National Evaluation of Local Strategic Partnerships
Report on the 2006 Survey of all English LSPs
This report presents findings from a survey issued to all English Local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs) in summer/autumn 2006. It examines the the organisation and structure of LSPs, their activity and outcomes, and their future priorities.
Title: National Evaluation of Local Strategic Partnerships: Report on the 2006 Survey of all English LSPs
Authors: Mike Giddens, Crispian Fuller & Matthew Geddes, Warwick Business School for Department for Communities and Local Government
Number of pages: 52
Date published: June 2007
Availability: Download full report 
PDF 837Kb
Organisational arrangements
With the passage of time, LSPs are becoming more mature. However, though most LSPs had been established by 2003, process issues such as structures, membership and protocols continue to remain high on LSPs’ agendas.
LSP core membership has remained relatively stable since 2004, and indeed since 2002, but LSPs remain concerned about the under-representation of business. Membership tends to be wider in Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (NRF) LSPs and in counties.
As in 2004, LSPs responding to the survey are more satisfied with the contribution their partners make within the LSP than with their ability to change their organisations’ policies in line with LSP priorities. LSPs rank the contribution of some partners, such as local authority officers and some public sector partners) higher than that of others (such as business and transport interests).
Councillors can play many roles on LSPs and the survey suggests that they perform some (such as providing leadership and identifying local needs and issues) more effectively than others (such as ensuring the accountability of the LSP to local communities and scrutinising the LSP’s performance).
Partnerships are continuing to develop their structures. Around 70% of LSPs now have theme groups/sub-partnerships related to the four main LAA themes. In general partnership structures are working well, but relationships between different parts of the structure can be less satisfactory. Linkages between the LSP and organisations either above or below the LSP, such as regional agencies and neighbourhood structures, are often limited.
Perceptions of the accountability of LSPs, both to the public and to local partners, have improved significantly since 2004. Most LSPs also highlight the contribution which partnership working in the LSP makes to the accountability of local agencies.
Relationships between county and district LSPs in two tier areas can work well with 75% of responding LSPs in two tier areas stating that they have effective arrangements for crossmembership of county and district LSPs. But there are also numerous instances where this is not the case: for example less than half of the responding LSPs think there is effective collaboration on Community Strategies.
LSP staff numbers have grown substantially since 2004. An average NRF LSP now has 5 or 6 staff, while for a non-NRF area the comparable figure is about two staff. Despite this, most LSPs want more support from government, GOs and local partners.
Activity and outcomes
Levels of activity have increased since 2004. Activities identified as ‘very important’ or ‘important’ by 80% or more of LSPs include both ‘process’ issues (such as consolidating and reviewing membership, engagement with communities and excluded groups, consolidating and developing partnership structures and processes), and activity more directly related to outcomes (developing and agreeing shared objectives, developing, delivering and reviewing the Community Strategy and performance management). Over 80% of LSPs also highlight working on specifically local issues as important or very important.
Significantly more LSPs claim to be achieving measurable outcomes than in 2004 on a range of issues. Leading among these are crime and health, but there are numerous other issues where LSPs are increasingly claiming measurable outcomes – economic development and enterprise, education and training, housing, children and young people, and substance abuse. At the other end of the spectrum, there are certain issues which significant numbers of LSPs are not addressing – these include, for at least one third of all LSPs, gay and lesbian and gender issues, refugees and asylum seekers and travellers. Factors including both internal capacity issues and external constraints on partners are perceived as limitations on greater progress.
Understandably , activity related to the Local Area Agereement (LAA) was more important to upper tier LSPs with Round 1 or 2 LAAs. All these LSPs regarded developing and negotiating the LAA as important (indeed 89% stated it was ‘very’ important) while working up the detail of the LAA was very important or important for 98% and delivering the LAA was very important or important for 93%. The responses from lower tier areas were often less positive.
Most upper tier Round 1 and 2 LSPs, and their partners, think that the LAA is a key priority for the LSP, and has been (or will be) a key instrument for delivering change. Large majorities also think that it has made the role of the LSP more important, and enhanced the role of thematic partnerships. At the same time, however, it has raised questions about the role of the Community Strategy for about half of all upper tier Rounds 1 and 2 LSPs, and has for many prompted a review of decision making and scrutiny arrangements within the LSP, including a review of thematic partnerships and their relationship to the main LSP.
The vast majority of upper tier Rounds 1 and 2 LSPs also think the LAA will make a major contribution to the delivery of Community Strategy outcomes. There are also considerable majorities which are positive about other contributions the LAA may make to LSP objectives – targeting of local areas and priority groups; improving services and ensuring they meet community needs; and to joined up local governance and a more mature relationship with central government.
Many LSPs’ governance arrangements have been a key factor in enabling them to respond positively to the LAA, but in some cases the LAA has exposed serious weaknesses. The tight timescales for the LAA process have been a particular problem for many LSPs.
The great majority of LSPs can identify a number of initiatives which would not have happened without them, and respondents to the survey overwhelmingly consider that the benefits and added value which LSPs are now producing outweigh the resource costs.
Priorities for period 2006-2008
The continuing development, delivery and review of the Community Strategy is, in 2006 as in 2004, the principal concern for LSPs. More LSPs (76%) mention this among their top five priorities than any other issue, and it is similarly the leading issue for more LSPs than any other. Other issues standing out among LSPs’ top five priorities are – in order of the number of mentions:
- Developing and delivering the LAA
- Performance management
- Engaging communities and excluded groups
- Consolidating and developing partnership structures
- Specifically local issues and priorities.
The survey was undertaken before the Local Government White Paper was published. However, the responses to the survey suggest that LSPs’ future priorities are very consistent with important White Paper themes such as the positioning of the LAA as the action plan for the Sustainable Community Strategy, and the mix of national and local targets envisaged.
Getting a copy
Last update: Wednesday, August 15, 2007