1
SINGLE LOCAL MANAGEMENT CENTRES
INTERIM REPORT
OCTOBER 2004
PROJECT MANAGER - EILEEN LEPINE, UWE, BRISTOL EILEEN.LEPINE@UWE.AC.UK TEL 01173443075
SINGLE LOCAL MANAGEMENT CENTRES INTERIM REPORT
CONTENTS
1 2 INTRODUCTION METHODS OF WORKING Purpose and Strategic Objectives Operational Objectives and Activities Challenges and Obstacles; Opportunities and Drivers Impact and Evaluation 3 LOCAL CASE STUDIES 1 1 1 2 2 2 2
4
INITIAL FINDINGS & EMERGING ISSUES Progress towards Strategic Objectives Flexibility and the Reduction of Bureaucracy Appraisal Funding Streams Monitoring and Audit Rationalisation of ABIs Collaboration, joint working and new organisational forms Strategic Frameworks Regional and Whitehall Systems
4 4 6 6 6 7 8 8 10 11 12 13
5 6
CONCLUSIONS NEXT STEPS
Evaluation of Single Local Management Centres
1
1
INTRODUCTION
In August 2003, the Neighbourhood Renewal Unit, within the Office for the Deputy Prime Minister, commissioned the Cities Research Centre at the University of the West of England, Bristol (UWE), in partnership with the European Institute for Urban Affairs at Liverpool John Moores University (EIUA), to undertake an evaluation of SLMCs. The evaluation aims to: establish the contextual factors against which SLMCs have emerged and the issues/problems they seek to address evaluate the outputs, outcomes and impact of SLMCs consider the potential, in principle and in practice, of replication and roll out of any lessons learned from SLMCs report on and disseminate materials emerging from the evaluation.
2
METHODS OF WORKING
A Framework for Analysis To understand the aims, processes, and impacts of SLMCs the research team has developed a framework built around five main themes Purpose and Strategic Objectives Operational Objectives and Activities Challenges and Obstacles Opportunities and Drivers Impact and Evaluation
Purpose and Strategic Objectives The first stage in developing an SLMC is problem identification, analysis and diagnosis. In many instances the problem has been 'simply' ABI proliferation, but in some instances there have been other local triggers1. In all the cases, however, questions arise about the nature of the difficulties caused by (aspects of) multiple ABIs and who is affected by them. In some cases, an SLMC, having been established, returns to a stage of analysis and diagnosis, through, for example, the mapping of ABIs and/or the commissioning of consultants. The consequence in several cases is a clear sense of purpose and strategic direction for the SLMC locally. In some localities, the aims of the SLMC appear to be directly related to the aims and activities of the emergent LSP, and one explicit element of the evaluation research is concerned with the extent to which the existence and support of the LSP is central to
1
In the Aston/Handsworth area, for example, the murders of Christmas 2002 were a major factor in influencing a local response with which the SLMC became directly linked.
Evaluation of Single Local Management Centres
2
the success of an SLMC, and whether, conversely, the existence and success of an SLMC is important to the work programme of the LSP. Operational Objectives and Activities The next element of the framework relates to operational objectives – exactly what is it that is being/has been done within an SLMC - and in particular what is the scope of SLMC interest - new ABIs, existing ABIs, main programmes, two of these, or indeed all three? Most SLMCs have some sort of focus upon ABIs. However, some have begun to address not just ABI rationalisation but also main programme change, for example, through the development of strategic frameworks, the establishment of task forces, the review of performance management targets, the realignment of resources (pooling budgets, joint funding, shared resources, etc.), or the removal of red tape. Challenges and Obstacles and Opportunities and Drivers With whatever scope, focus and approach, the SLMC will identify challenges and obstacles as well as opportunities and drivers, and it will be the aim of the SLMC to remove the obstacles and exploit the opportunities. Documenting the nature of the challenges/obstacles and opportunities/drivers is an important task for both SLMCs themselves and for evaluation. The source of challenge/opportunity may lie in the broader systems of Whitehall (or the Government Office), in the processes which determine the way resources are obtained and used, in organisational culture (departmentalism, professionalism) and leadership, in the extent of community/user/resident involvement in local governance, and so on. Impact and Evaluation Evaluation (by SLMCs themselves as much as the evaluation research team) should identify the nature of the obstacles/opportunities and the impact of SLMCs in removing obstacles and exploiting opportunities. It should also address three key issues - dissemination, sustainability, and replication and roll out.
