« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
"UNDER THE SKIN" OF COMMUNITY PLANNING
CHAPTER THREE: COMMUNITY PLANNING PARTNERSHIP STRUCTURES, ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
PARTNERSHIP STRUCTURES
3.1 There is no single model of Community Planning partnership and the structures adopted or being developed in the case study areas are all different. This reflects the fact that structures are being developed to meet local needs and circumstances and in many cases build upon existing arrangements. There is also evidence that structures are evolving as Community Planning develops and that different structures may be necessary as partnerships move from the initial visioning stage towards action planning and implementation.
3.2 There is considerable diversity in terms of the size and composition of Community Planning partnerships. Some partnerships are relatively small with a limited number of partners involved in the main partnership group while others are much larger with a wider range of partners involved. Many stakeholders suggested that there was a potential tension between adopting an inclusive approach, which would require a large number of partners to be formally involved and the need for efficient decision making structures, suggesting, a smaller group of core partners. Some partnerships have attempted to resolve this tension by having a small core group and a wider reference group involving a broader range of partners. While this appears to work in practice, some stakeholders felt that there was a potential danger that it could lead to some partners who are not involved in the core group feeling that they are "second class citizens".
3.3 While there are considerable differences in the precise structures adopted by individual partnerships there are also a number of similarities. Most partnerships have three core elements: -
- Partnership Groups - usually comprising senior representatives, either Chief Executives, Directors, from partner organisations. Some of these groups involve elected members from the council and appointed Board Members from other organisations; however, in others they only involve paid officials.
- Implementation Groups - involving less senior officers from partner organisations. These groups are usually charged with responsibility for taking forward Community Planning between meetings of the main Partnership Group.
- Thematic Groups - most partnerships have established or are in the process of establishing thematic groups with responsibility for developing the key strategic themes outlined in the Community Plan. (In some areas these groups build upon existing groups which have been brought into the wider Community Planning process).
Although many of the structures in Community Planning partnerships are relatively new there are a number of emerging issues suggested by the research.
- 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 taken to ensure that there is effective vertical integration between different levels in the partnership as well as horizontal integration between various thematic groups.
3.4 Almost all partnerships have a thematic group dealing with issues related to health improvement. Some of these groups have very wide remits that cover issues relating to social welfare e.g. community care and community safety as well as health improvement issues. There is some evidence that some of these groups are struggling to find an effective way of dealing effectively with such a wide agenda. In other areas thematic groups appear to have focused on specific aspects of the agenda, often building on existing partnership activities. In one partnership there appeared to be a tension amongst partners about how best to deal with the health improvement agenda with some partners saying there should be a specific thematic group while others believed it should be dealt with as a cross-cutting issue that should be reflected in the work of other thematic groups.
3.5 Any new group needs time to help build up trust between members and find a style of working that members are comfortable with. Many partnerships have recognised this and have invested time and resources in capacity building exercises such as development days and get to know each other sessions, however, there is also a pressure to "produce results". It is also clear that some participants in the process are more comfortable with a developmental approach while others are more likely to want to focus on tangible outputs. This can cause a tension that needs to be managed carefully to ensure that people do not become disillusioned or feel excluded from the process.
3.6 Almost all Community Planning partnerships are informal and do not have a separate legal status (the only exception is the Glasgow Alliance, which was not established to deal specifically with Community Planning). Some partnerships have attempted to develop a separate identity but this appears to have been primarily for marketing purposes rather than structural reasons. While most stakeholders did not rule out the possibility of partnerships adopting a more formal structure in the future, the vast majority did not see this as being necessary in the short term. In fact a number of stakeholders said that they felt there would be major disadvantages to adopting a more formal structure for Community Planning partnerships.
3.7 The main disadvantages of adopting a more formal structure cited were increased bureaucracy and a lack of flexibility. However, the main arguments against adopting a more formal structure were that it could suggest a lack of trust amongst partners and the potential danger that the partnership could become, or be perceived to have become, a separate organisation with its own identity and agenda rather than a collaborative partnership. This fear was summed up by one stakeholder who said:-
"If Community Planning partnerships become too formal they will soon adopt their own identity, employ their own staff with their own agendas and before we know it we will have another quango"
3.8 Given that many of the structures adopted by Community Planning partnerships have only recently been established there is scope for further experimentation and learning to ensure that they are "fit for purpose". However, this needs to be balanced with a strong desire amongst many stakeholders for a degree of stability in the role and composition of various groups to allow them to develop and mature. The vast majority of stakeholders said that it was important that structures were designed to suit local circumstances. They were also concerned that as Community Planning developed there would be pressures to adopt a more uniform approach. For example, while some stakeholders felt there was a need for greater clarity about the role of various groups in the Community Planning process they also felt that this should be provided locally rather than being prescribed on a national basis.
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES WITHIN PARTNERSHIPS
3.9 Councils have the main leadership role in the Community Planning partnerships in all of the case study areas. However, the way they have chosen to exercise this leadership role varies in different partnerships. This can range from a "light touch" approach to a much more directive approach with the council clearly setting the agenda and retaining control over all aspects of the process. The approach adopted seems to depend to a large extent on the personalities involved rather than a conscious choice to adopt a particular style of leadership.
