Partnership_Working

6TH December 2010. ----------------- Contents. • Introduction. • Partnership Working Networking • Advantages. • Policy and Legislative Influence. “The Barker Report”. “Firm Foundations”. The Future of Housing in Scotland. Bell Farm York. East Northamptonshire Council Management Group. Glasgow and Clyde Valley Strategic Development Planning Authority. The Housing [Scotland] Act 2001. The Housing [Scotland] Act 2003. The Homeless etc [Scotland] 2003. • The Common Housing Register. Introduction. Evaluation. • The North Lanarkshire Partnership. Introduction. Evaluation. • Recommendations and Conclusion. • Bibliography. • Appendix. -------------------------------------------------------- Introduction. This essay will examine the historical and statutory background and origins to Partnership Working, highlighting its strengths, weaknesses, and identifying good practice. It will also describe, explore, evaluate and critically examine the role of Housing within “Partnership Working” using the partnerships of the Common Housing Register [CHR] and the North Lanarkshire Partnership [NLP], both of which operate within the North Lanarkshire Council area [NLC]. Partnership Working/Networking. Partnership working can be applied to individuals, companies or even internal departments working together, however within the context of this assignment it is best described as “A long term official agreement between organisations which allows them to come together and formulate joint strategies and frameworks focused on dealing with common issues and priorities. It encourages best practice by the “pooling” of a range of diverse skills and resources”. Networking is inexorably linked to Partnership Working. This can be formal or informal and is the creating of a working relationship between a group of acquaintances and associates or contacts through regular communication and assistance for mutual benefit. It often results as a direct consequence of partnership working. To achieve optimal results both must be based on honesty, openness, trust and agreed goals. These concepts are not new and have been used and developed over many years. Since the 1970,s the first formal examples included community development and regeneration partnerships. Gone are the days of public organisations working autonomously to their own agendas and with little or no regard for the aims or challenges faced by other organisations. For some time partnership working has not only been recognised as an essential ingredient in achieving best practice but due to the fact that the Scottish Government perceives it as an essential characteristic placed at the very heart of public sector service delivery it is now a legislative requirement. As a result local authorities have played a lead role in promoting and engaging in partnership working using it to identify, address, and impact upon important community issues. Advantages. Advantages to partnership working include financial savings, improved flexibility, shared responsibility, joint decision making and coordination, enhanced development, better coordination, focused approach, access to expertise and knowledge and more effective, relevant and appropriate processes. Policy and Legislative Influence. Over the last 20 years the idea of public agencies working together for the common good of local communities has grown from being a preferred option of good-practice to a statutory duty. Both the Westminster and Scottish Governments have advocated the requirement for increased partnership working and an enormous amount of research papers, articles, reports and initiatives have resulted. Some of the more prominent of these are “The Barker Report” which stated “Housing requires partnership and co-operation between a variety of public bodies and service providers. Agencies involved in infrastructure provision cover both public and private sectors, ranging from those dealing with physical infrastructure, such as the Highways Agency and utilities companies, to those agencies that provide equally important social infrastructure, such as local education authorities, primary care trusts and police authorities”. [Review of Housing Supply. Delivering Stability: Securing our Future Housing Needs. Barker K. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office Crown copyright 2000]. “Firm Foundations: The Future of Housing in Scotland”, consistently places huge emphasis on the development of a strategic approach to housing obtained by local authorities working corporately with partners to develop a robust understanding of, and a strategic approach to housing and housing issues. [Firm Foundations: The Future of Housing in Scotland. The Scottish Government. Edinburgh October 2007]. York’s Bell Farm Project built in 1992 has been hailed as an outstanding illustration of effective regeneration. Central to its success is its distinctive organisational features especially its inter-agency emphasis. Through an Estate Management Agreement it has strengthened partnership working between residents and service providers, increasing levels of service, protecting investment, building a stronger community, impacting positively on crime, enhancing community spirit, and building better, sustainable and greener homes. East Northamptonshire Council leads a Management