3
LOCAL CASE STUDIES
Local Case Studies Fieldwork has been undertaken in all the SLMC areas. Fuller area studies will follow the publication of this report. A brief outline is given below to familiarise readers with the areas involved. Aston/Handsworth covers a Housing Market Renewal Area in Birmingham and Sandwell, with a wide range of ABIs, and has involved a special task force of key partners in regeneration - in effect a mini LSP for the area. It aims to initiate and oversee an integrated public service response to violent crime, ill health, underachievement and joblessness. Bolton SLMC works through East Bolton Regeneration (EBR), aiming to streamline structures and delivery of existing ABIs and to secure further funding for the regeneration of the area. EBR is responsible for co-ordinating regeneration across five neighbourhoods and three (fairly coterminous) ABIs – two Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) schemes and an Education Action Zone (EAZ).
Evaluation of Single Local Management Centres
3
Cornwall SLMC, known as Solutions Kernow. Multiple initiatives are an acknowledged problem in the county and particularly West Cornwall and in late 2002 and May 2003, county-wide meetings discussed possible objectives, for an SLMC, including improved information sharing, development of joint processes, support to (emerging) Local Strategic Partnerships and the appointment of an ABI’s coordinator; an appointment has now been made. Derby SLMC, known as the Regeneration Arena, covers the whole of the (unitary) local authority of Derby and works through the Derby City Partnership and particularly its External Funding Management Group and the City Council’s External Funding Unit. It aims to maximise regeneration funding, and identify and overcome barriers to effective direction and use of such funds. Existing LSP and External Funding Unit officers are driving forward the process with major support from a secondee from GOEM. Hastings SLMC. In Hastings, a proliferation of initiatives raises particular difficulties in the context of a small borough council with limited resources to manage this. The SLMC has, therefore, been seen in terms of its potential for increasing the effective management of streams of funding and aligning this funding with LSP objectives. Its initial concerns were also about 'red-tape'- for example, reducing the number of applications, reporting and monitoring mechanisms London - South Westminster - SLMC involves the Cross River SRB partnership (which covers South Westminster and areas south of the river), Westminster Council, two voluntary organisations and two ABIs - Sure Start and a Healthy Living Centre. Activity here is concerned with the development and delivery of a renewal plan for the area. Luton SLMC. For some time it seemed that there was little ongoing work on the SLMC initiative in this area, but, early in 2004, the Luton Forum (LSP), concerned about aspects of its role in the allocation of funding, became interested in developing a Funding Management Board, through which funding processes can be rationalised and the impact of funding increased. East Manchester SLMC covers a priority area for Manchester, with a large number of initiatives/funding streams, including SRB and NDC. Work here predates the SLMC initiative, as NDC pathfinder status was seen as an opportunity to identify barriers to programme delivery. As a result, SRB/NDC programmes are now managed as one initiative - Beacons for a Brighter Future - with one staff team, set of management arrangements and Partnership Board. Sheffield - Manor and Castle Development Trust - SLMC. MCDT developed from SRB 3, covers ten wards in South Sheffield and is responsible for the South Sheffield Area Renewal Plan. It is the Accountable Body for several funding streams (SRB, Objective One P4 Action Plan, Healthy Living Network, Street Wardens, Sure Start, Objective One (IDP) and for Yorkshire Forward’s Single Programme for South Sheffield. MCDT has a sub-regional role and is Accountable Body for the Objective 1 Coalfield and Steel area programme, which targets eight different S Yorkshire areas. Sunderland SLMC led by Sunderland City Council Regeneration and Housing Department has as an ultimate aim the creation of a single accountable body with integrated appraisal, monitoring, performance and financial management measures and procedures. It is also aiming to co-ordinate the management and delivery of regeneration programmes on an area-basis. Tees Valley SLMC is made up of five local authorities (Darlington, Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland, and Stockton on Tees). Its aims included the
Evaluation of Single Local Management Centres
4
rationalization of partnerships, better partnership working, harmonization of systems, simplifying processes, joining up funds and creating single application, monitoring, appraisal and evaluation systems. The sub-regional level has to some extent given way to separate SLMC style developments in the five districts. Herefordshire and Wolverhampton SLMC - involves pilot schemes in two areas (one urban, one rural) of a more strategic approach to small grants funding. Its overall objectives are to develop a strategic but locally driven approach to funding the voluntary and community sector. There is a single pot funding (SPF) approach in Herefordshire involving the assembly and now management of a new single source of funding, and a single grant management (SGM) scheme in Wolverhampton which eases access to a range of the funding streams already available.
