1. 1
Faculty of Social Sciences and Business
Plymouth Business School
Dr Gregory Borne
ENHANCING DEVONS PARTNERSHIPS
Introduction
LSP’s are non-statutory, multi-agency bodies that operate at the local level
and aim to bring together different parts of the public, private, community and
voluntary sectors. LSP’s have been set up across England in recognition of a
lack of joint-working at the local level and could provide a forum for early
engagement with local communities in the planning process. The drive by
national government to introduce Local Strategic Partnerships at the local
level is representative of a broader policy for integrating the goals of
sustainable development policy frameworks. What the following report will
show is that in a relatively short space of time there have been substantial
positive steps in the development of LSP’s that are capable of responding to
community needs within Devon. However, in line with recent findings on LSP
governance nationwide (ODPM 2006), there are substantial differences in the
extent to which LSP’s can be said to have created a strong and sustainable
governance structure within Devon. The report is organised into three main
sections. Section One examines relevant LSP documentation. Section Two
presents findings and recommendations based on the focus group sessions
and incumbent materials. Section Three draws general themes from the
overall study and relates Devon’s LSP’s to recent ODPM (2006) evaluation of
LSP’s nationwide.
This report draws together research conducted by the University of Plymouth
on behalf of the Devon Improvement Programme (DIP). Five of Devons
LSP’s were considered.
● South Hams District Council
● North Devon
● West Devon

2. 2
● Torbay
● Exeter
Research Methodology
As already discussed the research used a number of techniques in order to
better understand the nature of Devon’s LSP’s. The research combined a
desktop document study with in-depth qualitative analysis based on focus
group sessions. The research was conducted in three main stages . Firstly,
LSP’s provided the research team with all documentation that related to their
LSP. Following the completion of the desk top document analysis focus
groups were conducted. This involved discussions focused on six broad
themes and the completion of two questionnaires. The first a ‘partnership
health check’, and the second a ‘categorisation’ of LSP’s.
SECTION ONE
Documentation Review
The purpose of the documentary review was to ascertain the clarity of the
documentation for an LSP. As with any major partnership agreement, having
clarity of purpose provides all parties concerned with a sense of direction, so
as to enable them to achieve the stated aims and objectives of the
partnership. The key elements of our review are as follows
● Clarity of purpose
● Documents fit for purpose
● Plain English
● They enable people to be held to account
● The existence of Key documents
In making its judgement on LSP documentation the Project Team reflected on
the checklist provided via the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister’s website. It
became very obvious in analysing the documentation from various LSP’s that
there was a core of documents which all LSP’s should have in place. The
following list reflects the documentation provided in relation to the Exeter City
LSP:
● Terms of Reference/ Values, Aims and Objectives
● List of Members and Responsibilities (current structures April 2005)
● Community Strategy
● High Level Project Plan
● Demographic Data
● Budget/Financial Details
● Thematic Groups
● Accountability Process
● Lineages
Conducting the documentary review exercise prior to conducting LSP Focus

3. 3
Groups enabled a contextual understanding of the values, aims and
objectives of the LSP’s. The quality and quantity of the documentation varied
considerably across the various LSP’s. Strengths and weaknesses were
evident in differing degrees in each of the document areas provided.
Generally the impression of the documentation was good. For the most part
literature was comprehensive, transparent and effectively structured. Overall,
there was evidence that LSP’s had effectively considered the composition and
goals of their LSP’s. However, the three following general observations
should be borne in mind for future consideration. Firstly, the certain types of
documentation for each LSP should be consistent, in its aspirations,
operational programme, and subsequent monitoring framework. With
consistency achieved at this stage of LSP development, the subsequent
integration of the complex issues entailed with the formation of an LSP can be
considered. Secondly, with point one in mind, documentation should be
realistic in its overall goals. Documentation needs to reflect the reality of
each partnerships ability to contribute to the overall structure of the LSP. With
this achieved the eventual development of the LSP will evolve in an
environment of full partnership awareness. Finally, documentation needs to
incorporate an element of flexibility into its framework. Whilst it is essential to
establish (realistic) goals and propositions at this stage of LSP formation, this
should be balanced with flexible targets and the establishment of parameters
as opposed to definitive statements. The three themes of, consistency,
realism and flexibility will be shown to run throughout the assessment of
LSP’s in Devon. Moreover, after consultation of an extensive analysis of
LSP’s (ODPM 2006) these themes are recognised as being present at the
national scale. This will be further discussed in chapter three. The following
section, moves away from the static documentation analysis to explore
findings from the focus groups and related material.
SECTION TWO
Focus Group and Health Check
Facilitation Process
The Focus Group process started with each participant individually and
confidentially completing a questionnaire that asked to judge their perceptions
of various partnership issues from the perspective of the constituent partners
and the community-at-large (see appendix 1). Questions posed in the focus
group were expansions on the six primary themes contained in the health
check questionnaire. The following will present overall results from both the
focus group and the questionnaire. Initially findings from the health check
introduce the theme, which is followed by the relevant focus group questions.
Within each theme suggested actions for the improvement of LSP working are
included.
1. Recognise and Accept the Need for Partnership.
To varying degrees there was a general consensus among the partnerships
that there was a need for LSP’s. It was agreed that working in partnership

