Interim Project Report on Underlying Principles, Examples and …randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=9897_RE0246InterimProject... · so additional outcomes may arise; 18. Testing

Defra RE0246 Local Level Rural Proofing Project

1

Interim Project Report on Underlying Principles, Examples and Practitioner's Needs relating to Best Practice in the Design and Delivery of Rural Services 1st March 2012 Hindle R, Wilson B & Annibal I Publication Version 23rd March 2012 Primary Author: Rob Hindle Reviewed by: Brian Wilson & Ivan Annibal


2

Index 1. Introduction 2. Methodology 3. Findings from Policy Review 4. Findings from Literature Review 5. Findings from Call for Evidence 5.1 Analysis of the source of responses 5.2 Underlying Principles 5.3 Examples of Good Practice 5.4 Evidence of Practitioner's Needs for Support 6. Conclusions from Evidence Gathering Phase 7. Implications for Design and Dissemination


3

1. Introduction This report has been produced for the Project Steering Group as an interim output for Defra research project RE0246. The specification for the study produced by the Rural Communities Policy Unit (the RCPU) in Defra and the submission from Rural Innovation which led to our appointment are both available on the Defra Research website. The purpose of this paper is to share with the Steering Group the findings from work to date, and specifically our analysis and emerging conclusions around:

� evidenced underlying principles of good practice in the design and delivery of rural services;

� practitioner's need for support and guidance around the design and delivery of rural services; and,

� to identify some examples of good practice which "showcase" the principles identified.

The findings set out in this paper have come from work in the first four weeks of this short project, specifically a review of the current and emerging policy context for rural service delivery; a review of the existing literature on rural proofing and good practice in service design; and a call for evidence from rural practitioners and those involved in service delivery. Further details of the methodology are provided in section 2. The findings will be used to inform the second phase of the project. This comprises the design of a series of practical resources to support practitioners in the design and delivery of rural services; and the production of a Dissemination Plan for use by the Rural Communities Policy Unit in promoting awareness and take up of these resources. The paper first reviews the work done to date and provides details on the methodology employed. It then goes on to set out the findings from each part of the research before analysing the implications arising for the second phase of the project. Readers of this paper may also like to review the individual papers produced setting out findings from the Policy Review and the Literature Review which are available on the Defra Research website.


4

2. Methodology Our methodology thus far has focused on a review of existing and emerging policy; a review of literature on rural proofing and good practice in rural service design; and an extensive call for evidence from practitioners and those involved in rural service design and delivery across England1. Policy Review The desktop review of current and emerging policy assessed the likely impact of policy on the design and delivery of rural services across three main themes, a) localism and community action; b) deficit reduction and economic growth; and c) sustainability and carbon reduction. The findings of the review are set out in full in a paper that has already been submitted to the Client Group. Literature Review The desktop review of literature sought to identify evidence of “underlying principles” of good practice in the design and delivery of rural services. The review focused on evidence of good practice and exemplars of rural proofing produced over the last five years. The list of documents to be reviewed was agreed with the project Steering Group.

The findings of the review are set out in full in a paper that has already been submitted to the Client Group. Call for Evidence The third strand of our research has been a call for evidence from rural practitioners involved in the design and delivery of rural services and representatives of organisations that have an interest in the outputs and outcomes arising from rural services. A list of the organisations that responded is provided as Appendix Five. The call for evidence was based around a number of "lines of enquiry" which were offered to practitioners via a combination of phone based consultation, the opportunity to complete an online request for information and a "call" to the Rural Community Action Network as part of their arrangement to provide the RCPU with intelligence and local evidence. The headline lines of enquiry were:

� Identify any services which are particularly effective at reaching into all parts of rural areas

� Identify any services which produce outcomes that are particularly valued by service users or delivery organisations

1 Full details of our methodology can be found in the EVID2 form submitted in response to Defra's research specification


5

� Identify the main beneficiaries of this good practice (groups or locations)

� Identify those aspects of the service design or delivery which you consider have made the difference

� Identify organisations/groups/key people who were involved in that process

� Identify the key elements of the approach that would help others involved in the design and delivery of rural services

� Identify the sort of material that you feel would best help those involved in the design of rural services

� Offer any other insights/views about rural service design The online form offered for completion is available to view at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/QQR2P5Z

The call for evidence was disseminated via the RCPU's stakeholder group and particularly focused on networks of practitioners and rural community champions such as those operated by the County Council's Network, the Rural Services Network, the Local Government Association, the Community Transport Association and the Rural Community Action Network. The time available to set up and complete the call for evidence was limited by the project timetable. The consultant team had just four weeks2 from the Inception Meeting to set up, implement, analyse and report on the responses from the Call to Evidence. Despite this short time frame we are pleased to report that the Call for Evidence has been successful. We received 79 individual responses to the call for evidence by the date set for final responses of the 24th February. We have subsequently received another 3 responses after the closing date. We have reviewed these responses and have added any additional material to our analysis. The call for evidence has therefore produced a total of 82 individual responses. Details on the evidence offered from these responses is provided below. 3. Findings from Policy Review The policy developments reviewed are influenced by a combination of the coalition government's programme and of course by the economic context and the state of public finances. The shape and focus of emerging policy represents a radical and wide-ranging shift in the context for rural service design and delivery. It includes policy drivers which can be characterised as focusing on:

2 Inception meeting 3rd February; Interim Report due 2nd March


6

� Devolution: decisions about service design, commissioning and delivery

made closer to and in association with users;

� Personalisation: further encouragement for bespoke and locally-specific

service delivery approaches;

� Collaboration: a loosening of organisational boundaries, with scope for

more integrated service delivery and a focus on place;

� Open Access: opportunities for new entrant service providers from

outside the statutory sector;

� Volunteering: a desire to leverage the capacity and resources of local

people or organisations; and

� Thriving: an emphasis on development to better meet local economic

and housing needs.

