7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1.1 The main purpose of this study has been to inform policy, delivery and future commitments to the Scottish Science Centre Network ( SSCN). This has included the development of performance objectives, a review of performance against these objectives and an assessment of a number of future policy interventions.
7.1.2 The SSCN was established in 2005 to promote greater collaboration and networking between Scotland's four main science centres and other key stakeholders within industry, education and the wider community. The total funding that has been allocated to the SSCN over the three years from 2004/2005 to 2006/2007 has amounted to £10.4m. Over 70% of this expenditure related to revenue support, and the remainder relating to capital expenditure (18%) and education related projects (11%).
7.1.3 There are four key themes emerging from the Science Strategy for Scotland where the science centres are well placed to make a unique and worthwhile contribution. These correspond to the four network policy areas articulated in the SSCN strategy and include:
- Complementing, enhancing and supporting the 3-18 Science Curriculum
- Profiling careers in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics
- Disseminating scientific research and discussing relevance and application in society
- Showcasing new products and processes and discussing relevance and application in society
7.1.4 The consultations did underline that there remains a broad range of views regarding the role of the science centres and the extent to which they should extend their role beyond a perceived core function, which was focused on their contribution to engaging children, primarily of primary school age in science and technology. Contributing to the 3-18 Science Curriculum is widely accepted by the vast majority of stakeholders as a central and core function of the science centres. However, it was underlined by the then Scottish Executive Education Department that currently the science centres are considered to be only one of a number of resources that could be used to support the outcomes arising from A Curriculum for Excellence.
7.1.5 While a number of examples of best practice were highlighted in the consultations, the SSCN was still considered to be in the early stages of development with a much greater emphasis being given to areas for improvement. A key area will be the identification and dissemination of best practice arising from the independent review of education provision undertaken by the HMIE.
7.1.6 While greater collaboration and sharing of best practice was developing in relation to the science centres' education provision and contribution to the science communication agenda, there was no evidence of best practice being identified and disseminated in relation to the more commercial aspects of the businesses such as catering, hospitality and facilities management. The differing scale and nature of operations between the science centres limits the potential for greater collaboration in these areas.
7.1.7 The relationship between the SETPOINTs and the SSCN is of critical importance and the linkages between these two networks need to be developed much further. In terms of greater networking with science centres outside Scotland, the development of a "Celtic Fringe" Network was strongly supported by both Techniquest in Cardiff and W5 in Belfast as well as the science centres in Scotland.
7.1.8 The study has highlighted that the strategic objective of the funding delivered by the Science and Society Team within the Scottish Government is "to effect change in public attitudes to science". It should be noted that while the science centres are one of the principal means through which this objective can be achieved, there could also be other means used in order to meet this objective such as through other science and society initiatives and venues.
Recommendation One:
This review recommends that a set of performance objectives be introduced for measuring the future performance of the science centres. For measuring performance, the key objectives should focus on:
- attracting more visitors year on year from across Scotland from all backgrounds and ages
- attracting more school visits year on year from across Scotland
7.1.9 One of the main objectives of this study was the development of a set of performance objectives, and it is recommended that these should be used to measure the future performance of the science centres.
7.1.10 The figures for 2006/2007 indicate that there has been an overall rise in visitor numbers across the network of 7%, with public visitors rising by 3% and school inreach by 25%. The most significant rise is at ODE, where school inreach has risen by nearly two thirds over the past year, while public visitors have risen by over 10%. GSC has experience an overall rise in total visits by 3%, although this includes a fall of 1% in public visitors. Both Satrosphere and Sensation have experienced a drop in the number of both public and school visits, amounting to 3% and 7% respectively. Overall, these figures suggest that while ODE is meeting the key performance objectives relating to increasing visitor numbers, these are not being met by GSC in terms of public visits and Sensation and Satrosphere in relation to all visitors.
7.1.11 The two key performance objectives have been supplemented by a set of six sub-objectives, with a focus on quality and collaboration. These include:
- To maintain average customer satisfaction at no less than 8 out of 10
- To achieve and maintain at least a four star rating from VisitScotland
- To ensure that all of the recommendations arising from the 2006 HMIE inspection are implemented by 2009
- To ensure that all science engagement activities delivered are subject to an established quality standard by 2009
- To provide evidence of clear linkages with the learning outcomes arising from the 3-18 Curriculum for all visits by Scottish schoolchildren
- To ensure all activity is effectively co-ordinated with all science engagement partners
7.1.12 While these performance objectives are specifically relevant to the four science centres, they also have relevance to all science communication activities delivered in Scotland. One of them will also require a lead from the Scottish Government in terms of facilitating implementation. This is detailed in relation to the following recommendation, which has particular reference to school and community outreach activities which are delivered by a number of organisations such as science centres, SETPOINTs and universities.
Recommendation Two:
This study recommends that all science engagement activities funded by the Scottish Government are subject to agreed quality procedures and standards.
7.1.13 The SSCN is one of a number of entities that are developing as key players with regard to science communication. ECSITE- UK is the national body of science and technology centres, and is the main UK forum for networking for science centres. All of the Scottish science centres are members of ECSITEUK alongside eight other organisations in Scotland, including a number of museums, visitor centres and the Edinburgh International Science Festival. These 12 organisations attract over 2.3m visits every year, 20% of which is accounted for by the four science centres.
Recommendation Three:
This review recommends that the Scottish Government should consider the broadening and deepening of the Scottish Science Centres concept to include these other players involved in the delivery of science engagement activities.
