[WiLT] Experience of Local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs) mostly negative - DSC Survey

[WiL Admin]

Experience of Local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs) mostly negative -
DSC Survey

Directory of Social Change quick survey asked: What is your experience
(if any) of Local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs)?

Responses are broken down as follows:
1. 3.1% Our LSP is well run and makes decisions effectively
2. 8.5% Our LSP is still developing, but things are going in the right
direction
3. 38.0% The Local Authority dominates the LSP and controls
decision-making
4. 18.6% The LSP's effectiveness varies from issue to issue
5. 9.3% The LSP is under-resourced and therefore cannot perform as it
should
6. 4.7% Our LSP does not function or does not exist except on paper
7. 12.4% This is just another unnecessary level of government
bureaucracy
8. 5.4% I have never heard of an LSP, I don't understand what they do

In general, the responses illustrate a very negative view of LSPs.
Only 11.6% of respondents chose options 1 or 2, which characterised
LSPs in a positive way.

Options 3, 6 and 7, which characterised LSPs negatively, comprised
55.1%.

Options 4, 5 and 8, which comprised 33.3% of responses, are not
necessarily positive or negative, but still highlight significant
problems such as variable effectiveness, lack of resources, and lack
of awareness.

By far the largest response was 'The Local Authority dominates the LSP
and controls decision-making', with 38%. This response was the most
popular in seven of the eleven regions specified.

It was also the answer selected in the top six regions in terms of
numbers of responses. It could be argued that a strong executive
presence by the council helps the LSP to function effectively - and
that this is therefore not necessarily a negative response.

However, the tone of additional comments left by respondents makes it
very clear that this was understood to be a negative aspect. (See the
themes 'Lack of effective engagement' and 'political / nepotism' in
the Analysis of Comments section below.)

Interestingly, respondents from the North West of England were four
times more likely to select positive responses (options 1 or 2) than
in London , despite there being similar numbers of responses from both
areas (24 from the North West and 26 from London ). This may indicate
that the LSP structure is functioning better in the North West and
that the VCS is more effectively engaged there.

Analysis of Comments

46 people left comments, which were categorised into the following
themes. Some people wrote much more than others, touching on several
different aspects - these were treated as distinct comments for the
purposes of analysis, so there were 67 comments in total.

Bureaucratic, ineffective and inefficient - 25% of comments described
LSPs as bureaucratic. People cited endless meetings which achieved
little, described LSPs in general as complex and inaccessible
structures that are impossible to 'penetrate', and said they were of
little relevance to local communities and local voluntary and
community groups.

Lack of effective communication - 12% of comments stated that
communication was poor or non-existent within the LSP and/or between
the LSP and the VCS and the wider community. This was especially
evident in responses from smaller charities or people in direct
contact with service users. If an intermediary VCS body was
represented on the LSP, it might or might not be properly feeding
input from the VCS to the LSP, but there typically was no effective
communication or guidance back the other way. Jargon and
'localgovernmentspeak' made understanding what communication there was
almost impossible. Some people had heard of their LSP but had no idea
what it did.

Lack of resources - 7% of comments mentioned the lack of available
resources or capacity for participating in the LSP or difficulties in
accessing funding from the LSP. Funding for VCS participation on the
LSP had either been cut, was not widely available, or was not being
used effectively or properly. Smaller groups in particular stated that
they were not able to access funding or influence how it was
distributed, partly because they did not have the capacity to
influence negotiations.

Lack of effective engagement - 27% of comments stated that VCS groups
were excluded from the LSP decision-making process and/or that the
local authority's agenda determined the activity of the LSP. Local
authorities and other statutory partners used any sort of VCS
participation (i.e. attendance at a meeting) as phony 'evidence' of
consultation and engagement.

Political / nepotism - 10% of comments described local councillors who
populated the LSP's executive positions with political cronies, or
were run by cliques or 'the good old boy network' for the benefit of
themselves. This had the effect of excluding VCS participation more
widely or, where some VCS groups were represented, exacerbating
existing tensions and rivalries within the local VCS.

Cross-area problems - 10% of comments argued that the LSP system made
it almost impossible to work across council boundaries, because
engaging with multiple LSPs was almost impossible, given their
time-consuming and bureaucratic nature. Several other respondents said
local government reorganisation and the existence of two-tier
county/district authorities exacerbated problems.

Positive comments - 4% of comments were somewhat positive about LSPs,
with qualifications. These exact comments are reproduced below.

Miscellaneous - 5% of comments were unclear so it was not possible to
categorise the response.

Selection of Comments

Only three comments could be construed as vaguely positive (4% of
comments)
* "At the time the Local Authority dominates although there has been
some very good work achieved through this forum."
* "Fantastic potential but lacks accountability."
* "LSPs can be just talking shops. Some are effective, some are not."

Overwhelmingly the comments were negative:
* "LSPs are completely impenetrable - a bureaucracy of bureaucracies"
* "I keep attending but I'm not sure why"
* "I am unconvinced about their value.the obsession with delivering
predictable outcomes tends to undermine their potential as agents of
community development."
* "It appears to be a sop to the process of inclusion and
 involvement."
* "The Local Authority do not consider this a means to engage
stakeholders and are secretive of decisions."
* "LSP meetings seem to lack any capacity to initiate anything but
reorganisations of their structure."
* "During a period of review and reflection, it was clear that the
statutory partners (who were in the driving seat) believed the VCS's
role could and should only be operational - not strategic."
* "The County Council.only sees the VCS as a source of cheap solutions
to its problems rather than as champion of the excluded, service
developer, needs assessor, or having a role in commissioning."
* "Well-resourced (NRF), but ineffective, overly bureaucratic and
arrogant in manner, and do not consult or listen properly"

Statistical Notes
* A total of 130 participants took part in the study, from every
region of the mainland UK.
* There was some variation in the number of participants from each
region. There were twenty six participants from London compared to
just one participant from Scotland.
* Option three ("The Local Authority dominates the LSP and controls
decision-making") was the most popular response in seven of the eleven
UK regions. It was joint top in two of the regions. Only in two
regions did participants say something other than option three was
their experience, and in both of these regions, less than five
participants responded.
* In the top six regions (in terms of numbers of participants) all
regions agreed that their most common experience of LSPs was option
three.
* In only two regions did a single participant feel that LSPs are
going well (London and the North West). Interestingly, participants
from the North West were nearly four times more likely to say they
felt this way, in contrast to London, despite both regions having
similar numbers of participants (twenty four in the North West, twenty
six in London)

Full story at
http://www.dsc.org.uk/charityexchange/surveyanalysis1007.htm

Results as pie charts
http://www.dsc.org.uk/charityexchange/Oct1007_survey_piecharts.htm

Posted on WiLT blog at
http://www.freecharity.org.uk/~womeninlondon/?p=436