Appendix Nine
Case Study - South Lanarkshire
Tackling Concentrated Disadvantage Case Study
South Lanarkshire
The Context
South Lanarkshire is the fifth largest local authority in Scotland, in terms of population. It covers a mix of both urban and rural areas. South Lanarkshire was allocated a total of £24.5 million over three years through the FSF. The annual allocation has reduced by 40 per cent over the three year programme.
South Lanarkshire agreed a three year programme for the FSF for 2008/09 to 2010/11. The programme was set by the Community Regeneration Partnership (a thematic sub group of the Community Planning Partnership). This partnership involves most community planning partners, including community members. FSF plans were integrated in the SOA from the outset.
Past Regeneration Activity
South Lanarkshire has been involved in a number of initiatives to tackle disadvantage and poverty. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, two area based Social Inclusion Partnerships ( SIPs) were established - Cambuslang SIP and Blantyre and North Hamilton SIP.
With the introduction of the Community Regeneration Fund in 2004, the regeneration areas were expanded to incorporate communities not covered by the Social Inclusion Partnerships. The new approach was branded 'Changing Places' and three local partnerships were formed covering:
- the whole of Blantyre and Hamilton;
- Rutherglen and Cambuslang; and
- a new area of focus for regeneration - Larkhall and the surrounding areas of Ashgill, Netherburn and Stonehouse.
South Lanarkshire has seen some success in tackling concentrated disadvantage during this time. In 2004, 17 per cent of South Lanarkshire's datazones were in the 15 per cent most deprived areas of Scotland (based on the SIMD). This fell considerably to 14 per cent in 2006. There have been real improvements in employability, lifestyle and community esteem. But the focus on tackling disadvantage has continued:
"South Lanarkshire has always tried to avoid a short term, project based approach. We are looking on a 20 to 25 year basis. This approach continued right through SIPs, CRF and FSF."
When reviewing past activity, those involved generally highlight the SIP experience as particularly positive. Community activists felt that the SIPs provided an excellent route for involvement. Through the SIP process, they began to see that they did have a voice, and that people were listening.
"The community was being empowered."
Before the SIPs, community activists felt that the people that made changes in areas "drove in once and thought they knew what needed done". But through SIPs communities had a chance to influence what happened. Everyone was able to participate on an equal basis, with communities having a real ability to influence decisions. SIPs were transparent and trusted - "people believed in it". But, there were some concerns from community planning partners that the SIP structure resulted in very localised decisions being made.
On introduction of the Community Regeneration Fund in 2004, South Lanarkshire put together a Regeneration Outcome Agreement setting out its priorities for regeneration. In South Lanarkshire, the SIPs were integrated into the process early on, with partners committed to producing an early Regeneration Outcome Agreement.
The Community Regeneration Fund meant that communities had to work together in new ways. SIPs had been very area based, while the Community Regeneration Fund brought together people from different areas to agree priorities at a more strategic level.
"We felt part of something that was big."
Community planning partners felt that the Community Regeneration Fund and Regeneration Outcome Agreement process allowed more fluid planning of regeneration activities. But partners did also report challenges. There were frustrations that government timescales and priorities for the Regeneration Outcome Agreement approval process changed; guidance was perceived as over prescriptive; and monitoring and reporting arrangements were seen as unnecessarily bureaucratic.
Transition to the FSF
On introduction of the FSF in 2008/09, South Lanarkshire community planning partners decided that their FSF plans should be integrated within the SOA from the outset. South Lanarkshire already had experience of an outcomes focused approach, having participated as one of four pathfinder local authorities working to develop a themed SOA, just prior to the introduction of the FSF. Each of the four pathfinders had taken a different approach, and in South Lanarkshire the focus was on regeneration.
With the election of a new government, the introduction of the Concordat, and the use of SOA as the primary relationship between local and central government the pathfinder approach ended. However, the experience it provided was a useful basis for outcome focused planning, and enabled South Lanarkshire Council to incorporate the FSF programme into its first SOA.
The SOA therefore included a number of 'stretch' targets, where different levels of progress were set for the 15 per cent most disadvantaged areas. The priorities for FSF in South Lanarkshire were:
- reducing unemployment and improving employability;
- increasing educational attainment, positive destinations for school leavers and volunteering;
- improving health - increasing breastfeeding, reducing mortality from cancer and coronary disease, reducing drugs prescriptions and reducing teenage pregnancy;
- community safety - improving perceptions of neighbourhoods and improving safety; and
- financial inclusion - increasing access to bank accounts and maintaining credit union membership.
South Lanarkshire's Community Regeneration Partnership reviewed the range of activities already in place to tackle disadvantage. The programmes and projects were initially reviewed for impact and effectiveness, and then were assessed against the principles of the FSF. A three year programme of activity was then agreed.
