« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
IMPLEMENTING SERVICES IN RURAL SCOTLAND: A PROGRESS REPORT
SECTION A: OVERARCHING ISSUES
The Rural Context
1. The Services in Rural Scotland report recognised the importance of local services to the economic as well as social wellbeing and health of rural and remote communities. It also highlighted the need for service providers to take account of specific rural service needs and delivery solutions, which may differ to those of urban areas. Therefore, in our evidence sessions, we were keen not only to find out the extent to which the main messages of the report had been taken on board, but also to establish whether these service providers had any special arrangements for considering the specific service needs of rural communities. On the whole, our discussions suggested that the structure or working practices of most organisations did ensure that specific service needs of rural and remote areas could be, and were being, taken into account - even if no formal "rural proofing" mechanism existed. However, as in the original report, we did detect, in a few cases, the possibility of tension between national service standards and local/rural needs and priorities.
2. We also recognised, at an early stage, that a number of developments had taken place in the intervening period since the publication of the Services in Rural Scotland report. We therefore attempted to ensure that, in taking evidence, we identified the extent to which developments such as Community Planning, the creation of Communities Scotland, the publication of the Community Regeneration statement, and the foot and mouth disease outbreak, had impacted on the provision of services in rural areas.
Community Participation and Consultation
3. One of the main findings of Services in Rural Scotland was the importance of involving communities, and consulting them directly on matters relating to their service needs and priorities. It also recognised that rural communities themselves could be involved in providing services. In considering progress that has been made in relation to community participation and consultation on service needs, we considered three main areas: nation-wide mechanisms for encouraging community participation and consultation; mechanisms for encouraging consultation with particular sectors of communities; and the extent to which service providers are seeking to utilise these or other mechanisms to assess communities' service needs.
Nationwide Mechanisms for Encouraging Community Engagement
4. In our discussions with service providers, we asked them about their engagement with communities. While we found evidence of consultation on particular issues, we did not detect any significant change in culture, away from ad hoc consultations towards on-going dialogue, which had been a key finding and recommendation within the original report.
5. One potential way forward, which was mentioned continually in our discussions with service providers, and in the written evidence we received, is Community Planning2 which has the potential to transform the delivery of services at a local level. We will discuss this in more detail later in the report, under the Partnership Working section. However, a key element of Community Planning, and one which may determine its ultimate success, is the degree to which it manages to engage with and involve local communities in its decision-making processes at a local level - including on how services are delivered.
6. We understand, from our meeting with a representative of the Community Planning Task Force, that, in recognition of the importance of involving communities in the Community Planning process, the Task Force established a working group chaired by Tom Divers, Chief Executive of Greater Glasgow Health Board to advise it on key issues related to involving communities in community planning, to identify and promote good practice on the involvement of communities in community planning and to make recommendations for future planning. We were told that the working group, which was nearing completion of its work, was preparing draft guidance which would form the basis of the guidance which would issue to all Community Planning Partnerships, alongside the legislative process. While the timing of our report means that we are reporting before that guidance is available, we note its potential significance in shaping community engagement in the community planning process, and in influencing service delivery in their local communities. It is therefore essential that such guidance is sensitive to rural circumstances, in particular to the scattered nature of many rural communities, and that it provides models which are flexible enough to suit diverse communities.
7. Although the Community Planning Task Force is well advanced in its consideration of a range of issues relating to the community planning process and, at the time of writing, the legislation was beginning its progress through Parliament, our meetings with the Task Force, CoSLA and other service providers suggested that there is still some way to go before community planning is well in place at a local level. Moreover, indications are that the mechanisms for taking community planning forward, including Community Planning Partnerships (CPPs), are more advanced in some areas than in others. However, it is encouraging that there are already indications that local CPPs can play an important role in involving local communities as well as facilitating partnership working.
8. Given that it is unlikely that the community planning process will be able to deliver results in relation to community involvement and consultation across the board in the short term, existing mechanisms are likely to have to perform that role in the interim period. A number of existing mechanisms are in place which can facilitate active involvement by communities in the development of priorities for service development and delivery. While we note that Social Inclusion Partnerships (SIPs) can potentially play this role in deprived areas, there are very few SIPs in rural Scotland. Alternative mechanisms that might be utilised in this respect include Local Rural Partnerships and Councils of Voluntary Service (CVSs).