4
INITIAL FINDINGS AND EMERGING ISSUES
This report covers the initial scoping phase of the evaluation - the period up to March 2004, the date at which the first stages of fieldwork were completed (although in a few instances material is included relating to progress after that date). As the evaluation has progressed, it has become clear that although all SLMCs officially started work together on a set date, they were all at different positions and had different levels of expertise, at the time. This helps to explain the varying progress that had been made in the period up to March 2004. In the six months from the start of the evaluation a number of SLMCs began to make progress towards the objectives they had set themselves and momentum built up. Others, however, were still in the early stages of development and/or initial implementation. Nevertheless there are a number of emerging key issues, which provide a focus for further work, and offer some lessons for government and for the SLMCs about how the SLMC initiative can be most effectively taken forward. These issues are discussed below and organised into the following categories. Progress towards Strategic Objectives Flexibility and the reduction of bureaucracy Appraisal Funding streams Monitoring and Audit
Rationalisation of ABIs Collaboration, joint working and new organisational forms Strategic Framework Regional and Whitehall systems
Progress towards Strategic Objectives The SLMC initiative has of course triggered some new work, but, in a number of areas, SLMCs have involved development of previous work and, in all cases, they have been shaped by pre-existing interests and capacity in the selected areas. Over the early months the most active, ongoing commitment to establishing the pilots was perhaps to be found in five areas - Derby, Sheffield, Sunderland, Aston/Handsworth and Herefordshire/Wolverhampton. In Hastings, further progress seems likely to follow discussions of the relationship with the SEEDA Area Investment Framework initiative, and, in both Cornwall and
Evaluation of Single Local Management Centres
5
South Westminster, staff appointments can be expected to give impetus, and indeed in the case of Cornwall have begun to do so. How far the work is likely to develop in the Tees Valley is not yet clear - and in Bolton and East Manchester, it is uncertain how far gains made to date will be consolidated and/or pursued further. In Luton, where it appeared the initiative would not be pursued, there is recent interest in relevant developments. There are two other developments, which are worth noting. South Yorkshire Regeneration Network (SYReN) is operating as a network of ABI managers. The network is an experimentation with a network approach to better co-ordinate and encourage collaboration between ABIs and their managers, being developed by the South Yorkshire Coalfields Partnership in response to the ODPM CABI2 research and the RCU ABI review. Combined Audit. The aims of the West Midlands based Combined Audit pilot are to develop audit processes which can satisfy the needs of multiple funders and make life easier for voluntary and community organisations. The phases through which this initiative will move include an audit of audits, generating agreement from funding bodies to participate in the exercise, checking with recipients of funds how they experience audit processes, and piloting a combined approach in Birmingham.
