7. KEY THEMES
Introduction
7.1 There were a number of themes which recurred throughout the research. This section brings together those that appear most significant.
Regeneration Programmes Generally
Data
7.2 A recurring theme has been the lack of local data to set a baseline and to measure progress - and that there has not (over time) been an agreed standard set of measurable indicators. The availability of data - as well as the ability to interpret data - was repeatedly referred to as a problem by participants. So the evaluations have been able to say little on impact - and it has been difficult to be clear about which were the most effective interventions.
Constant Change
7.3 From a policy perspective it may seem that a series of programmes to tackle concentrated disadvantage have followed on directly from each other - each learning lessons from what had gone before. On the ground the 'chopping and changing' from one programme to another has made the delivery of programmes and projects more difficult. Respondents to the questionnaire; participants in the interviews and, particularly the case studies, stated that each new programme had new requirements; a new language and changed priorities (often subtle). The process of starting a new programme often took several months. There might then be only two years (or less) before the programme had to be wound down. Staff recruitment and retention was a problem for short term programmes.
7.4 Many respondents noted another feature of the cycle of programmes. The 'legacy' of the previous programme had a major influence on the development of the replacement programme. In the questionnaire, the legacy of previous programmes was reported to be the second largest influence on the development of the FSF in 2008/09 - and it was still the third largest influence by 2009/10.
Partnership Working
7.5 Partnership working has been at the heart of regeneration activity in Scotland for 30 years. But it has not always been easy to develop and maintain really effective partnership arrangements. There is a perception (gathered from the questionnaires, interviews and case studies) that partnership working has improved during the life of the FSF. Respondents provided a number of reasons for this including:
- shared outcomes have been developed and these give partners a clear focus for their work, and has encouraged partners to work together to achieve these outcomes;
- this focus on outcomes has reduced the time "wasted" focusing in detail on the various sources of funding and reporting and allowed more time for productive joint approaches to achieving outcomes ; and
- partnerships are being taken more seriously by senior managers in public agencies.
Community Engagement
7.6 Another recurring theme has been community engagement in the regeneration process. There were mixed responses in the questionnaires, interviews and case studies about community engagement - with some areas feeling that this was more effective, but many feeling that it had been harder to engage communities in the more thematic approaches which may operate at a community planning wide level. A number of respondents (particularly from the community in the case studies) said that they felt that community engagement had been more effective in the more localised project focused approach used in the Social Inclusion Partnership programme - not least because people are generally most interested in their immediate neighbourhood.
Catalysts for Mainstream Activity
7.7 The approach since 1996 has been to use relatively modest programmes as 'catalysts' to test new ways of working and to develop appropriate local solutions to problems. But there is little evidence from the questionnaires, interviews and case studies that these catalytic funds have brought about any significant change in the way that mainstream funds are used. This is of concern because targeted regeneration funds were never seen as the main resources which would transform areas - and on their own they cannot bring about the scale of change that is needed.
The FSF
Outcomes
7.8 The responses suggest that skills and confidence in planning outcomes focused approaches is growing (although this is far from universal and many respondents acknowledged that there is a need to embed the outcomes focused approach throughout partners). There are also times when the current activities are 'force-fitted' into the outcomes - rather than determining the most appropriate activities after the outcomes are agreed. Monitoring and reporting still tend to be output and activity based. A consistent approach to outcomes (and improved data) should improve the position in the longer term.
Targets
7.9 It was acknowledged by both policy makers and practitioners that target setting was an area that required further development in the SOAs. In addition, there has been considerable confusion in Community Planning Partnerships about the definition of (and guidance around) stretch targets.
Flexibility
7.10 Community Planning Partnerships (in the questionnaires, interviews and case studies) welcomed that the FSF was less tightly bounded by the geography of the most deprived areas. Many Community Planning Partnerships have targeted the FSF mainly on a thematic approach. Respondents stated that a successful thematic approach - on themes like employability, health inequalities, or community safety - would have an impact in the most deprived areas, where these themes are particularly important.
Lighter Touch
7.11 There is support from those involved in the FSF for the 'lighter touch' approach to guidance and monitoring adopted by the Scottish Government. This was compared favourably to 'micro-management' of some previous programmes. Community planning partners were generally still confident that they could get advice from the Government when this was required - and welcomed the ease of access and helpfulness of the direct support available from Government officials.
Bringing Together Funding Programmes
7.12 Respondents generally welcomed the fact that the FSF brought together seven different funding streams and it was suggested that this has reduced the administrative burden in terms of progress meetings; reports; data gathering and monitoring - which can now be undertaken once rather than seven times.
New Approaches
7.13 There has been a significant increase in more formal processes for identifying and managing FSF projects and programmes - with a growth of contracts, Service Level Agreements and commissioning. New approaches such as these featured strongly in the case studies - where commissioning for the services to be provided through the FSF programme had been introduced in two of the areas, and was being considered in others.
The Future
Priority for Tackling Poverty and Disadvantage
7.14 The majority of the policy makers and practitioners believed that there would continue to be a priority given to tackling poverty and disadvantage at both a national and a local level. However, many practitioners commented that ring fencing was being removed at a time when there was great pressure on public finances - and this could have an impact on the relative priority given to tackling poverty and disadvantage.
Removal of Ring Fencing for the FSF
7.15 There is currently a lack of certainty in many areas about the impact of the removal of ring fencing from 2010. Our questionnaire (which was completed in April and May 2009) identified that 27 of the 32 community planning areas had yet to come to a final decision about what resources would be available for tackling disadvantage locally from April 2010.
7.16 When respondents from Community Planning Partnerships considered what impact the removal of ring fencing might have, most thought that it was too early to say. But those who had a view were relatively evenly split. Seven community planning respondents were positive about the opportunities that the removal of ring fencing might bring - for example a greater focus on the mainstream resources that could be used to tackle poverty. Nine community planning respondents were concerned that, in the difficult financial climate for the public sector, the resources which had been protected for the FSF would be redirected.
Future Support Needs
7.17 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. The most common areas for support raised by respondents were:
- setting and measuring targets;
- data availability and analysis;
- embedding outcomes;
- mainstreaming;
- sustaining approaches to tackling deprivation (in particular after the removal of ring fencing);
- community engagement and equalities; and
- commissioning services.