1 / 32

Tackling concentrated deprivation: Lessons from the Fairer Scotland Fund

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!.

shana
Télécharger la présentation

Tackling concentrated deprivation: Lessons from the Fairer Scotland Fund

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Tackling concentrated deprivation: Lessons from the Fairer Scotland Fund Andrew Fyfe ODS Consulting 27 August 2009

  2. Outline of Presentation What we did What we found Main areas for future learning

  3. 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

  4. What we did

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. What we found – FSF Plans

  8. 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

  9. What we found – Perspectives from CPPs

  10. 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)

  11. 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)

  12. 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

  13. Main impacts on FSF

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. 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

  21. What we found – Policy Makers

  22. 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

  23. 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)

  24. What we found – Case Studies

  25. 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

  26. The Case Study Areas • Clackmannanshire • Dumfries and Galloway • Edinburgh • Fife • Glasgow • Inverclyde • Moray • South Lanarkshire

  27. 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

  28. 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

  29. 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

  30. Priorities for the Community Regeneration and Tackling Poverty Learning Network

  31. 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

  32. Tackling concentrated deprivation: Lessons from the Fairer Scotland Fund Andrew Fyfe ODS Consulting 27 August 2009

More Related