3.10 The leadership role of councils is generally accepted by other partners on the basis that they are often the largest organisation with the widest range of responsibilities. There is also recognition that councils provide a link to the democratic process and in many cases have more established relationships with the community and voluntary sectors. Some stakeholders expressed concerns about the potential for the council to seek to dominate the Community Planning process by wanting to be involved in everything. However, very few examples of real conflict were cited in support of this fear with most stakeholders accepting that this was more a question of perceptions rather than presenting practical difficulties. On the other hand, some local authority stakeholders felt that some of their partners were happy to let the council take on the leadership role as this meant it would have to shoulder the bulk of the workload. This was often taken to be an indication of a lack of commitment by other partners.
3.11 The level of involvement of councillors in the Community Planning process is patchy. In some areas councillors, or at least leading councillors, are heavily involved and appear to exercise a strong leadership role. However, in other areas councillors are only involved at the margins or not at all. The involvement of councillors can bring its own challenges. In some areas a few stakeholders from other agencies said that they sometimes felt uncomfortable when councillors were involved in discussions because they were not used to operating in an overtly political environment. Conversely, some councillors indicated that they were uncomfortable in partnership meetings, where relationships between officers and elected members were less clear-cut than within the council.
3.12 There are a number of similarities in the composition of individual Community Planning partnerships but there are also some significant differences. The organisations that are most likely to be represented on the main Community Planning groups are the council, the NHS boards, the local enterprise company and the police. Outwith these core members other organisations that are also involved in some partnerships include Communities Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage, area tourist boards and local colleges or universities. The involvement of individual organisations generally reflects local circumstances e.g. it is more likely that Scottish Natural Heritage will be involved in rural areas. However, in some areas it appears to reflect existing relationships and build upon previous partnership structures.
3.13 The involvement of the NHS in Community Planning partnerships is complex with some partnerships involving NHS Boards while others also involve representatives from Trusts and possibly local health care co-operatives. To a certain extent this reflects on-going organisational change within the NHS but there is some evidence that it also reflects an uncertainty about the most appropriate level of engagement of the health service in the Community Planning process. In some areas this has led to a degree of tension about which partners should take lead responsibility for developing the health improvement theme, both within the NHS and between the NHS and the local authority.
3.14 A number of stakeholders also expressed some concerns about the involvement of Communities Scotland in local Community Planning partnerships given its new role and status. This was generally a result of uncertainty about how the new organisation would balance its national and local roles but in some cases it was also based on a suspicion about how the organisation would seek to develop its new role in relation to regeneration. 1
3.15 The effectiveness of Community Planning partnerships does not only depend upon the organisations involved but crucially on the people these organisations choose to represent them at partnership meetings. Representation on core partnership groups is generally at a very senior level, most often Chief Executives or equivalent. This can present a challenge for some organisations, particularly those that have to be involved in multiple Community Planning partnerships. A number of Chief Executives in such organisations indicated that they were not always able to attend Community Planning meetings in each area personally. While they did not see this as a problem there was some evidence that it did cause some tensions amongst other partners where their was an expectation that representation should be at Chief Executive level.
3.16 A potential tension within partnerships arises when it is perceived that the person who attends meetings on behalf of a partner does not have sufficient authority to take decisions or make commitments without referring them back to their organisation. An associated difficulty arises where organisations are represented on partnerships by someone who has a specific functional responsibility and may not be able to comment on issues outwith their own area of responsibility. This can cause frustration amongst other partners and is perceived as potentially slowing down decision-making processes. Examples cited to support this concern tended to be relatively minor in nature, however, this may become a more significant issue as partnerships become more involved in making more substantive decisions e.g. involving the pooling of resources in the future.
3.17 The research suggests that many Community Planning partnerships are struggling to find the most appropriate way of involving community and voluntary sector representatives within their partnership structures. This often reflects a lack of clarity about the role that such representatives are expected to play in various partnership groups. They cannot represent a single organisation in the same way that other partners do, on the other hand, they cannot be expected to represent "the community" or "the voluntary sector". Some community and voluntary sector representatives said that they felt that describing them as representatives was "misleading" and raised unrealistic expectations about the extent to which they could speak on behalf of other members of their sector.
3.18 The involvement of representatives from the community and voluntary sectors appears to work best in two different types of circumstances: -
- Where it is recognised and accepted that they are involved as individuals who can offer a different perspective based on their own experience and knowledge. In other words they are representatives from rather than of their particular sector.
- Where voluntary or community organisations organise their own representative and administrative structures parallel to the Community Planning partnership structures and decide amongst themselves the best way to be represented on various partnership groups.
3.19 Very few partnerships have representatives of the private sector on the main partnership group. A small number of partnerships did have some representation from the private sector, either on the main partnership board or on thematic working groups but they were often seen as being there in an individual rather than representative capacity. A number of stakeholders said that the private sector was represented on local economic forums and this was seen as an effective way for them to contribute to the Community Planning process.
3.20 Where partnerships involved partners outwith the main public sector agencies their involvement was generally seen as providing a fresh perspective that contributed to the work of the partnership. In some areas the contribution made by representatives from further or higher education institutions was viewed positively and there was a feeling that these institutions provided a potential resource in terms of expertise that could be used by the Community Planning partnership.
Footnote to 3.14
1. The vast majority of interviews were conducted prior to the publication of the Scottish Executive's community regeneration statement "Better Communities in Scotland: Closing the Gap"
« Previous | Contents | Next »