« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
"UNDER THE SKIN" OF COMMUNITY PLANNING
CHAPTER FOUR: APPROACHES TO DEVELOPING COMMUNITY PLANNING
4.1 Each Community Planning partnership is at a different stage of development. All but one of the partnerships has produced a Community Plan and most of them have also produced action or implementation plans for the main themes within the plan. A number of stakeholders commented that this was the "easy" part of the process, as partners were able to focus their attention on a specific task i.e. the production of a plan. Some also accepted that there may have been a loss of momentum following the production of the first Community Plan, as partnerships grappled with the more complex, process related, issues associated with translating the plan into action.
4.2 There appear to be three fundamental issues that Community Planning partnerships have to consider as they develop the process beyond the initial stages of visioning and the production of a Community Plan.
- Integration of Community Planning with other planning processes and partnership structures.
- Establishing effective Action Planning and Implementation structures and systems.
- Maximising effective Community Participation in the Community Planning process.
INTEGRATION WITH OTHER PLANNING PROCESSES
4.3 A key issue that all Community Planning partnerships are facing is how to effectively integrate existing planning processes and partnership structures into the community planning process. Individual partnerships are seeking to address this issue in different ways, depending upon local needs and circumstances, however, it is possible to identify four broad approaches: -
- New Build - This approach involves setting up a new infrastructure based on the key themes identified in the Community Plan. Existing structures and processes are then expected to fit into the overarching Community Planning structure. There is an expectation that this approach may lead to a rationalisation and simplification of existing structures; however, there is limited evidence that this has actually happened to any great extent in practice.
- Incremental Gap Filling - Under this approach the Community Planning structures and processes are used to address issues where there is no existing mechanism already in place. Community Planning is also seen as providing the overall strategic direction for other partnership structures and processes but there are no formal reporting mechanisms. It is also anticipated that in the future Community Planning structures will be utilised to address new issues or initiatives requiring a collaborative approach rather than new mechanisms having to be established.
- Restructuring - This approach involves a process of alignment of existing partnership structures and mechanisms with the themes identified in the Community Plan. In some cases the alignment process has been relatively "painless" and a clear match has been made between existing structures and Community Planning themes. However, in other cases it is more complex and can involve extending the role and remit of existing partnership structures.
- Organic Networking - This approach does not seek to develop a formal structure but rather relies upon good communications and information sharing to ensure that various planning systems and collaborative working arrangements operate in an integrated manner.
4.4 Most Community Planning partnerships appear to be adopting a pragmatic approach. Some have reviewed the interface between Community Planning and other planning and partnership activity on an incremental basis when opportunities arise. Others have delegated responsibility for rationalising planning structures to thematic groups with an expectation that as the new structures develop others will "wither on the vine" as people realise that they are no longer necessary.
4.5 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 are comfortable with, particularly when the Community Planning structures are relatively new and untested.
4.6 A number of partnerships have undertaken audits or reviews of planning and partnership activity. However, any resultant rationalisation has been limited and very much at the margins. There appears to be a general agreement that there is a need to rationalise existing partnership activity but there are also a number of constraints preventing this happening in practice. Some partnerships are constituted to meet statutory or other national planning requirements. Others have been established to deliver specific programmes or initiatives and there appears to be a general reluctance to change these arrangements, particularly if they are perceived to be working well. Many stakeholders appeared to take the view that "if it isn't broken you don't need to fix it".
4.7 Rather than expecting a fundamental rationalisation of partnership activity it may be more important to ensure that Community Planning is providing an overall strategic framework for all existing partnership activity in order to avoid duplication and confusion. This will depend as much on establishing good communications and information flows, as it will on any structural changes. There is also a case for arguing that there should be a presumption that any new initiatives that require a collaborative approach are built into the Community Planning process from the outset, rather than seeking to establish new partnership structures. This presumption should apply to both national initiatives and initiatives promoted by partners at a local level.
ACTION PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION
4.8 As Community Planning partnerships move from the initial visioning and strategy setting stages of the process they have to pay more attention to establishing effective implementation mechanisms. Most partnerships that have reached this stage have delegated responsibility for implementation to thematic groups. These may be existing groups or partnerships, e.g. community safety partnerships, or new groups that are established to deal with a specific theme in the Community Plan. These groups often involve people who have not previously been involved in the Community Planning process and as such are seen as a valuable way to broaden participation in the process.
4.9 Thematic groups vary considerably in terms of their size and composition. Many of the themes contained in Community Plans are very broad and therefore impact upon the work of a wide range of people and organisations. There is, therefore, a tendency to establish large groups in order to ensure all interests are represented and demonstrate that the process is inclusive. However, this needs to be balanced with a need to ensure that groups are of a manageable size. Some stakeholders also suggested that they sometimes got frustrated having to spend time discussing issues that had no direct relevance to them, although others said that they welcomed the opportunity to discuss wider issues. Many thematic groups have addressed this issue by establishing sub-groups; however, there is a danger that this could defeat the purpose of having broad themes dealing with cross cutting issues.