Since the SLMC initiative aimed from the outset to be bottom up, reflecting the diversity of local circumstances, it is unsurprising that no single model of SLMC working has emerged or will emerge. Indeed no clear or firm programme template or rules were imposed on, or requested from SLMCs and the pattern of activity remains varied. The SLMC approach is being adopted at most spatial / local authority levels. Some of the work is at city level, (Derby, Sunderland, Wolverhampton) but it is most often concentrated in one or more parts of a city - six SLMCs (including Aston/Handsworth, South Westminster, Sheffield, Bolton, East Manchester), have a focus on neighbourhood/s and the sub-LSP level. There is also, however, work underway at borough/district level (Hastings, Luton), and in two tier and unitary areas (Cornwall, East Sussex – Hastings, Herefordshire). Two SLMCs (Tees Valley and South Yorkshire) focus on the sub-regional level. Some of the pilots are ambitious in scale, in terms of the area covered or the range of issues being taken on under the SLMC umbrella; others have a narrower focus. GOs have a significant lead role in many, but not all. In some areas, activity is concentrated mainly within a particular organisation - local regeneration agencies in Bolton, Sheffield, Manchester, the local authority in Sunderland, the voluntary sector in Herefordshire. In others, networks and partnerships are significant, (South Westminster, Aston /Handsworth). In several there is a relationship of some significance with LSPs (Aston/Handsworth, Cornwall, Hastings, South Westminster). For some localities the name continues to be an issue, and, in some areas, there has been local re-naming - for example, Solutions Kernow in Cornwall and the Regeneration Arena in Derby. In some other areas there is growing local awareness of the initiative (e.g the take-up of 80 application packs for the Herefordshire single
2
Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions (2002) Collaboration and Coordination in Area Based Initiatives NRU Research Report 1, London: DETR
Evaluation of Single Local Management Centres
6
pot funding stream). The research evidence is that with the exception of those individuals directly concerned with SLMC planning and delivery, few others are sufficiently aware of the SLMC initiative. Renaming may go some way to correcting this lack of knowledge, and in any case gives the impression of a commitment to the SLMC idea and provides identity to the work locally. In the early stages of the initiative, it appeared that the purpose and function of SLMCs might not have been sufficiently widely articulated or communicated to generate the understanding, ownership and commitment necessary - locally and nationally - to making them work as effectively as they might. Relying as it did on bottom-up development, supported by GOs and the RCU, the initiative depended both on full buy-in from local partners and a degree of flexibility from central and or national/regional agencies. Any perceived absence of awareness of, or commitment to, the initiative might appear to local actors to delay progress. Nevertheless, in some areas, the initiative was perceived locally to have been driven from Whitehall or Government Office, and in some of these areas this created a lack of trust and slowed down local engagement. In other areas, there has been a very positive relationship. Indeed Derby and Sheffield, for example, think being an SLMC brings a particular status and lobbying power. Other areas (for example Sunderland, East Manchester) are less concerned with the SLMC label, or doubtful that it is likely to bring useful 'clout' or sought after changes. The question of how much support or special attention SLMCs receive in order to take forward their proposals is of direct relevance to the question of sustainability, replicability and transfer of best practice to elsewhere. Flexibility