« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
"UNDER THE SKIN" OF COMMUNITY PLANNING
CHAPTER FIVE: ACHIEVEMENTS AND BENEFITS DELIVERED BY COMMUNITY PLANNING
5.1 Given the fact that Community Planning is a relatively new concept it is perhaps unsurprising that very few stakeholders were able to identify tangible outputs that could be attributed directly to it. Most stakeholders were able to identify projects or initiatives that may not have happened as quickly or been implemented as effectively without Community Planning, but they could not say that they would not have happened anyway. The main "added value" of Community Planning was perceived to be the fact that it provided a strategic framework that allowed opportunities for collaborative working to be identified and partnership projects to be developed.
5.2 While there is limited evidence of tangible outputs that can be attributed directly to Community Planning 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. The benefits that were most frequently mentioned by stakeholders included: -
- An explicit recognition of the value and importance of collaborative working.
- The development of a shared vision for the area.
- The establishment of a strategic framework for the development of shared priorities
- An infrastructure for developing joint projects and preparing funding bids for cross-cutting initiatives.
- The development of greater understanding and trust amongst partners.
- Stronger interpersonal relationships.
- A more co-ordinated approach to consulting with citizens and local communities.
5.3 While acknowledging the fact that these benefits were not always tangible, and could not be quantified, many stakeholders were keen to emphasise their importance. One of the key aims of Community Planning is to break down barriers between organisations and 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 but that this needed to be built upon particularly by broadening involvement in the process. Many stakeholders said that there needed to be greater involvement of middle managers and professionals in partner organisations as this was perceived to be where some of the main barriers to greater collaborative working existed.
5.4 While many stakeholders were keen to emphasise the importance of these process-related achievements they also acknowledged the need to be able to demonstrate the success of Community Planning in terms of more tangible outputs. This need to demonstrate positive outputs that can be attributed to the Community Planning process has led some partnerships to try and identify "quick wins". While most people recognised the need to identify collaborative projects that could be implemented quickly, some stakeholders voiced concerns that it could deflect attention from developing the partnership's longer-term vision and strategy.
5.5 The desire to demonstrate tangible outputs from the Community Planning process has also resulted in some partnerships considering how existing collaborative initiatives should be "badged". There are a wide range of initiatives in different policy areas that demonstrate the principles of Community Planning but are not currently always identified with Community Planning. One example that was frequently cited is the joint futures agenda which is seen generally as a separate initiative but could equally be regarded as an excellent example of Community Planning in practice.
5.6 Some stakeholders who had been involved in well established partnership structures relating to health improvement and social welfare were sceptical about the benefits of these initiatives being brought within the overall Community Planning framework. This scepticism appeared to be based on a fear that it would result in more centralisation and reduce the flexibility and responsiveness of existing arrangements.
5.7 The temptation to "rebadge" existing collaborative initiatives under the Community Planning "brand" is understandable, however, the evidence suggests that it needs to be handled carefully. There is a danger that people who have been closely involved in existing initiatives may be resentful if it appears to them that other people are claiming credit for their efforts. They may also be concerned that being seen as a formal part of the Community Planning process may result in increased bureaucracy which would mean that they have to "jump through additional hoops" in terms of reporting requirements. An alternative to simply "rebadging" existing activities may be to place more emphasis on the links between these activities and Community Planning and ensure that they are developed in a way that complements the overall vision and strategy developed through the Community Planning process.
5.8 Most partnerships recognise that the ultimate success of Community Planning will be the extent to which its achievements can be measured in terms of tangible outcomes. They also recognise the need to have a system for monitoring and evaluating their performance in terms of these outcomes. A number of partnerships have developed cross-cutting performance indicators that are linked to the key themes described in the Community Plan. In most cases, these indicators are a combination of existing national indicators, e.g. social justice milestones, and locally developed indicators. 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.
« Previous | Contents | Next »