It will be important to take full account of this shifting context in the application of ‘underlying principles’ of good practice to service design and delivery, and during the design of practical resources for practitioners in the second phase of this project. 4. Findings from Literature Review The aim of the review was to identify evidence of “underlying principles” of good practice in the design and delivery of rural services. We define these "underlying principles" as something that could be applied to the design or delivery of any local service and which would improve the outcomes for rural people, communities or businesses. To be useful in the context of this project an underlying principle needs to be locally delivered, to be rurally focused and to deliver benefits to service users. Figure One: Key Elements of the Definition of an Underlying Principle

Source: Brian Wilson Associates


7

Evidence offered within literature and case studies reviewed suggests that the following approaches / actions might be considered to be valuable underlying principles of good practice in the design and delivery of rural services:

1. An overt and upfront commitment from service designers to provide fair and equitable treatment for users and to achieve proportionate outcomes in rural and urban places;

2. Approaches to service design which seek to address the fundamental

challenges of rural delivery (sparsity, distance, etc) by harnessing and enhancing typical strengths within rural communities (social capital, self-reliance, etc);

3. Finding ways to spread or reduce the fixed costs of service delivery,

so as to mitigate increased unit costs of delivery arising from distance/time costs and lost economies of scale (the rural premium). This may involve organisations collaborating, services co-locating, the use of ICT, volunteer input or various other approaches;

4. Taking into account a broad range of potential outcomes (economic,

social and environmental) when assessing options for rural delivery (beyond unit cost or "value for money");

5. Taking a "user focused" approach to design; involving rural

communities in the early stage of needs assessment based service planning and then involving them in shaping appropriate local solutions;

6. Starting this dialogue with rural communities from first principles,

asking what their needs are and how they wish to use services rather than simply adjusting current service models;

7. Investing in understanding local circumstances and the impact of

geography on service costs and use, in order to inform the design of evidence-based solutions;

8. Considering urban-rural inter-dependencies and the scope to

maximise the benefits for rural communities arising from them;

9. Designing sufficient flexibility into delivery models, so they can be adapted to local circumstance or opportunity;

10. Offering a portfolio of delivery solutions to meet the varying needs

and circumstances of rural users;

11. Targeting geographical gaps in delivery so that services are readily accessible to more (potential) users, especially those in remoter or more isolated locations;


8

12. Focusing particular effort (and perhaps financial support) at those

groups who find it hardest to access existing services. This may involve tailored solutions for individuals;

13. Service commissioners seeking to avoid spatial gaps in provision by

including incentives or penalties within contracts to avoid market failure among providers;

14. Factoring in broad outcomes which enhance the future sustainability

of rural communities as design objectives or within the criteria for assessing "return on investment";

15. Recording and monitoring at lower or local levels of geography

(commensurate with local delivery) and reviewing the outputs regularly to seek further rural service enhancements;

16. Designing solutions to increase the use of existing assets within rural

areas (e.g. buildings, land and transport) in order to enhance their viability;

17. Looking to collaborate beyond the boundaries of individual services,

so additional outcomes may arise;

18. Testing innovative approaches in small areas (as pilots) in order to gain sufficient evidence, learning and support for their mainstream use.

Mapping Principles against Policy Drivers

Do these principles apply equally across all the emerging policy drivers identified above? Probably not, in fact is seems likely that some of these principles will apply more readily to one or two of the drivers than to others. We have carried out a mapping exercise which is included as Appendix One. This may prove useful when we come to consider the focus for materials to support local practitioners in the design phase of the project. Having identified these potential underlying principles from the Literature Review the next stage of our approach in identifying key underlying principles was to synthesise these findings with the views and intelligence offered from practitioners and stakeholders in response to the Call to Evidence.


9

5. Findings from Call for Evidence The Call for Evidence had two key elements; a search for insight and intelligence on good practice in rural service design and delivery (and the causes of this good practice), and an investigation into the needs of practitioners for support, guidance and training. We asked practitioners and those with an interest in the outcomes achieved from rural service delivery to identify services which they felt where effective in reaching all parts of the rural area and that produced good outcomes for rural people, businesses and places. Respondents were also asked what it was about these services that they felt made them particularly effective and who had been involved in their design and delivery. Respondents were also asked what they felt were the key elements in the design or delivery of the service that would be useful for others to learn about, and how that information might be best shared. The responses from the Call to Evidence have been captured within an online form and, where based on telephone interviews or provided by members of the RCAN network, in a narrative within Microsoft Word documents3. We have carried out analysis of the response4 to the Call to Evidence at a number of levels. Firstly we have "mapped" the responses against a framework which enables us to assess how comprehensive the response has been in terms of: � the type of organisations that the respondents are involved with; � the geographical distribution of respondents; � the spread across different types of rurality of the respondents; � the local socio economic context5; and, � the type of services cited within peoples responses. The second level of analysis has been focused at teasing out underlying principles and "mapping" those against the eighteen potential underlying principles identified within the Literature Review. We have reviewed the information submitted for examples of good practice which might be used to promote the principles associated with effective design and delivery of rural services. Finally we have assessed the responses to identify evidence around practitioner's needs for support, guidance and training.