9. We took evidence from the Executive's new Public Service Delivery Group, which was set up in December 2001, to co-ordinate work aimed at improving the delivery of public services. We noted the Group's remit, and, while not strictly responsible for "championing" the delivery of services in rural and remote areas, we were encouraged that the Group will work closely with the Rural Policy Team in the Environment and Rural Affairs Department to ensure that the findings of the Services in Rural Scotland report, and indeed the service needs and priorities of rural communities generally, are taken into account as the work of the Group moves forward. We also endorsed the comment made by one of the representatives from the Group whom we met, who said that they are being guided by the principle that citizens and communities do not care who is responsible for delivering a service - they simply want the service delivered.
10. We were also made aware of the work of the Civic Participation Unit within the Executive's Social Research Division which has responsibility for providing advice and guidance on consultation to Scottish Executive policy divisions. It is also responsible for the internal Good Practice Guidance on Consultation and monitors Scottish Executive consultation practice. We did not meet any representatives from this Unit, so we were unable to ascertain the extent to which their work includes consideration of the appropriateness of different techniques for different kinds of communities, and in different locations, such as rural and remote areas. From the evidence we received, we perceived a risk that the growth in consultations could overload community and voluntary sector organisations in rural areas, and result in less effective engagement. The development of a culture of on-going dialogue should reduce the need for so many one-off consultation exercise. We therefore hope that our findings will be brought to the attention of the Civic Participation Unit.
11. Overall, while we noted the potential which Community Planning and the work of the Executive's Public Service Delivery Group could have for improving the input of communities in influencing service delivery, we were disappointed to find so little evidence of service providers consulting communities on their service needs. It might therefore be helpful, as Community Planning is rolled out, to consider whether community input into decision-making could be enhanced by the use of citizen surveys/community appraisals to identify service needs and priorities. The merits of such an approach could be piloted in a small number of rural communities, with the results used by the Community Planning Partnership to shape more effective service delivery.
Mechanisms for Consultation with Particular Sectors of the Rural Community
12. In addition to promoting the involvement and consultation of the whole community on service matters, Services in Rural Scotland also highlighted the need, on occasions, to consult with particular groupings within communities, particularly those who may be excluded or may have difficulties in having their voices heard in normal consultation processes. In particular, the report pointed out that little is often known about young people's needs for rural services, and that it was therefore particularly important for service providers to consult with this group in order to avoid their 'exclusion' from rural communities.
13. While there is little evidence of new policies or initiatives in this respect in response to the services report, our meeting with representatives of the Scottish Executive's Education Department suggested that a number of existing initiatives in relation to this area remain ongoing. These are outlined in greater depth in the Executive's response to the services report. Such initiatives include the Scottish Youth Summit (June 2000), the Scottish Youth Parliament, Youth Portal and Local Youth Forums. In addition, the Executive has aimed to facilitate the consultation of young people by agencies and organisations through the publication of a 'Consultation Toolkit'. The toolkit, which aims to assist policy makers and others in running consultation processes with children and young people was distributed to a variety of bodies, including all public authorities. We understand that an exercise is currently underway to determine how this document has been used, and identify whether there are any other organisations that may benefit from using it.
14. In our consideration of the engagement of different elements of rural communities, we became aware that there appear to be particular difficulties in engaging the private sector in local decision-making processes, even though they are important players in local communities. The evidence we received suggested that Community Planning has, to date, focussed on bringing public agencies together, and has not really been successful in involving the private sector. While Local Economic Forums may provide a route into Community Planning, and to local decision-making on service delivery, there needs to be greater clarity about the relationship between Forums and Community Planning Partnerships, before Community Planning becomes bedded down in local communities. Such consideration should also recognise the diversity of the private sector in rural and remote areas, and, where appropriate, acknowledge and address the barriers which may prevent some smaller rural businesses from participating in these structures (see Capacity Building section below).
Community Consultation by Service Providers on Specific Services
15. So far in this report, we have focused on mechanisms which might be used to help local communities realistically assess their general service needs and priorities. However, the Services Report also found that communities should be consulted regularly on their needs in relation to individual specific services. While these needs and those of individual service providers may not always tally, it is nonetheless important that service providers work together with local communities towards meeting these needs where possible. A lack of community consultation can result in otherwise innovative projects being negatively perceived by local communities.
16. Our meetings with public sector service providers suggested that a variety of mechanisms were in place to ensure consultation between service providers and local communities. At the most informal level, we heard how officials within a number of the Scottish Executive's Departments were encouraged to visit remote and rural areas to see for themselves the service delivery problems facing rural communities - a practice particularly mentioned by officials working within the spheres of health, local government and transport.
17. Many representatives also outlined mechanisms which were in place to ensure ongoing or follow-up consultation with rural communities or client groups. Indeed, the meetings suggested that in many cases continued assessment was an integral part of wider performance assessment processes. A particularly good example was that of the Executive's Health department where patient and general public involvement in the Performance Assessment Framework is an important part of the performance assessment process. In addition, we understand that the process of assessment by patients had been well received by local healthcare providers, who were looking to include similar processes in their own internal performance systems.
