Working with Councils and Councillors

1

• Working with Councils and Councillors

12th October
2
Action team overview

• 3 meetings between February and June 2004
• Team a mixture of local government officers,
  neighbourhood managers and councillors
• Provided feedback to the LGA conference
• A number of papers developed over the course of
  the action team
• These fed into the creation of the tool kit

3
Tool kit contents page

• Introduction to the work of the Action Team and
  how to use this tool kit
• An introduction to Neighbourhood Management for
  councillors
• The Neighbourhood Management Quiz
• Case studies
• Neighbourhood Management Structures checklist
  and tips
• The Neighbourhood Management sales pitch
• Involving councils and councillors in
  Neighbourhood Management self-assessment
  checklist
• Appendix Role of councillors and councils
  (Summary of telephone interviews)
• Comments to matthew.mckeague_at_sharedintelligence.ne
  t

4
Neighbourhood Management Pathfinder National
Evaluation TeamNational NM Network Conference

• 12th October 2004

5
Contents

• Research process
• Pathfinder capacity
• Pathfinder delivery
• Results impacts
• Conclusions
• Implications
• issues for the programme
• wider issues

6
1 Research Process

• Status at end Year 2 (2003/2004)
• Feb April 2004
• 20 NMPs, 400 interviews, 30 research team
• Consistent research approach
• Research emphasis
• What progress in building capacity implementing
  programmes?
• What impacts emerging why?
• What lessons or good practice?

7
Pathfinder Capacity
8
Pathfinder Capacity

• Good progress in building capacity to engage,
  decide deliver
• Most stronger, more established now able to
  focus on programmes
• Key changes in 2003/2004
• Consolidation greater confidence
• Added new service providers
• Increased use of thematic/working groups

9
Pathfinder Capacity

• Nature of progress
• Basic model the same, but with variations
• Boards, structures, NM Teams, offices largely
  in place
• Average 6.5 FTE teams, but vary from 4 15!
• Average Board 22 members (43 women, 10 BME)
• 18 offices in target areas, some co-located with
  services
• Good level of engagement with residents services

10
Pathfinder Capacity

• Good community involvement in Boards
• 37 residents (5 NMPs, direct elections)
• 68 residents, councillors groups
• 10 chaired by residents, 7 with resident majority
• 20 with councillors, 13 including Cabinet/Exec
• Community/service provider relationship
• A few examples of direct engagement
  consulted on projects, Street Co-ordinators
• No examples of moving to take control of services?

11
Pathfinder Capacity

• Key issues for the programme
• Continuing need to broaden base of resident
  involvement accountable/representative?
• Need to deepen relationship with key services
• Boards still need stronger leadership effective
  decision-making
• Teams/skills still too spending oriented?
• Weak on learning/evaluation

12
3 Pathfinder Delivery

• Overall
• Improving focus and prioritisation, but still
  room for clearer priorities
• Momentum on liveability issues (crime
  environment) now broadening out focus
• Programmes
• Achieved 90 spend more realistic
• Relatively high (30) on MA/community
• Much fewer quick wins
• Spending across themes less on health jobs

13
3 Pathfinder Delivery

• Levels of engagement
• High
• Police, LA Environment, LA Housing, LA Leisure,
  schools, PCT
• Medium
• JobCentre Plus, LA Youth Services, FE/HE
  Colleges, Fire Service, RSLs, Connexions
• Low
• LSCs, LA Social Services, Public Transport
  bodies, Probation Services

14
3 Pathfinder Delivery

• Weak engagement? Sometimes lack of intent?
• Varied use of SLAs amongst NMPs
• 9/20 with 1 or none
• Poor substitute for serious commitment?
• Real issue to gain more transparency on service
  performance?
• Commitment matters more than formal mechanism
• 1-1, working groups, not just Boards

15
3 Pathfinder Delivery

• Key Issues
• Still need greater prioritisation
• Need to deepen relationships with SPs engage
  with thinking on core servicesstill working at
  margins?
• Better gathering and use of evidence to make the
  case on
• Area conditions
• Service performance data
• What works