4. 4
would produce a more reactive and efficient governance structure capable of
responding to the needs of community groups. It was considered
advantageous to provide a forum around which the private sector, the public
sector and the voluntary areas could come together to discuss efficiency
saving measures with the ultimate goal of improving community service
provision. It was recognised however that whilst partnership working was
necessary it also presented some initial problems for achieving goals through
partnership forums. These included diversity in vision among partners and
differentiated resource accessibility. Such a recognition should be seen as a
positive step in the development of LSP’s
Q. Is there a need for a partnership?
Responses from the focus groups supported the above observation
2.Develop Clarity and Realism of Purpose.
Health checks indicated that there were mixed responses to whether clarity
and realism of purpose actually existed amongst the partners. There was
also some ambiguity over whether partnerships had a clear vision, shared
values and had agreed principle services.
Q. Do you consider the partnerships purpose to be clear?
There was a mixed response as to the initial clarity and realism of purpose of
each LSP. This is an emotive topic as it emerged that clarity and realism of
purpose are not necessarily synonymous. It became evident that whilst each
individual member of the partnerships had a vision of their role in the
partnership process, upon interaction with the LSP as whole, roles
responsibilities and objectives became convoluted. Focus groups raised
issues of the lack of specifics with respect to LSP’s role. Themes on this topic
that were particularly prevalent concerned linking community to government
policy, linking communities to communities, and adding value beyond just the
outcomes from one organisation. Within the focus group sessions individual
members were in agreement that the process of focus group participation
developed a deeper understanding of what their role was in the overall
running of the LSP. The transition to a realism of purpose within the LSP is
an essential part of the successful development of an LSP as a tool for
creating sustainable communities.
Suggested Actions
● To implement a review of the partnership roles and responsibilities,
and to ensure that the outcomes of this review are disseminated to all
partners of the LSP
● To gain further understanding of how the various partnership

5. 5
groups/processes impinge or support the role and function of a district
3. Ensure Commitment and Ownership.
It was comprehensively agreed that there was an overall commitment and
ownership of the LSP’s by it members. Particularly, it emerged that LSP’s
partnerships placed great value on engaging individuals with strong
leadership and networking skills that are capable of internalising the broad
range of issues reflected in the LSP framework. Controversy within the
majority of LSP’s arose when considering whether commitment and
ownership would be encouraged by rewards and sanctions.
Q. Do you consider that the members of the partnership and the
community are involved in the partnership’s aims and objectives?
There was a general consensus that the members of the LSP had a moderate
to high involvement in establishing the overall aims and objectives of the
partnerships. This was done so with the recognition that some partners
contributed more than others. Considering the role of the community
participants of the focus groups felt there was substantial gains to be made
from heightening the level of involvement of community groups in the
establishment of the LSP’s aims and objectives. This was tempered with the
proviso that the interaction of community and partnership representatives
should be achieved on a negotiate basis.
Q. Do you consider that the members of the partnership and the
community have been involved in designing the implementation/action
plan?
A variety of issues emerged in response to this question in the focus group
process. Many LSP’s considered this to be an issue of ‘top down’ ‘bottom up’
governance, where it was felt that they were able to engender a range of
opinion from the community as well as the partners involved. It was evident
that the level of engagement of community or partner varied depending on the
nature of the topic under discussion.
Actions Required
● Timeframe for reviewing aims and objectives need to be determined
● Documentation of consultation process needs to be shared as best
practice across the Devon Improvement Group Network
● To ensure that there is a process to measure all partners
engagement and understanding of the aims and objectives of the
LSP
● Revisit partnerships aims and objectives with a view to
reprioritisation as a result of changing national and local demands
● Develop a deeper understanding of the role that community takes in
creating an implementation/action plan
● Design, document and implement a system of monitoring the LSP’s
action plans

