Putting Partnering into Practice: Collaboration on Complex Issues – Healthy Homes

6. Learning from Doing - Experiences of Partnering to Date

Partnering is a constant theme for those involved in healthy homes initiatives. As to be expected, people contributing to this report reflected on a range of partnering experiences – some positive and some negative. The general consensus is that more attention needs to be paid to strengthening partnering practices if healthy homes outcomes are to be realised.

	“The journey of healthy homes to date is characterised by constant change and uncertainty.” “While partnering is essential, we need better structures for how we ‘do’ the working together.”

“The journey of healthy homes to date is characterised by constant change and uncertainty.”

“While partnering is essential, we need better structures for how we ‘do’ the working together.”

What’s working well & what helps

Shared vision and values

Shared visions, values and mutually supportive relationships are key for partnering to work. Having the right people at the table also matters, with some collaborations also involving insulation service providers as part of the ongoing planning and development processes.

	“The trick is having a common vision, shared values and good relationships – this is what makes it work. You cannot manufacture them overnight if you suddenly need them.” “It was really empowering for everyone when we as community providers won the contract and were asked to sit as part of the governance table. In Tai Tokerau, there is a shared vision about how to make this programme work. The added value that everyone brings to the table is huge; you cannot put a monetary value on this.”

“The trick is having a common vision, shared values and good relationships – this is what makes it work. You cannot manufacture them overnight if you suddenly need them.”

“It was really empowering for everyone when we as community providers won the contract and were asked to sit as part of the governance table. In Tai Tokerau, there is a shared vision about how to make this programme work. The added value that everyone brings to the table is huge; you cannot put a monetary value on this.”

Respectful engagement

Within the context of strong relationships, respectful engagement was a phrase that was used by several contributors. This means honest, open dialogue, being responsive, and being committed to dealing with issues as they arise and working constructively together to achieve shared outcomes.

	“We have a focus on open communication and the real strength here is the relationships within the Steering Group and with the community.” “Up North, there is a real openness and trust. If people do not like something they will quickly tell you. You know where you stand, and it’s great.” “Because of strong relationships and trust our governance group is about shared accountability – there are often fiery emails sent to hold each other to account for our shared vision and pathways. When things get tricky, there is now joint ownership to deal with the hard stuff.” “Goodwill is actually a key bargaining tool – it enables one partner to stand up to another.”

“We have a focus on open communication and the real strength here is the relationships within the Steering Group and with the community.”

“Up North, there is a real openness and trust. If people do not like something they will quickly tell you. You know where you stand, and it’s great.”

“Because of strong relationships and trust our governance group is about shared accountability – there are often fiery emails sent to hold each other to account for our shared vision and pathways. When things get tricky, there is now joint ownership to deal with the hard stuff.”

“Goodwill is actually a key bargaining tool – it enables one partner to stand up to another.”

Flexibility

The need for relationships and flexibility was noted by many contributors, with people voicing appreciation for key organisations and leaders who are willing to change tack to support local collaborative aspirations and ways of working.

	“It is fair to say that in the past, as the main government partner, EECA was too focused on rules and getting people to conform.” “EECA is now more conscious of the need to be flexible and adapt to local situations so we don’t create barriers to full partnership.” “You can have contracts on paper but it takes people to make collaboration happen.”

“It is fair to say that in the past, as the main government partner, EECA was too focused on rules and getting people to conform.”

“EECA is now more conscious of the need to be flexible and adapt to local situations so we don’t create barriers to full partnership.”

“You can have contracts on paper but it takes people to make collaboration happen.”

Self-organisation

The ability to self-organise with many sectors and partners at a regional level also appears to make a significant difference to the growth, strength and ownership of healthy homes initiatives at the local level.

	“Having a Northland regional collaboration where all the main agencies sit and work through issues and opportunities together is great. I think the Healthy Homes Tai Tokerau collaboration should be held up as a model for others to learn from.” “Healthy Homes Taranaki is very much a Taranaki regional project controlled by the region. EECA is involved and engaged because of the strength of those [agencies and individuals] involved at our governance table.”

“Having a Northland regional collaboration where all the main agencies sit and work through issues and opportunities together is great. I think the Healthy Homes Tai Tokerau collaboration should be held up as a model for others to learn from.”

“Healthy Homes Taranaki is very much a Taranaki regional project controlled by the region. EECA is involved and engaged because of the strength of those [agencies and individuals] involved at our governance table.”

Highlighting specific benefits

While the need for a shared vision and goals was seen as key, some contributors to this report were keen to point out the importance of separating out specific benefits in order to more effectively ‘pitch’ to diverse potential co-funders of local healthy homes initiatives. They saw the same principle applying when it came to engaging and valuing other partners.

	“In Taranaki, working out how to fit into each funder’s requirements was key. We developed a ‘what could be in it for you strategy’ – for MSD it was about jobs, for Health it was focusing on serious asthma, and for ACC it was about home safety.” “You have got to find something in it for both sides. Using your networks is one thing but they’ve got to get something out of it too. In Whangarei, we used whānau connections and also offered to train some of the guys from the marae to be part of the [insulation] installation team.”

“In Taranaki, working out how to fit into each funder’s requirements was key. We developed a ‘what could be in it for you strategy’ – for MSD it was about jobs, for Health it was focusing on serious asthma, and for ACC it was about home safety.”

“You have got to find something in it for both sides. Using your networks is one thing but they’ve got to get something out of it too. In Whangarei, we used whānau connections and also offered to train some of the guys from the marae to be part of the [insulation] installation team.”