and the reduction of bureaucracy Removal of red tape lies at the heart of the SLMC initiative and several of the initiatives involve the search for greater flexibility. The work underway in Wolverhampton, for example, has explicit outcomes and is now moving into its second year. In general, attempts to harmonise appraisal systems, develop combined audit, establish common planning cycles, or integrate monitoring systems, largely remain at the planning stage or are under negotiation. Where initiatives have been longer under development, however, (as in the North West) there is little evidence of procedural changes being integrated into mainstream systems. Appraisal Where there are multiple funding streams, the varying demands arising from a multiplicity of appraisal requirements is plainly an issue There is interest in the development of common or linked / complementary systems in a number of SLMCs. For example, a unified appraisal form was developed by Beacons (East Manchester) and Derby is working towards a single appraisal and approval process for funds managed by its External Funding Unit. Similar developments in Herefordshire and Wolverhampton and elsewhere aim to ease and simplify (for funders and applicants) the appraisal process. Funding Streams There is reinforcement of the evidence about the multitude and complexity of funding streams. The Derby Regeneration Arena mapping has identified fifty funding streams arriving in Derby for ‘special’ programmes, some area based, some borough wide. Mapping has identified the source, size and timing of the streams, the recipient of the funding, the accountable body and the number of projects within each initiative. The challenge for all levels of public administration is whether a pot incorporating
Evaluation of Single Local Management Centres
7
such funding streams can be created and if so how many - and which - initiatives can be included and through what mechanisms3. A number of SLMCs have considered some form of single pot, but this theme is most advanced in Herefordshire and Wolverhampton where single pot funding and single grant administration are being pursued. The experience there points to a number of possible approaches to and questions about the ‘single pot’ including, for example: the assembly of a new single pot to meet specific local circumstances (and in the case of Herefordshire using outreach approaches to develop more effective services to counter rural isolation and disadvantage) the juxtaposition of several pots to manage understanding of, and access to, them the pooling of budgets or joint funding of projects from different budgets the adoption of common processes for managing separate pots the disaggregation of national or regional budgets into more effective subregional or local allocations
It has long been recognised that there are barriers to the streamlining of funds and/or their amalgamation into a single pot (and it should be remembered that the prototype single pot – the Single Regeneration Budget – lasted a decade, was abolished and now lies with a single agency, with the rump of SRB amalgamated into a new single pot for RDAs). Whilst pursuit of a single pot may be important in specific circumstances and locations, it seems important to link the SLMC funding streams debate with the wider debate about pooling budgets and realigning resources4 and to ensure that the rationalisation of ABI funding streams for ABIs goes hand in hand with the more important mainstreaming debate5. Monitoring and Audit Evidence suggests that the multiplicity of monitoring systems places a particularly heavy load on smaller organisations. The Combined Audit initiative in the West Midlands is exploring this by engaging with a range of Birmingham based organisations to develop common systems which focus not simply on audit but on the whole process from project development through monitoring to audit and accountability.
