« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
"UNDER THE SKIN" OF COMMUNITY PLANNING
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BACKGROUND ( Chapter One)
1. This research was commissioned by the Community Planning Task Force to help it gain a better understanding of the development of Community Planning at a local level. The overall aim of the research was to get "under the skin" of Community Planning by examining a number of key issues: -
- Understanding of, and commitment to, Community Planning
- Community Planning partnership structures, roles and responsibilities
- Different approaches to developing Community Planning
- Achievements and benefits delivered by Community Planning
- Aspirations for the future development of Community Planning
- Challenges and barriers to the development of Community Planning
- Expectations of the Scottish Executive in relation to the development of Community Planning
- Expectations of the Community Planning Task Force
In addition to these general themes the research also examined the relationship between health improvement planning, as an example of a key cross-cutting policy initiative, and Community Planning.
METHODOLOGY ( Chapter One)
2. The research was based on nine case studies in the Community Planning Partnerships in Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Highland, East Ayrshire, Argyll and Bute, Renfrewshire and Stirling. The research also draws on evidence gathered during a pilot exercise that was conducted in North Lanarkshire.
UNDERSTANDING OF COMMUNITY PLANNING ( Chapter Two)
3. There was strong support for the principles underlying the concept of Community Planning in all nine case study areas. Community Planning is perceived as being a key aspect of the process of modernising government at a local level and in particular to promote better working relationships across organisational boundaries.
4. There is some evidence that Community Planning can mean different things to different people, and that this causes some tensions within some partnerships. However, in other partnerships there appears to be a strong consensus amongst participants suggesting a shared understanding of the approach to Community Planning being taken in their area.
5. The key issue facing most partnerships is how to translate these principles into practical action. Many stakeholders believe that Community Planning offers the potential to provide an overarching framework within which other collaborative working can be developed; but most accept that it has not yet realised this potential.
COMMITMENT TO COMMUNITY PLANNING ( Chapter Two)
6. While individual partnerships are at different stages of development, the vast majority of stakeholders expressed a desire to make Community Planning work and to ensure that it is developed in a way that is responsive to local needs and circumstances.
7. The level of engagement in the process is broader in some areas than in others. In some ways this reflects different stages of development, but it also suggests that some partnerships are adopting a more inclusive approach to involving people e.g. through participation in various working groups.
8. Partners' commitment to the process is strongly influenced by the commitment of individuals in leadership positions. However, there was also some evidence that some key stakeholders remained to be convinced that Community Planning was part of their "core business" and not just "another flavour of the month initiative".
9. There is a danger that commitment can become confused with capacity. There was some evidence that in some areas that some participants were equating the fact that other partners did not have the capacity to contribute to the process, to the extent required or expected by other partners, with a lack of commitment.
PARTNERSHIP STRUCTURES, ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ( Chapter Three)
10. There is no single model of a Community Planning partnership and the structures adopted or being developed are different in each of the case study areas. There is also evidence that structures are evolving as Community Planning develops as a concept and that different structures may be needed at different stages of the process.
11. Key learning issues suggested by the research about partnership structures included: -
- Partnership structures need time and space to develop and a strong emphasis should be placed on developing relationships and building trust amongst the members of various groups. On the other hand, groups need to have clearly defined tasks otherwise there is a danger that they could become "talking shops" and some people could become disillusioned with the process.
- While flexibility is important there also needs to be clearly defined and accepted operational rules. In particular, as structures develop there will be a need for clear lines of accountability and delegation to ensure that the structures are working effectively.
- Care needs to be taken to ensure that there is effective vertical integration between different levels in the partnership as well as horizontal integration between various thematic groups.
12. While it is generally accepted that there is a need for further experimentation to ensure that structures are "fit for purpose" there was also a strong desire for some stability to allow structures to mature and develop. Some stakeholders expressed a fear that the legislative framework could lead to pressures to adopt a more uniform approach that would not necessarily reflect local needs and priorities.
DEVELOPING COMMUNITY PLANNING ( Chapter Four)
13. Many partnerships are grappling to find the best way to integrate existing planning systems and other partnership working into the overarching Community Planning framework. Some of the tensions and confusions surrounding the relationship between health improvement planning and the Community Planning process illustrate the issues being faced by many partnerships.
14. There are clearly opportunities for rationalisation of existing partnership activity. However, it is perhaps inevitable that this will take place on an incremental basis as opportunities arise and the Community Planning process develops and matures. There is also evidence of a degree of conservatism or inertia which means that people are cautious about changing structures that they may be comfortable with, particularly when the Community Planning structures are relatively new and untested.
15. As Community Planning partnerships move from the initial visioning and strategy setting stages of the process most have delegated responsibility for implementation to thematic groups. Delegating implementation and action planning to thematic groups is an effective way of managing the Community Planning process, however, care needs to be taken to ensure that there is both effective vertical integration, between the thematic groups and the overall Community Planning partnership, as well as horizontal integration, between the various theme groups.
16. The relationship between health improvement planning and the Community Planning process illustrates many of the difficulties involved in seeking to achieve effective integration. Health improvement planning is a complex issue, involving a wide range of different stakeholders. On one level, all partners have a contribution to make to the Community Planning process, however, there is a danger that if "something is seen as everybody's responsibility it can become nobody's responsibility". However, on the other hand, if the issue is seen as being the responsibility of only a few stakeholders there is a danger that important aspects of the process will be overlooked. Achieving the appropriate balance between these two extremes is a complex and dynamic process that requires to be "worked at".
17. Almost all partnerships have community representation either on the main partnership group or in thematic groups. However, they also recognise that this type of representation is not an adequate substitute for wider involvement of the community in the Community Planning process.
