67 There are no performance indicators to measure the performance of partnerships directly. The Audit Commission's quality of life indicators are the best attempt yet, and are based on published and widely available data. However, their use is at local authorities' discretion.
68 We recognise that it is only possible to measure the outcomes of some initiatives on a long-term timescale; for example, better outcomes for children and young people. While short-term benefits may dissipate, investment in prevention may pay off later in a young person's life; but it is difficult to track this or to ascribe the difference to any one particular intervention many years previously.
'I suppose what I'm getting at is that if you wanted to look at how good a partnership is, perhaps you can't go right to the outcome. Perhaps there's as much value in looking at have things changed as a result of partnership (and) what you have done differently as a result . . . What has changed in either your priorities (or) how many decisions have you made that have hurt to accommodate the needs of the partnership and what working practices have changed?' Chief executive, metropolitan borough council
69 The next generation of local public service agreement (LPSA) targets will show whether some partnerships are making significant progress, but the evidence is not yet conclusive. Partnerships are critical to local authorities' ability to make a success of LPSA Round 2. The ODPM evaluation of LPSAs focused initially on processes. Validated data on outcomes will be available from December 2005. In the meantime, case studies 4 and 7 show that the basis can be put in place to show how longer-term outcomes can be monitored.
70 However, greater collaboration at local level would permit service providers to see evidence of improvements:
'…The station commander became involved with a whole range of partners, including the District Council, to tackle the secondary fires problem. It culminated in clearing out rubbish from a whole range of streets. So stuff that would normally be set fire to at particular times of the day was cleared out. The general public could see all these people working together, and what they have ended up with is much cleaner streets, and a better place to live. For us, the benefit has been immediate in terms of the vast reduction in the number of calls we've had in that area.' Chief fire officer
71 Here we see that it is possible to begin to quantify benefits that would not otherwise accrue from independent working: the service can monitor the reduction in calls; quantify the associated savings and the public satisfaction with improvements. Although such calculations are not yet widespread, it is possible to prove the contention about partnerships that the whole is more than the sum of its parts. Asking the right sort of questions about partnerships will reveal whether or not they do add value (Case study 2).
Case study 2 The Yorkshire Dales National Parks Authority carried out a review of its partnership working to determine how well each partnership helps to achieve the statutory purpose and corporate objectives, as set out in its best value performance plan 2004/05. The review focused on making sure that the Authority can use resources more effectively and secure better outcomes for the people who use the National Park. It also allowed the Authority to assess its ability to influence other bodies' strategies and policies through participating in partnerships. The review enabled the Authority to: • estimate the financial cost of partnership working, measured by officer time, in order to judge whether the benefits it receives are sufficient; • judge the benefits of engaging with different partnerships; • establish criteria for entering into new partnerships; and • formalise arrangements for working in partnerships. The Authority calculated that in one year it spent close to £100,000 on partnership working, measured by the number of staff days spent in meetings and other activities. In some cases, it was difficult to reach any view on whether this activity helped the Authority to achieve its objectives. Therefore, the Authority developed a set of criteria to specify the main purposes of belonging to a partnership; terms of reference; adequate training and an exit strategy. This helps the Authority to enter and leave partnerships positively and at the appropriate time. It also ensures that the Authority uses resources more effectively to help it achieve its purposes and priorities. The criteria are: • Does the partnership contribute to National Park purposes? • Does the partnership contribute to: NPMP priorities and objectives; best value performance plan priorities and objectives? • Does the Authority need to be involved? • Could another partnership provide either the same or a similar function - such as an LSP? • Does the partnership have clear terms of reference? • Is there an engagement and exit strategy? • Is it a group with a specific task and a time limit? The Authority's Audit and Review Committee now assesses reports from each partnership annually. These reports rigorously assess the risks and benefits involved, and lead to one of the following decisions: • withdraw from the partnership; • allow another body to represent the Authority's interest; • set a time limit for involvement; • remain involved; or • remain involved, but at a different level, for example, a watching brief, or attendance when the agenda is relevant to the Authority. Source: Audit Commission |