This section is designed to be read in conjunction with other material on this site - listed below - which deals with collaboration between different interests involved in urban and rural regeneration programme (renewal or revitalisation are terms also used).

The term 'partnership' is now widely used where more than one organisation or interest is involved in, for example, an urban or rural regeneration programme. It may be too widely applied to situations where one powerful organisation is doing no more than consult with others, or mask fundamental differences of approach and objectives that will later lead to conflict.

Building Effective Local Partnerships (Local Government Management Board) offers as a definition:

A partnership is an agreement between two or more partners to work together to achieve common aims.

If you want to use any of the material, please contact me. David Wilcox \«david@partnerships.org.uk>>

This Introduction - below - deals with:

• The characteristics of successful and failed partnerships.
• Making neighbourhood renewal work
• The difference between participation and partnership
• Some apparently easy answers to partnership
• Guidelines for creating partnerships
• Strategies for partnership and participation

Some of the topics are covered in more detail in other material on this site.

• The Guide to Development Trusts and Partnerships.
• New - A Guide to Partnerships (rtf document) download here.
• An A-Z of Partnerships (latest version here -200K)
• Information sheets on creating community development trusts
• The Guide to Effective Participation which deals with some of the wider issues of community involvement.
• Other Internet resources

The following factors for success emerge from surveys of partnerships, and workshops of practitioners involved in creating and running partnerships:

• Agreement that a partnership is necessary.
• Respect and trust between different interests.
• The leadership of a respected individual or individuals.
• Commitment of key interests developed through a clear and open process.
• The development of a shared vision of what might be achieved.
• Time to build the partnership.
• Shared mandates or agendas.
• The development of compatible ways of working, and flexibility.
• Good communication, perhaps aided by a facilitator.
• Collaborative decision-making, with a commitment to achieving consensus.
• Effective organisational management.

The following are characteristics of failed attempts at partnership, or warnings that something is going wrong:

• A history of conflict among key interests.
• One partner manipulates or dominates.
• Lack of clear purpose.
• Unrealistic goals.
• Differences of philosophy and ways of working.
• Lack of communication.
• Unequal and unacceptable balance of power and control.
• Key interests missing from the partnership.
• Hidden agendas.
• Financial and time commitments outweigh the potential benefits.

Drawn from workshops and sources here

A report by Marilyn Taylor, published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in March 2000, argues that effective Neighbourhood Management in the future will depend on the following principles:

• Joined up strategy and action must be driven through all levels of public policy-making and provision - from top to bottom, from back room to front line -with transparency and multi-layered accountability as the guiding principles.
• Joined up working will require fundamental changes to the cultures and career structures of both government and the public service professions.
• A strong infrastructure is required in order to spread rather than protect knowledge, resources, skills and learning.
• There is no change without risk - frameworks for performance measurement, regulation and audit must be broad enough to allow local autonomy.
• There will be no sustainable change unless communities themselves are given the power and responsibility to take action.
• As well as engaging communities in decision-making, Neighbourhood Management must open up quality public service employment opportunities to members of local communities and transfer assets into community ownership.
• A long-term perspective is essential if integrated approaches to social inclusion are to be sustainable: enough time must be allowed to develop capacity and commitment in both communities and local public authorities.
• A strong and unequivocal message from central government is required if past barriers to change are to be overcome.

A summary of the report is at http://www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/findings/foundations/pdf/310.pdf

Another Joseph Roundation Foundation report, by a team at Goldsmith's College, explored the experiences of residents involved in urban regeneration projects and found all far from well on the ground. They concluded:

'Communities are diverse and local interests may conflict with each other. If the community is seen as homogenous then only the most powerful voices will tend to be heard.

'Residents felt there was a gap between the rhetoric that demands community participation in area regeneration programmes and the realities of work on the ground.

'The study did find examples of good practice, but residents also had major criticisms to make. Too often, in their view, the mechanisms for effective community involvement had been inadequate, with too little time for effective consultation. Many commented that there had been insufficient support and not enough training (a conclusion shared by many professionals).'

