Diese Präsentation wurde erfolgreich gemeldet.
Wir verwenden Ihre LinkedIn Profilangaben und Informationen zu Ihren Aktivitäten, um Anzeigen zu personalisieren und Ihnen relevantere Inhalte anzuzeigen. Sie können Ihre Anzeigeneinstellungen jederzeit ändern.
STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP BOARDS
IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT:
A MISNOMER OR REAL SPACES FOR COLLABORATIVEWORKING?
LONDON STRATEGY NETW...
WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?
 Statutory/formal boards created to action/ enable/ lead partnership
working and strategic act...
CHATTERFALL:
Why is strategic
collaboration/
partner in local areas
with local partners
important? Why do we
care?
TYPEYOU...
Cost savings Innovation
Improve
services
Reduce
duplication
Improve joint
working
Think
differently
Move beyond
sectors or...
CHATTERFALL:
In your experience, how
would you describe the
work & effectiveness
of your strategic
partnerships?
TYPEYOUR
...
THE STORY - TWO CASE STUDIES
HEALTH & WELLBEING BOARDS
Background
 HWB were established under the
Health and Social Care Act 2012
where key leaders an...
LOCAL STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP
Background
 Early 2000s to spearhead A New Commitment to
Neighbourhood Renewal (linked fundin...
THE CONCERNS - LOCAL GOVERNMENT
STATUTORY/FORMAL BOARDS – HWB, LSP, CSP ETC
1. Wrong way round: Starting with governance a...
WHAT ‘THE CLEVERS’ SAY ABOUT
COLLABORATION
IFG: COLLABORATIVE WORKING, HOW PUBLICLY FUNDED
SERVICES CAN TAKE AWHOLE SYSTEMS APPROACH
Successful collaborations have a...
NEW LOCAL: LEADING PARTNERSHIPS TO
TRANSFORM PLACE
Their 5 principles for effective partnerships are
1. Focus on building ...
STRIVE’S COLLECTIVE IMPACT APPROACH
1. Common Agenda - Collective impact requires all participants to have a shared vision...
DEVELOPING PLACE-
BASED PARTNERSHIPS:THE
FOUNDATION OF
EFFECTIVE INTEGRATED
CARE SYSTEMS
1. Start from purpose, with a
sha...
CAN WE MAKE THEM WORK?
Statutory/Formal
Board
• Dictates a vision/ goal
• Forces organsiation
together
• Demands reporting...
“How is it that we are statutory, formal and
bureaucratic and collaborative, whole systems and
effective partnerships simu...
Strategic Partnership Boards in Local Government A misnomer or real spaces for collaborative working?
Nächste SlideShare
Wird geladen in …5
×

Strategic Partnership Boards in Local Government A misnomer or real spaces for collaborative working?

https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/o/london-policy-amp-strategy-network-31019071129

  • Als Erste(r) kommentieren

  • Gehören Sie zu den Ersten, denen das gefällt!

Strategic Partnership Boards in Local Government A misnomer or real spaces for collaborative working?

