Search results

Partnership working in care homes for older people does happen, but the nature of this approach to improving the care provided in care homes has not been well articulated. Drawing on the experiences of participants (researchers, relatives and care home managers) from three projects the benefits and challenges of partnership working in this care setting are discussed. The benefits of working in partnership extended beyond the specific remit for each project, through the development of closer relationships between people in the care home. The challenges of partnership working derived largely from the process of learning to work together and the practicalities of finding time to invest in projects beyond the normal care demands. Requirements for successful partnership working were identified and included a need for time, a core group of committed participants and preliminary groundwork.

This article examines the effectiveness of the multi‐agency approach in adult protection and draws on findings from research that examined the effectiveness of both partnership working and perceptions of the regulatory framework to protect vulnerable adults. The research findings were collected through the use of a survey of all local councils with social services responsibilities in England and Wales. Examples of good practice in partnership working were found. However, resource pressures, insufficient information sharing and a lack of clarity about roles and responsibilities were reported to hinder a multi‐agency approach.

Partnership working appears to be a key principle of public services reform in both England and Scotland, but there are important contextual differences between the two countries. Whereas the Scottish agenda is relatively consistent, in England there are competing policy imperatives at work that could undermine improved partnering. This article examines the public services reform context in England and Scotland, and suggests that English policy is a complex mixture of network, market and hierarchy which gives rise to tensions that remain unaddressed.

As the government's strategy for the implementation of the ‘Big Society’ gains momentum within an increasingly difficult financial framework, this article discusses some of the major implications of this approach for partnership working in crime and disorder reduction. It considers whether the approach is a totally new one or merely an extension of previous government policy, while considering some of the advantages and disadvantages of extending the ‘Big Society’ ideology. While acknowledging the potential problems of implementing such an approach, the article also highlights the opportunities that may present themselves for enhanced community consultation in the delivery of partnership working.

Partnership working across health and social care is considered key to manage rising service demand whilst ensuring flexible and high-quality services. Evidence suggests that partnership working is a local concern and that wider structural context is important to sustain and direct local collaboration. “Top down” needs to create space for “bottom up” management of local contingency. Scotland and Norway have recently introduced “top down” structural reforms for mandatory partnerships. The purpose of this paper is to describe and compare these policies to consider the extent to which top-down approaches can facilitate effective partnerships that deliver on key goals.

The authors compare Scottish (2015) and Norwegian (2012) reforms against the evidence of partnership working. The authors foreground the extent to which organisation, finance and performance management create room for partnerships to work collaboratively and in new ways.

The two reforms are held in place by different health and social care organisation and governance arrangements. Room for manoeuvre at local levels has been jeopardised in both countries, but in different ways, mirroring existing structural challenges to partnership working. Known impact of the reforms hitherto suggests that the potential of partnerships to facilitate user-centred care may be compromised by an agenda of reducing pressure on hospital resources.

Large-scale reforms risk losing sight of user outcomes. Making room for collaboration between user and services in delivering desired outcomes at individual and local levels is an incremental way to join bottom up to top down in partnership policy, retaining the necessary flexibility and involving key constituencies along the way.

Partnership working is critical to delivery across the public sector but can often feel frustrating and ineffectual for those involved. This article focuses on four areas crucial for effective partnership working: ensuring that there is a clear justification for the partnership; involving service users and communities in ways that are empowering and sustainable; developing good governance arrangements; and developing effective performance management arrangements. Throughout the article, the contrasting experiences of crime and disorder reduction partnerships (CDRPs) and youth offending teams (YOTs) are used to illustrate key points.

Excellent leadership makes a difference to partnership performance and is arguably the most critical success factor for partnership working. Without it, partnerships would be ineffective. It is, however, perceived as a problematic issue for a number of reasons. First, traditional approaches to leadership have focused almost exclusively on individuals. Second, leadership is often seen as just one part of an organisational system rather than something that pervades the whole. Finally, it is said to be difficult to measure and therefore supposedly hard to tell the good leadership from the bad.

After examining the nature and significance of ‘integrative’ leadership, a distinction is drawn between five different formal leadership roles. It is suggested that they tend to be associated with different kinds of problem (‘wicked’, ‘tame’ and ‘crisis’). The paper goes on to consider (1) the different leadership competencies required (political, strategic and operational), and evidence of a cause‐effect relationship between an engaging style of leadership and productivity, and (2) evidence of the impact of leadership behaviour on others. Finally, the paper advocates a modified version of the model of leadership development proposed by Bennington and Hartley (2009).

Set against a background of numerous institutionally funded programmes with a focus on gender mainstreaming, the purpose of this paper is to draw on institutional theory as an alternative lens to explain why such programmes often fail to achieve the desired outcomes.

The paper is based on a case of a European Social Fund EQUAL Programme aimed at enhancing employment opportunities for women in Information Technology, Electronics and Communication and related sectors. The paper focuses on the partnership working aspect, which is a fundamental mobilizing structure of European Commission programmes. Insights into the experiences of partnership working were gathered from interviews with 18, out of the 24 participating partners, on this specific programme.

Tensions with partnership working are exposed and discussed: frustration with intra-organizational collaborative working and structures and outputs that promote a mimetic approach to change, legitimized through the symbolic use of “best practice”; findings more consistent with “institutional isomorphism”, as opposed to “institutional innovation”.

Given that partnership working remains a key mobilizing structure of gender mainstreaming programmes, both within Europe and in other contexts, the paper concludes with recommendations aimed at those responsible for commissioning and overseeing such programmes.

This paper draws on institutional theory as an alternative lens to examine and explain why gender mainstreaming programmes do not always achieve the intended outcomes. To date, as others acknowledge, there has been limited work that has applied organizational theory to this problem.

The purpose of this article is to explore findings from the children's services mapping (CSM) policy monitoring exercise on the implementation of Children's Trust arrangements in England in 2008 and 2009. It outlines progress made in implementation in the context of debates on Children's Trusts and partnership working, considering where progress was being made and where implementation was less well developed. The future of partnership working in children's services and the role of the data collection in public service policy monitoring are discussed.

Responses are from a sub‐set of 74 local authorities to a self‐completion questionnaire on Children's Trust implementation in 2008 and 2009 as part of the CSM annual policy monitoring exercise.

Findings, presented within the context of Government policy on children's services reform and literature on partnership working, indicate increases in the number of Children's Trusts implementing joint and strategic working. However, not all agencies under a statutory duty were represented on the Board and joint commissioning arrangements had declined.

The findings and discussion consider the limitations of the method of data collection.

This paper presents the most recent information on implementing Children's Trust arrangements, drawing on responses from 49 per cent of local authority areas. Data from two years of the CSM collection alongside earlier research findings indicate progress at the strategic level, but careful reading of the data and literature also suggests an increasingly challenging environment for establishing and maintaining partnership working within children's services.