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