathfinders.Government support would be primarily throughGORs, which should be flexible and accessible.They could potentially help through informationand advice, advocacy with central government,facilitating discussions with other regional bodiesand technical support. The note specificallycautioned against making commitments to plansthat would need ministerial or parliamentaryapproval. It restricted movement on flexibilitiesto changes in GOR working practices. In practice,GORs ranged from fairly active participants tointerested spectators. It is probable that individualstyles, as much as institutional policies, accountedfor differences within as well as across regions.

The advent of LSPs is likely to stretch GORs’capacities to:

• develop more systematic ways of relating topartnerships;

• fulfil their advice, advocacy and support roles;• work more closely with other bodies at

regional level, such as the NHS Executive.

Public service agreements

The 2000 Public Spending Reviewannouncement of local PSAs signalledcentral government support for local jointworking. The concept of PSAs, developedjointly by the LGA, Treasury and DETR,built on the LGA’s Local Challenge whichsought to find a new way of “linkinglegitimate national targets and objectswith local needs and circumstances” (LGA,1999, p 1).

National targets

The Public Spending Review also included, for thefirst time, central government targets to narrowthe gap between the most deprived areas and therest of the country. They correspond to the fourkey outcome areas of the National Strategy forNeighbourhood Renewal (SEU, 2000a): education,employment, crime and health plus socialhousing. The DTLR’s Neighbourhood RenewalUnit will spearhead the follow-up to the nationalstrategy action plan for neighbourhood renewal(SEU, 2001), working closely with theneighbourhood renewal teams within GORs whowill be the main interface with LSPs.

Pathfinders and PSAs

Four NCR pathfinders were among the 20 pilotauthorities for the new local PSAs: Coventry,Lewisham, Middlesbrough and Newham. PSAsare made between individual local authorities andcentral government; their purpose is to identifytargets for improved key outcomes in the quality,quantity or timescale of service delivery.Authorities could apply for pump priming fundsand the government agreed to offer additionalflexibilities to help the delivery of enhancedtargets. The government could also giveadditional grant to those authorities demonstratingthe achievement of their targets.

Freedoms and flexibilities in PSAs

The government was prepared to relax a range ofplanning, operational and financial restrictions forlocal authorities entering PSAs if they coulddemonstrate innovative ideas that would promoteimproved performance.

49

Middlesbrough saw the PSA as a key ingredient inpromoting innovation and delivering better services.It was developed in the context of the emergingneighbourhood renewal strategy. Middlesbroughaimed to work through Middlesbrough Direct toensure that their PSA targets developed linkagesbetween partners to tackle cross-cutting issues,supported by the use of the Neighbourhood RenewalFund (NRF). The work would form a basis for thecommunity strategy being developed.

Lewisham’s vision for the PSA reflected its corporatevision of being the best place in London to live, workand learn. Targets reflected key areas of citizens’concerns in relation to: crime, the environment,transport, heating efficiency in council houses, thecost effectiveness of services and capability ofdelivering services electronically, school attainmentlevels, active citizenship among young people, betterlife chances for children in care.

Flexibilities in Middlesbrough• Permission to introduce a third school session

and accommodation of accumulated hours forattendance purposes of those excluded fromschool

• Assured resource allocation for StandardsFund for three years, to overcome the currentuncertainty of annual funding which hadhindered planning

• Permission to keep fine income from fixedpenalty notices for dog fouling and litteringand increase the maximum level of fixedpenalty fines

• Government to work with the council toclarify and improve arrangements forinformation sharing across health, social careand criminal justice agencies

• Looking at testing new approaches to helpthe most disadvantaged groups intoemployment under the New Deal programme(under discussion).

Flexibilities in Lewisham• Target to reduce fly tipping: allowing the

authority to share powers to inspect tradewaste agreements

• Target to reduce abandoned vehicles in theNew Cross Gate NDC area: consideration by theDVLA to amend Vehicle Removal Regulationsto eliminate the need to store large numbersof low value vehicles for 35 days or more

• Attainment target: assurances on minimumresource allocation through the SchoolsStandards Fund and greater flexibility in theuse of the money

• Target of increasing adoption rates of childrenin care: possibility of Lewisham piloting someof the freedoms outlined in the Departmentof Health Adoption White Paper.

NCR showed that the capacity of local players islimited by the operational framework set for themby central government. PSAs may be the key torenegotiating this framework provided they:

• are the basis for setting an agreed agenda, notanother instrument of central control;

• stress partnership as the means of delivery;• find an appropriate balance between local and

national priorities.

They will then be able to open up newopportunities and re-invigorate local collaborationtowards better outcomes.

Chapter 10 goes on to examine how the outcomesand added value of strategic partnership can bemeasured.

Key points• To fulfil their potential, LSPs require greater

scope to tailor national policies to localcircumstances and priorities

• Central government can make the operatingenvironment of local players more conduciveto strategic partnership by providing fundingflexibilities, reducing the required number oflocal plans and developing greater alignmentacross performance management systems

• GORs will need to be adequately resourced tosupport LSPs

• Public service agreements may be key torenegotiating central–local partnerships.


50


Adding value through strategic partnership cancome through more efficient and effective ways ofworking and through better outcomes. Thischapter looks first at ways of assessingpartnership and then at steps towards trackingsocioeconomic change.

Benchmarking joint working

LSPs will need to:

• measure their progress in relation to thecomponents of the McKinsey framework (seepage 15): shared values, style, structure,systems, strategy, staff and skills;

• track the volume of partnership activity andshifting use of budgets.

Table 6 gives capacity indicators for leadership,management, performance and local standing andinfluence.

Baseline development

Extending joint working depends critically ondeveloping greater understanding of both thecontext of activity and the potential contributionsof partner organisations. Out of thisunderstanding, baselines and performanceindicators (PIs) can be developed.

Two-tier approach

For pathfinders, the eventual test of theireffectiveness would be the difference they madeto people’s lives. To measure their impact, theyneeded to create baselines to:

• show their starting point;• enable comparisons with elsewhere;• set realistic targets.

