Strategic role of Community Learning and Development

– responses from CLDMS members, May 2013

Introduction

Two recent developments combine to place on the providers of Community Learning and Development services in Scotlanda new expectation that they will all work together in a strategic way at local authority level to identify need and agree a planned response to it. One development is the 2012 Strategic Guidance on CLD to Community Planning Partnerships; the other is the Requirements for Community Learning and Development (Scotland) Regulations 2013, currently before the Scottish Parliament. Both create the expectation that there will not only be strategic planning for CLD, but that this will be integrated into the overall Community Planning process for each area, which is itself expected to be given further statutory backing in the near future.

This is the report of an informal survey of CLDMS members, the managers of Community Learning and Development services in Scottish local authorities, about the extent to which the strategic role of CLD has been recognised by Community Planning Partnerships, especially in the new generation of Single Outcome Agreements (SOAs), which are a key element in the process. The survey was circulated to them at the end of May 2013.

We asked CLDMS members about their draft Single Outcome Agreements (SOAs), after these had been submitted to the Scottish Government. We wanted to know:

  • Whether the role of CLD in helping to achieve outcomes is specifically recognised in SOAs
  • Whether there is a clearly stated recognition in other supporting documents of the role of CLD in helping to achieve outcomes (whether or not this is stated in the actual SOA document.)

We asked for details of the outcomes and/or outcome indicators that CLD services consider relevant to their work and how and where the relevance of each is recognised – in the SOA, in supporting documents or simply in their own service’s priorities.

We then asked whether the local Community Planning Partnership had yet discussed the CLD Strategic Guidance and how to implement it, and whether it had agreed to develop a new CLD Strategy.

This report summarises the responses we received to these questions. Eleven authorities made responses (plus one more which simply indicated that its CLD service had not been consulted upon and had not seen the draft SOA). That is only a minority of the 32 local authorities in Scotland, but it does include a wide range of sizes and types of authority, and they report a range of different experiences. So it will we hope be helpful to summarise these responses.

In the same survey, we asked our members for feedback on issues raised by Education Scotland in response to a request from the CLD Strategic Implementation Group for progress reports on the implementation of the Strategic Guidance. These issues were:

  • Overall progress in implementing CLD Strategic Guidance
  • Good practice/strengths identified in implementing CLD Strategic Guidance
  • Emerging issues identified in implementing CLD Strategic Guidance.

A wide variety of responses were received to these issues, from 14 authorities. The summary and examples of these that we submitted to the Strategic Implementation Group are contained in Appendix 1.

Development of Strategy

Of the eleven authorities providing responses, all but two indicated that the Strategic Guidance had already been discussed by their Community Planning Partnership. Each of the other two mentioned a past or imminent discussion of the Guidance at some partnership subgroup. We are however aware anecdotally that there were in recent months other authorities in Scotland where there had as yet been no discussion at CPP level of the Strategic Guidance, aimed explicitly at CPPs, that had been published in June 2012.

Amongst those CPPs which have discussed the Guidance, there is a wide variation in the progress made. Some discussed it soon after it came out and have since made substantial progress in implementation, for example:

“A Report was presented to the Partnership executive group last August and a working group established to review the CLD Partnership structure. That review is now complete and awaiting ratification”.

Others are now making progress,

“An implementation proposal, in regard to consultation and monitoring aspects of the Strategic Guidance, has been submitted to CPP Management Committee by the Council’s CLD Service. The proposal was agreed by CPP MC, and a short-life working group is to be called to take implementation forward in partnership to the next stage.”

Whilst in others there appears to have been no decision on implementation:

“Discussed strategic guidance, however still to finalise implementation”

However, the Community Planning Partnership had already agreed to develop a new Community Learning and Development Strategyin less than halfof these authorities (five out of eleven). The expected endorsement of the new Regulations (SSI)will no doubt cause others to review the situation (although they will not explicitly mandate a document which must be called the ‘CLD Strategy’). Indeed two of those who had not agreed to develop a strategy indicated that the SSI was already likely to change their position.

One authority has chosen to replace the previous Community Learning Partnership with three new Partnerships - a Youth Alliance, an Adult Learning Partnership and a Community Development Partnership, which have been charged with producing their own separate Strategies.

Amongst those where there has been some previous agreement to develop a new strategy, there is again wide variation in progress from:

“the general understanding was that once the partnership structure review was completed and agreed we would proceed to develop a new Strategy”

to “see attached draft”.

Single Outcome Agreements

Eight of eleven respondents said that the role of CLD in helping to achieve outcomes is specifically recognised in their local draft SOA. Two were clear that it is not, explaining:

“It is an extremely high level document which only contains 16 outcomes”

“There are indicators in the SOA which will be met by CLD delivery but it is not explicit as to who delivers”

Another responded ambiguously and indicated that:

“The role of CLD is recognised in the partnership priorities and early intervention and prevention measures”

rather than in relation to specific indicators.