6. 6
4. Develop and Maintain Trust.
All LSP’s agreed that the development and maintenance of trust and
transparency within the partnership structure was pivotal to achieving an
effective governance forum. LSP’s were adamant that the maintenance of an
open relationship within the LSP dynamic provided a foundation upon which
effective community gains could be made. There was majority consensus
that within the LSP each partner should be afforded equal status. Concerns
were raised over the time scale available for the initiation and subsequent
implementation of LSP working.
5. Create Robust and Clear Partnership Working Arrangements
There was a general consensus that partnership workings were not always as
simple and effective as they could be. And whilst there was agreement that
partners responsibilities and accountabilities seemed to be clear there was
often confusion over what financial and non financial resources are brought to
the partnership by each partner. Overall, LSP’s confirmed that they
considered that their partnerships principle focus was on process and
outcomes rather than structures and inputs.
Q. As individual members, are you clear on your position within the
partnership?
Whilst there was some descent, overwhelmingly LSP members indicated that
they were clear about their role within the partnership dynamic.
Actions Required
● To ensure that there is full understanding by all individual members of
their roles and responsibilities within the partnership.
6. Monitor, Measure and Learn
It was clear that across the board LSP’s did not rate their ability to self monitor
and regulate highly. Moreover, it was agreed that where such monitoring
activity did occur, subsequent findings were not adequately disseminated to
the constituent partners. It was generally agreed that the partnerships aims
objectives and working arrangements are widely recognised and revised in
light of any monitoring activity that may occur. There was a consensus that
any successes achieved by the LSP’s were not adequately publicised.
Q. To what extent have members of the partnership and the community
been involved in monitoring the partnerships implementation/action
plan?

7. 7
There was diverse opinion on the extent to which the partnership and the
community were involved in monitoring the LSP. Many LSP’s found that
monitoring the work of the LSP’s presented problems and required direction
and focus for the steering group. There was a high level of consensus that
there needed to be an increase in community monitoring of the LSP’s
progress. However, community involvement was seen as necessary after a
structured working group had been established within the LSP context.
Q. Do you use the current ‘best value performance’ (BVP) indicators to
measure your partnership performance?
There was a general feeling amongst LSP’s that ‘best value performance
indicators’ were ineffective. It was felt that it was to early in the process to be
specific about the performance level in relation to a developing project. LSP’s
felt that BVP indicators did not provide them with a suitable performance
horizon to target, as far as the achievements and milestones of LSP’s are
concerned. LSP’s were concerned by community perception of BVP
indicators suggesting a possible negative perception engendered by the
application of unrealistic indicators.
Q. Do you feel the indicators you are using, effectively measure the
performance of your partnership?
LSP’s indicated that they were not effectively using performance indicators to
measure their progress. Various LSP’s suggested a number of reasons for
this outcome. Running through all LSP’s however was the assertion that
partnerships were not at the appropriate stage of development to
accommodate a static set of performance indicators. Instead LSP’s were at a
dynamic and highly mutable stage. It was however agreed that in a later
stage of LSP development a definitive set of suitable indicators would need
to be introduced.
Actions Required
● To design, document and implement a system of monitoring of the
LSP’s action plans.
● To engage all partners in the dissemination of the LSP’s action plans to
the community at large
● To review the process for informing the community, and the system by
which feedback is used to evaluate progress
● Evaluate the relevance and effectiveness of the current performance
indicators for the LSP.
● Need to engage the community in the development of appropriate and
effective performance indicators using both national and local criteria
where relevant.
● Review action plans and establish a set of cross cutting key indicators
(i.e. health, social care etc) which will provide the LSP with a sound