3 This primary evidence will be made available to the client for their retention 4 This analysis was carried out at the earliest opportunity following the close of the Call for Evidence between the 25th and 28th February 5 Using the ranking of the local authority within the Multiple Index of Deprivation as a proxy


10

Our analysis has included an element of "gap analysis" to identify areas where the response has been limited and areas where examples of the application of underlying principles or examples good practice appear to be limited. 5.1 Analysis of the Source of Responses to the Call to Evidence and Gap Analysis

In order to carry out this analysis we have produced a spreadsheet which records each response against criteria relating to type of organisation, geography, rurality, socio-economic context and area of service6. The findings of this analysis (comprising the 79 responses received by the deadline) are set out below. Organisational Type

Representatives of five different types of organisations have taken part in the Call for Evidence. They include: � statutory bodies such as local authorities or public bodies responsible for

service design and delivery such as the National Health Service; � Housing Associations or Registered Social Landlords; � Private sector organisations involved in service delivery � Membership organisations or industry bodies representing service

deliverers or with an interest in outcomes for rural communities such as the Community Transport Association, Mind, NFU

� Voluntary and community bodies involved in service delivery or with an interest in outcomes for rural communities including Rural Community Councils and local councillors.

The distribution of responses across these organisational types is shown in Figure Two below. This shows that the majority of responses have come from statutory bodies and that there has been a satisfactory level of response from the voluntary and community sector.

It is apparent from a detailed analysis of the responses that we have had a more limited response from private sector organisations involved in local service delivery or from the social enterprise sector. This is perhaps to be expected given the networks involved in the process (and chimes with other analysis offered later). The Open Public Service agenda is at a relatively early stage in its development. Where private sector providers and not for profit groups have become involved in rural service delivery this has often tended to be focused on retaining formerly privately run facilities such as shops, post offices and pubs.

6 A copy of this spreadsheet has been provided to the RCPU


11

Figure Two: Distribution of Responses across Different Types of Organisations

61%

5%6%

5%

23%

Statutory HA/RSL Private Industry Body Vol/Com

Interestingly many respondents from statutory bodies have been able to refer to privately run services however, especially when contracted by the public sector. There is also a growing portfolio of social enterprises engaged in the management and delivery of public services, for example in the library sector where this approach is gaining traction. In our view therefore the lack of response in this area does not mean that there is no evidence of this kind of activity. Consequently we have taken steps to address this gap in the response to the Call for Evidence via direct engagement with the Plunkett Foundation and in follow up interviews7. Geography

We have analysed responses based on the geographical location of the respondent. 10% of responses received have been from national organisations and just 5% from regional organisations8, the remainder were from local organisations9. The distribution of responses around England is shown in Figure Three. This chart shows that there is a relatively good distribution of responses across the country.

7 It should be noted that the recent Review of Social Enterprise in Rural England carried out by the Plunkett Foundation for Defra was included in the Literature Review 8 This shows how quickly the organisational landscape across rural England has changed since the election of the Coalition Government in May 2010 9 It should be noted that this proportion is likely to increase when all the responses are received from the RCAN network.


12

We should not necessarily expect the distribution of responses to be totally even as the distribution of Rural Community Councils against the 8 regions is not uniform10. Figure Three: Distribution of Responses across English Regions

3% 13%

6%

13%

17%13%

16%

19%

NE NW YH WM EM EE SE SW

Despite this however it does seem that there has been a more limited response from the North East and from Yorkshire & Humber than from other parts of the country. We are endeavouring to improve this position by making direct contact with known practitioners and stakeholders in the two regions. Rurality

We have analysed the responses received spatially using the ONS rural urban classification for local authorities. This analysis shows that the majority of responses received that it is possible to allocate to a local authority area have been from Predominantly Rural local authority areas. This is partially influenced by the membership of the networks involved in the Call for Evidence but also indicates (perhaps unsurprisingly) a greater interest in the process of rural proofing, and in the objectives of this project, from this type of authority. It will be important to factor this information into thinking around the Dissemination Plan.

10 For example there are only two RCCs in the Yorkshire and Humber region whilst there are seven in the South West region


13

Figure Four: Distribution of Responses by Rurality

64%14%

4%

18%

Predominantly Rural Significant Rural Other Urban Unallocated

Socio Economic Context

We have analysed the responses using the 2010 Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) for Higher Tier Local Authorities. To achieve this we allocated responses to the relevant local authority area. We then used a CLG analysis which produces an overall ranking for each local authority based on their composite ranking across the IMD’s 7 individual domains. We have subsequently analysed the responses received using this composite IMD ranking11. Our analysis has produced an average ranking for each local authority of between 1 and 149 where 1 is the most deprived local authority and 149 is the least deprived. Figure Five shows the distribution of the responses received across this ranking of deprivation, based on quintiles12. The chart shows the proportion of responses that were received across each quintile (where the 1st quintile is the most deprived and the 5th quintile the least deprived) and the proportion of local authorities in each quintile that can reasonably be considered to be rural13. It is clear from the analysis that the distribution of responses across the five quintiles is reasonably aligned with the distribution of local authorities with rural parts to their territory across the five quintiles, save for the under-

11 A copy of the spreadsheet including the analysis has been made available to the RCPU. The full description of how this ranking has been developed along with spreadsheet itself can be accessed at: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/statistics/xls/1981199.xls 12 A quintile equates to a fifth of the total sample 13 There is no official rural urban classification for this level of geography so we have classified local authorities as rural where they are not related to a single town, city or suburb. A copy of the analysis has been provided to the RCPU.