In fact even in some of the cases where respondents felt that the role of CLD is recognised, it may only be stated in very general terms.

“The role of CLD in achieving outcomes is not specifically identified within the SOA. However there are cross cutting themes in the SOA in relation to communities and prevention”.

“Emphasis on capacity building and on young people”

“Mostly in general terms but there are also a number of specific references”

Only a minority of areas make the role of CLD more explicit than this, perhaps particularly because of the national guidance which suggested simplification of the new SOAs. But for example in one area “There are several references to the CLD Strategy contributing to the achievement of outcomes”, and in two of these areas CLD services have been given an explicit lead responsibility for the achievement of particular outcomes or outcome indicators (two or three in number respectively).

We would expect that the role of CLD services would be spelled out more explicitly in a range of supporting plans and documents. Only one respondent said that,whilst there was no reference to CLD in the SOA itself, it was covered elsewhere. In that case the references still remain indirect:

“The Council Plan is more explicit in identifying areas where CLD makes a contribution. These contributions are not however noted as being CLD specific, and are listed under the broader directorate headings as ‘lead service’”.

In the areas where the SOA does recognise the role of SOA, two indicated that any spelling out of this role in supporting plans was for the future or currently unknown.

But in the remaining majority of areas, it was most often suggested that the role of CLD is or will be made moreexplicit in one or more ‘Delivery Plans’ or ‘Action Plans’ related to the SOA, or in one case a ‘delivery plan associated with the Children’s and Learning Partnership’. There were also further references to a Council Plan, and some to a wide range of other Strategies.

Eight authorities gave us lists of the specific SOA Outcomes and/or Outcome Indicators that they consider are the ones to the achievement of which CLD will be expected to make a significant contribution. Seven of them indicated the ‘level’ of document at which this expectation is stated.

Each of the following broad categories[1] of Outcomes was mentioned by at least half of these eight authorities:

Children and young peoplee.g.

Our Children and young people are confident individuals, effective contributors and successful learners and responsible citizens

All children in ... experience a stable and secure start to their lives and are supported to succeed.

Health and wellbeing e.g.

People live active, healthier and independent lives

People in ... will have improved physical health and mental well-being and will experience fewer health inequalities.

General learning outcomes e.g.

Improved opportunities for learning, training and work

Percentage of 16-64 residents with low or no qualifications

Adults maximise their potential through learning opportunities

Community e.g.

Communities are stronger, responsible and more able to identify, articulate and take action on their needs and aspirations to bring about an improvement in the quality of community life.

Our Third Sector and communities have access to information and support, including training opportunities.

Economic Developmente.g.

Develop a diverse economy that delivers good quality local jobs

Stimulating Regeneration and Economic Growth.

Lesser numbers mentioned outcomes which refer specifically to Literacies, deal with Safety issues, or set general objectives for Services e.g.

Our communities will have access to high quality and accessible local services and facilities

forSocial Inclusion e.g.

Improved support for disadvantaged and vulnerable families and individuals

forSustainability, e.g.

Our communities are developed in a sustainable manner

or for the general Image of or quality of life in the area, e.g.

X is a good place to live in, work and visit.

A few other types of outcome were mentioned by only one respondent.

Most of this admittedly small group of respondents indicated that the role of CLD was recognised across a fairly wide range of type of outcome. For a minority of them, it was only explicitly recognised in outcomes closely related to learning, and perhaps to ‘stronger communities’.

Of all the 51 examples of outcomes given, 21 were identified as ones where the role of CLD is explicitly recognised in the SOA. Such recognition did not appear to be significantly more likely for any particular type of outcome. The great majority of the othersare recognised both in supporting plans and in CLD services’ own priorities.

We are also including in this report one other small piece of related information. At one point in May 2013 almost all of the draft SOAs appeared on the Scottish Government website, though the page was subsequently deleted. During the time they were available, we carried out a rapid word search for terms related to CLD. The results are given in Appendix 2. They should not be taken too seriously as evidence – we could point to one authority’s SOA that has a great deal to say about community empowerment etc., but happens not to use the particular terms referred to here. They do however appear to indicate that whilst almost all SOAs have something relevant to say, any of the typical CLD activities receive a specific reference in half or less.

Conclusions

Across Scotland, the initial response to the 2012 CLD Strategic Guidance for Community Planning Partnerships was very mixed. In some areas it was almost immediately reported to Community Planning Partnerships as something requiring a significant strategic response, and progress has continued in developing this. In other areas there appears to have been either doubt about the process, with some expecting further details to emerge nationally, or real barriers in communication between CLD services and Community Planning decision makers. The implementation of the 2013 Regulations should do a great deal to overcome these difficulties.

