« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
"UNDER THE SKIN" OF COMMUNITY PLANNING
CHAPTER TWO: UNDERSTANDING OF & COMMITMENT TO COMMUNITY PLANNING
COMMUNITY PLANNING AS A CONCEPT
2.1 There was almost universal acceptance of the key principles underlying Community Planning amongst stakeholders in all of the case study areas. The key principles that are perceived to be underlying Community Planning as a concept are: -
- Developing a strategic vision that is accepted by all partners and forms the basis for planning to meet the economic, social and environmental needs of an area.
- Providing greater opportunities for community participation and involvement in the process of identifying priorities and planning how these priorities can be addressed by partner organisations.
- Promoting greater partnership working and more integrated service delivery to meet the needs of customers and citizens.
2.2 The vast majority of stakeholders accepted that these three principles reflect different but inter-related dimensions of Community Planning. Inevitably, people sometimes placed more or less emphasis on one or other of these principles. This could sometimes be attributed to an individual or organisational perspective, with different stakeholders within a single partnership emphasising different dimensions of the Community planning process. In some other areas there appeared to be a strong consensus amongst stakeholders about the key aspects of the process, suggesting a shared understanding of the approach to community planning being taken in their area.
2.3 The vast majority of stakeholders said that they saw Community Planning as a key aspect of the process of modernising governance at a local level and in particular it was seen as offering the potential to help overcome fragmented organisational structures. Many stakeholders said that a key aspect of Community Planning was the need to break down barriers between organisations and develop better working relationships across organisational boundaries. However, they also recognised that developing effective "joined up" working will be a long-term process that will not be achieved by structural and systemic changes alone. Some people suggested that Community Planning should be viewed as a change management process requiring a commitment to organisational and cultural changes within and between organisations.
2.4 While the principles of Community Planning are generally undisputed, few people could argue with them as principles underlying good governance or even simple common sense and there is an element of "motherhood and apple pie" about them. The key issue facing most partnerships is to develop ways of translating these broad principles into practical action. In particular, many partnerships appear to be still exploring how best to integrate Community Planning with other mainstream activities and partnership initiatives. As one stakeholder put it, "Community Planning is a concept struggling to find a role in a crowded environment of other priorities and initiatives".
2.5 Many stakeholders believe that Community Planning offers the potential to provide an overarching framework within which other initiatives can be developed. However, there is also a general acceptance that it has not yet realised this potential. This is partly because the development of Community Planning is at a relatively early stage but some stakeholders believe that it is also partly because it is not universally accepted as an overarching process, particularly at a national level. There is a feeling that local organisations have to continuously respond to a myriad of national initiatives and policy developments that don't always fit within the overall Community Planning framework. In other words, there is a perception that the Community Planning process has to continuously adapt to meet the requirements of other initiatives rather than vice versa.
2.6 Despite the fact that the Scottish Executive and COSLA had issued joint guidance to Community Planning partnerships about the development of Health Improvement Plans there appeared to be a degree of confusion and uncertainty in some partnerships about how to achieve this within the overall Community Planning framework. This illustrates the fact that many partnerships are still developing structures and systems to manage the interface between Community Planning and a range of other policy planning requirements.
2.7 A small minority of stakeholders expressed some caution and concerns about the development of Community Planning as a concept. In some cases this appeared to be the result of frustration about the fact that, despite the rhetoric, Community Planning was not yet delivering its potential benefits. However, in other cases there was an element of scepticism, sometimes bordering on cynicism, about the concept. Some stakeholders said that they remained to be convinced of the potential benefits of Community Planning and the extent to which it could "add value" to existing partnership activity. This view was particularly strong in areas where there was a strong tradition of partnership where some stakeholders felt that Community Planning was nothing more than "old wine in new bottles".
2.8 There were some concerns that the complex and multi-dimensional nature of Community Planning was not always appreciated at a national level. Some stakeholders said that they did not feel that the Scottish Executive appreciated the complexity of the Community Planning process and did not have a clear vision of how it fitted in with the wider modernisation agenda. This was seen as leading to "mixed messages" about the role of Community Planning being sent out with different aspects of the process being emphasised at different times. For example, some stakeholders said that they perceived that there had been a shift in thinking in the Executive recently, with far greater emphasis being placed on the service delivery dimension than had previously been the case.