16
4 Results impacts

• Impacts actual changes to services or service
  provider behaviour
• Four types
• Changing corporate policies
• Reallocating mainstream resources
• Reshaping mainstream services
• Improving access to increase take up

17
4 Results impacts

• Most responsive providers
• Police PCTs, then LA Housing LA Environment
• Types of change
• Most common - Re-shaping of single service,
  changes to improve take up
• Eg localising services to a neighbourhood base,
  or new working practices (eg neighbourhood health
  worker)
• Little joining up between organisations - mainly
  informal links/better co-ordination
• Some bending/re-allocation (especially Police)

18
4 Results impacts

• Nature of changes
• Modest in scale
• Reallocations may not be additional or permanent?
  (eg rising police spending)
• PCT changes did not rely on NM spending!
• Not reliant on SLAs
• Some limited evidence of lower crime, cleaner
  environments

19
5 Conclusions

• To what extent are NMPs able to
• to improve local outcomes by improving and
  joining up local services, and making them more
  responsive to local needs. (SEU PAT 4)
• i.e Big gaps
• i.e Require bigger services, better, more joined
  up more responsive

20
5 Conclusions

• NM achievements after 2-3 years
• Credible nhood partnerships, engaging providers
  community (running cost 200-300k pa)
• Deliver popular quick wins raise aspirations
• Improved networking info sharing between
  providers, on the frontline
• Able to prompt accelerate modest improvements
  to mainstream services. In particular
• Identifying communicating local issues to
  providers (raises profile, prompts change,
  improves targeting)
• Improving liveability services (Police/Env)
• Helping to reshape individual services

21
5 Conclusions

• But, so far
• Changes often modest in scale
• Sustainability not tested yet?
• Slower progress in securing changes from wider
  services NM will need more help with reluctant
  partners? Can it be done?
• Can more joining up be achieved?
• Most significant service changes originate from
  service providers, and then rolled out to other
  nhoods. NM role is to encourage facilitate
  pilots requires willing partners in place.
• What scale reach of change can NM deliver?

22
6 Implications

• (1) NM Programme
• Continue
• Continue to experiment/take risks
• Consider role in direct delivery?
• GORS/NRU push SPs to support more requires
  local flexibilities incentives
• (2) Wider Implications
• Different NM approaches, deliver different
  benefitsneeds clearer understanding

23
6 What really works?

• Managerial vs. community? Best route to public
  service improvement? Is more involvement always
  better? Delivery and governance raise different
  issues.
• Scale? Housing Estate (4,000) vs NMPs (10,000
  pop) vs District (40,000)whats viable for
  community or services?
• NM Role? Agent of change or ongoing delivery?
  Improver or Manager? Time-limited role or
  permanent fixture? One pilot for all, or an NM in
  every neighbourhood?
• Capability? Best when in a friendly context, or
  can it drive change alone? Big enough to deliver
  floor targets? How much can NM deliver?
• Range of services? Crime/environment, or
  education/health too?
• Value of additional funds? Initial stabilisation
  requires extra?
• Jobs Housing? Public services are not the only
  issue. Whos creating jobs and building houses?
  How good are the linkages?

24
Mainstreaming Case StudyThe Clapham Park
Project Service Providers Forum

• Y McEwen
• (CPP)

25
Introduction

• Neighbourhood Management in CPP NDCThe CP
  Neighbourhood Management project was establish to
  bring together residents and service providers to
  improve the standards of housing and
  environmental services that residents were
  dissatisfied with.
• To provide a way of involving residents in
  setting and monitoring standards on the estate

26
CPPs Aim

• To ensure that services provided meet local
  needs through neighbourhood management and
  positive partnerships with other service
  provided, thereby creating a cleaner and
  welcoming Clapham park.

27
NM Service Providers Forum

• What ..are we doing
• Neighbourhood Management is addressing
  residents concerns in terms of the way services
  are delivered locally
• Some services are delivered in a haphazard way
• It is not always clear who does what.

28
Why Service Providers Forum ?

• To work in partnership
• To develop Service Level Agreements (SLAs) with
  key providers
• To encourage openness/transparency about what
  is/can be done
• To develop flexible solutions that can adapt to
  changing circumstances.

