EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
In January 2009, the Scottish Government commissioned research on the development and implementation of the Fairer Scotland Fund ( FSF) by Community Planning Partnerships. The research was commissioned to inform future approaches to tackling concentrated disadvantage in communities.
The FSF was established in 2008 and brought together seven separate funds which had been targeted at tackling deprivation in Scotland.
The principles underpinning the fund are:
- a clear focus on investment to address the causes of poverty, not only its symptoms;
- a strong emphasis placed on making early interventions for vulnerable individuals, families and disadvantaged communities;
- promotion of joint working between local partners;
- focused action on improving employability as a key means of tackling poverty; and
- empowering communities and individuals to influence and inform the decisions made by Community Planning Partnerships.
Methodology
The research involved:
- A desktop review of all the FSF plans prepared by Community Planning Partnerships in 2008/09 and 2009/10. This was designed to highlight lessons from the plans and the progress made over the two years.
- An email questionnaire to gather information about the development and implementation of the FSF in each Community Planning Partnership. Twenty eight completed questionnaires were received.
- A follow up telephone interview to supplement the questionnaire and explore issues in greater detail. Thirty telephone interviews were conducted.
- A response (either to the questionnaire or the telephone interview) was received from all 32 community planning areas. In most cases (26 out of 32) information was available from both a questionnaire and a telephone interview.
- Eight in depth case studies of areas with different characteristics to provide more detail. This involved a series of interviews (normally face to face) with a range of those involved in developing and implementing the FSF - including councillors; staff from councils and other public agencies; representatives of the voluntary sector and active members of the community. A total of 65 participants were interviewed in the case study areas.
- Interviews with a number of people who had a responsibility for developing the policy (or had influenced policy) in this area.
The research findings were based on an analysis of all the information gathered. From these findings a number of lessons were drawn. These lessons should be considered in the future development of programmes to tackle poverty and concentrated disadvantage in Scotland.
Key Themes from the Research
Regeneration Programmes Generally
- A recurring theme was the lack of local data to set a baseline and measure progress. This has made it difficult to measure the impact of programmes and to be clear about which interventions are the most effective.
- The regular change in programmes (recently after three years or so) was felt to have used energy and resources on the ground - as programmes require to be wound up and new programmes developed and implemented.
- There is a significant 'legacy' of projects carried forward from one programme to the next.
- There is a perception that partnership working has improved during the life of the FSF. Reasons given for this included shared outcomes giving partners a clear focus for their work and partnerships being taken more seriously by senior managers in public agencies.
- Many respondents felt that (in comparison to the more local, geographic and project focused approaches in previous programmes) it had been more difficult to engage communities in the more thematic, Community Planning Partnership wide approaches that were becoming more common.
- There was little evidence that regeneration programmes over the last ten years have acted as catalysts for mainstream expenditure. On their own, the 'catalytic' regeneration funds were seen to be insufficient to bring about the scale of change that is needed.
The FSF
- By 2009/10 all 32 Community Planning Partnerships had integrated their FSF plans in their Single Outcome Agreement.
- There is evidence that skills and confidence in planning outcomes focused approaches are growing.
- Target setting was acknowledged to be an area that required further development in the Single Outcome Agreements. Stretch targets (to bring the most deprived areas closer to the norm) were used in about half of the Single Outcome Agreements.
- Community Planning Partnerships generally welcomed the fact that the FSF was less tightly bounded by geography than some previous programmes. Many Community Planning Partnerships have targeted the FSF mainly on thematic approaches (like employability, health improvement or community safety) rather than geographic areas.
- The FSF had brought about changes in the way that the community planning partners operated - 86% of respondents to the questionnaire had changed the way that they planned; 79% had changed the way that they monitored and evaluated and 74% had changed the way that they allocated resources.
- The 'light touch' approach to guidance and monitoring for the FSF adopted by the Scottish Government was widely welcomed.
- Bringing together the seven previous separate funding programmes into the FSF was also welcomed.
- There has been a development in more formal processes for identifying and managing projects and programmes. Some Community Planning Partnerships have run competitive tendering processes for the FSF. Others have developed a contractual approach based on Service Level Agreements.
The Future
- There was some uncertainty about the impact of the removal of ring fencing of the FSF. At the time of the survey (April and May 2009) 27 of the 32 community planning areas had yet to come to a final decision on resources for 2010/11.
- There are mixed expectations about the future. Some respondents were positive about the opportunities that the removal of ring fencing might bring - including a greater focus on mainstream resources. Others were concerned that the resources which had been protected for the FSF would be redirected.
- Practitioners felt that there is a need to continue to build the capacity of Community Planning Partnerships through learning, support and guidance. Generally, there was agreement that there was a need to learn lessons from what others had done - and to understand what works well.
Lessons Learned
Impact of Regeneration Programmes
- There is a need to improve the collection and use of data to allow the impact of programmes to be more effectively measured - and to identify the most effective interventions.
- Future evaluations of programmes at a national or local level should focus on their impact (as well as the process).
- There is a need to increase opportunities to share information about what has worked (and what has not).
Mainstream approaches to Regeneration
- There is no significant evidence of the 'catalytic' regeneration programmes changing the direction of mainstream budgets.
- Stretch targets can focus resources to closing the gap between the most deprived areas and the rest.
- Community Planning Partnerships should be accountable for delivering the targets and outcomes that they include in their Single Outcome Agreements.
Engaging Communities
- Active members of communities often felt less directly engaged in strategic, thematic approaches than they had been in neighbourhood based programmes.
- Continuing community engagement appears to be mainly at a local level and to involve consultation rather than decision making.
- There is a need to develop ways of involving communities (and service users) that are appropriate for these strategic approaches. This may involve new methods of engagement - and it will be important to share emerging good practice in this area.
- There is a need for Community Planning Partnerships to make clearer the impacts that their SOA (and specifically the FSF related elements) will have on the equalities groups in their areas.
- Both these elements could usefully be linked to the Best Value 2 approach being developed by Audit Scotland in relation to community engagement; customer focus and equalities audits.
Guidance and Support
In a rapidly changing environment, it can be difficult to find time to learn what others are doing. Yet this remains an extremely important way of finding out what works (or could work) and improving the impact of work to tackle poverty and disadvantage.
There is an appetite for learning and the Community Regeneration and Tackling Poverty Learning Network is seen as one important way of providing opportunities for learning in this area.
In relation to guidance and support - and learning - the main priorities that have been identified are:
- setting and measuring targets;
- data availability and analysis;
- embedding outcomes;
- mainstreaming;
- sustaining approaches to tackling deprivation (especially after the removal of ring fencing for the FSF);
- community engagement and equalities; and
- commissioning services.