18. It is possible to identify three broad approaches to securing greater community participation in the process.
- Some partnerships propose to develop and build upon existing representative structures such as Local Committees/Forums or Community Councils.
- Other partnerships propose to integrate other community based structures e.g. social inclusion partnerships, neighbourhood forums etc. into the Community Planning structure.
- A number of partnerships have established, or are planning to establish, new participation structures either at a area/neighbourhood level or covering the whole of the Community Planning area.
Very few partnerships would claim to have fully developed effective mechanisms to engage communities in the Community Planning process. Some have established structures but they are still very much in their infancy and the evidence of their effectiveness is limited.
ACHIEVEMENTS & BENEFITS DELIVERED BY COMMUNITY PLANNING ( Chapter Five)
19. There is limited evidence of tangible outputs that can be attributed directly to Community Planning, however, many stakeholders were able to identify a range of positive benefits that had been gained from the process. These benefits generally related to organisational and cultural changes resulting from closer working between Community Planning partners.
20. One of the key aims of Community Planning is to break down barriers between organisations. Many stakeholders felt that changing existing organisational cultures was a necessary prerequisite to achieving this. They felt that the Community Planning process had made a significant contribution towards this objective but that this needed to be built upon, particularly by broadening involvement in the process.
21. While most partnerships have developed performance indicators linked to key policy outputs there is less evidence of partnerships having established "softer" indicators that could be used to monitor progress in implementing process issues such as effective partnership working and community involvement.
ASPIRATIONS FOR THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNITY PLANNING ( Chapter Six)
22. Stakeholders identified a number of key issues which they perceived to be important priorities that would need to be addressed by their Community Planning partnership over the next few years: -
The main issues identified included:-
- Broader Involvement:- There was general agreement that there was a need to increase the number of people in partner organisations who were involved in the Community Planning process.
- An Accepted Way of Working:- Many stakeholders said they hoped that Community Planning would increasingly set the agenda for collaborative working as an accepted way of working within and between partner organisations.
- Less Fragmentation:- Many stakeholders expressed a desire that as Community Planning developed it would become increasingly easy to rationalise and simplify other partnership and planning arrangements.
- Learning from Experience:-Given that partnerships are still developing it is important that they continue to learn from experience and be able to adapt to changing circumstances.
- Resourcing the Process:- A number of stakeholders felt that for Community Planning to progress it would require to have more resources devoted to it.
BARRIERS TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNITY PLANNING ( Chapter Seven)
23. If Community Planning is to fulfil its potential there are a number of challenges and barriers that will need to be overcome. The changes required to make Community Planning work effectively are perceived to be cultural as well as structural and achieving these changes is seen as being one of the most complex challenges facing partnerships and individual partners.
24. Some of the most significant barriers to the development of Community Planning identified by stakeholders were as follows: -
- Capacity Building: - If Community Planning is to fundamentally change the way organisations operate it will require individuals to change the way they work. A number of stakeholders suggested that existing human resource policies in partner organisations did not always support collaborative working and in fact could sometimes work against it.
- Managing Conflicting Priorities: - The need to produce a range of different plans, funding bids and policy documents is perceived by many stakeholders to be both an unnecessary burden and a distraction from developing the Community Planning process.
- Constant Organisational Change: - Many of the key partners involved in Community Planning have had to deal with major organisational change over recent years. This has been unsettling and is perceived as having made it much more difficult to develop effective partnership working.
- National versus Local Priorities: - Some stakeholders said that there was a perception that the need to deliver nationally set policies restricted some partners ability to respond to local priorities identified through the Community Planning process.
- Boundary Issues:- The lack of coterminous boundaries in most Community Planning areas is seen as making it more difficult to develop effective partnership working compared to areas where most partners share the same boundaries.
EXPECTATIONS OF THE SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE ( Chapter Eight)
25. Many of the challenges facing Community Planning partnerships need to be addressed locally, however, there are a number of barriers that are common to all partnerships and can only be addressed at a national level.
26. The most frequently mentioned issue, which was raised by almost all stakeholders, was the need for the Scottish Executive to lead by example by demonstrating a "joined-up" approach across its various departments and divisions. There was a strong view that the Executive was guilty of operating through organisational "silos" which often resulted in policy initiatives being introduced which did not always appear to be integrated.
27. Some stakeholders perceived that the Executive had failed to emphasise the central importance of Community Planning. They felt that there was a need to reinforce the fact that it should be a key priority for all public sector organisations. There was also a strong view that the Executive could help develop the Community Planning process by rationalising the number of separate plans and strategies that local authorities and other partners are required to produce.
28. There was strong support for reducing the number of individual funding initiatives to address specific cross cutting issues and replacing them with a more flexible approach possibly based on outcome agreements with Community Planning partnerships.
29. A number of stakeholders also suggested that the Executive could provide additional funding to help support the development of the Community Planning process. Particular attention was drawn to the need to fund capacity building initiatives promoted by Community Planning partnerships. If this was promoted on a cross-sectoral basis, across the whole of the public sector in Scotland, it could make a significant contribution to breaking down some of the cultural barriers that are perceived as obstacles to more effective collaborative working between organisations.
EXPECTATIONS OF THE COMMUNITY PLANNING TASK FORCE ( Chapter Nine)
30. The Community Planning Task Force (CPTF) is perceived as having a crucial role to play as an advocate of the concept of Community Planning and in influencing the Scottish Executive to remove some of the barriers identified in the previous section.
31. The CPTF was also seen as having an important role to play in facilitating opportunities for those involved in Community Planning partnerships to network and discuss their experiences. This was felt to be particularly important by stakeholders from outwith local government who perceived that they did not have the same opportunities to network as their council colleagues.
« Previous | Contents | Next »