29
Service Providers Forum Members

• LBL Housing Dept. Local Housing Office
• Environmental Services
• Connaught Cleaning Services
• Cleanaway
• Highways
• Streetcare
• Axis Repairs

30
HOW (Do we work with them) ?

• Case Study CPP Recycling Project
• What is it about ?
• The Neighbourhood Management team at Clapham
  Park Project , working in partnership with
  Lambeth Council, Connaught, Cleanaway Waste
  Watch started a doorstep recycling collection for
  residents living in blocks of flats on the estate
  (1,900 flats).

31
Mainstreaming Service Providers - How are they
involved ?

• Lambeth Environ. Dept - Operational support-
  Improves target - Will change way services are
  delivered in the long term- Clear terms of
  reference
• Connaught- Delivering the project
• Cleanaway Refuse- Supporting project (Monitor
  tonnage, empty bins etc)
• Waste Watch Supporting project (Provide
  training and educational support etc.) _

32
SPF What has been achieved?

• Effective use of SLAs (Signed by all members)
• Clear terms of reference
• Shared vision
• Trust understanding
• Evidence that project is effective.
• Cleaner estate for residents

33
handout 1

• Service Providers Forum Sub - group
• WHAT Neighbourhood Management is addressing
  residents concerns in terms of the way services
  are delivered in the local area
• Some services are delivered in a haphazard way
• It is not always clear who does what, where
• Refuse is a problem
• Parking is a problem
• WHY
• Neighbourhood Management in Clapham Park working
  in partnership
• To develop Service Level Agreements (SLAs) with
  key providers
• To encourage openness/transparency about what
  is/can be done
• To develop flexible solutions that can adapt to
  changing circumstances
• Emphasis was laid on the importance of joint
  working and information sharing.
• We realised that this was a very valuable forum
  and suggested that this core group should meet
  quarterly. It was suggested that a sub-group
  should meet more frequently, initially 6 weekly,
  to look at specific operational issues in this
  area. This sub group to consist of reps from CPP
  NM, CP

34
handout 1 cont.

• HOW
• Example of Effective Partnership Working CPP
  Recycling Project
• What are we doing?
• The Neighbourhood Management Team at Clapham Park
  Project, working in partnership with Lambeth,
  Connaught ( Estate Cleaning Contractor Waste
  Watch (a recycling organisation working in the
  South West of London), started a doorstep
  recycling collection for residents living in
  blocks of flats on the estate in September 2004.
• How are our partners involved ? (The process)
  -
• Connaught Delivering the project
• Post orange recycling sacks through every door on
  the estate with a leaflet detailing how the
  service works?
• Collect orange sacks from residents front door
  take them downstairs to the recycling bank and
  empty them.
• Collect from the same block on the same day of
  the week - to avoid any
• Confusion.
• Monitor participation rate (use of hand held
  computers Ipac)
• Provide good customer care with regular
  information about the service.Cleanaway Refuse
• Provide recycling bins
• Liaise with Connaught Cleaning Services on a
  daily basis about issues regarding the recycling
  bins
• Monitor tonnage weekly and circulate information
  to recycling project team.
• Lambeth council (Dept. of Environment)
• Supporting the project throughout. Have invested
  in officers time, marketing and promotion of
  service (provided banners, leaflets, posters and
  magnets for residents.
• Waste Watch
• Provided support, officers time, paid for
  recycling launch (Artists to work with children)
  training of recycling operatives and also will
  provide educational support and training in local
  schools.

