Appendix B THEMATIC PARTNERSHIP REVIEW 1. Recommendations 1.1 That the CSP Executive Board note the findings contained in the report for the CSP Thematic Partnership Review 1.2 That the CSP Executive Board encourage all CSP thematic partnerships to consider the findings of the Thematic Partnership Review and where appropriate look to be influenced by the review’s findings in their operation and remit. 2. Executive Summary 2.1 This paper highlights the key findings of the summary report which has been produced following the CSP Thematic Partnership Review which took place, 22 September 2009. The Thematic Partnership Review sought to evaluate the benefits of working more closely around Environment focused outcomes, and also to consider generic aspects of partnership working, such as business management and engagement with various sectors, which are common across all of the CSP thematic partnerships. 3. Background 3.1 Having reached the end of the first year of the delivery of the refreshed Community Strategy and refreshed LAA outcomes for Cumbria, the Cumbria Strategic Partnership wished to review the effectiveness of its approaches to partnership working and identify changes where appropriate. 3.2 The North West Improvement and Efficiency Partnership provided support to a review of partnership working by provision of support from Estelle Rowe. 3.3 In particular, the review concentrated upon the three thematic partnerships (Environment & Heritage, PLATH, and the Cumbria Strategic Waste Partnership) engaged in the achievement of outcomes broadly focused on the Environment and it seemed timely to use expertise within this wide theme to reflect on the current arrangements and consider whether a refreshed model could be more effective. Each of these thematic partnerships, listed above, has evolved in very different ways over different timescales and uses a variety of methods to engage with partners. It was considered helpful to evaluate best practice, consider the challenge ahead and explore whether delivery of outcomes could be enhanced through a change of model. Executive Board October 2009 Page 1 of 9 3.4 As well as a focus on the Environment theme outcomes, the Thematic Partnership Review also provided an opportunity to consider some of the broader Terms of Reference for all thematic partnerships and representatives from a number of other organisations and partnerships across the CSP were also invited to take part in the Review at Rheged, 22 September 2009. 3.5 The summary of the key ideas and findings which were captured at the Review is attached as an appendix to this report 4. Conclusion: Key Findings of the Thematic Partnership Review 4.1 The key findings to emerge from the Review relate to: Rationalisation of the existing thematic partnerships The role of, and involvement in thematic partnerships Programme management models for thematic partnerships 4.2 Rationalisation of existing Thematic Partnerships. One potential way forward which was clearly identified by delegates in attendance was that of reducing the three environment orientated thematic partnerships into a single Environment Thematic Partnership. This single partnership would be formed my merging the existing Environment & Heritage Thematic Partnership with PLATH. The Cumbria Strategic Waste Partnership (CSWP) would retain its distinct identity, but would no longer be a thematic partnership. It was suggested that CSWP would add greater value as a delivery partnership. 4.3 The role of, and involvement in, thematic partnerships. Contributions throughout the event have helped to inform a review of the existing Terms of Reference for thematic partnerships. These contributions centred around the use of the Community Strategy to set strategic priorities for thematic partnerships; securing commitment, communication and engagement from the widest possible range of partners across all sectors; and the roles and responsibilities of thematic partnerships in developing delivery plans, managing delivery, performance management, learning from best practice and challenging existing ways of working and duplication. 4.4 Programme management models for thematic partnerships. A further idea which emerged from discussions was that thematic partnerships could consider moving towards a programme management model which would increase their flexibility to address and deliver changing priorities. It was suggested that this approach could be incubated in the new Environment Thematic Partnership, should this partnership be established. Name: Sue Stevenson Job Title: CSP Manager Date: 14 October 2009 Executive Board October 2009 Page 2 of 9 APPENDIX Cumbria Strategic Partnership Thematic Partnership Review Introduction As part of its support offer to the region’s Local Strategic Partnerships, the North West Improvement and Efficiency Partnership was asked to support a review of thematic partnership working in Cumbria. The review is framed around a current example of where thematic working is thought to be ready for review – the three environmentally based partnerships – Planning, Transport and Housing (PLATH), Environment & Heritage and Waste. However, the opportunity to consider the future of thematic partnership working right across the