Group. It delivers community development projects to improve social, economic and disadvantaged areas.. It is a multi-agency partnership which has been has been running since 2005 and is made up of representatives from the Local Authority, housing associations, Fire and Police services, Primary Care Trust and Groundwork North. It was the first project area to operate a coffee shop and regular activities include tidy up days, fun days and children’s activity days during the summer. Achievements include a community learning centre which runs training courses for local residents. Recent initiatives include construction of a Multi-Use Games Area, improvements to a local park and new fencing throughout the area. [National Housing Federation. UP MY STREET – WORKING TOGETHER IN PARTNERSHIP. London. www.housing.org.uk/partnership. Accessed 5th December 2010]. An excellent example of Partnership Working is the “Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Strategic Development Planning Authority,” which comprises the 8 local authorities situated within the Glasgow and Clyde Valley area. The GCVSPJC is a Local Government Joint Committee which works on strategic development of planning matters such as housing, commerce, and infrastructure within the Glasgow and Clyde Valley area. The Housing [Scotland] Acts of 2001 and 2003 and the Homeless etc [Scotland] Act 2003 all place duties on local authorities to develop multi agency strategies especially in relation to homelessness. The Common Housing Register. Prior to the implementation of this system previous housing allocation systems were, discriminating, limited and inefficient. As a result in 2003, the Scottish Executive required all local authorities to implement CHR under terms of the Housing [Scotland] Act 2001. NLC set up North Lanarkshire CHR which is a framework of Partnership Working enabling people to register their housing needs simultaneously with all partners in the scheme. This is achieved by submission of a common application form, the data from which is input by the receiving organisation and which is immediately available to all partners. To date19 partners are involved in the scheme [Appendix A] all of whom have adopted a single housing policy. This was a major step forward from the previous system where housing needs were registered with each organisation individually. To succeed it was essential that the partners all adopted the principles of a multi agency approach by working together sharing common aims and burdens. By March 2009 the system was operating with a steering and monitoring group in place and with NLC taking the lead role appointing a “Common Housing Register” Officer on a full time basis. Its vision is stated as: • Working together providing a single route. • Simplification of access and maximisation of choice. Core functions were also agreed. [Appendix B]. The advantages of CHR include positive impact upon homelessness, equality of opportunity, social inclusion, consistency of service, improved and simplified access for service users, improved contact and relationship development between organisations, provision of a more comprehensive service of housing provision, Improved nomination arrangements, reduced risk of multiple tenancies, improved void management and nomination arrangements, and increased and shared information on applicants. CHR Evaluation Challenges to any partnership agreement include obtaining and maintaining agreement, effective co-operation, concerns about loss of independence, insufficient resourcing, disparity in service provision, financial costs, incompatible I T systems, and increased bureaucracy. These are exactly the challenges which have faced all partners from the outset and which still remain. Some partners are still not fully functional due to staffing issues, large out of date waiting lists and ongoing reviews of internal procedures. Others are specialist providers dealing mainly with the homeless and are involved only in a “part time” basis. Yet others are also involved with other CHR schemes and variance in approaches is problematic. Incompatible IT systems continue to effect efficiency as do financial constraints. One housing association namely Link Housing refused to join the scheme at all and remains autonomous providing a different service to all other service providers within North Lanarkshire. NLC has been frustrated by resource constraints including loss of the dedicated CHR Officer, substantial financial cuts, and the amount of staff training required [Appendix C]. “Commonality”, i.e. harmonisation of policies/procedures is a particular issue which is causing difficulties for both applicants and partners alike. Disparities in procedures still exist relative to prioritisation of certain groups and the criteria required for assessment of need. A 2008 CHR Position Study stated that 12 Scottish CHR schemes were suffering from similar setbacks. [Common Housing Register. Position Study Report. Scottish Housing Best Value Network. SHBVN. May 2008]. NLC CHR has substantially achieved its primary objectives by making it easier to apply for housing whilst providing improved choice and service delivery however it has failed to totally accomplish its stated goals. Due to lack of harmonisation various processes are not operating fully causing