7.1.14 Alongside the Scottish members of ECSITE- UK, SETPOINT Scotland operates a number of regional networks. It acts as a focus for STEM activity, delivering science communication outreach in schools and organising a number of science festivals. The other key sector is higher education which is involved in delivering STEM outreach as well as a number of qualifications in Science Communication. The value of a collective branding for science engagement activities should be further explored as a means of further raising the profile of the science communication sector in Scotland.
Recommendation Four:
This review recommends that consideration should be given to ensuring that the momentum built up in relation to Careers Scotland STEM initiatives is not lost, and a review is undertaken of the most appropriate future delivery mechanisms for these activities.
7.1.15 Although profiling careers in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics was generally perceived by all consultees to be a central function of the science centres, their role was more in terms of facilitating the work of other agencies. A number of initiatives have been developed by Careers Scotland in relation to STEM activity, and some of these have been highly regarded as examples of best practice. Given the re-organisation of Careers Scotland and the possible re-focussing of activities towards other priorities, such as the NEET group (not in employment, education, or training), there is a need to consider how these initiatives can be best developed in the future.
Recommendation Five:
This review recommends that there needs to be greater practical consideration regarding the means through which industry and further and higher education linkages can be fostered and further developed, with lead agencies identified, in order to ensure that this policy aim can be achieved.
7.1.16 In terms of disseminating scientific research and showcasing new products and processes, these roles were perceived as more peripheral by a large number of stakeholders, with an emphasis on facilitation rather than pro-active development. The SSCN Strategy places a strong emphasis on value of the science centres as a platform for disseminating research and profiling new products and processes by developing further linkages with higher education and industry. While these linkages currently remain underdeveloped, there is evidence of growing joint activity, particularly with a number of higher education institutes, through initiatives such as Meet the Scientist. However, links with industry remain more limited.
7.1.17 The impacts of a number of potential future policy interventions have been investigated, including:
- Universal free entry
- Half price entry
- Free entry for under 18s
- Free entry for school groups
- Half price entry for school groups
- Free transport for school groups
7.1.18 Evidence from the two science museums in London and Manchester and the findings from our survey of visitors have been used to provide estimates of the impact of free admission and other charging regimes on the number of visits to the four Scottish science centres.
7.1.19 On the basis of the analysis, universal free entry would result in the biggest impact on visitor numbers, resulting in around 1.2m additional visits to the four science centres. While this would result in a loss of admission income, this would be compensated for by an increase in secondary income from retail, café, and car parking. However, it is assumed that this would result in a substantial increase in operating costs due to the increase in visitors, and so the overall increase in public grant is estimated at just over £2.5m. This equates to £2.14 for every additional visitor to the science centres.
7.1.20 The analysis suggests that free admission for under-18s would be the only payment scenario where there would be an increase in total admission income compared to the status quo. The results from the survey suggest that a charging regime where there were no admission charges for under 18s would basically be revenue neutral for both GSC and ODE, as the reduction in income would be fully compensated for by new visits by paying adults. On the basis of this analysis, admission income would rise by 1% at both centres under this scenario. However, in order to ensure that there was no loss in admission income, it is likely that the move to free admission for under-18s would need to be accompanied by a significant level of publicity to raise awareness of this new policy amongst the general public.
7.1.21 On the basis of the analysis, the introduction of half price admission would lead to a rise in admission income at GSC, while it would fall at the other three science centres. Of all the proposed options, free admission for under-18s would be the most cost effective, with an estimated payment of just 49p required for each additional visit.
7.1.22 In terms of the three potential interventions focused on school groups, the analysis suggest that free transport for schools would generate the greatest increase in visits, amounting to 276,000 additional visits per annum. This option also generated the most significant increase in admission income for the science centres, given that they benefit from increased demand without any lowering of admission prices. It is estimated that this option would require an increased public grant of more than £2.5m, significantly more than the other options for school visits.
7.1.23 Overall, the option for half price admission for schools performs the least well in terms of cost effectiveness. This is because the fall in admission price only leads to a very small increase in school visits, but this fall in income would need to be compensated for by an increase in public financial support.
Recommendation Six:
This review recommends that the Scottish Government undertakes a further more detailed cost benefit analysis before progressing with the implementation of the policy of free entry for under-18s and universal free entry.
7.1.24 The implementation of free entry for under-18s would help to meet the policy objectives while providing the best value for money option. This could also be implemented as part of a staged approach to universal free entry, the option which would make the greatest contribution against the key objective of attracting more visitors from throughout Scotland from all background and ages. It is likely, nevertheless, that further more detailed work would be required to assess the potential costs and benefits before progressing further with the implementation of any of these policy interventions.
Recommendation Seven:
This review recommends that an outcome based approach to funding be adopted by the Scottish Government and that the formula used is straightforward and transparent and that the revenue funding reflects the key objectives and each science centre's share of total visitor numbers.
7.1.25 The current funding mechanism used by the Scottish Government compensates the science centres, to a large extent, for their funding deficit. It concentrates support on those science centres that perform less well in financial terms and provides little incentive for the centres to improve their financial position. This review concludes that an outcome based approach to funding be adopted by the Scottish Government. It is also recommended that the share of funding for each science centre should be directly linked to performance against the key performance objectives.
7.1.26 This approach would be consistent with the performance management framework outlined in this report, and would relate inputs directly with outputs through the performance objectives. By linking funding directly with the performance objectives, this provides a clear incentive for these performance objectives to be met.