Summary available at http://www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/findings/housing/pdf/770.pdf

Participation consultant Drew Mackie reaches similar conclusions in an article 'Dancing while standing still' http://www.partnerships.org.uk/articles/still

He says: 'Two problems have emerged:

'Communities are under increasing pressure to become involved. This can put a strain on the time of community activists and the community itself. “I participated last week!” is becoming a frequent refrain as communities are consulted on matters of health, transport, housing, education, planning, economic development, etc. The quality of such consultation is necessarily variable and many bodies are consulting because they have to, not because they believe in it.

'Consultation itself does not guarantee delivery. A proper community involvement programme will involve the delivery agencies so that false expectations are not raised and delivery becomes part of the process. Communities are increasingly complaining that their involvement has not resulted in better delivery. “Why should I bother when nothing happens?”'

It may be easier to develop an appropriate approach to partnership if you have a simple theoretical framework for thinking about the wider issues of participation. These ideas are developed in detail in the Guide to Effective Participation.

Sherry Arnstein, writing in 1969 about citizen involvement in planning processes in the United States, described a ladder of participation.

1 Manipulation and 2 Therapy. Both are non participative. The aim is to cure or educate the participants. The proposed plan is best and the job of participation is to achieve public support by public relations.

3 Informing. A most important first step to legitimate participation. But too frequently the emphasis is on a one way flow of information. No channel for feedback.

4 Consultation. Again a legitimate step attitude surveys, neighbourhood meetings and public enquiries. But Arnstein still feels this is just a window dressing ritual.

5 Placation. For example, co-option of hand-picked 'worthies' onto committees. It allows citizens to advise or plan ad infinitum but retains for power holders the right to judge the legitimacy or feasibility of the advice.

6 Partnership. Power is in fact redistributed through negotiation between citizens and power holders. Planning and decision-making responsibilities are shared e.g. through joint committees.

7 Delegated power. Citizens holding a clear majority of seats on committees with delegated powers to make decisions. Public now has the power to assure accountability of the programme to them.

8 Citizen Control. Have-nots handle the entire job of planning, policy making and managing a programme e.g. neighbourhood corporation with no intermediaries between it and the source of funds.

Arnstein's ladder of participation suggests some levels are better than others. I think it is more of a case of horses for courses different levels are appropriate in different circumstances.

The key issue is what 'stance' you take if you are an organisation initiating or managing a process of participation or partnership building.

I suggest thinking of five levels or stances which offer increasing degrees of control to the others involved.

Information: The least you can do is tell people what is planned.

Consultation: You identify the problems, offer a number of options, and listen to the feedback you get.

Deciding together: You encourage others to provide some additional ideas and options, and join in deciding the best way forward.

Acting together: Not only do different interests decide together what is best, but they form a partnership to carry it out.

Supporting independent community initiatives: You help others do what they want perhaps within a framework of grants, advice and support provided by the resource holder.

The 'lower' levels of participation keep control with the initiator but they lead to less commitment from others. Partnership operates at the levels of Deciding Together and Acting Together.

Information is essential for all participation but is not participatory in itself.

When local authorities, private sector bodies, and indeed voluntary organisations, are faced with tight timetables and firm guidelines it is difficult to think through the complexities for participation and partnership. There is a strong temptation to go for a quick fix and hope to sort things out later. Here are a few health warnings on different forms of partnership.

A forum may seem an easy way to get a wide range of interests together and act as a sounding board, but should it be labelled a partnership? For example:

• Will the different interests be able to develop a common vision or will they simply argue for their individual priorities?
• How representative will the forum be? Will it just represent large, well-organised groups?
• Will the implementing organisations be bound by forum decisions?

Rather than putting all interests together, give them each a forum. But then:

• Are they a self-selecting group?
• Who decides the issue or area to be covered?
• How will an overall vision be developed?
• Will it be possible to support and service all the fora: what resources are available?
• Will there be sufficient interested people with time to spare?