2.9 Most councillors welcomed the introduction of Community Planning as an opportunity for the council to exercise its community leadership role. However, a small number of councillors and some council officers, while accepting the need to work in partnership with other organisations, expressed some concerns that Community Planning could be used as a way of undermining the "democratic legitimacy" of local authorities. This concern appeared to be based on a fear that the Scottish Executive could use Community Planning partnerships as a way of bypassing councils and giving more influence to non-elected agencies.
COMMITMENT TO COMMUNITY PLANNING
2.10 The research demonstrated that there is a strong commitment to making the Community Planning process work across a range of organisations. 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 was responsive to local needs and circumstances.
2.11 Many senior stakeholders, i.e. chief executives, in various partner organisations expressed a strong personal commitment to Community Planning as a process and acknowledged the importance of leading by example. However, there was also a general recognition of the need to ensure that their personal commitment was backed up by action to reinforce the importance of Community Planning and demonstrate that partnerships were more than simply "talking shops". Commitment at a senior level in partner organisations is also seen as being a good way of signalling the importance attached to the Community Planning process and encouraging others to recognise the fact that it needs to be treated as a priority for the organisation.
2.12 Personal motivation amongst key stakeholders is clearly an important factor in making the process work effectively. In many cases it was clear that individuals' commitment to the process reflected the organisational culture within which they are operating. However, there were also a number of examples of individuals who appeared to be "working against the grain" in their organisations. There was also a strong feeling in some areas that responsibility for developing the process still rested with a relatively small group of individuals who could become overburdened and isolated. As one stakeholder put it:
"If you give someone specific responsibility for developing Community Planning there is a danger that it becomes thier responsibility and no one else's"
2.13 The level of engagement in the Community Planning process appeared to be broader in some case study areas than others. To a certain extent this reflects different stages in development, however, it also reflects the fact that some partnerships appeared to be adopting a more inclusive approach to involving people in the process e.g. through the membership of various working groups. There was, however, a general agreement that there was a need to broaden involvement in the process and communicate more effectively with staff "down the line" in partnership organisations.
2.14 One practical demonstration of commitment to Community Planning is the fact that partners in many of the case study areas have been prepared to commit resources to support the process. A number of partnerships had secured resources to employ staff to support the process and other resources to help drive the process forward. Even where financial resources have not been made available, it is clear that partners in all of the areas have devoted a considerable amount of time and resources in kind to help support the development of the Community Planning process.
2.15 There is a danger that commitment becomes confused with capacity. Some organisations may be committed to the process but do not have the capacity to support the process to the extent required or expected by other partners. There was some evidence that some partners were equating an inability by other partners to devote resources to the process with a lack of commitment. This was perceived as being a particular problem for partners who have to participate in more than one Community Planning partnership and therefore may struggle to provide the resources required to support multiple processes.
2.16 The level of commitment to the process by partners is closely linked to the extent to which partner organisations perceive that Community Planning can make a contribution to the achievement of their own operational objectives. Many stakeholders suggested, either explicitly or implicitly, that the commitment of some partners was conditional on the extent to which they believed that their participation was contributing to the achievement of their own organisation's core objectives. This constraint is recognised by many partner organisations, however, there was also some evidence that others may perceive it as a "get out" which is used to disguise either an inability, due to lack of capacity, or unwillingness to participate fully in the process.
2.17 Another potential constraint on partners' commitment to the Community Planning process is an uncertainty about the level of "true" commitment at a national level. There were still some doubts about the extent to which all parts of the Scottish Executive were "fully signed up" to Community Planning as an overarching, cross- cutting initiative that was a central element of the modernisation agenda rather than "just another, flavour of the month initiative". There is a perception that this suspicion may be resulting in some organisations holding back from fully committing to the process until they are convinced they are "backing the right horse".
2.18 A number of stakeholders felt that there were often mixed messages coming out of the Scottish Executive about Community Planning and its relationship to other policy planning systems. This was illustrated by a degree of confusion in some areas about how Health Improvement Plans, which are intended to be developed through Community Planning structures, relate to other planning requirements being developed through the NHS structures. This demonstrates the importance of the Executive itself adopting a "joined-up" approach and the need to ensure that all policy divisions , especially those that sponsor NDPBs and other agencies, emphasis the importance of Community Planning. As one senior manager in an NDPB put it:-
"My organisation will be committed to Community Planning as a key priority when our sponsoring division tells us it should be a key priority"
« Previous | Contents | Next »