The legacy of previous programmes and projects had a considerable influence over how the FSF was used in 2008/09. Programmes assessed as having relevance and having an impact were continued - with detailed discussions on outcomes the programme was expected to deliver, and how this would be evidenced. But the influence of previous projects reduced over time.
There was also a significant shift away from capital programmes, which had made up around half of the Community Regeneration Fund programme. The FSF shifted towards 90 per cent revenue based funding by the third year of the programme. The majority of the FSF was used to target activities in geographical areas of concentrated disadvantage, but some did focus on thematically disadvantaged communities.
Overall, the transition to the FSF happened relatively smoothly in South Lanarkshire. Partners pointed to good partnership working arrangements, communication and transparency in decision making as key success factors. Those involved in the process of linking the FSF to the SOA felt that this was made easier by the "light touch, strategic approach" of the Government. All aspects of the FSF programme were agreed within the context of the SOA and the Government's National Performance Framework.
Many partners felt that the FSF didn't really result in a significant change in approach - and wasn't really intended to either nationally or locally. It simply consolidated existing approaches.
"I didn't really feel that the FSF represented a huge change... It was just packaged differently."
In South Lanarkshire, the key change has been the decline in resources available for tackling concentrated disadvantage, due to a reduction in South Lanarkshire's FSF allocation over the three year period. This has meant that partners have had to focus strongly on value for money, taking a strong outcomes focused approach.
"The biggest challenge has been declining resources."
Example: Financial Inclusion Activities
The Financial Inclusion Fund was rolled up into the FSF in 2008/09. At this stage, all existing activities were reviewed. Approximately half continued, and other new activities were introduced. The broad priorities for funding financial inclusion work continued to follow priorities identified by the Community Regeneration Partnership when the Financial Inclusion Fund was in place. Although activities were reviewed, the original priorities were confirmed as appropriate for financial inclusion related activity under the FSF criteria.
Community Involvement
South Lanarkshire has invested in ensuring that communities are involved in tackling disadvantage. During the SIP programme, a community support organisation called ' Community Links' was set up. This organisation continues to operate - currently funded through the FSF - and provides advice and support to communities in the most disadvantaged areas.
"South Lanarkshire has undertaken some innovative work with communities and placed considerable emphasis on consultation."
Community activists were involved in the FSF plans from the outset. Early in the process a briefing, information and consultation session was held for community representatives involved in all structures across South Lanarkshire's regeneration areas. This was to discuss priorities for FSF activity. More widely, the views of service users and key client groups also informed project and programme development. Communities are also represented on the Community Regeneration Partnership, which led the development of FSF plans and is responsible for overseeing FSF activity.
South Lanarkshire's community planning partners generally believed that communities had been well involved in decisions about the FSF. There was recognition that community involvement strengthened the approach to tackling concentrated disadvantage.
"Communities bring different perspectives, knowledge and experience."
Through community involvement, partners learned more about what communities need and want, and its activity has focussed on making a real difference to people's lives. Partners felt that over time communities had progressed from very local, area based involvement through SIPs, to participation at a strategic level.
"People have seen the differences that come about because of their involvement, and have bought in."
But the two community activists consulted as part of this case study felt that the FSF could be "kind of overwhelming". One community activist felt "overpowered by all of the issues we have to deal with".
"Communities don't have the knowledge at a strategic level... It's not that we don't have the ability, we just can't fit it into our lives."
Both community activists recognised that the priorities the FSF was working towards were positive and necessary. They welcomed the joined up approach, and recognised the need to tackle these big issues. But, they felt it was difficult because FSF discussions were seen to be higher level, more strategic, more political and less transparent.
Comparing the approach to previous initiatives, community activists felt that SIPs were smaller, more hands on, and more about seeing activities through to the end.
" SIPs were easier, more practical...a real opportunity to deal with issues that were really relevant"
"We changed the most obvious things, we saw a real difference."
SIPs were very focused on dealing with issues at a local level, rather than across the whole local authority area. The community activists recognised that because of this it was perhaps unfair to compare the SIP and FSF programmes.
"We didn't deal with the things the FSF is now tackling."
But community members cautioned that it was important to remember the changes made through the SIP programme, and maintain these. There was a feeling that agencies were, in some instances, now "breaking away what was achieved through the SIP". Community members emphasised the need to continue a local, as well as strategic, approach to tackling disadvantage.
"Communities will go right back to where they were 10 years ago."
"Communities are getting sort of forgotten about again."
The community members stressed that it was not just the FSF, or wider SOA, that meant that they felt less in control of what happened in their communities. There were many other factors which influenced what happened in their area - for example, changes to homelessness legislation.