14

reporting in the second quintile and the over reporting in the fourth quintile. Figure Five: Distribution of Responses across Quintiles of 2010 IMD by Higher Tier Local Authority

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

1st quintile 2nd quintile 3rd quintile 4th quintile 5th quintile

Responses "rural" share

A review of the local authorities in the second quintile shows that these tend to be metropolitan authorities based on major conurbations but where some have rural parts to their territory (Bradford, Barnsley and Rotherham are a good examples). This type of authority tends not to engage with the rural networks targeted in the call for evidence. It is therefore pleasing to note that we have received some responses from both this and the first quintile. It will be important to consider what level of focus we might wish to place on this type of authority (and areas) in the design and dissemination plan. This is an area of discussion that can usefully be developed with the user group which includes a representative from this sort of authority. Area of Service

We have analysed the services which were referenced or referred to in the Call for Evidence. In total just under 200 references were made to specific examples of service delivery14. Figure Five shows the thematic area of service identified and the percentage of the whole "sample" which each thematic area represents15.

It is apparent from the analysis that key services such as transport, health, education and housing are well covered. It is interesting to note that areas

14 There were many more general references to service delivery 15 The Transport classification includes references to Wheels 2 Work schemes which of course are primarily aimed at enabling people to access work and training, all be it via a transport based solution


15

such as broadband, waste, crime, culture / libraries, fuel poverty, economic development and independent living have also been cited. Figure Five: Areas of Service Cited by Respondents

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Heal

th

Inco

me

Em

ploy

men

t

Hous

ing

Inde

pende

nt Living

Trans

port

Crim

e

Bro

adban

d

Cultu

re/L

ibra

ries

Fuel P

overty

Wast

e

Edu

catio

n

It is interesting to note that no reference has been offered to services normally operated on a wholly commercial basis by the private sector delivery (such as pubs, shops, post offices etc.) or to another key service relevant to rural areas, planning. It is arguable that private sector services fall outside the scope for this work; it is after all unlikely that the RCPU will want to create guidance and support around the design and delivery of purely private sector services - that is a matter for the owner / operator of these services. The RCPU may well be interested in supporting different models of retaining and delivering these services based on localism and community involvement. We suggest that this role is already well covered by organisations such as the Plunkett Foundation and the Rural Community Action Network; it is therefore questionable whether we should seek to add to the resources and materials available as part of this project. The omission of any reference to planning is interesting and suggests that it is not seen as quite the same sort of public service as the others referenced. It is of course hugely important to sustainable growth in rural areas and so it may be something that the RCPU is interested in addressing within the portfolio of resources produced. We suggest that this matter is discussed with the Steering Group and then, if it is felt to be appropriate, considered in detail with the project User Group in the design phase.


16

5.2 Underlying Principles Cited and Fit with Literature Review

The review of documentation at the start of this project identified 6 policy drivers and 18 underlying principles of good practice in rural service design and delivery. We have checked the 79 responses to the Call for Evidence, received by close on 24th February to see whether the intelligence provided confirms challenges or adds to our existing findings. Our overall conclusion is that the responses to the Call for Evidence provide a very good fit with the list of policy drivers and underlying principles identified. The evidence suggests little that is additional and the material received corroborates and strengthens that earlier work. Policy Drivers

The new evidence gathered contains many comments and quite a few service examples which align strongly with five of the policy drivers, namely those on devolution, personalisation, collaboration, volunteering and thriving. Limited evidence has been offered which sits within the policy driver identified around "open access" i.e. opportunities for new entrant providers from outside the statutory sector. This omission may not be too surprising given that this model of public service delivery is at a relatively early stage of development; although finding further rural delivery examples would be useful for the project. It is further noted that wholly commercial services (delivered without any intervention from the public sector) do not fit well with any of these thematic policy drivers e.g. a mobile butchers shop. Since the drivers are based on Government policy this is to be expected, but it begs a wider question about the application of rural proofing in a commercial environment. Underlying Principles

We have mapped the evidence provided across the eighteen underlying principles identified from the Literature Review16. This analysis shows that just over half of the references relate to five principles. Ranked in order of the number of references made these are: � taking a user focused approach to design � tackling geographical challenges by harnessing rural strengths � using evidence to understand local circumstances and unit costs of

delivery � designing service solutions to maximise the use of existing assets � collaboration beyond boundaries of individual services and territories