Leadership

Having relationships in place and leaders prepared to make courageous calls was seen by contributors to this report as important. The following examples from Northland and the Hutt Valley show partners around the table using their leadership skills in different ways.

	“The crunch point came when the co-chair made it clear that if the funders wouldn’t commit, then the Hutt Housing Forum would scrap the project. Taking a decisive stand was a major step. After that everything changed, the central government bosses came to the next meeting and committed well in excess of the budget we first put up. This, in turn, stabilised all of the participants and we had a much greater buy-in from government once the money was committed.” “Having managers on the governance group who really understand partnering was key. They too began with ‘who I am, where I live’ and then got to ‘who I work for’. They also proactively brought others to the table. It has felt like a combination of the right people, the right time, with the right approach and some time and money to do something locally meaningful.”

“The crunch point came when the co-chair made it clear that if the funders wouldn’t commit, then the Hutt Housing Forum would scrap the project. Taking a decisive stand was a major step. After that everything changed, the central government bosses came to the next meeting and committed well in excess of the budget we first put up. This, in turn, stabilised all of the participants and we had a much greater buy-in from government once the money was committed.”

“Having managers on the governance group who really understand partnering was key. They too began with ‘who I am, where I live’ and then got to ‘who I work for’. They also proactively brought others to the table. It has felt like a combination of the right people, the right time, with the right approach and some time and money to do something locally meaningful.”

Co-ordination and relationship brokering

Contributors to this report reflected on how important co-ordination and relationship brokering roles are, and what a difference they can make to the pace at which partnering happens.

	“Having an individual or organisation tasked with co-ordination would have made our collaboration move so much faster – and by this I mean someone to co-ordinate the funders, someone to prepare a long term-funding strategy and then another strategy for service delivery.”

What gets in the way and why

Funding issues

As is often the case, issues around funding models and processes were highlighted by contributors to this report as barriers to effective partnering.

In some cases, the key issues were quantity and certainty of funding. In others, criticisms were levelled at the timeframes within which monies needed to be spent, and the impact this has on service providers and the sector as a whole. Issues around funding were raised at both national and local levels.

	“Funding streams are unpredictable – some is unspent money at the end of the financial year which can be fraught in terms of the speed with which work has to be committed to and carried out.” “Having pressure to deliver tangible changes on the ground before funding disappears is very real. It is forcing the sector to grow very quickly – but I wonder if it is too fast?” “There is no national model for effective, ongoing funding for cross agency work in healthy homes. The wider, constant uncertainty over funding for the sector has a huge impact on everyone.”

“Funding streams are unpredictable – some is unspent money at the end of the financial year which can be fraught in terms of the speed with which work has to be committed to and carried out.”

“Having pressure to deliver tangible changes on the ground before funding disappears is very real. It is forcing the sector to grow very quickly – but I wonder if it is too fast?”

“There is no national model for effective, ongoing funding for cross agency work in healthy homes. The wider, constant uncertainty over funding for the sector has a huge impact on everyone.”

Other barriers to effective partnering

A number of other barriers to effective interagency partnering were raised, including:

an absence of regional commitment and leadership for partnering. This leads to the potential loss of synergies from shared learning and aligned funding, planning, programmes, communications and priorities across geographic communities
tensions and uneasiness within parts of the sector due to competition for insulation retrofit contracts (e.g. community sector versus commercial providers). In terms of agencies that are best placed to reach hard-to-reach target groups, there are provider tensions between mainstream community versus Māori and Pacific provider organisations
missing partners and sectors due to some organisations still not understanding their role, or that they have a role, in healthy homes
tender timeframes not including sufficient time to enable meaningful new collaborations to come together
a lack of people in key leadership and project management roles with a well-developed understanding of collaborative processes, timeframes, structures, funding and relationships
a myriad of different funding streams and criteria causing confusion at the community level (36)
high turnover of people at local collaboration tables requiring new people to be brought up to speed
misunderstandings about how much influence and power government officials have to make change
community organisations and local collaborations failing to fully understand the context, parameters and constraints within which Government and government agencies operate. For example, achieving equity, quality, value for money, and balancing flexibility with risk minimisation and accountability for public money
difficulties in marrying desires for fluid and evolving processes with more top-down structured approaches and expectations
changing political goal posts.

	“Some people still believe in the infinite wisdom of government and believe that infinite pools of money are available – neither is actually the case.” “Currently there’s a lack of political capacity and cross- sectoral interest and ownership at the top.” “The medical model can be a block. The determinants of health are still not fully understood or given good recognition and our General Practitioners are not yet fully on board.”

“Some people still believe in the infinite wisdom of government and believe that infinite pools of money are available – neither is actually the case.”

“Currently there’s a lack of political capacity and cross- sectoral interest and ownership at the top.”

“The medical model can be a block. The determinants of health are still not fully understood or given good recognition and our General Practitioners are not yet fully on board.”

Rather than seen as negatives or unexpected surprises, many of the tensions noted above are inevitable and should be seen as part of the normal course of partnership development. Some of these are explored more fully in the next section.

	“Dissatisfaction with a partnership does not necessarily mean it is ineffective or inefficient. Partnership tensions are to some extent beneficial as they can illustrate points that need redressing, plus provide some impetus for innovation and change.”

(36) This was especially of concern in Auckland Region where a number of initiatives were happening with different names, different entry criteria and different cost structures for similar households i.e. in some suburbs low income earning home owners could have their house retrofitted for free, whereas in other areas a co-payment was required.

Previous section | Next section

Resources