In April 2007, Meridienpure were invited to undertake a short, focused evaluation of the Peak District Pathfinder (Hereafter ‘The Pathfinder’). This report sets out the findings of the evaluation. It is important to note that the evaluation is essentially limited to reviewing management and partnership processes and decision making. The evaluation attempts to focus on lessons applicable outside the Pathfinder, but the nature of this Pathfinder is such that the unique, cross-regional boundary nature of the initiative is itself continually highlighted.

• The core of the evaluation is based on a set of in depth qualitative interviews with members of the Pathfinder Officer Group (‘POG’, also referred to as the ‘Pathfinder Partnership’);
• These interviews are reinforced by a questionnaire survey to members of the POG and representatives of other interested agencies;
• An audit of programme management files and processes, as a method of identifying key issues over the initiative’s lifespan, and how these have been dealt with.

Our overall conclusion is that this has been a dedicated and committed partnership, which has pursued the objectives and spirit of the Pathfinder initiative. The Pathfinder has clearly made a positive contribution to partnership working, irrespective of differing views of previous success of such working. Supported projects have been well suited to the [very focused] challenge the Pathfinder self-scoped. The cross-regional nature of this Pathfinder has presented significant challenges in finding solutions which have been acceptable to the complex range of stakeholders.

The Pathfinder business plan set out the following tasks

• To explore the benefits and resource implications of a single point of access (such as a web-based information portal) to make service delivery more streamlined and effective.
• To develop opportunities for co-location / tandem service delivery
• To simplify advice and the grant giving “maze” for businesses and the community.

The Pathfinder Partnership

The Partnership has a wide membership, and its Partnership meetings attract a large core of committed partners who have contributed to driving the Pathfinder forward. It is clear that the Pathfinder works hard to maintain a clear line of communication between itself and (i) the Rural Action Zone (RAZ) Steering Group, of which the Pathfinder is a supporting sub-group and (ii) the Project Manager who is responsible for delivering activity on a day-to-day basis. In this task he is supported by a core working group.

The partnership itself has been well managed and led, though with a lack of (i) private sector (except for the presence of Business Link and NFU organisations) input, in particular (ii) IT expertise to communicate and champion the Web-based ‘flagship project’, Peak Directions.

Stakeholder Views on the Partnership

Information was collected through (i) a questionnaire and (ii) a series of one-to-one consultations. Through these techniques, the partners showed that they believed that the Partnership had added value and been complementary to the RAZ and had become an influential body in its own right in that it had engaged a wide range of partners and addressed a narrow policy focus during a time when key delivery agents (i.e. Business Link) were undertaking a significant national reorganisation.

What is particularly noteworthy are the views on progress of both the partnership and the projects it has supported. For the majority, the Partnership has been a clear success, formulating projects and engaging partners which has brought a coordinated, consensual approach to the challenges it set itself when the Pathfinder was launched.

Whilst a smaller group would not, on the whole, disagree with this view, they have been frustrated by the progress made, seeing the consensus and consensual projects the partnership has generated as compromise and ‘muddle’. It will be the success of the flagship projects (i.e. Peak Directions, the Partnership Protocol and co-location) which will be crucial in providing evidence which could underline one of these points of view.

The Future of the Partnership

Even though some felt the lifespan of the Partnership will expire when the Pathfinder draws to a close, this is very much a minority view. For most, the work of the Pathfinder in supporting the RAZ could continue, and there are several suggestions, outlining a role for the Pathfinder Partnership put forward in the report. Of these, the forthcoming LEADER programme (for which it is likely the Pathfinder will have to submit bids to both emda and AWM) would probably offer the greatest opportunity to extend the work of the Pathfinder Partnership, keeping all partners on board and active in the group.

In addition, the Pathfinder Partnership could address the need to promote the case for the Peak District in respect of Local Area Agreements, a policy which is increasingly being promoted by National Government – but in the Peak District boundary issues make it difficult to maximise the benefit of LAAs. The development of Multi-Area Agreements (MAAs), may be a mechanism which will benefit the Peak District, and the Pathfinder Partnership would be an ideal body to push this agenda forward.

Key Lessons for the National Pathfinder

The [Phase 1] Pathfinder evaluation has identified a number of lessons for the National evaluation. Of these, the below are lessons which may be applicable to any Pathfinder partnership:

1. For smaller authorities, a resource needs to be bought in to deliver time limited activity on this scale;

2. It is important to baseline the standing/status of the local delivery partnership, to have a clear idea of what the distance travelled over this (or any other) initiative’s lifespan has been;

3. Stakeholders, both inside the Pathfinder partnerships and the wider public need to be kept informed of project progress and partnership progression - success should be celebrated;

4. Project based solutions to service access issues should be based on the acceptable-suitable-feasible paradigm;

5. The role of Pathfinder partnerships as a lobbying body should not be undervalued but seen as an integral part of its role;

6. The progress of the Pathfinder should be framed against its [self-defined] objectives. Certainly in this example, the Pathfinder’s narrow focus, with fewer delivery options, has left the Pathfinder more open to external ‘shocks’ and barriers (such as organisational change). The above step-changes need to be properly acknowledged in this light.

In addition, this cross-regional Pathfinder also highlighted the following:

7. The medium/long term objective of Pathfinder partnerships should be to head towards more closer aligning of agency strategies rather than focus on changing administrative systems and internal processes, especially where agencies cover a larger territory and where boundaries cross regions;

8. To remember that “new ways” of doing things include step-changes as well as radical solutions – the greater the administrative complexity, the more likely that change within a partnership environment will be incremental;

9. This is especially prescient in those instances where it makes sense to work across cross-regional boundaries. Where there is equal importance attached to such working by regional partners across the boundary then these complexities can be tackled more comprehensively, but in reality, these instances will be rare.

10. Contrary to experience elsewhere, the LAA process can work against Pathfinder areas where the boundaries do not overlay each other. In this case for example, the Pathfinder area has to reflect two LAAs, each with its own priorities and objectives: This also emphasises the need to reflect on impact or ‘distance travelled’ in terms of the local context, and to find a consensual approach to finding project based solutions.

The full phase 1 evaluation report is attached below:

Peak District RAZ Pathfinder Evaluation 495Kb

Peak District RAZ Pathfinder Evaluation Executive Summary 61Kb