Cumbria Strategic Partnership (CSP) is a parallel objective of the review. Thematic Partnership Review Event The review commenced with an event at the Rheged Centre on the 22nd September 2009. The attendance was broad, and included members of the three environmental partnerships, although two thirds of delegates represented the wider membership of the Cumbria Strategic Partnership. The objectives The day was designed to achieve the following; Exploring the case for change in thematic partnership working Considering the ‘value added’ of thematic partnership working Teasing out problem areas Debating options for future working Influencing and committing to a change process, if appropriate We also agreed that what would not be achieved on the day was: x x Agreement on all issues An off the shelf solution The Environmental ‘case study’ Scene setting was provided by Marie Fallon (Corporate Director, Environment, Cumbria CC). Presentations were then given by the three environmentally based thematic partnerships - a ‘rough guide’ to each partnership, and a summary of the key delivery issues. The objective of these was to highlight: For those directly concerned with environmental issues – the complexity of the current situation, common strands across the three partnerships and key issues to address. For the wider audience – whether, in addition to the environmental area, ways forward could be identified to enhance and strengthen thematic partnership working within CSP. The Case for Change In the first exercise you gave us feedback on the case for change, benefits and pitfalls. Your feedback on the first question connected well into the second question: Whether there is a case for change and why? Opportunities and benefits of change Focus Action orientation Thematic Partnerships have a tendency to be problem focused not action focused Separating the strategy from the delivery role could help partnerships to become more focused on priorities Duplication Capacity release There are instances of duplication that could be better managed Reducing duplication could help to release more capacity e.g. through less meetings Return Efficiency The returns for working in thematic partnerships are not necessarily justified, compared to the amount of time spent Fewer meetings could mean more time exploring opportunities for financial efficiencies & cross partnership working Style Engagement There should be more transparency within thematic partnerships, better ways of including people and greater levels of trust The right people involved at the right level would help people to feel involved and may lead to better engagement of the community Complexity Clarity of purpose Thematic partnerships can be complex and bureaucratic. They must differentiate between strategy and delivery and be democratic Clarification of the role would enable ‘strategically managed locality working’ It would also help partnerships to broaden their focus beyond just LAA issues. Potential risks or pitfall of change A number of concerns were highlighted which should be considered alongside any change: Some things may not need fixing at all. We should avoid losing what’s good already. Larger thematic partnerships could lead to confusion and a loss of focus on key issues. This would disengage partners. A ‘one size fits all’ approach may not be appropriate. Without a proper governance structure to steer a change process, there may be problems. Dedicated support for any change is a must, as is a proper communication plan. Role of and Involvement in Thematic Partnerships We then went on to build on the ‘case for change’ discussions by exploring the role of the Thematic Partnerships (TPs) and what value they add, their role and who should be involved. One of the four groups felt it was right to question whether we need TPs at all. Others recognised that tensions exist between thematic and local delivery levels. Setting these aside for now, the feedback from all groups identified clear areas of consensus around the role of the TP. Form should follow function, but.. Generally TPs should be ‘thin’ structures at the county level. They must have a clear purpose and ‘brand’ - developing a clear narrative that everyone can subscribe to. Translating the Sustainable Community Strategy and prioritising Fundamentally, TPs should translate the community strategy into clear strategic priorities for the TP. The TP’s role is as a commissioner rather than as deliverer – the untangling and separation of delivery roles from strategic roles would allow the TPs to pursue their objectives in a more focused way. Securing commitment, communication and engagement TPs should secure commitment at the highest level and reconcile diverse priorities. TPs should not just be about the meetings - getting the benefits of partnership relationships between meetings is vital. TPs must ensure that the voice of the community is heard. Resourcing TPs should secure and align resources for county-wide delivery plans. Performance management Given the role of the TP in delivering outcomes, they should also undertake the county-wide performance management role. TPs should identify and champion outcomes that are hard to measure. Learning and challenging The ‘networking’ role