4.10 While delegating implementation and action planning to thematic groups is an effective way of managing the Community Planning process there are a number of dangers that need to be avoided. Firstly, there is a need to ensure that there is effective vertical integration between the thematic groups and the overall Community Planning partnership. Some partnerships have addressed this issue by having the leaders of thematic groups on the main Community Planning Partnership or implementation group. Secondly, there is a need to ensure that there is horizontal integration between the various themes and that "themes don't become the new silos". Again regular meetings of thematic group leaders can help to overcome this potential danger, however, there may also be a case for having joint meetings to discuss issues that cut across two or more themes. However, there is also a danger that "everyone becomes involved in everything" which could be a recipe for inaction. The main way of ensuring good integration appears to rely on good communications both within the partnership but also within partner organisations so that people know what other groups are doing.
4.11 The need to ensure effective vertical and horizontal integration is particularly important when partnerships are dealing with broad cross-cutting themes. This was particularly evident in terms of the health improvement function but also applies to other cross-cutting issues such as social inclusion, community regeneration and sustainability.
4.12 Many partnerships have taken a collaborative approach to establishing thematic groups by allocating lead responsibility for individual themes to different partners. Where this is the case, partners generally welcome it as it demonstrates effective joint working and indicates trust within the partnership. Conversely, where one partner, generally the council, has lead responsibility for all or most of the themes in the Community Plan there is sometimes a degree of frustration and resentment amongst other partners.
4.13 There appears to have been a high degree of consensus over the allocation of lead responsibility for individual themes in most areas. However, in some areas there were some "contested issues" where there appeared to be a disagreement over who should have lead responsibility for a particular theme. In particular, there appeared to be a lack of consensus in some areas about lead responsibility for economic development, while in others health improvement was perceived to be a "contested issue". There was some evidence that the lack of consensus over responsibility for leading on these themes was causing some tensions within the partnerships concerned but it was not regarded as an unresolvable issue.
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
4.14 The third key issue that all Community Planning partnerships appear to be grappling with is how to maximise the effectiveness of community participation in the process. 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. The need to secure wider community participation was identified as a key priority by a substantial number of stakeholders. As one stakeholder commented, "we need to put the community into community planning".
4.15 Most partnerships have established mechanisms or made use of existing mechanisms to consult with local communities. Mechanisms used include formal consultation e.g. on draft Community Plans, consultative conferences or forums, surveys and citizen's panels. However, most of these of these mechanisms are largely passive in nature and the challenge facing partnerships is how to secure more active participation in the process. Active participation suggests an on-going dialogue with communities rather than a series of individual, ad-hoc, consultation exercises.
4.16 While it is difficult to categorise the wide range of different approaches to engaging communities that are being implemented, or are planned, by individual Community Planning partnerships it is possible to identify three broad models.
- 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.
These are not necessarily mutually exclusive models and it may be that the most suitable approach will involve a combination of more than one of them. Whatever approach is adopted it is important that it is perceived as being a mainstream part of the Community Planning process rather than being a superficial "bolt on". The research evidence suggests that, despite the expressed commitment to community participation, most Community Planning partnerships have not yet been able to demonstrate that they have effective mechanisms for engaging with local communities that form a core element of the Community Planning process.
4.17 While some Community Planning partnerships are planning to engage communities in the process on an area wide basis, many stakeholders recognise that effective community engagement will only take place at a more local level. Many partnerships are therefore looking to integrate existing area based initiatives into the Community Planning process. A key challenge facing many partnerships, as they seek to develop local Community Planning, is the need to integrate horizontal, spatially based, planning, with the vertical policy themes identified in the area wide Community Plan. In other words, there is a need to ensure that there is a strong link between "top down" and "bottom up" planning processes. The evidence suggests that this is not always the case currently and that sometimes area-based initiatives are being developed in isolation from thematic policy planning processes.
4.18 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. Others have experimented with different methods of engaging communities e.g. through pilot projects. What is clear is that there is no "one size fits all" approach that will suit all circumstances and there is probably a need for continuous learning and experimentation in order to find the most effective method of engaging communities in the Community Planning process.
4.19 Some stakeholders expressed concerns that the new legislative framework could lead to a more prescriptive approach being taken. Similar concerns were raised about proposals to make community regeneration and social inclusion partnerships more integrated with the Community Planning process There was strong resistance to any suggestion that there should be a single model for community participation that could be applied uniformly throughout Scotland.
« Previous | Contents | Next »