confusion to applicants and partners alike and the anticipated improvements have not been as comprehensive as hoped for. Some applicants are therefore making ill informed choices which do not reflect their aspirations or requirements and they are not receiving the level of service which CHR is capable of providing should a fully functioning system be in place. Given that some partners play a bit part and one major provider is not involved at all the representation of an all inclusive scheme is somewhat misleading. There is no doubt that CHR within NLC is capable of providing excellence in housing provision, that it is the way ahead, and that it should be developed further. However when one considers its not unsubstantial claim on the resources of numerous agencies and the fact that it is a producing what is only a limited service it has some way to go before it can be considered value for money. North Lanarkshire Partnership. In Scotland, the Local Government [Scotland] Act 2003 places duties on local authorities to initiate and maintain Community Planning. Local authorities have a duty to develop a Community Plan with relevant partners to promote and improve social, economic and environmental well-being within their areas and to contribute to sustainable development. Community Planning is crucial due to the number of complex inter-related issues including the economy, housing, and the environment which affect authority areas. These problems cannot be solved properly by any single agency and a multi-agency approach is necessary. NLC therefore established the North Lanarkshire Partnership [NLP] in 2007 which brought together major public and private sector agencies in the area [Appendix D] NLC plays a key role although it is mainly driven by Strathclyde Police. It acts as a forum through which Community Planning strategic objectives are developed in an integrated way. It co-ordinates partnership activity by approving joint action plans, agreeing targets and providing a mechanism for development. The Community Plan 2008-2012 sets out a number of key improvements that have been identified as being critical in the coming years. These relate to Health, Community safety, Environment, Learning, and Regeneration. [North Lanarkshire Partnership. Community Plan 2008- 2010. http://www.northlanarkshire.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx'id=2116&p=0. Accessed 20th November 2010]. An organisational structure was expressly designed to ensure maximum efficiency from top to bottom and importantly aids “crosscutting”. [Appendix E]. A key aim of the initiative was the creation of a decision-making mechanism capable of delivering the strategic objectives to be delivered at local level while also allowing local communities and service users to have a greater influence. This mechanism is the Local Area Partnership [LAP]. The main areas of Airdrie, Coatbridge, Bellshill, Motherwell, Wishaw and the North [Cumbernauld, Kilsyth etc] each have a LAP. Each LAP meets monthly and is attended by Community Engagement Teams comprising a member from each partner agency. Each area was allocated a Regeneration Manager, a new post whose function is to coordinate the work of all partners at local level. The objectives of the LAP’s are: • To provide the formal network for local partners and other public agencies to examine and discuss the implementation of the strategic priorities and regeneration targets of the Community Plan at a local level. • To identify neighbourhood priorities and opportunities and stimulate local partnership investment that would enhance services and provide positive impact upon communities (including geographical areas and themed groups e.g. young people). • To advise and comment upon the subsequent opportunity for re-alignment, rationalisation and coordination of partner resources. • To act as a main consultative source for partners to consider local individual partner and joint service proposals. • To scrutinise subsequent impact upon local communities. Both directly, through the monitoring of the impact upon individuals through the use of base-line data, perceptions and in-directly, through noted alterations to service systems and procedures. • To provide a vehicle for greater community engagement through a co-ordinated programme of local activity. Significant successes include: • Establishment of efficient Joint working at strategic and local level. • Establishment of Community engagement structures to support involvement of local people. • Development of new and improved services. • The targeting of resources to those communities which are most vulnerable. Particular examples of some of the achievements are improved homes through investment of more than £300 million in housing improvements, over 450 adults with disabilities supported to live independently, reduction of the number of accidental house fires, opening of a new state of the art CCTV facility, new services for victims of domestic abuse, targets exceeded in recycling waste, and increased number of vulnerable young people participating in training programmes. [North Lanarkshire Partnership. Community Plan 2008- 2010. http://www.northlanarkshire.