The steps through which this initiative is moving include an audit of audits (finding out exactly what different funding organisations demand by way of audit procedures); getting agreement in principle from funding agencies to participate in the combined audit exercise; checking with recipients of funds how they experience audit processes; developing a matrix of funders and funded as a basis for looking at the
3
4
5
The Derby experience has been especially influential in relation to the emergence of Local Area Agreements and the Sustainable and Safe Communities Fund set out in the 2004 Public Spending Review. Hamer L. (2004) Pooling Resources across sector: a report for local strategic partnerships London: Health Development Agency. And www.hda.nhs.uk See also reports from the national evaluation of Local Strategic Partnerships www.odpm.gov.uk/local
Evaluation of Single Local Management Centres
8
operation and impact of audit procedures); and developing a common system and pilot (in Birmingham). Agreement has been reached with Birmingham City Council, the Learning and Skills Council, the Community Fund, GOWM European programmes, and the Legal Services Commission, to participate. It is hoped that Connexions and AWM may also join. The Audit Commission and National Audit Office have also been involved. Rationalisation of ABIs A major problem locally is the significant number of (usually quite small) funds, often with closely related purposes, drawn into the same locality through different routes. Much local effort is then dissipated into understanding the different streams, reconciling their practices, and simplifying their use. One of the major objectives of the SLMC initiative was to respond to criticisms of ABI proliferation, and to move towards some form of rationalisation, in relation to both existing and new ABIs. Simply mapping initiatives has been seen as an essential starting point for a number of SLMCs - demonstrating the extent to which proliferation of initiatives weakens the capacity for planning and performance management. Derby have taken this furthest by establishing the precise nature of initiatives across the city. There has been some movement towards rationalisation of existing ABIs. In East Bolton, where the SLMC is responsible for co-ordinating regeneration across a number of ABIs and neighbourhoods, the SRB/EAZ relationship has not developed beyond useful forms of co-operation. Different programme managers, accounting procedures, reporting requirements and auditing processes remain. In East Manchester a lot of work was carried out before the emergence of the SLMC idea, with the NDC pathfinder being seen as a driver for integrated working. Barriers to programme delivery were identified, with Beacons for a Brighter Future emerging as a single body for SRB/NDC management. As the end date for specific initiatives approaches, however, the need for rationalisation begins to fade. In Aston/Handsworth, a preliminary mapping found 250 ABI related projects/activities. However, the Aston/Handsworth Strategy and Operations Groups have moved towards a more strategic main programme approach, rather than to ABI rationalisation. In Cornwall, ABI proliferation was seen as the initial problem, and further developments are possible here, as the recently appointed Social Inclusion Coordinator is charged with taking this forward. Collaboration, joint working and new organisational forms Whilst specific improvements to process, in terms of the removal of duplication and the pursuit of rationalisation, are the objectives of most SLMCs, some reflect a wider commitment to collaboration and co-ordination in relation to service delivery. In Aston, a local partnership has initiated specific activities which bring agencies together in order to respond a specific local crisis. The SLMC incorporates a focus on operational delivery to which relevant agencies have signed up, committing themselves to a joint approach. Similarly, the Cornwall SLMC embodies a commitment to work together to address social exclusion cross the county. Establishing shared funding of community groups is the key objective of the Herefordshire single pot project, with its most recent activities attempting to engage
Evaluation of Single Local Management Centres
9
different stakeholders. This has highlighted the challenge in generating collaboration across funding agencies. Some agencies are willing to engage in joint arrangements, where objectives are mutually consistent and where a joint scheme focuses on local priorities. Other agencies, however, expect to retain their own systems and are reluctant to work jointly, either because they wish to retain control or for reasons of accountability. Advantage West Midlands was felt to fall into this category, and the role of the RDA was also raised as problematic in other regions. For some SLMCs the link with the Local Strategic Partnership is explicit. For others, the structural form chosen is a more ad hoc, looser, consortium or informal partnership, whereby a number of organisations come together to take forward a specific part of the SLMC agenda and agree roles and tasks for the partner organisations, hold regular meetings, and work collaboratively towards agreed and shared aims. In Herefordshire and Wolverhampton a common steering group chaired by GOWM draws together the two localities, and in Herefordshire in particular this group itself is supported a HABIT (Herefordshire Area Based Initiatives Team) sub-group. The Combined Audit initiative, whilst initially driven by the Legal Services Commission, seems likely to evolve as a consortium, which will agree and pursue common procedures. A consortium/partnership arrangement, whilst not adopting any legal form, nevertheless binds partners together in a structure, which sets relationships, procedures and mutual obligations. Other areas appear to follow a ‘network’ approach, recognising the role of informal systems of information exchange, interpersonal contacts, and networks in supporting joined up working. The South Yorkshire Coalfields work draws on the Coordination and Collaboration in Area Based Initiatives research report6 and its findings. It appeared that the Tees Valley initiative whilst not described explicitly as a network might fulfil that function, not least because the constituent bodies (the district LSPs and local authorities) appeared reluctant to move beyond a very loosely organised structure. It now appears that pilot working here may after all be confined within individual local authority areas. Cornwall by contrast presents itself as a ‘virtual’ SLMC (no location, no specific function, meeting some of the needs across the county wherever they appear, involving all LSPs). In this sense the Cornwall initiative is a network, attempting to draw together a variety of interests and making connections between different county individuals and organisations. The focus here may be on whether ‘networks’ fulfil a helpful role in allowing connections to be made and so assisting joined up working, or whether they simply represent failed attempts to do something positive or indeed just mirror the resistance of those who do not wish to work collaboratively but are still willing to talk. If some SLMCs have moved towards the creation of new structures, whether formal or informal, others rely more explicitly on existing organisations and seek to change the way in which existing structures operate rather than build new ones. How changes in existing organisational structures will happen will vary widely and will have consequences for role and function.