8. 8
and manageable monitoring process.
● Understand the specific performance requirements of each LSP
● Design, document an implement a performance management
programme.
● Engage the community in the development of appropriate and effective
performance indicators using both national and local criteria where
relevant.
Categorising Local Strategic Partnerships
The research team presented the Focus Group with a set of LSP models that
broadly categorise forms of LSP’s (see appendix 2). It was recognised that
locating a particular LSP within the static boundaries of a single category is
somewhat artificial, and that in fact many LSP’s occupy more than one ‘form’
of LSP as laid down by the ODPM. With this said however the following
observations should be considered. Overwhelmingly LSP’s considered
themselves to be of the Advisory model. In this model the LSP acts as a
consultation and discussion forum and often forms the basis for consensus
building, but has no independent power to act. It draws its accountability and
legitimacy from member organisations, particularly the local authority.
Summary
Documentation and focus group material presented invaluable insights into
the formation and early operations of Devon’s LSP’s. Whilst the qualitative
focus group data (as with much qualitative data) showed some contradiction,
on the whole very similar issues were raised amongst the LSP’s observed for
this study. Section three will extrapolate some of the main tensions that were
present in LSP operations. Moreover, by way of contextualisation section
three will examine findings of broader nationwide evaluations of LSP
processes.
SECTION THREE
LSP Overview
Urban and Rural
The research team found that there was a strong divide between those LSP’s
that represented rural areas and those that were identified as being urban. It
was found that the challenge of rural LSP’s was to negotiate ‘perforated
boundaries’ with a need to negotiate overlapping jurisdiction. It is suggested
that rural LSP’s have to devote some time to developing a cohesive structure
and form a particular identity. In line with the ODPM (2006) therefore the
research team identified the importance of the strategic capacity of the
partners involved in the LSP. As has already been highlighted through the
documentation review and the focus group activity, there must be initial
clarifications of the membership roles and the overall purpose of the LSP.
Whilst this also applied to those LSP’s located in urban environments, more
defined boundaries act as a stabilizer in defining specific goals and targets.
However, both urban and rural LSP’s must be considerate of governance

9. 9
tiers. County and district LSP’s must be understood as being complementary
rather than conflicting. The relationship of these LSP’s should function on an
egalitarian and not a hierarchical scale. The strategic economic, physical and
social issues confronting LSP’s can only be dealt with effectively through a
culture of cooperation (ODPM 2006).
It was also recognised that tensions exist not only between LSP’s and
membership jurisdiction, but also between national and local government
structures. This resonates strongly with findings of the ODPM (2006).
A National Perspective
The recent study by the ODPM (2006) reinforces many of the points outlined
in this report concerning Devon’s LSP’s. Due to its breadth, it also extends
this analysis providing essential insights into the future development of
successful LSP’s. The following will outline some relevant issues. Overall the
report indicates that LSP’s on a national scale are dynamic governance
entities that are incumbent of the many social, economic and political issues
that represent governance processes. The ODPM distinguishes between two
broad areas of partnership working. Firstly, Governance issues, and
secondly, delivery issues.
1. Governance issues.
Governance issues refer broadly to factors of leadership, representation and
accountability. The leadership dimension focuses on the strategic capacity of
the board or the executive in each partnership. It was found that leadership is
a primary catalyst in the effective progression of LSP’s. It was also found that
achieving an effective leadership is extremely challenging and suggests
continued support for enhancing leadership capacity. In line with the
University of Plymouth findings it was found that there has been substantial
progress in ‘process rationalisation’ in terms of partnership coordination and
better way of working within the partnership environment. However, the
report draws attention to deficits in the processes of structural rationalisation
and the operational capacity of LSP’s. Pivotal to this and again resonating
strongly with Devon based LSP’s is the lack of systematic accountability
within the LSP framework. This is the accountability of the LSP’s to ‘partners,
and the accountability of partners to the LSP as well as wider public
accountability’(ODPM 2006:5). Directly related to notions of accountability is
capacity of the LSP’s. For example, to what extent is an LSP in a strategic
position to resolve tensions that may exist in their local area? Tensions
identified include those that exist between, conservation and development,
competition and cohesion. It was suggested that more support is needed
from both government and local partners.
The ODPM (2006) highlights the ongoing debate that exists in how to
measure the capacity of LSP’s. It emphasises the balance that must be
achieved between enforced performance management systems versus the
locally developed systems. There is a particular awareness that there is a
need to implement performance indicators that do not produce over
complicated bureaucratic systems that divert resources from real term