16 A table showing the outcome of this analysis is included as Appendix Two.


17

The next five principles account for 30% of references: � starting from first principles; needs based service design � reducing or spreading fixed costs through use of technology, volunteering

and collaboration � focusing specific efforts on hard to reach groups � targeting geographical gaps in delivery � taking account of a broad range of outcomes when assessing value for

money The remaining eight principles attract 17% of references between them: � factoring broad sustainability outcomes as design objectives � an overt and upfront commitment to equity and proportionate outcomes � designing flexible models which can adapt to local circumstances � monitoring at low levels of geography � testing innovation in local pilots before committing to it (enabling

innovation by "de-risking" it) � offering a portfolio of delivery solutions to meet varying needs � considering urban / rural dependencies � targeting gaps in delivery through contractual terms Additional Underlying Principles A few other comments were made in the responses in addition to references and experience which can be used to confirm the underlying principles identified from the Literature Review. We have considered these to determine whether they introduce any new underlying principles. Our conclusion is that they do not; our analysis is summarised below. Services should be pro-actively promoted to grow the user base. Comment: unless it can be worded as an underlying principle, reject as insufficiently rural and as more of a good practice activity; Service providers need to show sufficient, strategic leadership to meet rural/local needs. Comment: this can be seen as refining the existing underlying principle on a commitment to fair outcomes rather than as an additional principle in its own right; Services providers should put monetary values on non-financial benefits when assessing options. Comment: this can be seen as refining the existing underlying principle on taking account of wider outcomes rather than as an additional principle in its own right; Services should be taken to the user i.e. mobile. Comment: reject as an underlying principle in its own right. It is rather a means of addressing others, such as tackling geographic gaps in provision;


18

Specific rural services are sometimes required e.g. Rural Housing Enablers and to tackle isolation. Comment: whilst true for those two cases, reject as an underlying principle since it is not generally applicable to service provision. 5.3 Examples of Good Practice

The Call for Evidence has produced a wide range of potential good practice examples. Analysis of the responses shows that it is possible to identify examples where all but one of the underlying principles identified during the Literature Review have been used in service design or delivery17. It seems likely therefore that it will be possible to use specific examples of good practice to illustrate the application of underlying principles within the resources produced for practitioners. Where examples of good practice have not been identified this begs the question whether the principle is applicable in practice, or whether perhaps it is a little academic. Alternately it may be that the principle is sound and valuable, but has yet to gain traction due to a lack of understanding. We have asked the User Group to consider the relative importance of the underlying principles to practical service design and delivery. We have also asked the User Group to help us rationalise the relative importance of the underlying principles in terms of the need to raise awareness, provide guidance and resources to help practitioners apply each principle to service design and delivery. It will be interesting to hear their views. 5.4 Evidence offered on Practitioner's Need for Support

The Call for Evidence has generated a substantial amount of feedback on the sorts of areas where practitioners would like support, training and guidance. We have captured all the comments made in the analytical spreadsheet and have recorded them in Appendix Four to this document. It seems apparent from this analysis that practitioners would like to see focused guidance on specific issues, access to materials setting out good practice (with related examples) and specific resources offering direct support and mentoring. The areas raised by respondents to the Call for Evidence are set out in Table Two below. We have asked the User Group to give us their view on the relative importance of the areas identified. We look forward to hearing their view. 17 A table showing the application of underlying principles in good practice examples is provided as Appendix Three.


19

Table Two: Practitioners Need for Support and Assistance How To

Good Practice

Direct Support

Guidance and training on "How To" do things, specifically: � talk to service users � develop and use

networks � use of social and

digital media in service design & deliver

� apply for funding � access and use

evidence � produce a community

profile � assess service user

requirements � assess value for money

or cost / benefit analysis

� engage and recruit volunteers

� get the best of delivery partners

� engage and communicate with communities

� use of social and digital media in engagement with communities

Access to materials setting out good practice and related examples specifically focused on: � case studies to demonstrate

good design / delivery � case studies on the use of

evidence � templates for design � templates for rural proofing � templates for service delivery

contracts with SMEs, community and not for profit organisations

Access to personal advice � access to expert

mentor / advisor � access to peers for

mutual support and advice

� access to evidence (central repository) with help to use and apply

� access to community profiles


20

6. Conclusions from the Evidence Gathering Phase Policy Drivers The evidence gathering phase of the project has enabled us to identify a series of thematic policy drivers. The drivers will form an important context for service design and delivery in rural areas and it will be important that practitioners and rural stakeholders recognise this context and take it into account when developing services, or their response to them. Underlying Principles The evidence gathering phase of the project has enabled us to identify a relatively large number of underlying principles related to good practice in the design and delivery of rural services. We have been able to corroborate the validity of these underlying principles through the intelligence provided by practitioners via the Call for Evidence. It seems apparent from the analysis that we have carried out that some of these principles are well understood and in general usage in the design and delivery of rural services. Some are rather less well understood however and seem to be applied less often. Some may not be in use at all. This raises a series of questions as to whether this is because their value has not yet been identified; whether people don't know how to apply them; or if they are simply practically not that useful. It will be important to develop a view as to whether any of the principles identified should be discounted, and if so, to determine which of the underlying principles should be the focus of the resources and materials developed in the design phase of the project. Examples of Good Practice Practitioners that participated in the Call for Evidence have provided a number of potential examples of good practice in rural service design and delivery. It should be possible to use some of these as case studies or to provide references to them within the resources to be developed in the design phase. Practitioners Need for Support Practitioners that participated in the Call for Evidence have also offered an insight into the areas where resources and materials might best help to improve the reach of rural services and the outcomes that they help to deliver. We now need to determine how these needs can be met by the outcomes of this project. It is likely that all these needs identified cannot be met by materials produced from this project. Actions arising from the project may therefore need to include wider signposting to existing resources. It may also be useful to identify other initiatives that might follow or be taken on by partners or stakeholders.