  1. 1. STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP BOARDS IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT: A MISNOMER OR REAL SPACES FOR COLLABORATIVEWORKING? LONDON STRATEGY NETWORK
  2. 2. WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?  Statutory/formal boards created to action/ enable/ lead partnership working and strategic action  Strategic collaboration, define as ‘an intentional, collective approach to address public problems or issues through building shared knowledge, designing innovative solutions, and forging consequential change’
  3. 3. CHATTERFALL: Why is strategic collaboration/ partner in local areas with local partners important? Why do we care? TYPEYOUR ANSWER IN CHAT WAIT… BEFORE YOUR PRESS ENTER
  4. 4. Cost savings Innovation Improve services Reduce duplication Improve joint working Think differently Move beyond sectors or silos Reach long term solutions Capture and share knowledge Meet community needs Economies of scale Create local platforms and lobby Address wicked problems Better local planning Better use of assets
  5. 5. CHATTERFALL: In your experience, how would you describe the work & effectiveness of your strategic partnerships? TYPEYOUR ANSWER IN CHAT WAIT… BEFORE YOUR PRESS ENTER
  6. 6. THE STORY - TWO CASE STUDIES
  7. 7. HEALTH & WELLBEING BOARDS Background  HWB were established under the Health and Social Care Act 2012 where key leaders and partners from the local health and care system could work together to improve the health and wellbeing of their local population  Across the country, there has been discussion about the role and purpose of these boards within the new Integrated Care Systems.  Statutory membership requires representation from at least one local authority elected member, from all CCGs within area, local Healthwatch, and directors of adult social services, children’s services and public health Some of the issues from engagement  Purposelessness:‘I don't understand the role of the board and what it should be doing’  Replication/ Duplication: ’There is a duplication of work and membership’’  Unclear roles: ‘Not clear for members what is expected/ their roles… It’s not clear how to represent or feedback’ ‘I slightly dread seeing it my calendar’  Not active or strategic: ‘It feels like a really passive process, we should give feedback and shape services locally but we don’t’,‘talk shop’  Membership: very large, representation and feedback
  8. 8. LOCAL STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP Background  Early 2000s to spearhead A New Commitment to Neighbourhood Renewal (linked funding)  Gov Guidance:  brings together the public, private, business, community and voluntary sectors so that initiatives support each other and work together;  non-statutory, non-executive organisation;  operates at a level to enables strategic decisions to be taken and is close enough to individual neighbourhoods to allow actions to be determined at community level;  aligned with local authority boundaries  Morphed and changed in various ways- no longer required but many are maintained Some of the issues  Purpose: Too broad, too visionary, lead a strategy?  Membership: Same people, different meeting and recruiting the sameVCSE/Community participants for every collaborative effort- unsustainable  Changes in leadership: change focus and purpose  Processes: bring everyone to the table but then reinforce the silos  Keep starting again: Start over again collecting the same data, setting the same goals, and taking us back where we started, while expending countless hours ‘collaborating’  Collaborating = not sticking your neck out
  9. 9. THE CONCERNS - LOCAL GOVERNMENT STATUTORY/FORMAL BOARDS – HWB, LSP, CSP ETC 1. Wrong way round: Starting with governance and retrofitting purpose, which is often not clear, too broad, may be paralysing, not what people are passionate about. Do we actually want this or need this? (initiates the institutional inertia) 2. Bureaucratic theatre: Meetings held in public in formal bureaucratic ways - does this enable collaboration, difficult questions, sticking your head out, banging heads? 3. Top Down: Senior Officers or Members feed information DOWN, membership does not always reflect the actual relationships and networks of connections that work in the system and achieve the desired outcome 4. Number and breadth of partners: lead to difficulties about navigating each, culture, drivers, definitions, level of buy in and geographies (partners not being coterminous), some national services (E.g DWP) don’t always act locally 5. Power and leadership: who is in charge, leads and takes ownership and accountability, changes in leadership disrupt working and vision 6. Support: Not enough invested in supporting the relationship building etc, and it all takes time….
  10. 10. WHAT ‘THE CLEVERS’ SAY ABOUT COLLABORATION
  11. 11. IFG: COLLABORATIVE WORKING, HOW PUBLICLY FUNDED SERVICES CAN TAKE AWHOLE SYSTEMS APPROACH Successful collaborations have a 1. common purpose, 2. strong insistence on a whole systems approach, 3. shared power, and 4. used the service user’s perspective to stimulate change.  Nationally delivered services have empowered local interlocutors
  12. 12. NEW LOCAL: LEADING PARTNERSHIPS TO TRANSFORM PLACE Their 5 principles for effective partnerships are 1. Focus on building relationships before partnerships 2. Identify shared missions 3. Keep communities front and centre 4. Learn together ‘citizens don’t get silos, or sectors and force heads to bang’
  13. 13. STRIVE’S COLLECTIVE IMPACT APPROACH 1. Common Agenda - Collective impact requires all participants to have a shared vision for change, one that includes a common understanding of the problem and a joint approach to solving it 2. Shared Measurement Systems - Developing a shared measurement system is essential to collective impact. Its essential to agree ways success will be measured and reported. 3. Mutually Reinforcing Activities - Collective impact initiatives depend on a diverse group of stakeholders working together, not by requiring that all participants do the same thing, but by encouraging each participant to undertake the specific set of activities in a way that supports and is coordinated with the actions of others. 4. Continuous Communication - Developing trust among non-profits, corporations, and government agencies is a monumental challenge. Participants need several years of regular meetings to build up enough experience with each other to recognise and appreciate the common motivation behind their different efforts. 5. Backbone Support Organisations - A separate organisation and staff to serve as the backbone for the entire initiative. Coordination takes time, and none of the participating organisations has any to spare.The expectation that collaboration can occur without a supporting infrastructure is one of the most frequent reasons why it fails.
  14. 14. DEVELOPING PLACE- BASED PARTNERSHIPS:THE FOUNDATION OF EFFECTIVE INTEGRATED CARE SYSTEMS 1. Start from purpose, with a shared local vision 2. Build a new relationship with communities 3. Build up from what already exists locally 4. Focus on relationships between systems, places and neighbourhoods 5. Nurture joined-up resource management 6. Strengthen the role of providers at place 7. Embed effective place-based leadership
  15. 15. CAN WE MAKE THEM WORK? Statutory/Formal Board • Dictates a vision/ goal • Forces organsiation together • Demands reporting, openness etc • ‘Invited spaces’ owned by certain organisations Collaborative innovative spaces • Shared vision • Builds relationships • Uses a system approach • Puts user/ resident at the centre • Allows for learning • Shares power
  16. 16. “How is it that we are statutory, formal and bureaucratic and collaborative, whole systems and effective partnerships simultaneously?” DESIGNTHAT PARTNERSHIP Instructions • We will break down into small groups • Use 2-3 minutes to discuss what you will focus on – a specific ideal board • Use 5 minutes to each individually add to the jamboard using sticky notes (feel free to continue to add as people speak) • Spend 5 minutes talking and elaborating on each heading • Make sure each person gets a chance to speak • Challenge, test, debate, probe, stick your neck out • Return to main room for debrief – one person to share 2-3 key insights from the group

×