It is perhaps unfortunate that the new three year SOAs were already being drafted during this period when new strategic approaches to CLD were still underdeveloped. In the circumstances, our findings about the extent to which the role of CLD is recognised in the draft SOAs are relatively positive. Many, though by no means all, Community Planning Partnerships explicitly recognise the contribution of CLD not only to a broad range of learning outcomes and to strengthening communities, but also to other outcomes, including enhancing health and well-beingor economic development. The potential contribution of CLD to other areas, notably sustainable development, might however deserve a higher profile.

Peter Taylor

20/8/2013

Appendix 1 - CLD Strategic Implementation Group Update

Date of Update: 18/6/13

Overall progress in implementing CLD Strategic Guidance

  • Those local authority CLD services that have responded report very different rates of progress. Some reported to their CPPs not long after the Strategic Guidance was issued on the key messages of the Strategic Guidance and the role CLD has to play in the future delivery of public services. A few have still not yet been offered the opportunity to raise the Strategic Guidance at CPP level. In some cases the appearance of the SSI has stimulated fresh consideration.
  • In particular, in some areas the draft SSI appears to have firmed up the intention to produce a new CLD strategy. These strategies are generally in their early stages of development, though at least one is already in draft.
  • Draft SOAs vary considerably in the extent to which the specific importance of community learning and community development are spelled out. Only about half explicitly mention CLD, though most mention at least some aspect of adult learning, youth or community development work.
  • Members report a considerable amount of upskilling activity related directly to the Strategic Guidance, either with their staff and/or other partners. For example, a major CPD conference run jointly with Dundee City Council, Perth and Kinross Council and Fife Council incorporated presentations on the Guidance and its implications for practice at a local level. This event was attended by approximately 100 people involved in community learning and development practice across a range of agencies.
  • Fife has specifically realigned its CLD lead officer remits to policy and strategy, workforce and practice development and quality assurance.
  • Perth & Kinross report that their Lifelong Learning Partnership will shortly discuss the Strategic Guidance in the broader context of Community Empowerment.
  • South Lanarkshire report that CLD staff now refer to the Guidance when planning new activity and reviewing existing activity.

Good practice/strengths identified in implementing CLD Strategic Guidance

  • Members report a wide and very varied range of examples from which we can only select a few. Several refer to strengthened working with other CLD partners.
  • Effective collaboration with neighbouring authorities in relation to developing professional learning opportunities (Angus)
  • Multi-disciplinary partnerships with a focus on children and learning at the level of learning communities (Angus)
  • Plans for more widespread, structured consultation, assessment and monitoring of community needs (Argyll & Bute)
  • SROI Analysis used to determine social return on investment from Adult Learning and Youth Work (Dundee)
  • Development of Ward level CLD Plans which engage local communities and elected members in identification of local needs and priorities (Fife)
  • Development of innovative models to capture evidence of the outcomes and impacts of CLD that cannot be gathered through traditional data models (Fife).
  • Development of ‘Activity Plans’ aligning CLD delivery to the priorities of the Community Planning Partnership (Inverclyde)
  • Initiatives aligning services including CLD helping communities to tackle the problems of poverty and unemployment (West Dunbartonshire).
  • Learning from validated self-evaluation pilots to achieve shift toward greater integration of schools delivery of CfE making best use of CLD sector providers (West Lothian).

Emerging issues identified in implementing CLD Strategic Guidance

Again, this is only a selection from the issues that various members have raised.

  • Lack of/ limited involvement of Community Planning Partnership in some areas
  • Need for clear guidance alongside SSI, linked to the Strategic CLD Guidance.
  • Recognitionof the important role CLD has to play in early intervention/provision at the same time as having to make budget savings.
  • Level of CLD provision still remains at risk when competing for resources against a service such as schools where the level of provision is defined by statute.
  • CLD Service staff will be heavily involved in the local consultation processes, which will mean a significant time commitment. Given that the process will be of equal value to other learning providers, including Education, it is hoped that strategic partners will encourage local involvement of their staff.
  • The need for tools to support the development of joined-up approaches to self-evaluation/improvement planning.
  • Need for better assessment, profiling, data collection in localities and a clearer assets based approach across all communities to determine if performance is improving.
  • The need to be clearer about Education Scotland's expectations around bench marking
  • The need for continued access to Education Scotland support for upskilling the CLD workforce.
  • The need for upskilling to ensure that as a greater range of professionals become involved in delivering CLD activities, standards are maintained and the work is delivered within the competence framework and value base of CLD.
  • Informing and engaging wider range of CLD providers in recognising that they are CLD providers and that their contribution is valued by themselves and others.
  • Lack of clarity of the future role of the FE sector in the delivery of community based adult learning as a result of the regionalisation process.
  • “Whilst the relatively new Youth Alliance and Adult Learning Partnerships are going from strength to strength and there is clear evidence of the Guidance being effectively implemented in both their Strategic and Action Plans, more needs to be done in relation to the Community Capacity Building elements of the Guidance and in developing the capacity and effectiveness of the current partnership structure in implementing the Guidance.” (West Dunbartonshire)

Appendix 2 – word search in draft SOAs