report to the csp executive

advertisement
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.
Download