18. On the transport front, community capacity building and involvement is a central element of the Executive's Rural Community Transport Initiative, and we noted that the Executive had funded the Community Transport Association to help rural communities to improve the quality of the bids being submitted for funding. We also noted that, while there are some existing mechanisms for consulting service users on ferry services, consideration is currently being given to future arrangements, including whether there should be a Scotland-wide users' body, with greater community involvement, for example, from community councils.
19. The evidence we received from the Executive's new Public Service Delivery Group revealed that the Executive intends taking forward work to address the poor data available on customer satisfaction across public services, so that it can measure more accurately improvements in delivery. Both HIE and Scottish Enterprise told us that they carry out regular customer satisfaction surveys, with Scottish Enterprise carrying out a major customer survey in 2001. As we have already highlighted, there may be merit in piloting some more general community appraisals to identify needs and levels of satisfaction across the full range of services.
20. From the evidence we received from private sector representatives, we noted that, while banks, for example, may carry out customer surveys, or trade bodies, such as the Federation of Small Businesses, may survey their members from time to time, there was not really any evidence of the private sector consulting or involving local communities in determining how their services might be delivered locally.
Community Capacity Building
21. In order for service providers to be able to engage effectively with rural communities, these communities need to have the capacity to participate. This is an issue which will need to be addressed in the Community Planning guidance, to ensure that Community Planning Partnerships invest in building the capacity of their local communities. We are aware that Communities Scotland's remit also includes community empowerment, and that it could potentially offer advice and financial assistance with the roll out of Community Planning to local areas. The Executive's Community Regeneration Statement, Better Communities in Scotland: Closing the Gap, was published as we neared the end of our work, and we therefore did not have the opportunity to discuss it in any detail either with Executive officials or with Communities Scotland. However, in taking the statement forward, we would urge Communities Scotland to find ways of assisting rural communities in engaging in the Community Planning process, and hope that it will be involved in the preparation of the guidance to be issued to Community Planning Partnerships. Such work should include consideration of the support which communities require both at the outset and on an on-going basis, and firm proposals for how this should be funded.
22. While communities may need assistance in building their capacity to be able to influence local service delivery, we also heard of the needs of small businesses in rural and remote areas, who also often lack the capacity to participate in Community Planning partnerships, and other local decision-making forums. We suggest that the position of small businesses should not be overlooked in considering the capacity-building needs of rural communities.
23. Voluntary and community organisations (sometimes referred to as social economy organisations), which often provide vitally important services in rural and remote communities, also have a need for support and assistance. While both HIE and Scottish Enterprise offer assistance to such organisations, we were told that both Networks see scope to improve and enhance the support they are providing. In addition, both HIE and Scottish Enterprise have recently commissioned studies to improve their understanding of the contribution of voluntary and community organisations. The Executive also commissioned a Review of the Social Economy, and the draft report has been presented to Ministers. We hope that the outcome of these various studies will lead to enhanced support arrangements for organisations working in the social economy in remote and rural areas.
24. While much of this is for the future, we know that there are already some mechanisms available to help rural communities build their capacity and confidence. These include the Executive's Rural Strategic Support Fund which provides funding for rural capacity building, including the establishment of Local Rural Partnerships, and is already encouraging links to be made between these Partnerships and the Community Planning process.
25. In its evidence to us, Highlands and Islands Enterprise (HIE) highlighted Initiative at the Edge as a successful initiative for involving communities, through the devolution of funding by agencies down to local communities. We hope that the experience and lessons to be learned from Initiative at the Edge can be used in taking forward community involvement and empowerment in other parts of rural Scotland.
26. This example highlighted for us the difference in existing practice across Scotland, and in particular between the Highlands and Islands and rural areas elsewhere in Scotland. HIE in implementing Smart Successful Scotland, has recognised the need to strengthen communities as one of its key policy objectives. HIE and the former Highlands and Islands Development Board have built up this relationship with its local communities for nearly 40 years.
27. HIE's ability to work directly with communities has enabled it to become involved with local groups who seek to provide their own services through:
- Discretionary capital assistance for community projects
- Assistance and advice to multi-purpose village halls particularly for co-located service delivery. The HIE network is involved in virtually every new community facility project in the Highlands and Islands, including multi-partner voluntary energy centres
- Support for innovative community services such as the mobile Screen Machine Cinema.
- Support and encouragement of the social economy, particularly Community Cooperatives.