6
Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions (2002) Collaboration and Co-ordination in Area Based Initiatives NRU Research Report 1, London: DETR
Evaluation of Single Local Management Centres
10
Already the Derby SLMC is illustrating new ways of deploying staff across a range of regeneration activity, whilst the Manor and Castle Development Trust (or at least that part that is the SLMC) may change function under a South Sheffield Partnership. The Herefordshire/Wolverhampton SLMC is attempting to alter the ways in which a number of funding agencies in the public and private sectors address the issue of funding community organisations, whilst several of the SLMCs seek to influence administrative processes within organisations (appraisal, audit, etc.). Already it is clear that there is resistance to change in some organisations; notably the RDA is perceived by some SLMCs as an example of an organisation, either unable or unwilling to change its practices. Strategic Frameworks Whilst the primary focus of much SLMC activity is on operational and delivery related issues, a number are addressing the strategic framework within which they operate. Three of these – Cornwall, Tees Valley and Hastings – relate to, or in the case of Hastings are concerned about – the larger spatial context – county or sub-region. The precise context varies. The Cornwall SLMC seeks to serve the wider county area in order to share good practice. The Tees Valley SLMC might initially have been expected to make connections between the separate strategies of the localities, which make up a functional sub-region, although, in practice, this has not occurred. Hastings has found it necessary to place its local activities within the broader context of the county and the area investment framework of SEEDA. The Aston/Handsworth SLMC is beginning to explore a strategic approach to an area below that of the city. It illustrates an important theme for NRU and for local governance in general – the possible emergence of a level of joining up below that of the city/borough/district but above that of the neighbourhood. For many of the service delivery organisations that are themselves looking to develop some form of area based structure, this may be the most effective level for linking strategy to delivery. Developments to date suggest that SLMC pilots may be particularly useful in informing debate on the role and operation of LSPs in relation to their connections both to neighbourhoods (below the LSP), and regions/sub-regions (above the LSP). The extent to which SLMCs are linked to LSP working is varied. Nevertheless in a number of areas, the SLMC is seen as an important strand of LSP development. Examples of SLMC engagement with LSPs shows that Hastings – aims to provide additional capacity for the authority in managing a number of new renewal/regeneration initiatives. Cornwall - the developing relationship between the county wide and district LSPs is significant. Derby - linked to one of two major sub-groups of the LSP and tries to involve and engage LSP members in the external funding issue. South Westminster - the steering group acts as a channel for NRF funding from the LSP. Aston/Handsworth - has stimulated and informed discussion about the role of mini LSPs between city and neighbourhood levels (linking to the constituency managers recently put in post for eleven Birmingham districts). There is
Evaluation of Single Local Management Centres
11
evidence from elsewhere7 that the idea of such mini LSPs is being explored in a number of larger authority areas (e.g. Middlesbrough, Liverpool, Blackburn). Sheffield - the Manor and Castle Development Trust may become the accountable body for a number of activities within a South Sheffield partnership.
In some areas (Sunderland, South Westminster, Aston/Handsworth, for example) SLMCs offer an opportunity to examine whether an ‘area’ approach provides the basis for an effective spatial scale for intervention. This fits also with the local government decentralisation agenda, with emerging thinking about LPSAs and Local Area Agreements, with the Innovation Forum’s work on Local Public Services Boards and with the latest Treasury/Cabinet Office report on devolved decision- making. The work in Derby has been particularly influential and its mapping of funding streams has already been referred to. Derby sees the need to realign resources as well as to manage them. The SLMC thus involves linkages between ABI and other external funds and main programmes and has sought to integrate regeneration staff and resources (hitherto SRB scheme managers) into more generic roles in order to build greater capacity for the delivery of neighbourhood and other regeneration activities. The LSP/Council has supported the longer term resourcing of this capacity in order to link special initiative funding with the mainstream. Cornwall, whilst responding to ABI proliferation and aiming to support county and district LSPs, involves addressing issues of social exclusion across Cornwall and attempting to influence service planning and delivery to counter exclusion. There are examples of SLMC approaches, which relate to joint working and ABI management at LSP, local authority or smaller area level. It is much less clear what an SLMC at the regional or sub-regional level is for, and the experience in the main sub-regional case study – Tees Valley – offers little direction on this point. Regional and Whitehall systems Previous sections of this report have documented briefly the potential horizontal integration of activities at local level. SLMCs have put enormous effort into designing and developing possible ways of better cross-organisational working. Questions also arise, however, about the extent to which vertical barriers between centre, region, city/district, and neighbourhood represent obstacles in the implementation of SLMCs. Some SLMCs claim to have put more energy and effort into generating the engagement of agencies and central departments than they initially anticipated. Given that they understood SLMCs to be a significant national scheme, some SLMCs commented on what they perceived as the lack of ownership of, and commitment to, the SLMC initiative from such agencies and departments. For most SLMCs the ‘regional’ question is, in practice, the extent to which regional organisations in general (or the regional arms of national bodies) and Regional Development Agencies in particular, can assist the development of SLMCs. RDAs are not the only organisations, which face genuine difficulties in relating to the proliferation of partnerships and initiatives at sub-regional levels. The extent to which regional bodies can contribute to the working of such new structures may be limited. Nevertheless there have been a number of observations about the inflexibility of RDA resource management. In one region the SLMC has virtually abandoned attempts to talk with the RDA and it is clear that there needs to be greater clarity about the social