NCR was a national approach being tested invaried contexts. To measure change in suchdifferent areas, indicators needed to marryconsistency and comparability with relevance totheir specific conditions and priorities. Indicatorscan distort priorities so that it is vital to match

Measuring impact

10

“Let us focus on outcomes rather than death by a thousand PIs [performance indicators], many of which havelittle real value.” (Public sector respondent)

Salford commissioned a review of its partnership when it gained pathfinder status. It identified three dimensionsby which the partnership might be judged:

Leadership Partner engagement Performance management

Vision and strategy Planning and review RepresentativenessManaging change People management ScrutinyMotivation Citizen/user orientation Project managementCommunication Project management Systems/process managementAlliance building Consultation/participation Financial management

51

Table 6: Partnership capacity indicators

• Composition: chief executive or equivalent able to speak for own organisation• Commitment to invest time and resources; to share information, including budgetary information; to

bend mainstream programmes• Wider partnership structures to extend spheres of input and influence• Induction and development for officers and members within the partnership and partner organisations• Relationship to team: appropriate division of responsibility and capacity to deliver• Strategic planning: development of vision, priority setting, strategy and action plan; defining added

value; setting milestones and targets

• Protocols and service-level agreements: clarity of expectations; assignment of lead roles andresponsibilities

• Monitoring and other systems: joint arrangements for data collection and sharing• Self-evaluation: feedback into policy process; identification of what works and good practice that can

be rolled out more widely• Independent evaluation: use of external organisations as appropriate for benchmarking the partnership

and measuring its impact

• Understanding of area and context: policies based on thorough research into local needs andopportunities; evidence of correct identification of key challenges and most effective levers of change

• Track record in achieving targets/milestones and identifying reasons for success or shortfall• Innovation: approaches which embrace sensible risk-taking; encourage frontline staff and user groups

to feed into policy process; promote collaborative working; take account of best practice elsewhere

• Range of partners: broad-based, cross-sector partnership; partnership structures that facilitate widerinvolvement

• Involvement of community: wide range of opportunities for individuals, community groups andvoluntary organisations to participate in consultations, planning and delivery; coordinated approach tocommunity involvement by member organisations; common understandings and codes of practice onconsultation, participation and equal opportunities

• Accountability: development of mechanisms to facilitate giving account to, and being held to accountby, stakeholders

• Influence on partner organisations’ policies and practices: joint approaches to staff development andchange management; alignment of policies and plans

Lead

ersh

ipM

anag

emen

tPe

rfor

man

ceLo

cal s

tand

ing

and

infl

uenc

e

them with key concerns and balance theeconomic, social and environmental dimensions.Indicators can also distort actions if theyencourage people to seek to improve theirmeasured output rather than their actualperformance.

The EIUA proposed a two-tier model:

• A headline set of core indicators for allpathfinders (Appendix B) which would easecollection because the data would be availablefrom national data sources, simplify usebecause the associated caveats are well knownand give a basis for benchmarking againstother areas, and comparison with regional andnational rates.

• A locally developed set of indicators relating tothe strategic objectives of the individualpathfinder which might be headline indicatorselaborated to glean a more detailed picture ofthe area and its relativities or new ones.

Policy developments such as the introduction ofBest Value and PSAs, the duty of well-being andthe community strategy process wereaccompanied by new approaches to measuringthe quality of life and services. Pathfinders had toidentify the most meaningful indicators out of theprofusion on offer and test their relevance.

Measuring impact

52


Sandwell identified 22 headline indicators* across thefive components of the Sandwell Vision

People

• mortality rate of infants aged under one yearper 1,000 live births

• standardised mortality ratios 15-64 years

• perceptions of health

• improved basic literacy and numeracy at KeyStage 1 level 2B at seven years old

• pupils achieving 5+ GCSE grades A-C at 16years old

• percentage of adults with NVQ level 3.

Environment

• number of outward migrants

• total recorded crimes per 1,000 population

• air pollution P10 (particle matter less than 10microns in size)

• perceptions of street cleanliness

• number of public and private sector dwellingsjudged to be unfit.

Economy

• number of recipients of Income Support andJobseekers’ Allowance

• ratio of manufacturing to service jobs

• number of full-time jobs in the economy(claimant count/International Labour Officemeasure)

• gross value added per head in manufacturing.

Community

• voter turnout in local elections

• perceptions of Sandwell as a place to live andwork.

External relations

• number of inward migrants

• average domestic property value

• average retail property value

• average commercial property value.

Note: * Disaggregated where possible/appropriate todetermine inequalities/disparities within Sandwell,spatially and across vulnerable groups.

Much of the data is available from national sources.It is being supplemented by additional studies suchas the SF36 questionnaire on perceptions of health,a lifestyle study, a study of levels of social capitaland MORI work on changing perceptions of thequality of life.

These directional indicators are not linked withspecific targets. They cannot be combined into anindex, as this would require allocating weightings, inturn entailing decisions about their relativeimportance.

Performance measures

Many partner organisations, especially publicsector ones, have a multitude of specific PIs.Increased monitoring and reporting burdens willbe a disincentive to joint working; however, PIscan encourage and cement partnership workingwhere they reflect shared values and commongoals, are developed from a shared knowledgebase and linked to good coordination andcommunication mechanisms.

Lewisham Challenge Partnership (LCP) was a casestudy of the Measurement and Performance Project,which aimed to understand and improve the use ofperformance measures and targets in multi-agencyworking. This study reinforced the need for adatabase pulling together the links between newperformance measurement frameworks, becausepartners were trying to meet different informationrequirements on the same issue. LCP commissioneda mapping exercise in order to ensure theregeneration elements of the partner organisations’strategies were all working towards the same visionof Lewisham. In order to set targets ‘owned’ by thepartnership as distinct from those linked with theactivities of individual partners, LCP developed a seriesof task groups to examine how targets could be setat the micro level (the impact of joined-up activity)and at the macro level (realising the long-term visionfor Lewisham).

53

A partnership approach to setting indicators

Together partners hold a wealth of data, whichcan either be an invaluable pool or one in whichthey drown. Integrating the data will give arounded picture of socioeconomic change – inoverall terms and the relative positions of groupsand neighbourhoods – and provide a tool toinform policy planning and resource deployment.EIUA guidance to NCR pathfinders emphasisedthat questions of how the indicators are agreed,deciding who does what and how to derive mostbenefit from the efforts of all the partners, are asimportant as the indicators themselves.