- The leadership shown in the establishment of its Community Land Unit
- Support for community-led arts and cultural initiatives through sectoral bodies
28. HIE has also been working closely with the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations (SCVO), local authorities and other bodies to increase the capacity building of the community and voluntary sectors, through:
- The encouragement of Investors in People (IIP) registrations across the community and voluntary sectors
- Supporting the HIE LECs to adopt the community skills aid pioneered by the Caithness LEC
- Partnership working with the SCVO's Inverness office that deals with rural policy
- The development of business and management advice services accessible to community and voluntary sector bodies, such as the Single Entry Point
- Support for community information dissemination through conferences seminars and web sites
- Network community development seminars with staff from partner organisations, such as the local authorities and the lottery distributors
29. Further research is needed on the Highlands and Islands experience and the perceived variations in support for service delivery elsewhere in rural Scotland. Recommendations from such a study might cover the need for local partners including Scottish Enterprise LECs, Local Authorities, Community Planning Partnerships, Communities Scotland, and the voluntary sector, to develop rationales for addressing these issues.
Partnership Working
30. Partnership working is a key theme of the Services in Rural Scotland report, and many of its findings and recommendations emphasised the need for organisations to work together, and with local communities, to deliver innovative and viable approaches to service provision in remote and rural areas. We therefore identified partnership working as a key issue which we wished to examine in the evidence we received and in our discussions with service providers. As we will describe below, the picture which emerged is a very mixed one, with commitment to, and practice of, partnership working differing greatly across organisations and areas.
Community Planning
31. The Services in Rural Scotland report identified Community Planning as a crucial development, and recommended that its development and roll out should reflect rural circumstances. Throughout our evidence sessions, we heard continually about Community Planning, and the potential role which it could play in transforming service delivery in remote and rural areas. We have already mentioned the issue of how communities might be engaged in the process. However, from our evidence, we were also able to develop a picture of how Community Planning might roll out in remote and rural areas, and the issues which are emerging.
32. We took evidence from a representative of the Community Planning Task Force who told us that the Task Force was aware that, if Community Planning is to succeed, then efforts need to be made to ensure that all partners are able and willing to participate in partnership working. Therefore, in addition to the Local Government Bill, which proposes placing a duty on certain bodies to participate in community planning, the Task Force set up a working group to look specifically at the issue of partnership working. The main output from that group will feed into the Bill guidance for use by all Community Planning partners. We also noted that the Accounts Commission for Scotland will have a role in monitoring the implementation of Community Planning, and should report where agencies are failing to engage meaningfully in the process.
33. From the evidence we received, it would appear that the roll out of Community Planning in remote and rural areas is, in some cases, more advanced than in urban areas, although, on the whole, Community Planning has not yet been translated to a more local level. It was also difficult for us to gauge in any accurate way the degree of commitment to Community Planning by different agencies and sectors, although, as we will touch on later in this section, the private sector does not really seem to be engaged in Community Planning to any significant extent (although the Federation of Small Businesses is engaged in Community Planning in some areas). Indeed, from our discussions with the Banks, they did not appear too convinced of the benefits of involvement, and would need to see an advantage for their business in such involvement. On the other hand, most Banks were not aware of even being invited to participate in Community Planning or even Local Economic Forums. This is an issue which will need to be addressed if Community Planning is to make a positive difference to service delivery, especially in rural areas.
34. As we have mentioned already in this report, the role of Local Economic Forums, in relation to Community Planning, appears to require some clarification, as we have detected some friction in some rural areas about the respective roles of each partnership, particularly in relation to economic development.
35. This leads on to the more general issue of the proliferation of partnerships. The Services in Rural Scotland report highlighted the pressures which local partners in rural areas can face if they are being asked to serve on a variety of different partnerships. This can be a particular burden for community groups, if they are being asked to participate in several partnerships. We agree that, from the evidence we have collected, there would appear to be real benefits to be gained from a rationalisation of partnerships at a local level, particularly once Community Planning is bedded down, and we were told that there are already some examples of this happening in some areas.
36. In terms of Community Planning Partnerships playing a key role in rural service provision, it was suggested to us that a key issue was the extent to which resources would be devolved to the partnerships. We heard of work going on in Dumfries and Galloway on asset integration which could inform future decisions on this front. The Executive's consultation on Community Budgeting 3 is a welcome development, and we hope that any action arising from this will take account of, and where possible benefit, rural communities.
