Title

If local strategic partnerships are going to be useful in the current economic climate, they must shift their role from place-shaping to place shielding, says Kirsty Cole. Local strategic partnerships (LSPs) have come a long way since they first began to evolve in the early 1990s. "Are the LSPs really shaping strategic thinking within our communities, or are they just churning through data and monitoring action plans?" They have morphed from a loose collection of stakeholders in the community coming together to begin to open a dialogue, to complex structures, usually with an overarching board and numerous theme groups, sub groups and working groups, strategies and action plans, and a rigid performance-management framework. On a positive note, the key partners in our communities are now actively talking to each other but, in a time of economic recession and reducing public, private and voluntary resources and capacity, are all the elements actually adding real value? Or, are they just monitoring what each of the partners would do individually in any event and, in so doing, creating a complex bureaucracy to monitor and measure that activity? The embryonic partnerships of the early 1990s were described by one commentator as ‘a suspension of mutual loathing in pursuit of funding'. Partnerships gradually reached a level of maturity where trust and confidence was built between the parties, and they became mutual custodians of resources which were allocated to communities according to perceived needs. The cynic might comment that they found ways of working together in order to divide the spoils. However, the trend over recent years has been towards a formalisation of partnerships which are now intended, primarily, to manage performance, usually with complex strategies, priorities, targets and action plans. The performance-management frameworks, links to the local area agreement, partnership audits and scoring has led to a situation where expensive and busy decision-makers are brought together to receive progress reports. That trend has led to a level of dissatisfaction among the partnership members. Are the LSPs really shaping strategic thinking within our communities, or are they just churning through data and monitoring action plans? Are they actually solving problems within our communities, or are they held back within a bureaucratic framework and structures, and overburdened with layers of performance management and targets. In a period of increasing austerity and contraction, the conversations at board level need to be around how we can mutually manage a significant reduction in resources, and how the public, private and voluntary sectors can work together to manage that change. The imperative is no longer ‘place-shaping' but instead, is ‘place shielding', protecting our most vulnerable communities from the worst impacts of the recession. If public spending is to be reduced on the scale indicated by central government, then there will need to be a corresponding rethink of the Government's expectations of local government, including a freeing up of current statutory obligations. This may include a freeing up of the requirement to maintain an LSP. Many partnerships are already questioning how ‘essential' their partnership resources are, when compared with direct service delivery. We need to be brave enough to ask the question as to what exactly is the role and purpose of the partnership, and ensure that we make it fit for purpose for a very different kind of world in the future, with a very different and serious set of challenges for our communities. We need to strip out those things that each of the partners would do anyway, and identify where partnership working is genuinely adding value. This analysis will inform what our ‘new' LSP will look like. It will mean doing things in a very different way and a rethink of the way in which we shape service delivery. No change is not an option. This may need to include some National Indicator data collection. The LSP has to come together as a stimulus for action in our communities, and we need to encourage wider democratic involvement to support the community leadership role. The LSP should be the catalyst for deeper engagement between the public, private and voluntary sectors. We need to find new ways of engaging the private sector, as it will generate wealth within our communities. LSP partners need to think holistically rather than in silos. A good example of that need for a shift in thinking relates to the recent adverse weather conditions. If the primary care trust had paid the highway authority to carry out gritting, this would probably have been much more cost effective than the subsequent treatment of fractures caused by slipping on the icy pavements. It is this fundamental change in mindset and approach which is essential, if the LSP is to be an effective ‘place shielder' during the challenging way ahead. Kirsty Cole is strategic director (customers and resources) at Newark and Sherwood DC

Title

WHITEHALL

Is there a future for local strategic partnerships?

SUBSCRIBE TO CONTINUE READING