A data audit enables partners to identify overlaps,inconsistencies and gaps. Few organisationscurrently work with coterminous boundaries sothat achieving this or a standard spatial unit ofmeasurement is an early goal. Feeding findingsback into policy making will inform policydecisions and demonstrate to the staff that it is notan empty paper chase.

To take the process forward:

• Identify key individuals in each partnerorganisation; establish a cross-agencyevaluation steering group

• Undertake staff development to foster anevaluation culture

• Review IT systems and the possibilities forelectronic networking

• Develop protocols or service level agreementsto establish a framework for allocating leadresponsibilities, achieving data consistency andarrangements for data sharing

• Review the data collection exerciseperiodically: the indicators, the use made offindings and their implications.

Liverpool Quality of Life Indicators WorkingGroup

LPG is a pilot for the Audit Commission’s Quality ofLife Indicators project. The group leading the exercisecomprises representatives from Liverpool City Council(regeneration, housing, economic development,lifelong learning, Best Value and marketing), LiverpoolHealth Authority, Merseytravel, City Safe Partnership,voluntary sector organisations, Liverpool First themegroups, Government Office for the North West andDistrict Audit. The group faces practical issues:

• which indicators each organisation willcollect;

• and for each indicator:

• frequency of collection

• last/next collection date

• means of collection

• geographical breakdown that is used/possible

• equalities breakdown that is used/possible

• difficulties in meeting exact definition

• substitute data that might be appropriate

• fit between indicator and associatedstrategy

• availability of baseline data

• what would be appropriate targets

• how far sharing data is acceptable.

Disseminating good practice

Sharing experience by pathfinders was ofteninformal and based around personal contacts andnetworking. But, as joint working increases,identifying and rolling out good practice becomesmore important. It calls for new formal as well asinformal methods of dissemination.

Key steps for partners

• Data audit• Mechanisms for collecting and monitoring data• Inclusive process for setting indicators• Compatible IT systems for storing, updating and

exchanging/sharing data• Ways of reviewing and feeding findings into the

policy process

• What data is held• How is it compiled?• The definitions used• How is it stored?• Availability, timescales and spatial levels• Frequency of updating

Measuring impact

54


Greater Nottingham Observatory

Greater Nottingham Partnership (GNP) soon foundthat many public sector agencies collect and analysesimilar data to inform their policy decisions. Itestimated 70% duplication of effort acrossorganisations such as the TEC, local authorities, FEcolleges, health agencies and the EmploymentService. Improved labour market analysis was apriority. Agencies agreed that combining resourcesand research capacity would benefit them all.

The Observatory was formed as a loose alliance ofpartners under the GNP, based in Nottingham TrentUniversity. It works to GNP’s agenda and bids foradditional research activity. It has produced:

• reports: including a labour market analysis, areport on poverty in Nottingham and ananalysis of local deprivation in the 12 SRBwards in the city;

• a set of key indicators to enable thecomparison of Greater Nottingham with otherareas and measure year-on-year performancewith particular emphasis on poverty anddeprivation;

• a 1998 baseline for the conurbation, that willhelp guide the GNP’s future activity.

State of Suffolk Profile 2000

The Profile’s purpose was to support the Pathfindervision to “develop and maintain stable and thrivingcommunities in Suffolk”. Drawing together diffuseinformation, baseline data, data sources and contactnames, addresses and websites, it provided infor-mation to inform strategic planning and funding bids.Its content follows the neighbourhood informationchecklist in the SEU PAT18 report (SEU, 2000b). Anappendix identifies information gaps where:

• the data is not collected, is not collected inthe way stipulated or is incomplete; or

• a source could not be located; or

• the data is not in the public domain,sometimes for reasons of confidentiality.

Work is proceeding to develop an interactive websiteon which information can be updated more regularlyand geographic analysis would be possible. The profileflagged up the concept of a ‘Suffolk Observatory’,although Suffolk may integrate its activities withthose of a regional observatory capable of more fine-grained, small-area analysis.

Partnership accountability

Pathfinders – and in future LSPs – have noestablished accountability mechanisms beyondthose of their partner organisations. Enhancingdemocratic participation is one of their aims. Akey issue, therefore, is how far their chosenmeasures can help to fill the democratic deficit.Providing information on which stakeholders canassess their performance is the first step tobecoming accountable; the next is to developways in which stakeholders can hold them toaccount.

Key points

Strategic partnerships need to:

• measure their processes and impact toascertain their added value and guide futurepolicies;

• adopt a partnership approach to settingindicators, collecting and collating data,sharing good practice and feeding back intothe decision making of the partnership andits member organisations;

• develop means for stakeholders to use thisdata to hold them to account.

55

Part III: Lessons for local strategic partnerships

56


Becoming an LSP

What is an LSP?

Government guidance (DETR, 2001b) states thatan LSP is a single body that:

• brings together, at local level, the differentparts of the public sector as well as theprivate, business, community and voluntarysectors so that different initiatives and servicessupport each other and work together;

• is a non-statutory, non-executive organisation;• operates at a level which enables strategic

decisions to be taken and is close enough toindividual neighbourhoods to allow actions tobe determined at community level;

• should be aligned with local authorityboundaries.

LSPs’ core tasks will be to:

• prepare and implement a community strategyfor their area;

• bring together local plans, partnerships andinitiatives to provide a forum through whichmainstream public service providers workeffectively together to meet local needs andpriorities;

• help devise and meet suitable targets for localauthorities which are developing a local publicservice agreement;

• develop and deliver a local neighbourhoodrenewal strategy.

Implications of LSP role and functions

“It’s what we have to do in any case withthe introduction of LSPs and communityplanning. NCR means we are a stepahead.” (NCR manager respondent)

NCR pathfinders have been aware of additionalchallenges in moving towards becoming LSPs.The following examples show that the issuestouch on all of McKinsey’s seven ‘S’s: sharedvalues, style of partnership, its strategy, structureand systems and the staff and skills required.They need to build on the foundations laid,systematise existing arrangements andprocedures, establish a clear managementframework and develop accountabilitymechanisms.

