Upload
shana
View
36
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Tackling concentrated deprivation: Lessons from the Fairer Scotland Fund. Andrew Fyfe ODS Consulting 27 August 2009. Outline of Presentation. What we did What we found Main areas for future learning. A Health Warning!. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Tackling concentrated deprivation: Lessons from the Fairer Scotland Fund
Andrew FyfeODS Consulting27 August 2009
Outline of Presentation
What we did
What we found
Main areas for future learning
A Health Warning!
This presentation is based on the research that we have undertaken since January …
But we have not completed the report, so the conclusions are provisional – not final
Report completed September
What we did
The Brief
Research to Assess the development and implementation of
the FSF Consider the support needs of CPPs in tackling
poverty Inform future approaches to tackling concentrated
disadvantage Feed into research and dialogue in the Learning
Network
What we did
Desktop Review of the FSF plans 2008/09 and 2009/10
Questionnaires and interviews with local staff involved in the FSF in all 32 CPPs
Interviews with policy makers/ influencers Eight case studies
What we found – FSF Plans
FSF Plans
Light touch guidance In 2008/09 could be stand alone or integrated
in SOA (24 were integrated) In 2009/10 integrated into SOA Effective integration has increased – this
makes it more difficult to distinguish the impact of FSF
‘Stretch targets’ were absent in about half the plans
What we found – Perspectives from CPPs
Method
Questionnaire sent to ‘key FSF contact’ in all 32 CPPs – followed up by telephone interview
26 areas returned a questionnaire and took part in a telephone interview
2 areas only returned a questionnaire 4 areas only took part in a telephone
interview (which covered key parts of the questionnaire)
Developing the FSF
In 2009/10 the lead in developing the FSF was taken by CPPs (or CPP sub groups) in 19 cases and by the council in 12
Many partners were involved – and in more than half the cases the level of involvement was seen to have improved (from the previous year)
Involving communities By 2009 24 areas involved people from
disadvantaged areas and groups in developing the FSF plans (7 did not)
This was most commonly in individual projects or general information sharing
In 7 cases (out of 31) community representatives were involved in decision making structures
Involvement was more likely at operational than strategic level
Main impacts on FSF
Rank 2008/09 Rank 2009/10
CPP priorities 1 1
Legacy projects 2 3
National Performance Framework 3 2
Community priorities 4 4
Local anti poverty strategies 5 6
National social policy frameworks 6 5
Targeting the FSF
Another health warning! We asked how much of the FSF was targeted
at Geographical areas of disadvantage Thematic disadvantaged communities Across the entire population
25 of 32 areas responded to this question (£225 million of FSF)
The responses are not mutually exclusive
Targeting the FSF
41% was targeted specifically at geographical areas of disadvantage
33% was targeted specifically at thematic disadvantaged communities
26% was targeted across the entire population
Stretch Targets
‘Closing the Gap’ between the poorest areas and the rest
11 (out of 27 respondents) said that they had not used stretch targets
There were concerns that the written guidance on this had been late and that it was not clear
Evidence in our discussions about confusion over the meaning of stretch targets
Changes as a result of FSF
FSF has brought about changes in the way that community planning partners operate: 86% have changed the way that they planned 79% have changed the way that they monitor and
evaluate 74% have changed the way that they allocate
resources 41% have changed how communities were
involved
Outcomes
There was a high degree of comfort with outcomes (in response to the questionnaire, all respondents were very or quite comfortable)
Discussions indicated that there was still work to be done to embed outcomes fully throughout the partnership
Ring Fencing
(In early summer) only 5 areas had made a final decision about the FSF from April 2010
When asked what impact they thought the removal of ring fencing would have: 11 said it was too early to say 9 were concerned that the money would be
redirected and used for other purposes 7 said that it would encourage a mainstream
approach to regeneration funding for the first time
Future Support and Guidance
Sharing best practice What really works
Improving data More useful data Understanding what is there
Setting and Measuring Outcomes Sustainable regeneration
Mainstreaming What happens after ring fencing
What we found – Policy Makers
Main Issues
Lessons had been learned from previous approaches – but little progress had been made in mainstreaming anti-poverty activities
Community engagement is essential – but is more difficult to achieve at a strategic level
The focus on outcomes and strategic approaches has improved partnership working
Views on support and guidance needs Target setting (including stretch targets) Data Community engagement and equalities Outcomes
Outcomes drive activities (sometimes activities are ‘force-fitted’ to outcomes)
What we found – Case Studies
The Case Study Areas
19 areas ‘volunteered’ to be a case study The 8 selected are different in terms of:
Size Levels of concentrated disadvantage Size of FSF Urban and rural Geography Approaches
The Case Study Areas
Clackmannanshire Dumfries and Galloway Edinburgh Fife Glasgow Inverclyde Moray South Lanarkshire
The Case Study Areas
We spoke to 65 people – including: Councillors Strategic and operational staff from councils and
other public agencies Voluntary sector organisations Members of the community
Common Themes - Positives
FSF represented a new, more strategic approach
New ways of commissioning services for the FSF were being developed
Welcome for bringing together funding streams and light touch monitoring
Improved partnership working – built on outcomes
Common Themes - Concerns
Constant change Short term programmes to tackle long term issues Energy and resources used in winding down one
programme and starting another – and learning the new language
Community engagement Current methods needed to respond to more
strategic, outcome focused, thematic approaches
Priorities for the Community Regeneration and Tackling Poverty Learning Network
Sharing Experience and Learning
There are a number of areas that were identified as priorities for learning: Setting targets (and measuring progress) Data availability and assessment Embedding outcomes Community engagement and equalities Balancing spatial and thematic approaches Commissioning services
Tackling concentrated deprivation: Lessons from the Fairer Scotland Fund
Andrew FyfeODS Consulting27 August 2009