21

7. Implications for Design and Dissemination The evidence gathering phase has provided rich intelligence on policy drivers, on underlying principles and around practitioners needs for support. It has also produced a series of examples of good practice in the design and delivery of rural services. The next phase of this project focuses on applying this learning to the design and subsequent production of resources to support practitioners in rural proofing local service design. These resources must be practical and relevant. This means that we must apply the learning generated from the evidence gathering phase and seek to produce something which achieves real traction amongst users. Points to consider which arise from our analysis are: Do the thematic policy drivers offer a device which might help to contextualise the resources that we produce? Are some service areas going to be more important than others going forward18? Are some more in need of and some less accessible to rural proofing than others? If so which should we focus on? What element should our design focus be on; the application of underlying principles or the replication of demonstrable good practice? Which underlying principles do we focus on; those that are best recognised and supported, or those which seem less well understood? How many of the needs identified should we seek to address? Is it possible to identify some "killer apps" within the list produced so far? Might a segmented approach covering some "how to" materials, access to good practice and pointing towards the longer term development of direct advice and support be a way forward19? Should we be thinking about targeting specific users with resources; such as local authority officers, social enterprises, or community and voluntary groups? These are all matters which we will discuss with the User Group. Meanwhile we welcome any views from the Project Steering Group Hindle R, Wilson B and Annibal I 1st March 2012

18 It maybe that there should be a link to the RCPU's Rural Policy Statement 19 We need to be mindful of the LGA's views around guidance from central to local government


22

Appendix One: Mapping Policy Drivers against Underlying Principles Emerging policy developments present a radical and wide-ranging shift in the context for rural service design and delivery. This includes:

� Devolution: decisions about service design, commissioning and

delivery made closer to and in association with users;

� Personalisation: further encouragement for bespoke and locally-

specific service delivery approaches;

� Collaboration: a loosening of organisational boundaries, with scope

for more integrated service delivery and a focus on place;

� Open Access: opportunities for new entrant service providers who are

outside the statutory sector;

� Volunteering: a desire to leverage the capacity and resources of local

people or organisations; and

� Thriving: an emphasis on development to better meet local economic

and housing needs.

Underlying Principles of Good Practice in Service Design and Delivery

An overt and upfront commitment from service designers to provide fair

and equitable treatment for users and to achieve proportionate

outcomes in rural and urban places; Cross Cutting Design Objective

Approaches to service design which seek to address the fundamental

challenges of rural delivery (sparsity, distance, etc) by harnessing and

enhancing typical strengths within rural communities (social capital, self-

reliance, etc); Devolution; Volunteering

Finding ways to spread or reduce the fixed costs of service delivery, so as

to mitigate increased unit costs of delivery arising from distance/time

costs and lost economies of scale (the rural premium). This may involve

organisations collaborating, services co-locating, the use of ICT,

volunteer input or various other approaches; Collaboration;

Volunteering; Open Access

Taking into account a broad range of potential outcomes (economic,

social and environmental) when assessing options for rural delivery

(beyond unit cost or "value for money"); Thriving


23

Taking a "user focused" approach to design; involving rural communities

in the early stage of needs assessment service planning and then

involving them in shaping appropriate local solutions; Personalisation

Starting this dialogue with rural communities from first principles, asking

what their needs are and how they wish to use services rather than

simply adjusting current service models; Devolution; Personalisation

Investing in understanding local circumstances and the impact of

geography on service costs and use, in order to inform the design of

evidence-based solutions; Devolution; Personalisation

Considering urban-rural inter-dependencies and the scope to maximise

the benefits for rural communities arising from them; Collaboration

Designing sufficient flexibility into delivery models, so they can be

adapted to local circumstance or opportunity; Personalisation; Open

Access

Offering a portfolio of delivery solutions to meet the varying needs and

circumstances of rural users; Personalisation

Targeting geographical gaps in delivery so that services are readily

accessible to more (potential) users, especially those in remoter or more

isolated locations; Personalisation; Collaboration; Volunteering

Focusing particular effort (and perhaps financial support) at those groups

who find it hardest to access existing services. This may involve tailored

solutions for individuals; Personalisation

Service commissioners seeking to avoid spatial gaps in provision by

including incentives or penalties within contracts to avoid market failure

among providers; Cross Cutting means of filling gaps in service delivery

Factoring in broad outcomes which enhance the future sustainability of

rural communities as design objectives or within the criteria for assessing

"return on investment"; Thriving

Recording and monitoring at lower or local levels of geography

(commensurate with local delivery) and reviewing the outputs regularly

to seek further rural service enhancements; Devolution


24

Designing solutions to increase the use of existing assets within rural

areas (e.g. buildings, land and transport) in order to enhance their

viability; Thriving

Looking to collaborate beyond the boundaries of individual services, so

additional outcomes may arise; Collaboration

Testing innovative approaches in small areas (as pilots) in order to gain

sufficient evidence, learning and support for their mainstream use. Cross

Cutting method of enabling and "de-risking" innovation


25

Appendix Two: Underlying Principles Mapped Across Responses from Call to Evidence What makes or is important for good design and delivery of rural services?