Plymouth recognised specific implications inpreparing to become an LSP:

• fine-tuning their partnership membership,notably to incorporate the police and theLearning and Skills Council;

• further developing community involvement,building on existing practice:

• the preparation of a community develop-ment strategy by a local consortium ofpeople engaged in community activityplus the local HE college;

• capacity building;

• Plymouth Community Partnershipreviewing how to move to a more strategicrole.

Towards local strategicpartnerships

11

“The agenda for NCR has moved on with the neighbourhood renewal agenda and the concept of local strategicpartnerships. The pathfinder is well placed to grasp the initiative through their work on NCR.” (Governmentoffice respondent)

57

Haringey set up a development group to addressissues of moving to a fully-fledged LSP:

• principles, protocols, constitution, terms ofreference, chairing and leadership;

• membership including the representation of,and consultation with, key sectors, and howbest to reflect the diversity of the borough;

• how the current arrangements andinvolvement will be integrated;

• meeting style and frequency;

• the engagement of partners;

• capacity building for partnership working;

• development of thematic groups.

There is strong political support and leadership for aWest Cumbria LSP contiguous with the districts ofAllerdale and Copeland. The working group delegatedto examine possible structures is working to thefollowing principles:

• Numerical balance should be in favour ofcommunity representatives, including electedmembers and representatives of non-geographic communities such as the businesscommunity

• The LSP should build on and make contactwith the range of existing partnerships in thearea

• A single core group alone would be untenablefor engaging all stakeholders: sub/thematicgroups could draw from a wider range ofstakeholders.

The ‘golden rules’ of collaborative working applyand can provide a framework or checklist for self-reflection by partnerships. The eight ‘I’s can beused to emphasise the significance of roles andrelationships, and the extent to which there is a fitbetween the partnership’s strategy and desiredways of working and those of the memberorganisations.

Eight ‘I’s that create successful ‘we’s1. Individual excellence: partners are strong and

have something to contribute

2. Importance: partners enter into therelationship to fulfil long-term strategic goals

3. Interdependence: partners need one anotherto accomplish what they cannot accomplishalone

4. Investment: partners are prepared to investresources, including finance, to demonstratecommitment to the relationship

5. Information: communication is open andinformation is shared

6. Integration: linkages are developed atdifferent levels within the organisation

7. Institutionalisation: the relationship has aformal status, including role responsibilitiesand clear decision-making processes

8. Integrity: mutual trust is generated as partnersbehave towards each other with integrity.

Source: Kanter (1994)

The pathfinders’ experience showed thatindependence and identity are also important ‘I’s.Resources, staff and location are all significantfactors in ‘branding’ the partnership and ensuringits capacity to fulfil its strategic role.

Geographic coverage

LSPs will need to align with local authorityboundaries, but the guidance states there shouldnot necessarily be a separate one for each localauthority area:

Partnerships need to operate at a levelwhich allows strategic choices anddecisions to be made, while at the sametime providing close enough linkages toindividual neighbourhoods to allowactions to be determined at communitylevel. (DETR, 2001b, pp 14-15)

Towards local strategic partnerships

58


Greater Nottingham Partnership (GNP) will developinto a strategic sub-regional partnership linking withthe five emerging LSPs (Nottingham City, Ashfield,Broxtowe, Rushcliffe and Gedling). Although the NCRbadge will no longer be used, all these LSPs haveadopted the guiding vision and objectives in the GNPplan, ‘Spotlight on regeneration’. GNP will alsofacilitate and provide LSP services to the areas thatask for them: probably for Nottingham City Council,but with district authorities establishing their ownnew LSP structures. GNP will therefore combine thetwo roles of an overarching sub-regional partnershipand an LSP, and will need to modify its organisation,structure and operation accordingly.

Dominant role

All areas should have an LSP, not just themost deprived areas. LSPs will provide ameans of tackling an area’s problems,whether they are problems of failure, suchas deprivation, or problems of success,such as rapid economic growth. (DETR,2001b, p 10)

NCR has shown that the size and character of thearea and its relationship to economicdevelopment opportunities, housing and labourmarkets, as well as institutional geography, affectwhat it is possible and desirable to do. Thisrecalls the debate behind the 1990s’ LocalGovernment Review:

What is clear is that the most appropriatestructural solution will depend on theview taken about local government’sdominant role and purpose. Serviceeffectiveness, community identity,democratic viability and governmentalcapacity are all, in principle, importantconsiderations in a territorial restructuring.(Leach, 1996, p 164)

There are different advantages and disadvantagesassociated with strategic partnerships at differentspatial levels, just as there are with different localgovernment structural patterns. In relation toLSPs, it is possible to envisage possible emphasesderiving from different aspects of centralgovernment policy:

• Best Value: attention to service provision andstandards

• New Commitment to Neighbourhood Renewal:managing deprived neighbourhoods

• Community leadership: an overall strategicframework for governance.

Whatever the area coverage of the partnership,there are choices to be made about how best tocombine these different roles and pitfalls to avoida ‘tick box’ approach to the Best Value regimewhich would diminish the potential value of thecommunity strategy. Putting LSPs in the contextof the New Commitment to NeighbourhoodRenewal strategy (SEU, 2001) could lead to anundue focus on deprived neighbourhoods, to theneglect of other areas and wider levers of socialand economic change.

But, handling the tensions between competingroles would also present different challenges atdifferent spatial levels. For example, whereas forsome purposes there would be advantages inhaving a sub-regional LSP, covering multiple localauthorities may make it more difficult to engagewith mainstream local authority services.Conversely, an LSP in a single local authority areathat is ‘under-bounded’ may have restricted scopefor tackling issues such as economicdevelopment.

Engagement

“Non-local authority partners are notencouraged enough to participate throughtheir own government departments.”(HAZ respondent)

Government plans for LSPs convey mixedmessages. On the one hand, the LSP model ispresented as universally applicable with similarinherent benefits to those of NCR. On the other,some areas will receive supportive fundingwhereas others will not. For the areas qualifyingfor the NRF because of their level of deprivation,NRF funding will be an inducement as well as auseful resource. Similarly, although all LSPs willrequire community and voluntary sectorparticipation, the Community Empowerment Fundwill only support it in the 88 NRF areas.