7
From the national evaluation of Local Strategic Partnerships
Evaluation of Single Local Management Centres
12
and community regeneration role of RDAs and the function of RDA funding and procedures in supporting or inhibiting flexible local management of funds. Some of the evidence from SLMCs does not seem to confirm the conclusions of the recent governmental papers on devolved decision making, ABI rationalisation, and rationalisation of funding streams8, which highlight the flexibility which single pot funding has given to RDAs and argue for the rationalisation of other streams in line with RDA best practice. The picture is not uniform, however. In the South East, SEEDA’s Area Investment Framework seems to offer the potential for cross-agency strategic working, although the short-term effect of the development of the Area Investment Framework here does appear to have delayed SLMC progress. Within individual SLMCs the freedom to develop new and more flexible ways of working together at the local level is welcome. A number of interviewees were happy to operate within what they saw as their local ‘room for manoeuvre’. Others, however, expressed the need to engage with the broader agenda of resource management at regional and Whitehall levels. They argue that if a local SLMC simply gets on with something on which progress is possible, the longer-term structural issues of what might need to be changed centrally may not be addressed. SLMC proposals, which demand a Whitehall response, or have implications for Whitehall (e.g. freedoms, combination of funds, mini LSPs), inevitably pose a challenge to the centre. A number of issues relating to appraisal, funding and auditing are being raised by SLMCs. The Combined Audit initiative, for example, demands collaborative working across organisations, which goes beyond the simple question of technical audit procedures, and will raise issues about the systems which are in place in Whitehall (as well as in NAO and Audit Commission). More generally the success of the SLMC initiative will ultimately be evaluated in terms of the two key themes of the sustainability of SLMC working over longer periods of time, and the possibilities of replication and roll-out of flexibilities and removal of bureaucracy. Such replication and roll-out will depend on lessons being learned across all levels of government – central, regional, and local.
5 CONCLUSION
Some conclusions can be drawn from this preliminary overview of SLMC progress. Overall, there has been positive, and increasingly accelerating progress in the development of the SLMC approach. A number of interesting projects have started to emerge, which will benefit from further analysis during the remainder of the evaluation. SLMCs are diverse in their makeup and involvement, and progress across all areas varies significantly.
8
HM Treasury/ODPM/DTI (2004) Devolving decision making Volume 2 Meeting the regional economic challenge: increasing regional and local flexibility London www.hmtreasury.gov.uk pp 74-76
Evaluation of Single Local Management Centres
13
The key challenges for the next stages of the evaluation will be to further examine: The concrete improvements generated by SLMCs at strategic and operational levels The potential benefits from greater coherence to the programme as a whole in order to ensure that wider lessons are disseminated and learned The need for greater awareness of, closer engagement with, stronger commitment to, and fuller ownership of SLMCs as a nationally significant initiative across government The need for greater willingness among mainstream departments and agencies to approach their budget/resource management processes more flexibly than they currently do The incorporation of good practice in SLMCs into new initiatives, most notably Local Area Agreements
6
NEXT STEPS
Research will continue to mid 2005. During this period, the research team will continue to observe progress in the SLMCs, to draw out best practice and to identify lessons for mainstream working elsewhere. Links will be maintained between the SLMC evaluation and those parallel evaluations, which fall within the overall Local Government Modernisation Agenda framework evaluation. In addition the project will feed into policy developments such as the pilot Local Area Agreements, Local Public Service Boards, and the evolution of Local Strategic Partnerships. During the remainder of the research there will be a number of issue papers produced on a number of topics of potential significance. These will be on: Process simplification, flexibility, removal of red tape - to include papers on funding arrangements, appraisal and audit/monitoring ABI rationalisation / merger, including particularly the barriers which may have limited progress on this aspect of the SLMC initiative Form / organisational approach - for example, networks, collaboration, joint work, local organizations, (such as development trusts) Developments in partnership working, with connections to Local Area Agreements, to the wider local government modernisation agenda and to mainstreaming Developments in strategic planning at various spatial levels
A final report from the project will be prepared for publication at the end of 2005.