Local strategic partnerships – the lessons learned so far

March 26, 2002

Rt. Hon. Nick Raynsford MP
Minister for Local Government and the Regions
NLGN Conference

Introduction

Thank you very much for inviting me to speak to you today. I am delighted to be here. I’ll say a little more later about why I think events like today are particularly important for the development of LSPs. LSPs can make a real impact and are not just processes.


Policy background


Why are we in favour of LSPs?




Tackling the biggest challenges to our society and the renewal of our most deprived neighbourhoods, demands concerted and co-ordinated action across all sectors. It requires a range of local organisations working together. That’s why LSPs are a key part of our national strategy for neighbourhood renewal and our programme for modernising local government. They are not a passing fad – but a key means of tackling deep-seated, multifaceted problems, needing a range of response across a range of bodies.




December’s local government white paper re-emphasised the importance of partnership working at all levels to deliver services centred around people. Effective local democracy is essential to strong community leadership and improved service delivery. But real community leadership has to be earned – it cannot be conferred through the ballot box alone. And indeed there is an interesting issue at present with participation in local elections often unacceptably low and people not engaged as they should be in the democratic process. There are no quick solutions here. But it is noticeable that there are examples of effective neighbourhood renewal and other partnership working which demonstrate much higher levels of participation than in local elections.




LSPs provide an opportunity for local authorities to demonstrate community leadership through forging effective partnerships with local businesses, and voluntary and community groups. Because they are elected by their communities, councillors play a unique role in linking the delivery of services with local people’s needs and ambitions, and facilitating real community empowerment and engagement.




Partnership working is not new – many local authorities have been working this way for years. And the concrete products of partnership working – community strategies and local neighbourhood renewal strategies are now being developed and implemented across the country.




Furthermore, there is widespread understanding that LSPs are not a measure prescribed for areas of deprivation alone. Some of the most vigorous LSPs exist in parts of the country that do not figure on any measures of deprivation. Where the local issues of most concern are likely to be the problems of success such as planning pressures, traffic problems, and lack of affordable housing.



LSPs are as well placed to tackle the problems of prosperity, as they are of deprivation. And neither are the two mutually exclusive. Here in Regents Park, we see some of the wealthiest communities in Britain, but only a short distance away are some of the most deprived communities. There are many lessons to be learnt about promoting inclusion and the success of different communities within the same area.




Accreditation/lessons we’re learning




I want to turn now to accreditation. As many of you will be aware, LSPs in the 88 areas receiving the neighbourhood renewal fund have recently been through a process of self-assessment and accreditation by Government Offices in the Regions.




The aim of this process was not to ‘badge’ or benchmark LSPs but to encourage effective and inclusive partnership development, whilst allowing LSPs to respond to the particularities of their local environment. Accreditation has only been withheld where the LSP was considered not to have a good enough understanding of its weaknesses or developed an appropriate action plan to address them.




So I hope you can see that the flavour our approach is not of a prescriptive model. We want to encourage a climate for creative responses to be developed locally to engage people effectively.



The process has shown considerable progress across the country. But as you would expect, there is still a great deal more to do and Government will want to work closely with LSPs to build on the work of this year and begin to ensure effective delivery on the ground.



LSPs are tackling a range of challenges, some of which are shared, and others that relate to the particularities of an area. Over the next few months the Neighbourhood Renewal Unit will be analysing the self-assessments and action-plans for all LSPs. This work will ensure we fully capture patterns of progress, the common challenges and good practice that can be found in addressing these. This will inform how Government continues to work with and support LSP development across the country.



Many LSPs, particularly those in the early stages of development, have found this a very positive process to go through. It has allowed them to reflect on how the partnership is evolving and set key milestones for progress in the coming year. Input from external stakeholders has encouraged partnerships to address issues, which were ‘buried’ or even which the partnership was not aware of. This has to be seen as a positive step in partnership development.




Some of the lessons that we are learning from the accreditation process – are as relevant for LSPs outside ‘the 88’ as in. I’ll say a few words on some of them.




One is the challenge of getting the balance right between inclusivity and actually getting things done. This is more than an issue of who sits at the top table – it’s about involving everybody who wants to get involved in some way, enabling them to make meaningful contributions. Local partners are finding a lot of different ways of structuring LSPs to get to grips with this, and we need to continue to share ideas and learn from one another.




We all tend to prefer to stick with our old familiar ways, but in developing real partnerships this is not possible. Working with different people means having to find a way of accommodating their styles and ours. Diversity is inherent in a good partnership – and we have to learn to work with tensions between partners. Real partnership involves tension, conflict and debate – this is key to its vitality.




Another is managing the move from a ‘strategic’ to an ‘operational’ role. Some LSPs – particularly those based on previous SRB or regeneration partnerships – may already be directly supervising delivery of services. To do so, they may choose to take the form of a company limited by guarantee. Other LSPs may confine their role to a strategic one, while other bodies deliver.