35
handout 2

• Clapham Park Service Providers Forum (CPSPF)
• Terms of Reference
• Main Aim
• To assist in the process of neighbourhood
  management by ensuring coherent, high quality and
  responsive service provision in the area of
  housing and environmental services
• Key Objective
• To ensure that there is a clear communication
  channel between service providers in the local
  area, linking local, borough-wide and broader
  objectives.
• 1.0 The Purpose of the CPSPF
• Ensure service providers and Lambeth officers
  responsible for procuring/commissioning/clienting
  a range of housing and environmental services are
  updated on key issues relating to Clapham Park
  Project.
• Establish and maintain linkages with key
  stakeholders to ensure that services are
  delivered in a way that is joined up and
  responsive to the needs of people who live in,
  and visit the Clapham Park NDC area.
• Provide a forum for exchanging information
  relating to local and wider initiatives to
  maximise opportunities for partnership working.
• Maximise the impact of NDC funds by using them to
  affect change in existing and potential
  mainstream funding leverage.
• Make best use of reporting information from a
  variety of sources relating to service provision
  in the local area in order to identify
  trends/patterns and make recommendations for
  future service enhancements.

36
handout 2 cont.

• 2.0 The Operational Remit of the CPSPF
• Develop operational details of CPP projects which
  will have an impact on environmental services in
  the area.
• Make recommendations to CPPs Environment Theme
  Group (ETG) as to future projects.
• 3.0 The Reporting Lines and Accountability of the
  YPSG
• 3.1 All matters relating to CPP spend must be
  referred to the ETG for approval.
• 3.2 The CPSPF reports into the ETG.
• 4.0 The Responsibilities of the CPSPF
• 4.1 Promote the involvement of residents and the
  wider Clapham Park community in the pursuit of
  creating a better environment in Clapham Park NDC
  area.
• 4.2 Recommend strategies for service development
  and provision to the ETG,
• based on an assessment of existing need.
• 5.0 CPSPF Meetings
• 5.1 The CPSPF will operate to standard agendas
  which reflect the functions outlined above.
• 5.2 Minutes shall be presented in keeping with
  the standardised CPP format.
• 5.3 The CPSPF will meet quarterly.

37
handout 2 cont.

• 6.0 Diversity
• 6.1 All CPSPF meetings will be conducted in a
  non-discriminatory manner and with due regard to
  the promotion of equality of opportunity for all
  sections of the community.
• 7.0 Eligibility
• 7.1 The YPSG is open to environmental and housing
  service providers and Lambeth client officers.
• 8.0 Attendance at Meetings
• 8.1 Residents of the Clapham Park NDC area are
  welcome to attend CPSPF meetings.
• 8.2 Other parties shall be granted the right to
  address the group at the invitation of the CPSPF
  Chair.
• 9.0 Chairs of Meetings
• 9.1 CPSPF meetings will be chaired by the CPP
  Neighbourhood Manager or nominated
  representative.
• 10.0 Role of the CP Neighbourhood Management Team
• 10.1 The Neighbourhood Management Team will
  service the CPSPF by providing
• administrative support, such as arranging
  meetings, minute taking, responding to follow-up
  correspondence/communication etc
• written reports on the progress of the CPP
  projects and initiatives

38
Neighbourhood Management National Network
Effective Mainstreaming How to engage and
influence partners 12 October 2004
John Wainwright, Heart of Burton NMP Katy
Donnelly, NM National Network
39
Introduction

• Overview of Action Team
• Aims of members
• Importance of middle managers to mainstreaming
  Neighbourhood Management
• Key methods of engagement

40
Action Team Effective Mainstreaming

• Pinching good ideas speaking to people who been
  through process
• - partnership building and accessing guarded
• domains
• Looking for common ingredients in recipe for
  success
• Deepening discussion with ODPM and wider
  Government
• - addressing shift from financial basis of
• mainstreaming to process/organisational
• Looking at how mainstreaming can be picked up by
  groups beyond NMs
• Building on non-NM membership within team
• Supporting other partnerships
• - useful tools and resources not reports

41
Why middle managers?

• Success in securing commitment to NM at
  senior/strategic level and in high level plans
• Fostering understanding among frontline staff and
  developing strong joint working and information
  sharing
• Barrier for many partnerships has been engaging
  middle managers working in mainstream service
  delivery

42
Key roles of middle managers

• Making link between high-level strategies and
  plans and local delivery
• Owning and understanding changes
• Communicating new priorities and approaches
• Clarifying reallocation of tasks
• Budget holders
• Ensure staff competencies and skills match
  new approaches

