Partnership building

This topic feels so important, as too often we see examples of excellent Place-Based Systems Change (PBSC) programmes that fail to make significant change because they fall short of engaging every part of the system, and in turn only change the parts of the system they are already working within.  

Types of stakeholders

At Renaisi, we see there being four key categories of stakeholders – from the grassroots groups with significant links into communities with the lived experience of issues, to the policy makers that have the power to change policy and resource flows to benefit those most affected by how the local system works (or doesn’t work for them).

Although many PBSC programmes aspire to work with every part of the system (and often state that they do!), in practice we usually see examples that work at either end of the diagram above.   

Below, we share the key reflections from the discussion, to support others to better engage with every part of the system. Attendees at the meeting included representatives from VCSE groups, housing associations, local authorities, local and national charities and grassroots organisations.

Motivating policy makers and purse holders to engage with PBSC programmes

Setting up robust and credible infrastructure. Accountable bodies, like councils or funders often need a project to hang their investment on. This means it can be easier to bring them in once some of the infrastructure has been built. This includes establishing decision making forums and steering groups that provide ways for a wide variety of partners to feed in, developing shared values, principles, vision and procedures, as well as having robust policies, contracts / memorandums of understanding in place.

Alignment of the initiative to a political agenda, or being able to demonstrate how it could create a cost saving. For example one housing association we spoke with was looking to create partnerships between health and housing, including the NHS and the local council. Initially they struggled to engage political leaders until a particularly bad winter bought in to focus the risk of preventable winter deaths, and with it the link to cold homes, damp and mould, as well as cardiovascular issues and asthma. Which they were able to use to catalyse engagement.

Cost benefit analysis research has also been useful for demonstrating the cost savings on programmes, and doesn’t necessarily have to happen in the place, if examples of similar programmes can be shared.

Sharing stories. Specifically gathering stories of individual circumstances and pointing out how policy was getting in the way, has been a really powerful tool to illustrate what changes needed to be made and why. Some members said they used a ‘community champion’ model, where people with lived experience were trained and supported to tell their story and would come to forum meetings to share their experiences. This does rely on having meetings set up with people in power though.

Cultivating good relationships and using existing networks and key individuals was identified as a key mechanism for change. Particularly taking the time to meet one to one in person and have the right staff in place with the capacities and attitudes that lend themselves to developing relationships.

Using data to influence. In Cardiff Citizens UK took a community led approach to gathering data – training local people to carry out peer research. They gathered responses from over 2000 people in a small local area. This activity allowed Citizens UK to use data to push back on existing policies and ultimately change service provision for the better.     

Creating a programme of events and promotion. Our community of practice members talked about establishing themselves in the psyche of the local area, so that they were thought of as the first point of call. Including holding regular webinars, forums and steering groups, sending out flyers, sharing findings from research; and continuing to invite and share with policy makers and purse holders, to get word out there.

Highlighting the reach that can be enabled through VCS and grassroots organisations. VCS and grassroots groups are so embedded in their areas, and often have been for years, their relationships and reach beyond the ‘usual suspects’ is unrivalled. When they were able to position themselves in this way they were often called on to run engagement activities and research.  

Highlighting the versatility of the groups. We reflected a little on the hybrid roles that VSC infrastructure orgs can play in communities, e.g., as a funder on a local level (e.g., local/small/participatory grant maker – or as a programme of a larger organisation that acts as a funder), or identifying as a grassroots organisation itself (e.g., Citizens UK). As well as how social housing organisations can play a role as a local anchor due to their long-term presence in communities and close ties to individual households – but also their access to resources through their revenues. This gives them much more flexibility and adaptability which can be a real selling point for governance strapped public sector bodies.

Barriers to good partnership working

Despite the motivations, the group highlighted a number of issues that still present barriers to meaningful partnership working, such as:

Staff turnover. We talked a lot about the issue with turnover at local authority level and how much this can set back place-based projects. Communities can build a really strong relationship with someone, and that person can become a real champion for the initiative, only for that person to then move on and the initiative feels back to square one with local authority involvement.

Changes to public sector structures. There was some discussion about NHS ‘places’ – which aren’t meaningful to those who live there. This is something that has been happening with huge regularity in the NHS over the last 20 years – conceptions of place have changed many times and there is constant change to try and work in new local configurations. In addition to this with devolution and the creation of a combined authority people are finding that they have to start again in building strategic relationships.

Top-down approaches often start from a deficit lens, and don’t value diverse experience. Highlighting problems/ issues that need fixing, rather than focusing on community strength and assets can understandable be off putting to communities, and has meant they are less likely to engage, not wanting to be renowned for their issues. COP members also found that top-down approaches tended not to factor in people’s time to come along to collaboration meetings, which meant they had to withdraw when budgets were tight. In addition to this many felt that meaningful community engagement activities like co-creation were seen as costly additional extras.

Can we help you with building your local partnership?

The community of practice is open to place-based practitioners, working at any scale, and funders of place-based work. Reach out to Lily or Kezia for support.