How LSPs organise themselves is a matter for local determination. But as LSPs sort their structures and protocols; it’s important that they do not neglect the overriding priority – that is the need to ensure that they are having a visible and positive impact in their area. People need to see changes that have come about through an LSP’s work, – particularly a tangible, visible result. One example I’m aware of is action to ensure the faster removal of abandoned cars through cross-agency co-operation. Part of that process also involves setting up appropriate performance management arrangements. Again, we need not be prescriptive about what they are – but LSPs must have means of measuring their own achievements.




Research reminds us that while the theory of LSP working is straightforward, the practice is a complex web of personalities, policies and processes that make up the messy business of partnership working. We need to capture and disseminate this practical experience, and events like today’s can help to do that.




These kinds of events are particularly valuable because they provide space and time for people involved in LSPs to come together to exchange ideas and experience. And we can all learn from this process.




Around the country, the same sets of issues arise. Who should sit on the LSP? How should an LSP be structured? How can we get effective partnership working in areas with several spheres of governance?




I do not believe that it is helpful for central government to prescribe answers to these questions of geography and structure. Local partners are reaching their own solutions and don’t need central government sticking its oar in. Though I have to say, we do get a lot of requests for guidance from local authorities! I want our guidance to be focused on distilling the experience and be a useful informative tool, rather than prescriptive. We can – and must – share experience of different models and spread successful practice.




White paper commitments




There are three particular commitments in the Local Government White Paper that relate to LSPs. I’d like to say a bit about each, and how I hope they will contribute to LSP development.




One commitment is to reduce the number of partnerships that we in central government require. The Home Office and the Department of Health will be consulting shortly on proposals announced in the Police Bill to merge Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships and Drug Action Teams. That consultation provides a timely opportunity to evaluate those partnerships’ links with LSPs too. I hope that partners will make full use of the consultation process to set out how we can maximise the benefits of partnership working and minimise the bureaucracy.




We will be looking to see where else we can reduce the burden of partnerships that we require centrally. This is one of the key themes of our recent Local Government White paper. But LSPs themselves will be the prime movers here, as they are in the best position to map the partnerships that exist locally and consider how best they might be organised. There may be well over a hundred partnerships doing valuable – but perhaps in some cases similar- work in any one locality. There are usually many more local ‘bottom-up’ partnerships than government-inspired ‘top-down’ ones. We in government will do what we can to reduce the ‘top-down’ burden, but only LSPs can reach sensible decisions about maximising the potential of partnerships with a wholly local perspective.




Secondly, the White Paper committed to exploring how best to secure the involvement of relevant public sector bodies in LSPs. It said that we would do so in conjunction with the LGA and other stakeholders. And that where necessary we will implement changes through guidance by April 2003.




There are some 40 public sector bodies responsible for delivering services of one kind or another locally; and one might expect each of these bodies to play a role of some sort on local partnerships. Of course, that doesn’t mean they all have to sit round the same table at the same time. We need to get a practical solution that allows each body to make its contribution in the most effective and least bureaucratic way.




There will be no one size fits all answer to this. Some bodies are crucial to most aspects of service delivery – like primary care trusts and the police. Others may have a particular role in relation to a local priority. For example, dealing with traffic issues or road noise may mean engaging the Highways Agency. And some bodies may have a more significant role in some parts of the country than others. In London, the GLA has a unique role. The involvement of the Royal Navy is crucial in Portsmouth – but not in Preston. The same logic applies to non-statutory bodies; the local football club may make a very important contribution in some areas, but not everywhere.




While the White paper talks of changes by April 2003, I want to stress that we will move much more quickly to deal with any local issues that are adversely affecting government bodies’ involvement in LSPs. I invite you to contact your Government Office if you’re aware of such issues. This is not a piece of work that central government can usefully conduct without stakeholder involvement, and we will be fully involving the LGA and other partners in it.



The third commitment was that we would reissue non-prescriptive LSP guidance this summer.




Though the guidance was only issued a year ago, the national policy environment never stands still. The forthcoming Spending Review white paper may bring changes that are relevant to LSPs. But before we embark on the process of its revision, we need to consider whether it will add value. If the consensus from stakeholders is that further guidance is not required at this stage then we will listen. We shall certainly ensure that all with an interest are involved in its drafting.




There are many exciting opportunities ahead for LSPs. For example, LSP involvement in local public service agreements (PSAs) will open the way for local PSAs to evolve to cover wider aspects of public service than just those of the local authority. Councils can strike deals with other partners on how to share their pump-priming and reward grants for shared targets, and agree freedoms and flexibilities for LSP partners to support delivery of shared targets.




It’s taken dedication by thousands of local partners from all sectors to get LSPs up and running across the country. There are great challenges ahead, and I’m confident that local partners will meet them. We in central government are committed to playing our part to make LSPs a success. We look forward to working with you to ensure that LSPs really do achieve their enormous potential.



Explore More