43
Methods of engagement

• Changing the culture of partner organisations
• Shaping strategic plans
• - ensure NM approach and priorities
• incorporated
• Follow through into neighbourhood and operational
  plans
• Ensure shared priorities reflected in targets and
  outcomes of partner organisations
• - Link to performance management
• - Emphasis on win-win
• Identify and use champions

44
Methods of engagement

• Engaging middle managers
• Use any additional resources tactically
• - activities that will change relationships or
• service delivery for the long term
• Use evidence and data
• - demonstrate neighbourhood needs and
• priorities
• - evidence success of NM approach
• Ensure cross agency officer groups have clear
  terms of reference and tackling the right issues
  and review effectiveness

45
Methods of engagement

• Engaging middle managers
• Explore co-location of staff and secondments
• Consider SLAs as a good vehicle for engagement
• Recognise constraints middle managers face
• - be patient, persevere
• - build confidence/trust
• - give them scope/support them to tackle
• issues

46
Summary

• If we can engage middle managers we can really
  make a difference
• Influence strategic context - plans and processes
• Neighbourhood and operational plans
• Tactical resource use
• Evidence needs and methods
• Clear terms of reference
• Co-location or secondment
• SLAs targets and process
• Be patient and offer support

47
Further resources

• Mainstreaming Toolkit
• Flow chart
• Video and written case studies
• Dissemination events and seminars

48
The Tower Hamlets Partnership
Turning Turin Around

• Carol Yarde - Neighbourhood Manager Bethnal Green
  West

49
The Tower Hamlets Partnership
Turning Turin Around How the project came about

• Newly appointed Neighbourhood Manager
• Residents and Officers complaining about estate
• Drugs, anti social behaviour and abandoned
  vehicles
• Using NM as the impetus for change

50
The Tower Hamlets Partnership
First Impressions

• Visit to Estate with Local Housing Manager
• Obvious signs of neglect
• Groups of young people hanging around in door
  ways

51
The Tower Hamlets Partnership
Brainstorming Session

• Discussion paper produced
• Over 20 people attended
• Residents, Council Officers, The Police and
  Voluntary Sector Agencies
• Action Plan produced

52
The Tower Hamlets Partnership
Action Plan 5 themes

• Community Involvement
• Improving the Environment
• Education for All
• Dealing with Anti Social Behaviour
• Youth Issues jointly chaired by NM and resident

53
The Tower Hamlets Partnership
Issues that needed to be addressed

• Blocks had dirty interiors
• Internal and external graffiti
• Drugs paraphernalia on stair wells
• Missed bin collections due to cars blocking shoot
  entrances
• 70 abandoned vehicles
• Anti social behaviour

54
The Tower Hamlets Partnership
New Ways of Working for Caretakers

• Caretakers given freedom to decide how to get the
  estate clean
• Flexible working new rotas issued
• Caretakers painting stair wells
• Systematic deep cleaning of all blocks across
  estate
• Local Office support of staff
• Small budget to fund additional equipment

55
The Tower Hamlets Partnership
Graffiti Project

• Two local residents employed to run project
• Support and supervision provided by experienced
  Council Officer
• Meeting arranged with local youths to ensure
  participation in project
• Agreement that if estate remains free of graffiti
  for 6 months 2000 to be spent on a reward

56
The Tower Hamlets Partnership
Shanti FC (peace)

• Graffiti project members request to set up
  football team
• Logo and name produced
• Idea of training on neutral ground
• Invite to other local teams to tackle turf
  issues

57
The Tower Hamlets Partnership
Project Achievements to Date

• Estate now completely free of graffiti
• Improved cleanliness and lighting in all communal
  areas
• A 90 reduction in drug dealing on the estate
• 100 reduction in abandoned vehicles
• 75 reduction in reported anti social behaviour
• 12 large planters installed across estate

58
The Tower Hamlets Partnership
Planned future activities

• Development of gardening strategy and gardening
  group
• Reintroduction of under five play space
• Negotiations with RSL to ensure continuation of
  project
• Roll out of project across LAP 1