NCR showed that a number of issues affect howeasy it is to engage partners. In the past, themain inducement to partnership was access to

59

new resources. NCR brought no direct addedresource. Partners had to be convinced of thewider benefits of partnership. Although mostgave enthusiastic support to the principles ofintegration and partnership, immediate benefitsfor their own organisation were not necessarilyevident. Initially at least, the additional demandsof partnership were more apparent than itssavings and synergy.

This increases the need for central government toestablish a more encouraging context. So far,much of the focus of government guidance hasbeen on the role of local government. Otherpartners are seeking similar impetus and clearerstatements of what is expected of them. For allparties, this needs to be followed through intotailoring performance management systems, sothat they reward collaborative and outcome-drivenworking, and into funding decisions that arelinked to partnership working and joint strategies.

Rationalising strategies andpartnerships

NCR pathfinders found various ways of linkingwith other partnerships, if not reducing theirnumber, through cross-representation anddelegated responsibility for sections within theoverall strategy. So far this has happened throughthe common sense and goodwill of local players.The LSP guidance recognises that centralgovernment should facilitate the reduction of thenumber of separate partnerships locally bybeginning to rationalise the existing arrangementsfor developing partnerships. The DTLR isworking with a range of departments to ensurethat they variously:

• encourage clear and close links with LSPs;• issue good practice guidance about strategic

approaches;• steer existing partnerships towards nesting

within the LSP framework;• ensure that planning processes in specific

policy areas sit within the wider planningmechanisms of the LSP.

All these suggest better linkages rather than fewerbodies. Much will still rest, therefore, on thequality of local leadership, cooperation andcommunication, and on partnership structures andsystems.

Accountability

Delivering an LSP’s common goals willdepend on its ability to demonstrate toindividual partners that it can help themto achieve their individual goals. (DETR,2001b, p 16)

The increasing prominence of partnerships hasbeen perceived as running the risk ofmarginalising elected members and non-executiveboard members of organisations such as healthauthorities. LSPs will not be directly politicallyaccountable. The guidance states that theiraccountability arrangements should build onpartner organisations’ existing lines ofaccountability to central government, andaccountability to their own users and the widercommunity. However, the changes to serviceslikely to occur through LSPs will entail thedevelopment of new accountability mechanisms,as yet unformulated. It will be important, forexample, to establish where the partnership’sactivities sit in relation to the scrutiny role ofelected members. If they are to make adifference, balancing the accountability ofindividual partners and that of the partnership willbecome an increasingly prominent issue.

“We have not yet fully worked out thegovernance implications of NCR andwhere it sits alongside electoraldemocracy and the accountabilitymechanisms of partner agencies.”(Voluntary/community sector respondent)

NCR pathfinders were aware of having to accountfor the partnership’s activity as a whole as well asthe separate elements of it. Chapter 10 looked athow they have approached tracking changes insocioeconomic conditions and benchmarkingpartnership to identify their added value. Itpointed out the importance of, not only giving anaccount to stakeholders in the form of informationand measurable targets, but also establishing themeans by which stakeholders can hold thepartnership to account.

Towards local strategic partnerships

60


Important principles and potentialbenefits

Partnership is becoming the preferred means oflocal governance. This study has begun todevelop the McKinsey framework as it applies tostrategic partnerships. The experience of the NCRpathfinders endorsed the principles of strategicpartnership, while also showing the massivechallenges it presents to traditional ways ofthinking and working among local, regional andnational players.

For pathfinders, NCR has:

• raised the profile of regeneration activities;

• given partnership a clearer focus

• fostered a more integrated approach;

• provided a catalyst for joint strategies;

• given an impetus to take joint workingfurther;

• enabled earlier and more informed responsesto policy consultations and developments;

• given a strategic framework to guide thedecision making of individual organisations;

• encouraged greater consistency with sub-regional and regional strategies;

• forced partners to focus on delivery ofoutcomes;

• enhanced the prospects of levering in morecompetitive funding;

• pushed partners to look more closely at whatthey can achieve with their mainstreambudgets.

A bigger strategic challenge

NCR challenged the scope of strategic thinking: itopened the way to a more expansive definition ofregeneration. It showed that a ‘joined-up’approach should not be seen solely as a responseto social exclusion and that the dynamics ofdeprivation are inextricable from other social andeconomic factors. Rather, regeneration must bethe quest for sustainability in the widest sense ofa better quality of life for everyone now and inthe future.

Strategic partnership processes

Much of this report has been about the structuresand processes of strategic partnership seen in thecontext of change management and taking intoaccount their need to combine an action-orientedapproach with appropriate reflective and iterativeprocesses. It has pointed to key questions thatneed to be asked at different stages of thepartnership’s strategic development.

Conclusions

12

“Its strengths are that where it works, it brings the major local stakeholders together to pursue common goals; ithas moved GORs away from their traditional funder/regulator role; it has few predetermined parameters.” (GORrespondent)

61

The report has illustrated the factors that drive orinhibit change.

Key questions for strategic partnerships

Stage 1 Clarifying the purpose of the partnership

• Why have it?• What added value can it bring?

Stage 2 Examining the internal and external operational environment

• What are the local needs and opportunities?• What are the relevant policy developments and trends?• What is the partnership able to deliver collectively and via its members?

Stage 3 Agreeing a vision and making strategic choices

• What should the vision be?• Whose vision should it be?• What are the main routes for developing a vision?• How will we know we are going in the right direction?

Stage 4 Translating the strategy into an action plan

• What activities will take place under each strategic objective?• Who will be responsible for planning?• Who will be responsible for delivery?• What targets and milestones should be met?• Who will monitor and evaluate?• What steps are individual organisations taking to build their capacity for partnership and joint working?

Stage 5 Squaring the circle

• What will the accountability mechanisms be?• How will the partnership review its activities to inform its future policy?• How will it review its partnership structures and mechanisms to ensure they remain appropriate?• How will good practice lessons be disseminated?

