Title: Learning the lessons Presentation to the Neighbourhood Management Conference Geoff White
1Learning the lessons Presentation to the
Neighbourhood Management ConferenceGeoff White
Tim Thorlby November 2002
2Purpose
- To present the findings from the scoping phase of
the evaluation.
To understand whats working well . . . and not
so well
. . .do all management approaches work the same ?
3Content
Introduction to the SQW team . . . . . . and to
the scoping work 1) Findings 2)
Implications General Pathfinders 3) Next
steps for the evaluation
4Introducing the SQW team
- SQW is leading and managing the interim
evaluation to 2004 . . . supported by - Cities Research Centre, University of West of
England - Marilyn Taylor - GFA Consulting - Geoff Fordham
- University of Cambridge, Department of Land
Economy - Peter Tyler - European Institute of European Affairs - Michael
Parkinson - MORI NOP - Bobby Duffy and Richard Glendinning
5. . . and the scoping work
- First step was fact-finding and familiarisation -
scoping - understand the conditions in which Pathfinders
operate - describe their objectives, structures, procedures
projects - assess quality of baselines and suggest
improvements - identify key risks likely to affect delivery of
Programmes - learn lessons from set up launch of the
Pathfinders - pick up on the issues to explore in the rest of
the evaluation
6(1) Research Findings
- Scoping research undertaken in all 20 Pathfinders
in May/June - . . . a formative stage but key features
lessons emerging - Brief findings on
- (a) Local conditions possible implications
- (b) Pathfinder structures partners
- (c) Early progress
- (d) Early issues
7(1a) Local conditions
- 20 Pathfinders all small areas, deprived, most 2
5000 hholds, all regions mix of urban
/seaside /edge-of-town - Reviewed local conditions context
- Area conditions
- Residents characteristics
- Location/accessibility
- Possible to group Pathfinders by
conditionshelping or hindering. Good mix of
pilots, but also implications for strategy - Affects scope of activities eg. some need
housing investment - Prospects for bending ? May be easier for some
(eg Chester) but not for others (eg
Greenwich)priorities may differ - Intensity extent of pop turnover
inter-generational poverty
8(1a) Local conditions (contd)
- Institutional context differences
- 19 covered by at least one ABI, but few
inherited specific partnershipsmostly new
partnerships - 12 Pathfinders in NRF areas, 8 not
- 11 Pathfinders with two-tier local authority
structure - Issue for evaluation to explore...what difference
will this make ?
9(1b) Pathfinder structures partners
- Early daysbut same basic model Board, Manager
Team, 4-5 theme groups, Council as Accountable
Body, with some differences - Board composition
- most have all sectors
- 60 of all reps are community/resident/councillors
- 2 have resident majority, 2 have no voting
providers - Gaps local businesses, Local Learning Skills
Councils - Structure? eg. Woolwich Common runs Sure Start
- What difference does it make ? What works ?
10(1c) Early progress
- Community good levels of engagement, using wide
range of approaches - Fora, neighbourhood committees, youth reps,
direct elections, Citizens Panel, etc - Service providers good level of involvement
from most organisations in most areas - Partnership structures good progress in
establishing decision-making structures
recruiting Managers, etc - Mindsets starting to change ? Something new
11(1d) Early issues.
- Baselines/evidence
- OK improving area conditions baselines
- Gathering and using data on public services
(quality, scale, take up, expenditure) is very
difficult significant area for development by
all - Outcomes priorities
- Do they reflect baseline issues ? Are they
specific enough ? - Too ambitious too much too soon ! Need 2-3
priorities in 1 year, accept that change for some
themes will be slower
12(1d) Early issues.(contd)
- Projects vs Process
- Activities were sometimes ambiguousNM needs to
focus on mainstream processes, more than short
term projectsold habits die hard ? Do partners
appreciate that the process is the programme ? - Support
- Most Pathfinders concerned about key risks
barriers will (can?) service providers bend
and change as required ? - Pathfinders need active support at district,
regional national level
132) Implications
- a) Neighbourhood management general
- Baselines and outcomes
- Engagement of service providers users
- Risk assessment management
- b) NM Pathfinder Programme
- Integrated programme management
- Portfolio management
- Complementary action
142a) General baselines outcomes (1)
Ensuring that objectives and outcomes drive
project selection and resource allocation
152a) General baselines outcomes (2)
Making sure that aims and outcomes are driven by
need
162a) General engaging stakeholders
Engaging stakeholders for specific purposes
172a) General managing risks
Identifying risks and working on contingency plans
- Internal
- Neighbourhood management competencies and skills
- Partnership arrangements tensions and
conflicts - Restrictive accountability requirements -
insufficient flexibility for innovation (but
still need good systems) - Stakeholder engagement
- Insufficient capacity for extent and/or
intensity of engagement required - Disenchantment and disengagement of residents
- Insufficient incentive for engagement of service
providers at appropriate levels - External factors ? Large scale redundancies,
failure to secure investment
182b) Pathfinders integrated management
Making sure all guidance/advice to Pathfinders is
fit for their purpose and uses consistent
framework
- Ensure Pathfinders get bespoke advice guidance
e.g. Performance Measurement Framework,
Appraisal Guidance, Delivery Plans - Use consistent framework and vocabulary in all
communications the PMF, appraisal guidance,
monitoring and evaluation - Make sure that evidence on what works is drawn
from more than just Pathfinders e.g. NDC, LSP,
Scottish Executive - Improve teamwork for advice help NRU, GORs
and NRAs
192b) Pathfinders portfolio management
Treating the programme as research development
and managing it as a portfolio of projects
- More systematic mapping and assessment of
Pathfinders distributed data-base - Identification of extent/nature of risks
rewards link with contextual conditions - Improving evidence-led targeted support from NRAs
to tackle common problems - Being more pro-active in pursuit of good practice
and selling it - Consider complementary actions in support of
Pathfinders
202b) Pathfinders complementary action
Identifying main risk areas . . .
- Assessing local conditions that might aggravate
Pathfinder task particularly where they have
changed e.g. major redundancy - Identifying local problems beyond the capability
of the Pathfinder to address e.g. major housing
investment needs - Spotting intransigence amongst service providers
to the need for change
. . . And setting in train complementary actions
by NRU and GORs to support the work of the
Pathfinders
213) Next steps for the evaluation
- Research follow-up from scoping
- Scoping Summary
- Good practice note
- Developing public service baseline/improving
area conditions baseline - Review of PMF and develop VFM framework
- Consumer surveys all Pathfinders
- Case studies in effective channels of impact
- Crime / community safety ?
- Environment / street-scene ?
- 2002/2003 Annual Review (brief)
- . . . This stage to be
completed by April 2003