Back to Clippings Archive main page

Perfecting partnerships

Council services are increasingly being delivered through partnerships with the private sector. Robert Bullard looks at what makes them work – and why they might fail. (Local Government Chronicle, 7th February 2008)


Fifteen years ago ‘partnership working’ were merely words tacked onto funding applications in an effort to impress ministers, but rarely given further thought. Today, however, they have become an increasingly vital way of working for councils.

The amount of partnership working has increased dramatically. In 2002, public sector organisations were estimated to be involved in 5,500 partnerships that managed or spent just under £4bn, according to research by the University of Birmingham and University of West of England.

Today, councils work in partnership through a variety of mechanisms: local strategic partnerships (LSPs); the government’s recent drive for resident involvement; area based grants; and the comprehensive area assessments, which will replace comprehensive performance assessments in April.

Partnership working is now imperative for councils, even in the face of declining budgets, says Keith Shephard, head of strategic partnerships at Hertfordshire County Council. “Partnerships are part of our day job, not bolted onto the side.”

And with the growing emphasis on partnerships as the way to deliver benefits in communities, there is plenty of scope for learning and improvement.

What makes a good partnership, what are the pitfalls to avoid, and what new skills are required?

One of the most successful partnerships – a winner of six national awards and short-listed nearly 30 times under the categories of ‘transforming services’ and ‘best public-private partnership’ – is the joint-venture company Rotherham Brought Together (RBT). Set up in 2003, it is a 12year agreement between Rotherham BC and BT that delivers services electronically to residents.

It covers areas such as revenues and benefits, public access to information, recruitment and procurement. “Successful partnerships have clear ambitions and strong leadership,” says the company’s chief executive, Paul Broadberry. “There is more that ties them together than pulls them apart, they are able to put aside any petty squabbles.”

Alison Kelly, a strategy advisor at the Audit Commission, agrees. “Partners need to be clear about what difference they are going to make.”

And to succeed, she adds, they need passion and energy and a philosophy to ensure issues are resolved jointly. Being flexible to the partners’ changing needs has been another important ingredient to RBT’s success, says Rotherham BC’s director of finance, Andrew Bedford. “The original goal for the council was service improvement. It was not about cost cutting, beyond procurement. But since the Gershon Review the council has wanted to use the partnership to help secure economies, and there is now a greater emphasis on doing that,” he says.

Being in partnership requires both sides to be amenable to such changes, says Mr Bedford. “We have a maturity such that we can renegotiate the contract and redefine its objectives: what the partnership is about and how we can build on our successes to deliver more.”

Not everything, even in this well developed partnership, is neatly written down. For example, the profits on any work RBT does for other councils are normally distributed 80:20, in proportion to BT and the council’s shareholdings. But the guidelines for determining when the ratio might vary, and by how much, admits Mr Broadberry, are in his head. “At the end of the day it is like any negotiation - there is a bit of horse-trading,” he says.

The lack of written protocols for dealing with such situations can create risks for councils, warns the Audit Commission in its report Governing Partnerships. It says that working across boundaries can create complexity and ambiguity, leading to confusion and less accountability. It is therefore critical for partnerships to have effective protocols for governance.

Even successful partnerships should prepare for potential rainy days, says Local Government Ombudsman, Tony Redmond. “Remember in the euphoria of when things are working to put arrangements in place for handling complaints in case things go wrong.”

Mr Redman’s office does not receive many complaints about partnerships, but is receiving them more often and has started monitoring them.

As partnerships get more complex, Mr Redman says, they are less likely to set up complaints procedures; and yet receiving feedback from service users through complaints is potentially an “extremely important” part of any organisation’s learning process.

A common failing by councils, adds the Audit Commission’s Ms Kelly, is a mismatch between what councils say they are going to do and how they set about it – consultation with the local community and working with the voluntary sector are prime examples.

“Engagement with the third sector needs to be greater than inviting them to a meeting and letting them chip into your plans,” adds Richard Astle, director of the Greater Peterborough Partnership. For him, engagement only happens if the third sector is involved in or leads on projects.

Likewise, a partnership’s targets need to be delivered by more than just public sector organisations. “If the third sector are involved they can see that they too have a role,” he says. “It gives them a sense of ownership in a document; it helps with governance.”

The increased significance and expectations of partnership working also require particular skills of council staff, says Hertfordshire’s Keith Shephard. “There is a tendency to try and get the structures for partnerships right, but you have got to have the right people too, otherwise they will not happen.”

When it comes to running county-wide initiatives, he says, you need people who are prepared to step up and take a lead. This may mean recruiting people for their skills, rather than what organisation they are with.

“Partnership working is high maintenance,” warns Shephard. And he should know, with 10 LSPs and numerous other partnerships across the county. His solution is to take on board new blood – he has two graduate trainees in his 14-strong team, who he describes as having the advantage of being open-minded and “not having a local authority mentality. Mr Shephard believes there is a genuine need for public sector organisations to train in partnership working skills such as negotiation.

Local area agreements are hard to sell as a brand, Mr Shephard says, but they have forced partners to communicate. “People have got together to scope out and deliver targets. It has been really positive.”

Working across different organisational cultures can sometimes present problems, but not apparently in Rotherham. Many BT staff previously worked elsewhere, explains Mr Broadberry, and he and his colleagues are comfortable working with councillors. “They are an opportunity rather than a threat; each one of them is potentially one of my sales force.”

Another feature Mr Broadberry cites as significant to RBT is its two-tier decision-making. Strategic issues, such as whether to go for a new market opportunity, are dealt with by him and his Mr Bedford, while day-to-day management is left to their operational managers. “It means any bickering about a payment does not cloud the wider strategic management,” says Mr Broadberry.

The partners offer one final, underlying reason for their success. For BT, unlike its traditional sales contracts, the managed service operation with the council is a contract lasting years rather than months, and means working at a higher level with chief executives. This offers stability and so is welcomed by shareholders.

The council’s motivation for maintaining an effective partnership is very simple, says Mr Bedford. “It all boils down to delivering quality services, at the right price, for the people of Rotherham.”

Partnerships are hard work; it can take time for organisations to share information and work truly collaboratively, concludes Alison Kelly of the Audit Commission. “Councils have got a lot better, but there are a number of issues – such as leadership and performance – that councils and LSPs are still grappling with.”


Advice from the Audit Commission

In an analysis of auditors’ returns, the Commission found that 39% of councils experiencing problems with partnerships faced risks because of an absence or poor operation of financial controls and governance processes in the council or one of the partners.

As a result, it encourages partnerships to seriously ask of themselves, who is in charge and how does the partnership add value. With thee elements made clear it is mre likely that the partnership will run smoothly.

The commission also found that lessons can be learned from the health service. Primary care trusts without partnership agreements were nearly twice as likely to have problems as those with agreements - 45% compared to 27% - with the ratio nearly three times as likely among acute trusts (60% versus 22%).

© Robert Bullard. Not for reproduction without prior permission
 

Back to Clippings Archive main page
top of page