Collaboration: “easy to say, difficult to do”

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to recount 12 months of a pioneering collaboration between the Aneurin Bevan University Health Board, five local authorities and nine registered social landlords in South East Wales. It will aim to share the understanding that has emerged, demonstrating how a large number of agencies, many of which have different purposes or which have traditionally been in competition with each other, have been able to work collaboratively, to meet the interests of some very vulnerable people. Design/methodology/approach This reflective approach draws on the views of a large number of staff from each of the three constituent public sector service areas and their experience of collaborative working using action research principles. The study will use people’s own words to highlight real experiences, but analysed against similar collaborative activity elsewhere reflected in the literature. As there has been no established pathway for the collaboration to follow, we have adopted a Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle to capture the evolving “In One Place” (IOP) process. Findings This paper highlights the inherent systemic barriers that have to be identified and overcome if the authors are to move from wishful thinking to pragmatic realism, both within and between organisations. The sense of public sector agencies being able to work together, simply because it makes good sense, is challenged and the paper identifies both cultural and professional factors that made a difference in this collaboration, which could be harnessed elsewhere. Originality/value From the outset, a key driver for the IOP has been to align health, social care and housing processes by bringing together practitioners and senior managers to identify need and to plan and deliver services locally, offering a real benefit to individuals with complex needs. This is set within the context of increasing demand on public services, financial austerity and the history of “housing” being on the margins of discussion when considering the integration of health and social care services. The authors are able to demonstrate the benefit of housing being at the centre of such discussions.