10. 10
efficiency goals. These governance issues identified at the national level
were all visible in Devon’s LSP’s.
2. Delivery Goals
The report highlights what it considers to be the primary drivers of LSP
activity. These include national policies, community strategy and
neighbourhood renewal. The report emphasises twenty six policy areas that
LSP’s are charged with addressing. These include a diversity of issues
ranging from crime to gender, in all areas the ODPM indicates that there
have been some net gains. However, as with Devon’s LSP’s, due to the early
development of the LSP process in general, the ODPM found it difficult to
make substantive comments on delivery goals and outcomes. Accordingly,
the report makes distinctions between process outcomes, governance
outcomes and service outcomes.
In line with Devon’s LSP’s it was found by the ODPM that significant steps
had been made amongst LSP’s on a national scale concerning the process of
partnership formation. As was found with Devon’s LSP’s elements such as
information sharing and staff resources were seen to have been achieved to a
high degree. The report found that there had also been some pooled funding
of activities which also resonates with Devon’s LSP’s. The second theme of
governance outcomes is defined as the development of a collective vision and
agreed strategy; widening the range of interests involved in local decision
making; creating stronger local voice; improving the perceived legitimacy of
local governance and exercising more effective influence locally and
nationally. In support of findings from Devon’s LSP’s the collective vision and
co-ordinated strategy is the most clearly represented advantage of
partnership working. The third area of service improvement was seen as the
most difficult areas to quantify. It was found that outcomes attributed
specifically to the LSP were difficult to quantify as independent gains.
Importantly, it was discovered that those LSP’s which are not yet using some
form of performance management seem to find it hardest to identify added
value.
A significant point raised by the ODPM report was the possible consequence
of Local Area Agreements (LAA’s) on the LSP process. The issue for LSP’s
is whether they have the capacity to engage effectively in the process of
preparation and delivery of the LAA, or, whether they will be marginalised by
the process. In this context many LSP’s consider that more support from
government is neccessary (ODPM 2006). A particular concern of the report
was that LAA’s might increase the focus on the most important issues at the
expense of others seen locally as less important. With these issues in mind
Devon’s LSP’s provided an opportunity for highlighting those issues most
relevant to local communities, but alternatively the process could provide an
opportunity for government to bring such neglected issues to the agenda.
In summary, there is a close relationship between the development of
Devon’s LSP’s and those nationally. LSP’s generally are in an early stage of

11. 11
development with the next stage moving away from a process orientated
approach to one of implementation and delivery. The ODPM suggests that
what is required (and what is currently absent) is a mainstreaming of
programmes and targets which are agreed and shared by local partners,
reflecting the pattern of local needs. The increasing importance of local
government as a proximate and responsive device for improving local
communities has recently been reinforced by Sir Michael Lyons in his latest
report1 ‘National Prosperity, Local Choice and Civic Engagement : A New
Partnership Between Central and Local Government for the 21st Century’
(Lyons 2006). By way of conclusion, Sir Lyons comments in the interim report
are especially relevant:
‘An effective system of local government is essential to the promotion of
general national interest, both in the provision of public services and in terms
of the wider national prosperity, local choice and civic engagement, promotion
of well-being, prosperity and competitiveness. We need a system which
aligns the efforts of national and local government to achieve the common
good, and embraces self-help and voluntary action among individuals and
communities’ (Lyons 2006:1)
Conclusions
This report was presented in three main sections. Section One, focused on a
review of the documentation where it was found that clarity of purpose exists,
but that improvement can be made at this important stage of the LSP
formation process. Section Two, examined focus group material organised
around six primary themes identified as essential for understanding LSP
operations. This section integrated results from the LSP health check, focus
group sessions, and the identification of each LSP’s form. Section Three,
drew out general themes that exist in the Devon partnerships, whilst
extending this discussion to broader themes identified by the ODPM on a
national scale. This study has identified strengths and weaknesses in the
Devon LSP’s. It has focused on specific areas and made suggestions for
improvement of the structure and process of LSP working. It outlines the
complex and multifaceted nature of LSP working and has shown that similar
issues exist on a countrywide scale. Thanks are extended to the members of
the participating LSP’s for their co operation with the University of Plymouth
Dr Gregory Borne

12. 12
References
Department of Transport, (2006). National evaluation of Local Strategic
Partnerships: Formulative Evaluation and Action Research Programme 2002-
2005. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
www.odpm.gov.uk/pub/5/EvaluationofLocalStrategicPartnershipsFinalReportP
DF1070Kb_id1163005.pdf
Lyons, M., (2006) National Prosperity, Local Choice and Civic Engagement: A
New partnership between central and local government for the 21st Century,
www.lyonsinquiry.org.uk/index.php?leftbar=pubs&text=060504execsummary