of the TP is also compatible with a learning role – taking advantage of the skills and experience of all partners and learning from best practice. TPs should be concerned with horizon scanning, identifying gaps and challenging duplication. Exploring efficiency was not mentioned, but could be inferred from the challenging role. Feedback on who should be involved in TPs also revealed some common views; Everyone who needs to influence ‘action’ should be involved. There should be a separation of delivery groups from the strategy functions, and membership aligned accordingly. There should be more involvement from the 3rd sector, but we must be mindful of tensions between their strategic and delivery role. Not everyone has to be in meetings, but this relies heavily on the effectiveness of communications. Better ways to involve more people would be to make more use of task and finish groups. Elected members must have a higher profile. How Thematic Partnerships Could Work Better Finally in the afternoon, we asked groups to shape their thinking into considered proposals for the future operating model of TPs. We also asked them to consider how processes such as performance and risk management should work, the skills needs and style of future TPs. Within the proposals discussed, two distinct operating models emerged – one which would retain the thematic partnerships, and one which would not. Proposals for Thematic Partnerships The proposals of three of the groups have been consolidated and structured into a series of potential steps in a change process. Review best practice. As a precursor to any change programme, the CSP should investigate models in operation within Cumbria and elsewhere. Refresh and where necessary separate the strategic and delivery roles within existing TPs. This was a strong theme throughout the day and it would be compatible with a strategic commissioning model. This would be a substantial task and would need to be carried out in line with the following step… Refresh the performance and risk management process. One group discussed and ‘escalation’ model for risk (this could also apply to performance management) which would sit neatly with the separation of the strategic and delivery roles. Refresh the Sustainable Community Strategy and ensure that the strategic objectives of the TPs evolve to reflect any changes. Adopt new terms of reference. The session produced a useful ‘blue-print’ for future terms of reference. Some of the terms relate to the steps within this list. Others relate to softer issues which were raised in the am and pm sessions such as trust, relationship building and passion for partnership working. Adopt a programme/project management approach with the TP. The success of this approach would rely heavily on the installation of dedicated business managers for the TP. However, alongside the above proposals, it could have a powerful impact on the achievement of objectives, both within and across TPs. Spotlight key issues. Alongside the programme/project management approach is a related proposal to ‘spotlight’ one or two vitally important issues which touch all themes e.g. climate change or health inequalities. In doing so, these issues would be given special attention, although care would be needed to ensure that duplication of time and effort did not result. One group proposed the merger of the Environment and heritage Thematic Partnership with Planning, Transport and Housing (PLATH) and also suggested that the Cumbria Waste partnership should not be considered as a TP by more as a delivery partnership sitting below the new TP. Following on from that this group when on to ask for further consideration to be given to the role of the Climate Change task Group and offered to come back with some further thoughts on this. A more radical proposal was made in one group to move to a full programme/project management model. This would mean that the programme of delivery activity could be altered to align with changing priorities. Conclusions The day revealed a huge passion and appetite for progress in partnership working within Cumbria. Returning to the original motivation behind the event (the organisation of the environmental TPs) it seems that there is at least one potential change model which could be followed if CSP so desires, thus reducing the three Environmental focussed Partnerships to a single Environment Thematic Partnership supported by the Cumbria Waste Partnership in a delivery role. Secondly, a number of contribution throughout the day have helped to inform a review of the existing Terms of Reference for TPs and a revised draft Terms of Reference will be shared with TP Chairs. Particular attention needs to be paid to the voice of the community and to broader engagement to influence activity. Thirdly, TPs may wish to move to a programme management model increasing their flexibility to address and deliver changing priorities possibly through a number of delivery partnerships. This approach could be tested in the new Environment Partnership should this be established. Both sets of proposals (and the steps contained within them) are substantial and now require further development and consultation, for which there will need to be a mechanism.