Drivers of change Restraints on change

• Leadership • Lack of or wrong type of leadership• Strategy • Lack of skills• Wide ownership • Departmentalism• Openness to new ways of working • Failure to carry the whole organisation• Identification of organisational implications • Failure to engage stakeholders• Commitment to systemic change• Stakeholder involvement

Conclusions

62


A development framework

This report has provided a framework for partnersseeking to put together a strategic partnership andhas discussed the key elements of such aframework:

• Strong leadership• Trust among partners• An independent staff team• A common understanding/knowledge base

• Capacity to focus on overarching priorities• Coordinated planning processes• Integrated action plans across partners• Integrated community consultation,

development and participation strategies• Increased synergy in accessing and deploying

resources• Mechanisms for review and evaluation• Scope for innovation• Parallel processes to build capacity within

member organisations.

visiontheories of change and what workstop down/bottom upbalanced goalshorizontal integrationvertical integrationmeasureable targets

strategy

structure

strong leadershipaction-orientedbroad-basedwell-linkedclear rolesaccountability

shared valuesinclusivenesstrustrespect for differencehonest debatecommitment to adapt to partnership working

systemsprotocols, SLAsstaff developmentdata sharingconsultation and participation strategiesperformance indicators/ evaluation

style

open and inclusivelistening cultureparticipative culturelearning organisation

skills

leadershippolicy developmentnetworkingcommunity developmentmonitoring/evaluation

staff

partnership teamjointly resourcedclear rolesappropriate skillscontinuity

63

A matching challenge for Whitehall

Areas and their circumstances are very diverse.Local players are looking for more explicitacknowledgement of the context in which theyare working. They must be able to govern: tohave the freedom to plan, agree priorities anddeploy resources in response to local needs andopportunities. This entails a different relationshipwith central government, recognising what canbest be done at different levels of government,and renegotiating the limits on the local discretionand flexibility imposed by national programmesand funding frameworks. Necessary action atnational or regional level includes steps to:

• recognise the role of macro-economic policies,regional policy and the quality and scope ofpublic services in creating conditions that willmaximise local players’ chances of success;

• clarify expectations of local government andLSPs and ensure that central government’scorporate approach is consistent with theseexpectations;

• ensure capacity at regional level, especially inGORs, to support and monitor LSPs anddevelop appropriate support, monitoring andaccreditation mechanisms.

Conclusions

64


Blair, T. (1998) Leading the way: A new vision forlocal government, London: Institute for PublicPolicy Research.

Brennan, A., Rhodes, J. and Tyler, P. (1998)Evaluation of the Single Regeneration ChallengeFund Budget: A partnership for regeneration:an interim evaluation, London: The StationeryOffice.

Buchanan, D. and McCalman, J. (1989) Highperformance work systems: The digitalexperience, London: Routledge.

Cabinet Office Performance and Innovation Unit(1999) Rural economies, London: TheStationery Office.

Carley, M., Chapman, M., Hastings, A., Kirk, K.and Young R. (2000) Urban regenerationthrough partnership: A study in nine urbanregions in England, Scotland and Wales,Bristol: The Policy Press.

DETR (Department of the Environment, Transportand the Regions) (1997) Partners inregeneration: The Challenge Fund, London:DETR.

DETR (1998) SRB Bidding Guidance, September.

DETR (1999) Cross cutting issues affecting localgovernment, Research Working Paper,University of the West of England, Bristol, andthe Office for Public Management, London:DETR.

DETR (2000a) Our towns and cities: Delivering anurban renaissance, London: The StationeryOffice.

DETR (2000b) Our countryside: The future: A fairdeal for rural England, London: The StationeryOffice.

DETR (2000c) Co-ordination in area-basedinitiatives, Research Working Paper, Universityof the West of England, Bristol, the Office forPublic Management and the University ofNewcastle, London: DETR.

DETR (2000d) Measuring multiple deprivation atthe small area level: The Indices of Deprivation2000, London: DETR.

DETR (2000e) Preparing community strategies:Government guidance to local authorities,London: DETR.

DETR (2001a) Power to promote or improveeconomic, social or environmental well-being:Guidance to local authorities, London: DETR.

DETR (2001b) Local strategic partnerships:Government guidance, London: DETR.

DETR and Regional Coordination Unit (2000)Collaboration and co-ordination in area-basedinitiatives, Research Working Paper, Universityof the West of England, Bristol, the Office forPublic Management and the University ofNewcastle, London: DETR.

Edwards, B., Goodwin, M., Pemberton, S. andWoods, M. (2000) Partnership working in ruralregeneration: Governance and empowerment?Bristol: The Policy Press.

Gilchrist, A. (2000) ‘The well-connectedcommunity: networking to the “edge of chaos”’,Community Development Journal, vol 35, no 3,pp 264-75.

HM Treasury (2000) Cross-departmental review ofrural and countryside programmes, SpendingReview 2000, New Public Spending Plans 2001-2004, Cm 4807, London: HM Treasury.

Hutchins, M. and Russell, H. (2000) Socio-economic baseline guidance note 2, Liverpool:EIUA, Liverpool John Moores University.

References

65

JRF (Joseph Rowntree Foundation) (1999)Developing effective community involvementstrategies: Guidance for Single RegenerationBudget bids, Foundations No 169, York: JRF.

Kanter, R.M. (1994) ‘Collaborative advantage: theart of alliances’, Harvard Business Review, July-August, pp 96-108, quoted in A. Rose and A.Lawton (eds) (1999) Public servicesmanagement, Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd.

Leach, S. (1996) ‘Conclusion: scenarios forchange’, in S. Leach and H. Davis, Enabling ordisabling local government: Choices for thefuture, Buckingham: Open University Press.

LGA (Local Government Association) (1999)‘Futures work: the local challenge’, discussionpaper launched September 1999.

McLean, A. (2000) Rural regeneration: Progress inthe rural New Commitment to Regenerationpathfinders, LGA Research Report No 10,London: LGA.

Mintzberg, H. (1994) The rise and fall of strategicplanning, New York, NY: The Free Press.