Percentage of Responses

Taking a "user focused" approach to design; involving rural communities in the early stage of needs assessment service planning and then involving them in shaping appropriate local solutions; Personalisation

13%

Approaches to service design which seek to address the fundamental challenges of rural delivery (sparsity, distance, etc) by harnessing and enhancing typical strengths within rural communities (social capital, self-reliance, etc); Devolution; Volunteering

12%

Investing in understanding local circumstances and the impact of geography on service costs and use, in order to inform the design of evidence-based solutions; Devolution; Personalisation

10%

Designing solutions to increase the use of existing assets within rural areas (e.g. buildings, land and transport) in order to enhance their viability; Thriving

9%

Looking to collaborate beyond the boundaries of individual services, so additional outcomes may arise;and services can share fixed costs?? Collaboration

9%

Starting this dialogue with rural communities from first principles, asking what their needs are and how they wish to use services rather than simply adjusting current service models; Devolution; Personalisation

8%

Finding ways to spread or reduce the fixed costs of service delivery, so as to mitigate increased unit costs of delivery arising from distance/time costs and lost economies of scale (the rural premium). This may involve organisations collaborating, services co-locating, the use of ICT, volunteer input or various other approaches; Collaboration; Volunteering; Open Access

7%

Focusing particular effort (and perhaps financial support) at those groups who find it hardest to access existing services. This may involve tailored solutions for individuals; Personalisation

6%

Targeting geographical gaps in delivery so that services are readily accessible to more (potential) users, especially those in remoter or more isolated locations; Personalisation

5%

Taking into account a broad range of potential outcomes (economic, social and environmental) when assessing options for rural delivery (beyond unit cost or "value for money"); Thriving

5%

Factoring in broad outcomes which enhance the future sustainability of rural communities as design objectives or within the criteria for assessing "return on investment"; Thriving

4%

An overt and upfront commitment from service designers to provide fair and equitable treatment for users and to achieve proportionate outcomes in rural and urban places; Cross Cutting Design Objective

3%

Designing sufficient flexibility into delivery models, so they can be adapted to local circumstance or opportunity; Personalisation; Open Access

3%

Recording and monitoring at lower or local levels of geography (commensurate with local delivery) and reviewing the outputs regularly to seek further rural service enhancements; Devolution

2%

Testing innovative approaches in small areas (as pilots) in order to gain sufficient evidence, learning and support for their mainstream use. Cross Cutting method of enabling and "de-risking" innovation

2%

Offering a portfolio of delivery solutions to meet the varying needs and circumstances of rural users; Personalisation

1%

Considering urban-rural inter-dependencies and the scope to maximise the 1%


26

What makes or is important for good design and delivery of rural services?

Percentage of Responses

benefits for rural communities arising from them; Collaboration

Service commissioners seeking to avoid spatial gaps in provision by including incentives or penalties within contracts to avoid market failure among providers; Cross Cutting means of gaps in service delivery

1%


27

Appendix Three: Ways in Which Underlying Principles Have Been Applied Cited in Call for Evidence What ways have these principles been applied / what services are based on these principles?

Applications Cited

Taking a "user focused" approach to design; involving rural communities in the early stage of needs assessment service planning and then involving them in shaping appropriate local solutions; Personalisation

Chichester Rural Affairs Officer Locality Planning (Shropshire & Herefordshire) Rural Housing Enabler Suffolk Ring & Ride Scheme Ribble Valley Healthy Valley Project Village Agents CLP Rural Proofing Officers (EYC)

Approaches to service design which seek to address the fundamental challenges of rural delivery (sparsity, distance, etc) by harnessing and enhancing typical strengths within rural communities (social capital, self-reliance, etc); Devolution; Volunteering

Funding: small project grants, Leader Access Points Village Wardens & Village Agents Community Bulk Buying Groups CLP

Investing in understanding local circumstances and the impact of geography on service costs and use, in order to inform the design of evidence-based solutions; Devolution; Personalisation

Observatories (Cumbria, North Yorkshire) OCSI project on IMD

Designing solutions to increase the use of existing assets within rural areas (e.g. buildings, land and transport) in order to enhance their viability; Thriving

Chichester Post Office & Village Shops Shropshire Rural Link Bus Suffolk Ring & Ride

Looking to collaborate beyond the boundaries of individual services and territories, so additional outcomes may arise and services can share fixed costs Collaboration

South Hams multi disciplinary schemes Lindsey Leader collaboration Community Mentoring Cumbria

Starting this dialogue with rural communities from first principles, asking what their needs are and how they wish to use services rather than simply adjusting current service models; Devolution; Personalisation

Shropshire service planning Chichester Locality Planning CLP

Finding ways to spread or reduce the fixed costs of service delivery, so as to mitigate increased unit costs of delivery arising from distance/time costs and lost economies of scale (the rural premium). This may involve organisations collaborating, services co-locating, the use of ICT, volunteer input or various other approaches; Collaboration; Volunteering; Open Access

Bassetlaw Befriending Scheme; Volunteering in Community Transport & Fuel Poverty Schemes Debenham Elderly Care Rural Touring Scheme

Focusing particular effort (and perhaps financial support) at those groups who find it hardest to access existing services. This may involve tailored solutions for individuals; Personalisation

Village Agents & Good Neighbour Schemes Community Alarms (Shropshire HA) N&S DC First Contact


28

What ways have these principles been applied / what services are based on these principles?