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx'id=2116&p=0. Accessed 28th November 2010]. North Lanarkshire Partnership Evaluation. Partners of the NLP find that this type of partnership requires significant resource commitment and some consider these requirements to be disproportionate to its achievements. Involvement can be seen as a burden and diversion from “getting on with the job” and leads to the question “What would be achieved anyway”. Some partners also have reservations regarding its ability to provide an overarching framework which develops collaborative working at local level. [Stevenson R. R.D.S. Consultancy Services. [2002]. Getting Under the Skin of Community Planning. Crown Copyright 2002. ISBN 0 7559 3435 0]. That said it has obvious strengths and is an excellent example of partnership working which is broadly support by its partners. Positives include constructive organisational and cultural changes, breaking down barriers between organisations and enhancing working relationships, achievements which should not be underestimated as they are amongst the fundamental objectives of Community Planning and indeed partnership working. Significantly it has achieved noteworthy tangible results only attainable by such a process and should therefore be retained, improved and developed further. Conclusion. Successive governments have chosen partnership working as a key means by which much of their policies are to be delivered and have unequivocally stated their commitment to it. However despite this enthusiasm, it should not be presumed that partnership working is a universal good. There is evidence that it has not always succeeded in delivering its goals and that local authorities have failed to address tensions arising within partnerships despite the fact that they are responsible for provision of the strategic overview which assures the social, economic and environmental well-being of local people. Some government officials feel that a number of partnership, if not properly managed can undermine key democratic functions ordinarily carried out by local government thus threatening its traditional leadership role. Additionally others believe that too much power has been ceded to partners and that a related growth in quangos is downgrading the role of local authorities. Sceptics believe Local Authorities should be empowered by a robust support role by which they could assure accountability and answerability. [The Joseph Rowntree Foundation. 2002. Local Authority Members and Partnership Working. Joseph Rowntree Foundation. York. ISSN 0958-3084] This view is understandable when it is recognized that only two democratically elected bodies in Scotland, namely national and local government, who being the cornerstones of democracy are solely responsible for provision of public services. Costs in finance, resources, and efficacy are concerns which are raised continually as can be seen from the examples discussed earlier. However despite these misgivings and valid concerns there is no doubt that partnership working has facilitated a major qualitative difference on the ground, Improving links, communication, processes, and efficiency as well as trust and service provision It has reinvigorated and empowered community activity, reengaging disenfranchised social and cultural groups and improved the lives of millions of people. Although it must be agreed that partnership working is not always the only or even the most appropriate way forward, it is without doubt an exceptionally constructive means of providing public services. It is able to attain results and goals, in difficult circumstances and in a way no other model can. Its potential for the future, if developed correctly and in combination with appropriate checks, balances and safeguards is enormous. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bibliography. • Review of Housing Supply. Delivering Stability: Securing our Future Housing Needs. Barker K. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office Crown copyright 2000. • Firm Foundations: The Future of Housing in Scotland. The Scottish Government. Edinburgh October 2007. • National Housing Federation. UP MY STREET – WORKING TOGETHER IN PARTNERSHIP. London. www.housing.org.uk/partnership. Accessed 5th December 2010 • Common Housing Register. Position Study Report. Scottish Housing Best Value Network. SHBVN. May 2008. • North Lanarkshire Partnership. Community Plan 2008- 2010. http://www.northlanarkshire.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx'id=2116&p=0. Accessed 20th November 2010. • North Lanarkshire Partnership. Community Plan 2008- 2010. http://www.northlanarkshire.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx'id=2116&p=0. Accessed 28th November 2010. • Stevenson R. R.D.S. Consultancy Services. [2002]. Getting Under the Skin of Community Planning. Crown Copyright 2002. ISBN 0 7559 34350. • The Joseph Rowntree Foundation. 2002. Local Authority Members and Partnership Working. Joseph Rowntree Foundation. York. ISSN 0958-3084 ----------------------------------------------------- Appendix • Appendix A. Common Housing Register List of Partners. • Appendix B. Common Housing Register Core Functions. • Appendix C. Common Housing Register Staff Training Requirements. • Appendix D. North Lanarkshire Partnership Partners • Appendix E. North Lanarkshire Partnership Organisational Structure. -----------------------------------------------