Newman, J., Raine, J. and Skelcher, C. (1999)Innovation and best practice in localgovernment, Birmingham/London: INLOGOV,University of Birmingham/DETR.

Parkinson, M. (1998) Combating social exclusion:Lessons from area-based programmes inEurope, Bristol: The Policy Press.

Paton, R.A. and McCalman, J. (2000) Changemanagement: A guide to effectiveimplementation, London: Sage Publications.

Peters, T. and Waterman Jr, R.H. (1982) In searchof excellence, New York, NY: Harper and Row.

PIU (Performance and Innovation Unit, CabinetOffice) (2000a) Wiring it up: Whitehall’smanagement of cross-cutting policies andservice, London: The Stationery Office.

PIU (2000b) Reaching out: The role of centralgovernment at regional and local level, London:The Stationery Office.

Robson, B., Parkinson, M., Bradford, M., Deas, I.,Hall, E., Harrison, E., Evans, R., Garside, P.,Harding, A. and Robinson, F. (1994) Assessingthe impact of urban policy, Department of theEnvironment Inner Cities Research Programme,London: HMSO.

Robson, B., Parkinson, M., Boddy, M. andMaclennan, D. (2000) The state of English cities,London: DETR.

Russell, H. (2000) New Commitment toRegeneration: Progress and policy lessons,Interim report of the national evaluation, LGAResearch Report No 15, London: LGA.

Russell, H., Dawson, J., Garside, P. and Parkinson,M. (1996) City Challenge: Interim nationalevaluation, London: The Stationery Office.

SEU (Social Exclusion Unit) (1998) BringingBritain together: A national strategy forneighbourhood renewal, London: Home Office.

SEU (1999a) Community self-help, Policy ActionTeam 9, London: Home Office ActiveCommunity Unit.

SEU (1999b) Enterprise and social exclusion,PAT3, London: HM Treasury.

SEU (2000a) National strategy for neighbourhoodrenewal: A framework for consultation, London:Cabinet Office.

SEU (2000b) Better information, National Strategyfor Neighbourhood Renewal Report of PolicyAction Team 18, London: The Stationery Office.

SEU (2001) A new commitment to neighbourhoodrenewal – National strategy action plan,London: Cabinet Office.

Skinner, S. (1997) Building community strengths:A resource book on capacity building, London:Community Development Foundation.

Urban Task Force (1999) Towards an urbanrenaissance, The Rogers Report, London: E &FN Spon.

Wilkinson, D. and Appelbee, E. (1999)Implementing holistic government: Joined-upaction on the ground Bristol: The Policy Press.

Wilks-Heeg, S. (2000) Mainstreamingregeneration: A review of policy over the lastthirty years, LGA Research Report No 2,London: LGA.

Williams, G. (1998) ‘City Vision and strategicregeneration: the role of City Pride’, in N.Oatley (ed) Cities, economic competition andurban policy, London: Paul Chapman.

Willmott, P. and Hutchison, R. (eds) (1992) Urbantrends I: A report on Britain’s deprived urbanareas, London: Policy Studies Institute.

Yorkshire Forward and Yorkshire and HumberRDA (Regional Development Agency) (2000)Active partners: Benchmarking communityparticipation in regeneration, Leeds: YorkshireForward/Yorkshire and Humber RDA.

References

66


Croydon

The Croydon Partnership grew out of the EconomicDevelopment Forum, founded in 1993. It sees itselfhaving a strategic role in guiding the developmentand long-term prosperity of the borough. Its 24members are drawn from public, private andvoluntary sectors, with a particularly high level ofprivate sector involvement. It also includesrepresentatives of other borough partnershipsincluding Local Agenda 21, Healthy CroydonPartnership, the Crime and Disorder ReductionPartnership, an EAZ and several SRB partnerships. TheCroydon vision was developed through workshopsand surveys and identifies goals for 2020. Thestrategy has four broad themes:

• growth and development

• learning and skills

• communities and governance

• a sustainable and attractive environment.

There are five-year objectives, which are kept underreview. Annual action plans show how they will beoperationalised.

East Lancashire

East Lancashire Partnership operates at a sub-regionallevel covering the five district council areas ofBurnley, Hyndburn, Pendle, Ribble Valley andRossendale, the unitary authority of Blackburn withDarwen and part of Lancashire County Council. Theircombined population is half a million. The Partnershipwas formed in order to pursue joint economicdevelopment. Formally launched in January 2000, itincludes a range of public, private and voluntarysector organisations in addition to the localauthorities. It has a dedicated executive teamincluding a strategy and development manager, aninformation manager and a transport consultant. Thestrategy promotes a 20-year vision. It focuses onthemes common across the area and especiallyreflects its urban/rural mix in the concept of cityliving: a multi-centred city in a rural setting, whichaims for the resources of a city without its congestionor urban sprawl. The three strategic themes are:

• living space

• income, prosperity and aspirations

• people, communities and future citizens.

Appendix A: Profiles of thecase study pathfinders

A

67

Greater Nottingham

The NCR cross-sector, multi-agency partnership isbased on one established in 1994. It covers theGreater Nottingham conurbation including all theareas covered by the surrounding borough councils.The need to treat the conurbation as a singleeconomic entity was a driving factor behind theNottingham Pathfinder approach. GNP’s vision is for“a well balanced, inclusive, integrated area...”.Constructed around delivering remedies to identifiedproblems, the strategy had seven strategic objectives:

• To increase educational opportunities, raiseattainment and skill levels

• To create new job opportunities

• To prevent population drift from the citycentre to the suburbs

• To improve health and remove healthinequalities

• To reduce crime and fear of crime and improvecommunity safety

• To improve the capacity and involvement ofthe community and voluntary sectors

• To improve quality of life and protect theenvironment for current and futuregenerations.

The strategy was to provide the framework andcontext for assessing any new bids for governmentinitiatives.

Herefordshire

The Herefordshire Partnership aimed to build on astrong tradition of partnership working in the county.About 100 organisations contributed to theHerefordshire Plan. The board comprises seniorrepresentatives from the Chamber of Commerce, thevoluntary sector, health authority, police, countycouncil and RDA. The Partnership will run until 2011and aims to take forward a vision for:

• fair and thriving communities

• protecting the environment

• a strong, competitive and innovative economy.