Overall South Lanarkshire was seen as an effective and efficient Council, with good opportunities for communities to get involved. Community activists agreed that the key to success was trust, communication, inclusion and transparency. But, the two community activists consulted felt that communities were now less involved in activity to tackle disadvantage than they had been in the past.
Impact of the FSF
The FSF has made some difference to the way in which community planning partners in South Lanarkshire plan, monitor and evaluate regeneration.
"The key lesson has been in the 'golden thread' approach of ensuring that services and programmes delivered on the ground can demonstrate how they ultimately link to and impact on National Outcomes."
The community planning partners in South Lanarkshire are largely confident and comfortable with an outcomes based approach - "it has become the way you work". But they stressed that it could be hard to measure progress towards outcomes, due to some difficulties gathering evidence. The National Performance Framework has been helpful in linking local outcomes to national priorities.
The integration of FSF plans with the SOA has meant that partners are becoming better at joint working, and linking to strategic objectives.
"The availability and existence of the FSF has strengthened partnership working."
The FSF has also allowed some partners to try out new and innovative approaches.
"The FSF has allowed us to remodel, rework and experiment with our approach."
But, although joint working has improved, partners felt that the FSF had not acted as a major catalyst to change the way that they allocate resources to tackling disadvantage. It has been difficult to encourage partners to join up their budgets. Although there are some examples of mainstreaming of activities that were previously funded by dedicated regeneration funds, these tend to be relatively small scale.
"They are useful activities, but are not getting to the core of tackling concentrated disadvantage."
Overall, the community planning partners in South Lanarkshire believe that they have a strong approach to tackling disadvantage and poverty. The FSF is important, but is by no means the only driver. Essentially, success is about how individuals and organisations work together to tackle disadvantage.
"It's down to personnel, not funding programmes."
The Future
Community planning partners continue to see tackling concentrated disadvantage as an ongoing priority. South Lanarkshire has been hit hard by the recession, and it will hit the most disadvantaged harder than others. Generally partners feel that there is a clear need and political will to continue to tackle disadvantage. Community activists also emphasised this ongoing need.
"Regeneration is never finished. It needs to be an ongoing activity. It's all about maintenance and sustainability."
The partners felt that there were strong structures in place locally, and that the SOA would continue to provide a good framework for tackling disadvantage.
"If there is not a continued focus on tackling concentrated disadvantage, we will be throwing away all of our good work."
To ensure this continued focus on tackling disadvantage, a conference was held in early 2009 bringing together senior Council officers, elected members and community planning partners, to raise awareness of the importance of tackling concentrated disadvantage. The partners are also currently considering how to build existing activity into mainstream programmes.
"Mainstream resources are the key to tackling disadvantage, but the FSF is important."
There were varied views about the impact of the removal of ring fenced FSF. Some partners felt that this was a positive step, allowing more local control and flexibility. In the longer term, the SOA does provide the opportunity to move away from dedicated funding, with partners taking responsibility for driving activity to tackle poverty. But there were concerns and some partners were unsure if they were ready for this change. This is coming at a time when public sector budgets are also being squeezed, and there are some worries that funding will be diverted into statutory services.
A number of consultees felt that the Scottish Government should clearly identify how the overall settlement to local authorities is calculated, ideally showing the notional FSF allocation. This would make it easier for Community Planning Partnerships to stress that this should continue to be used for tackling disadvantage.
Community activists highlighted the need to keep communities involved in decisions about what happens in their local area. This doesn't mean that communities should be involved in absolutely everything, but that they should get involved in a way that suits them.
"Community involvement is vital. Never forget that communities are equal partners."
Guidance and Support
Community planning partners were generally positive about the FSF guidance and support provided by the Scottish Government, believing that there was a consistency in approach which has been lacking in some previous programmes. The approach was also 'lighter touch' and left more to local discretion.
"The guidance was fairly fluid which enabled programmes to be customised to respond to local issues."
Some partners felt that there was a need for the Scottish Government to further consolidate its approach to supporting activity to tackle disadvantage - for example through increased linkages between different national policies and frameworks.
In South Lanarkshire, the community planning partners would welcome further guidance and support from the Scottish Government on:
- how different areas are assessing progress towards outcomes;
- what works in tackling concentrated disadvantage;
- how others are preparing for the transition from ring fenced budgets; and
- how the budget settlement will be provided - whether the FSF will be shown at all.
About the Case Study
This case study has been written on the basis of a review of the SOAs prepared in 2008 and 2009; a questionnaire completed by the Community Planning Manager at South Lanarkshire Council and interviews with:
- three staff members at South Lanarkshire Council;
- two community representatives;
- one elected member;
- one staff member at Skills Development Scotland; and
- one staff member at NHS Lanarkshire.
The case study reflects our interpretation of the range of comments made and does not necessarily represent the views of the Community Planning Partnership.