Applications Cited

Targeting geographical gaps in delivery so that services are readily accessible to more (potential) users, especially those in remoter or more isolated locations; Personalisation

Wheels to Work Dial a Ride Shropshire Link Bus Bradford Rural Coach N&S DC Warmstreets Mobile Libraries

Taking into account a broad range of potential outcomes (economic, social and environmental) when assessing options for rural delivery (beyond unit cost or "value for money"); Thriving

CLP Potential of supermarket home delivery Village Shops

Factoring in broad outcomes which enhance the future sustainability of rural communities as design objectives or within the criteria for assessing "return on investment"; Thriving

Parish Lengthsman Colton PC Cumbria

An overt and upfront commitment from service designers to provide fair and equitable treatment for users and to achieve proportionate outcomes in rural and urban places; Cross Cutting Design Objective

Core to Shropshire's corporate approach Whole community

Designing sufficient flexibility into delivery models, so they can be adapted to local circumstance or opportunity; Personalisation; Open Access

South Hams Waste Recycling Vehicle Fleet

Recording and monitoring at lower or local levels of geography (commensurate with local delivery) and reviewing the outputs regularly to seek further rural service enhancements; Devolution

Cited as key to Shropshire's service planning approach Lancashire LAA targeting framework

Testing innovative approaches in small areas (as pilots) in order to gain sufficient evidence, learning and support for their mainstream use. Cross Cutting method of enabling and "de-risking" innovation

Malvern DC Access to Services Pilots

Offering a portfolio of delivery solutions to meet the varying needs and circumstances of rural users; Personalisation

Cumbria Business Link Multi Access; Airedale Hospital telehub

Considering urban-rural inter-dependencies and the scope to maximise the benefits for rural communities arising from them; Collaboration

Shropshire Link Community Car Scheme

Service commissioners seeking to avoid spatial gaps in provision by including incentives or penalties within contracts to avoid market failure among providers; Cross Cutting means of gaps in service delivery


29

Appendix Four: Need for Support and Guidance Cited in Call for Evidence

Need for Support & Practical Resources

How to talk to service users

Guidance on how to apply effectively for funding

How to use social media

Training on housing issues for parishes

How to use networks - ie common purpose / accessing and building networks / best practice networking / training on networking / peer to peer support

Mentoring and sharing of best practice / Best Practice Guides on key services / Applied experience from those that have "done it" / How to build on established good practice / Case studies of good practice / training on good practice

Well resourced central repository of information / don't lose CRC archive - and use it / settlement profiles

How to access and use evidence / how to show evidence of need / how to produce a settlement profile

Someone to talk to / direct hand holding support /

Making the most of Parish Plans

How to work out unit costs of delivery

Service delivery toolkits / strategic frameworks for service design

How to assess value for money / cost benefit analysis techniques

Mapping of Assets / mapping of services (cost and distribution)

How to engage volunteers

Rural proofing toolkits and templates

How to get the best out of partners - including churches and voluntary / community sector

Specimen contracts / templates for service delivery

Consultation and engagement processes / Information strategies around connecting and communicating with communities at the micro level / communications skills / How to interact as effectively as possible electronically at the local level / Small grant strategies for engaging communities

Needs assessments - community audit techniques / Community profiling / Access to a good study of the character of the rural area (OCSI)

Help for Parishes around localism / / effective support for Parish Councils / Outreach support for parishes and communities

Collecting and utilising helpful performance information from third parties - districts etc

Market research information,


30

Appendix Five: Respondents to the Call for Evidence Cumbria NHS Rural Community Action Nottinghamshire Chichester District Council Lincolnshire County Council Shropshire Council Leicestershire Housing Enabler Bradford Metropolitan Borough Council Herefordshire Council South Hams District Council South Kesteven District Council South Lakeland District Council Cornwall Rural Community Council Lincolnshire Rural Community Council Methodist Church Breckland District Council North Warwickshire District Council Newark and Sherwood District Council South Oxfordshire District Council Broadland District Council Malvern Hills District Council Bath and North East Somerset Council Fern UK East Riding of Yorkshire Council Somerset County Council Cheshire West & Chester Council Diocese of Canterbury Cornwall Council Eden District Council Colton Parish Council, Cumbria Ribble Valley District Council

Suffolk ACRE Shropshire Rural Housing Commission for Rural Communities Rural Development Initiatives Stroud District Council Forest of Dean District Council University of Aberdeen Lindsey Action Zone Surrey Community Action Oxfordshire Rural Community Council East Devon District Council Tees Valley Rural Community Council West Midlands RCAN Diocese of Liverpool Rural Action Cumbria National Farmers Union Diocese of Exeter SPARSE Mind Severn Vale Housing Norfolk County Council South Somerset District Council Edmundsbury DC University of Gloucestershire Monmouthshire Council New Perspective Theatre Company Durham Rural Community Council Buckinghamshire Rural Community Council Wiltshire Rural Community Council Berkshire Rural Community Council Rural Action East Essex Rural Community Council

Documents

Interim Project Report on Underlying Principles, Examples and …randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=9897_RE0246InterimProject... · so additional outcomes may arise; 18. Testing