Ten ambitions formed the framework for the actionplan, each with targets linked to key indicators. Moregenerally, the partnership seeks to change thegovernance culture and gradually align partners’priorities and budgets. A protocol defines and setsout the expectations associated with involvement inthe partnership: partners are committed to theconcept of ‘One partnership, one plan’ – anoverarching framework to serve as the communityplan, Local Agenda 21 plan, the regeneration strategyand the local performance plan.

Kirklees

Kirklees Partnership was established in 1998 as across-sector group of about 30 organisations, chairedby the leader of the council. The vision and strategylaunched in 1999 after a year of discussion withpartners and direct consultation with everyhousehold, which elicited 2,000 replies. It covers theperiod up to 2005 and is structured around sixthemes:

• a community and future that engageseveryone

• good jobs in a strong economy

• individuals who are encouraged andsupported in personal development

• a community that is healthy and safe

• a good environment and a sustainable way oflife

• communities with strong identities and goodquality of life.

All of these are worked through in terms of the localcontext, the actions that flow from them, theirinterconnections and the lead agencies for takingactions forward.

Appendix A

68


Lewisham

Lewisham Challenge Partnership (LCP) was set up asa limited company in 1997, as a successor body toDeptford City Challenge. It was established tocoordinate the vision and strategy and buildpartnerships with a range of agencies. The visionstatement was developed around the ‘local futures’group model of sustainable development. It looks to2020 and the promotion of a ‘cosmopolitan borough’.The linked themes of the regeneration strategy are:

• education–business partnerships

• training and skills development

• coordination of housing, repair, maintenanceand rehabilitation programmes

• improving the future for children and youngpeople

• community safety

• millennium arts programme.

The action plan identifies targets, indicators andresponsible organisations so that implementation andprogress can be monitored. LCP also stresses goodcommunication between partners, stakeholders andthe community.

Liverpool

The Liverpool Partnership Group (LPG) was establishedin the early 1990s comprising senior representativesfrom public, private, voluntary and community sectororganisations. The Liverpool First prospectus,published in November 1999 after considerableconsultation with partners and more widely,contained 45 ‘offers’ or commitments to Liverpoolcitizens under themes including:

• competitiveness, jobs and the learning age

• equality, social justice and local democracy

• city living and environmental sustainability.

An appendix in the prospectus detailed the initiatives,targets and milestones. From obtaining Pathfinderstatus, LPG put considerable resources into an executiveteam to develop the approach. After drawing up thestrategy, a review of the LPG membership and operatingarrangements resulted in revised membership. Thisaimed to strengthen links with strategic issuepartnerships that could be coordinating bodies onbehalf of LPG to ensure delivery of key elements ofthe strategy. A new team was formed whose role isprimarily to facilitate the implementation of theprospectus through partner organisations.

Middlesbrough

Middlesbrough Direct is an informal cross-sectoralpartnership formed specifically for NCR. Its proposedremit included:

• establishing a shared vision for regeneratingMiddlesbrough

• developing a regeneration framework,encompassing existing strategies and actionplans with performance indicators andmilestones, and which would also be aframework for future bidding

• developing multi-agency task groups todevelop, take forward and monitor actionplans

• bringing together local partnerships

• acting as an advocate for Middlesbrough andTeesside.

Middlesbrough Council provided secretariat support.The programme themes were:

• dynamic, competitive, vibrant economy

• raising educational standards, aspirations andemployability skills

• safer communities

• information and communication

• regenerating communities/healthycommunities

• environmental sustainability.

69

Southampton

Southampton Community Regeneration Alliance(SCRA) was formed in early 2000 as an overarchinggroup which could have an overview of regenerationacross the city, ensure inter-agency coordination andwould be a stepping stone to developing an LSP. Itinvolves public, private and voluntary sectororganisations and also tries to bring together a rangeof existing partnerships and alliances, such as theLearning Alliance, the Strategic Health Partnership,Community Action Forum, Business Advisory Paneland the Passenger Transport Alliance. SCRA workswithin the framework of the City Strategy, whichcombines a thematic and area-based approach. Itaims to enhance the quality of life for everybody,but also to ensure that the poorest communities getextra attention so that, by 2008, the relatively affluentcity of Southampton will cease to have any wards inthe poorest 10% wards in the country. The five-yearcommunity regeneration plan will be the vehicle forbenefiting priority areas experiencing multipledeprivation. It will aim to link communityregeneration with other key strategies such as SafeCity, the HImP and Lifelong Learning.

Suffolk

The county of Suffolk has two-tier local government– the county council and seven district councils. Asan NCR Pathfinder, Suffolk aims to link an overallstrategy to existing county- and district-level ones.Therefore, in addition to its cross-sector Pathfindergroup, other organisations are involved through thesestrategic links. The vision and 10-year strategy seekcommunities that are:

• competitive and employed

• healthy and caring

• safer

• learning

• environmentally sustainable.

Targets have been set for each of these componentsbased on partners’ plans and improved partnershipworking. The strategy is being operationalisedthrough geographically-based and thematic ‘zones’,the former tending to focus on urban areas, whilethe needs of rural areas are more strongly addressedthrough thematic work, for example on employmentand health.

Appendix A

70


Demography Total population – population change during NCRSource: Mid-year population estimates, ONS

Education % Year 11 pupils achieving 5+ GCSEs at A*–CSource: DfEE school performance tables% working-age population qualified to NVQ level 4+Source: Labour Force Survey

Unemployment Unemployment rateSource: ONS

Poverty % households in receipt of Income SupportSource: DSS

Employment Total number of people employedSource: Annual Employment Survey, ONSMean full-time earningsSource: New Earnings Survey, ONS

Health Standard mortality ratio for 0-65 year oldsSource: Vital Statistics ONS

Crime and Safety Total recorded crimes (specific categories) per 1,000 populationSource: Home Office recorded crime statistics for basic command units

Housing % house sales less than £20,000Source: Land Registry

Environment Derelict land (hectares) and buildingsSource: National land-use database

Appendix B: Headlineindicators

B

local strategic partnerships: lessons from new commitment

Documents