Instead of creating more organisations, give community representatives seats on the decision-making bodies. However:

• Who will choose the representatives and on what basis?
• Will they have the same support and access to information as others on the committee?
• How will they discover and express the views of community interests?
• What checks will people have on their representatives?

Development trusts are non-profit-distributing companies, which may seek charitable status. They have their own staff and are governed by a Board including a range of interests. They are described in more detail elsewhere in the information sheets but they may not always be the most appropriate form of partnership.

Consider:

• Do you have the time and expertise to create and run a company?
• Will funding be available to pay staff in early years?
• Will there be ways in which the trust can earn income to maintain operations in the longer term?

A steering group would have more say than a forum, but not control resources like a Development Trust. It may seem a reasonable compromise, but consider:

• Will the members expect more power than implementing bodies are prepared to give?
• Will the different interests have sufficiently similar styles of working to operate together?
• How will steering group members be selected, and how will they relate to their 'constituents'?
• Will they able to deliver, or will they just be another talking shop?

Instead of relying solely on formal structures, using workshop techniques allows participation to be taken to residents and others. Planning for Real is one powerful technique which allows participants to build models of the neighbourhoods they want, and develop action plans. It provides more active involvement than public meetings or fora. However:

• Does running the exercise imply that the results will be adopted? Are budgets sufficiently flexible for this?
• Will a development worker be available to support groups which form around the ideas developed?
• Will there be time for ideas to be worked through?
• Who will implement?

Dress up funding bids with token representation, then bring people on board when the money is there. This may be convenient for the bidding body however:

• Will it then be possible to gain the commitment of other partners whose support, skills and funds may be needed?
• Will local groups challenge rather than support plans which have been developed without them?
• Will the funder see through the ploy?
• Will plans be flexible enough to respond to local needs and demands?

Here are some guidelines which may offer you a way of deciding what sort of partnership you may wish to create, and how to make a start.

1. Clarify your own aims and objectives in forming a partnership. What are you trying to achieve, and how will you explain that?
2. Identify the stakeholders the key interests who can help or hinder the project or programme and put yourself in their shoes. Who holds the power?
3. Consider who you really need as partners, and who would really want to be a partner. Some stakeholders may simply want to be consulted.
4. Before approaching potential partners, make sure you have support and agreement within your own organisation about working with others.
5. Make informal contact with partners to find out about their attitudes and interests before putting formal proposals.
6. Communicate with your partners in language they will understand, focusing on what they may want to achieve.
7. Plan the partnership process over time. For example, a new organisation may well take a year to set up.
8. Use a range of methods to involve people workshop sessions as well as formal meetings. Be sociable.
9. Encourage ideas from your partners. Ownership leads to commitment.
10. Be open and honest.

These guidelines were developed in 1999 by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation at the request of the UK Government's Department for Transport and the Regions. They provide guidance for Single Regeneration Budget bids:

• Map local organisations;
• Understand local priorities and skills;
• Build confidence through early project work;
• Develop a vision and action plans with local communities.

• Create partnership structures that work for local communities;
• Make resources available for community groups;
• Arrange training for both community activists and professionals;
• Help community groups with administrative and financial procedures.

• Develop a partnership 'forward strategy', including a strong role for community groups;
• Consider possible models for successor organisations including: development trusts; neighbourhood management organisations; LETS; and credit unions.

• Accept that community organisations need long-term support;
• Contribute to the better co-ordination of training and support services;
• Take steps to secure pre-bid resources for community groups.

• Establish a framework for evaluating both concrete outputs and key processes in community involvement;
• Ensure appropriate monitoring of progress both by the partnership and by Government Offices for the Regions (Regional Development Agencies after April 1999).

Report at: http://www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/findings/foundations/pdf/F169.pdf

Back to Partnerships at Partnerships Online

Prepared by David Wilcox david@partnerships.org.uk October 23 2000