|
|
|
|
2 Developing a successful partnership
Overcoming the pitfalls of partnership working
2.1 This chapter considers some of the pitfalls that can get in the way of successful partnership working and describes each of the stages of developing an effective partnership.
2.2 A recent review of community safety strategies, Safety in Numbers (Audit Commission for England and Wales), found that many strategies:
2.3 One of the purposes of this guidance is to assist partnerships in Scotland to avoid these pitfalls by concentrating on what works in building safer communities.
2.4 Eight key processes underpin best practice in preventing community safety problems. Applying best practice involves:
Setting up the partnership and benefiting stakeholders
2.5 A wide variety of factors impact on community safety, or its absence. Responsibility for addressing them falls to a range of agencies. Effective partnerships bring together agencies that can impact on a problem and its underlying causes. By working together, they can implement a more effective solution to a problem.
2.6 The national strategy suggests that the local authority and police should initially set up a partnership. Normally, the Chief Executive, in consultation with elected members and the Chief Constable, will have responsibility for forming the partnership. It is vital to secure the political support of elected members.
2.7 A starting point in building a successful partnership is to identify what the gains of partnership working might be for each of the key stakeholders. There are four key statutory agencies which ideally should be represented at senior level:
2.8 Several of these statutory agencies are also represented on the Drug Action Team and can represent the work of the DAT on the partnership.
2.9 Partnerships should also consider the role of the private and voluntary sectors, housing associations and racial equality councils. This might be either as members of the core partnership group, by being involved in specific working groups, or by giving evidence on particular issues to the partnership.
2.10 Other partners in Scotland have included the Procurator Fiscal Service, Coastguard, British Transport Police, and the local Drug Action Team and CCTV trust.
Leading the partnership and choosing a suitable structure
2.11 There are at least four distinctive management structures for community safety partnerships in Scotland:
2.12 Partnerships should decide which model best suits local circumstances. It is worth considering a core group of permanent members and a cluster of organisations which might be involved for particular issues in a time-limited way. The actual size of the corporate partnership group can affect its style of working. Research into partnership working suggests that the optimum/maximum size for effective group work is eight people, who must be at a sufficiently senior level to reach decisions and make commitments for their agencies.
2.13 Locating community safety within a broader community planning structure has much to commend it. The rationale for a three-tier model is also compelling: it distinguishes between the role of the corporate partnership group in providing strategic guidance to the work of the partnership and the role of front line officers in co-ordinating the implementation of the strategy. Setting up time-limited task groups, either to develop proposals for action around a particular theme, or geographic area, is also commendable.
2.14 Experience suggests that it is important that partnerships allow structures to evolve. A structure needed to develop an initial strategy might be out of place two or three years down the line.
2.15 It is vital to establish a sense of common purpose of what the partnership intends to achieve and an understanding of the partners' roles. This is not an automatic process. Partnerships should be inclusive from the outset, with all partners co-operating as equals in drawing up a statement of purpose for the partnership, eg:
'To create safer communities by taking action to improve personal safety and reduce accidents, crime, fear of crime and anti-social behaviour in [the local authority area] in a cost-effective and socially inclusive way.'
2.16 The local authority Chief Executive may be the most suitable person to chair the partnership over the difficult formation period. It is helpful if the chairperson adopts a highly participative, problem-solving leadership style in which members are encouraged to take an active part in identifying problems and finding solutions. This style is preferable to running the partnership meetings as a formalistic reporting mechanism, which simply 'rubber stamps' papers presented by working groups or by the co-ordinator.
2.17 Whatever structure is chosen locally, partnerships must keep an outcome focus at all times and not become 'talking shops'. Each tier of the partnership should have clear terms of reference, so that each partner agency knows what is expected of it and how public accountability is to be exercised.
2.18 Local authorities will need to consider issues of internal co-ordination. Guidance from CoSLA suggests setting up an internal community safety working group where decisions can influence service provision. CoSLA suggests an officer/member group with a remit to effect the necessary changes in mainstream council practice and priorities relating to the delivery of the partnership community safety strategy. The group might pick up on the good practice points identified in Safety in Numbers:
Developing partnership infrastructure and resources
2.19 Co-ordinating the development and delivery of a community safety strategy is a complex and challenging task. Effective joint working needs strong links at all levels of the partnership:
2.20 Nearly all partnerships in Scotland have a seconded police officer, generally designated the Local Authority Liaison Officer (LALO). A small number of local authorities have appointed a dedicated community safety officer to co-ordinate the strategy. However, staff appointments and secondments are at varying levels of seniority and what is needed to support effective partnership working may need further clarification.
2.21 As well as the seconded police officer, the appointment of a full-time community safety manager/officer with the skills to take responsibility for strategic policy development and programme management for the partnership is one of the critical success factors in building an effective partnership.
Ideally the appointment should be 'owned' and perhaps jointly funded by the key partners. For effective line management and policy development it is best to locate the post within the corporate policy function of the local authority, usually Corporate or Chief Executive's Services.
2.22 The LALO post will generally be filled by secondment at the discretion of the Chief Constable. This offers some flexibility in matching the nature of the secondment with the skills needed to build effective links between policing objectives and the partnership's objectives over time.
The LALO should know the logic behind the Chief Constable's policing priorities and policies and be able to give a strong indication of the likely police response to a particular strategic initiative. Frequent changes in LALO can be disruptive to building the trust and continuity needed to create an effective partnership team and Chief Constables are encouraged to make a LALO secondment for a period of around three years.
2.23 At the outset, the key statutory partners should consider pooling resources to create a modest revenue budget for the partnership. An effective partnership will need administrative support and a revenue budget for:
|
|
|