Partnership Working Between Public Bodies
37. The evidence we received confirmed that, in general, policy bodies are already engaged in partnership working to some extent. For example, in the HIE area, all Local Enterprise Companies (LECs) are involved in partnership working. Similar evidence was provided for the Scottish Enterprise area. Communities Scotland also reported a long tradition of partnership working, both with housing associations and with local authorities - although this latter relationship may need to change given the Agency's new monitoring role. We noted that Communities Scotland has restructured from 5 regional to 8 area offices, which should facilitate partnership working at a local level. It is important that such partnership working is monitored and measured, to ensure that such engagement is taking place across all parts of rural Scotland.
38. However, while there is a commitment to partnership working among many bodies at a national level, we are aware that the success of partnerships at a local level is more mixed with doubts often expressed about the commitment of one or more of the partner bodies. There are a number of possible reasons for this, and we highlight a few below.
39. One issue which emerged in some of the evidence sessions was the issue of the boundaries of different agencies, and a feeling that partnerships were working better in areas - such as Orkney, Shetland, Borders and Dumfries and Galloway - where there was co-terminosity of boundaries for the main public agencies (e.g. local authority, LEC and health board). We recognise that this is a highly sensitive issue, the solution of which lies well outwith the remit of our work. However, we considered it important to mention it here, given that it appears to be an important factor in the success of partnership working and service delivery in some remote and rural areas.
40. Another issue which was raised during our evidence sessions was the tendency for the success of partnerships to be dependent not only on the approach taken by the individual representatives round the table, but also on the culture of the organisations involved and their attitude to partnership working. Partnerships worked least well where there was a prevalence of "patch protection" going on.
Partnership Working between Public Agencies and the Voluntary Sector
41. We found much evidence of public agencies and the voluntary sector working together in both formal partnerships, and through joint initiatives. For example, SCVO told us about a growth in the number of centres being opened, where voluntary organisations could share space and facilities, and reduce their overheads and running costs. The HIE Network is helping to fund such centres, including the Fort William voluntary sector energy centre and Voluntary Action Orkney, which they see as not only helping the voluntary sector by cutting overheads, but also encouraging partnership working between the bodies sharing the premises, and the emergence of innovative approaches. We also heard that these seem to be most successful when they evolve organically at a local level, rather than being "forced" on them. Across rural Scotland, there are also other examples of joint working, including examples of the voluntary sector being contracted to run a service on behalf of a local agency, in particular the local authority. We were also told of cases where there have been secondments and interchanges of staff between public agencies and the voluntary sector, to help with the cross-fertilisation of ideas.
42. However, despite these positive examples, we were also made aware of disparities in the capacity of the voluntary sector across different parts of rural Scotland to engage in partnership and joint working. This is linked both to the availability of long term funding and the voluntary sector organisation's abilities to access the necessary training to enhance skills, etc. While the Voluntary Sector Compact guides relations between the Executive and the voluntary sector at a national level, there is evidence beginning to emerge of similar agreements or codes between the voluntary sector and local agencies, including local government. We believe that such a development could greatly enhance relations between the voluntary sector and local agencies, and could in turn contribute to better service delivery for local communities.
Partnership working Between Public/ Voluntary Sector and Private Sector.
43. We found very few examples of private sector involvement in partnership or joint working, either formally or on an informal basis. The Royal Bank of Scotland did give us a couple of examples of partnership working - for example, working with Western Isles Council on a loan guarantee scheme, and sponsoring LEC roadshows in the Borders - but, on the whole, these were exceptions rather than the general rule. Our meetings with representatives from the private sector suggested a number of possible explanations for this - e.g. a lack of local structure/ focus within larger organisations; poorer links between the sectors; less synergy between the different sector's remits/ roles; barriers imposed on sharing of information due to needs of commercial confidence and competition; lack of a clear (commercial) benefit for the company. We were however encouraged to hear that many of the banks were very interested in the Community Mall/multi-functional facility concept, and had participated in some meetings to discuss it. (We will discuss this further in Section B.)
44. While the Banks are naturally constrained by competition in the extent to which they are prepared to work together, there is an example - Social Investment Scotland - where this has already happened, and we would hope that this could lead to other joint working to benefit remote and rural areas.
Monitoring and Evaluating Partnership Working
45. We noted that the Community Planning Task Force has been unable to find one single tool available for measuring the effectiveness of partnership activity, although there are a range of models available, to measure effectiveness of a variety of different levels. We were told that a model developed by Scottish Enterprise Dunbartonshire was particularly promising, but we did not have time to look at this as part of our work. However, whatever model is used, it is important that this evaluates partnership working not only from the basis of success in rationalising partnership working, but also takes account of the effectiveness of the partnership working which is taking place.
Innovative Approaches & Sharing Best Practice
Innovative Approaches
46. A key finding from the Services in Rural Scotland report was that there were already a large number of innovative approaches to service provision in remote and rural areas across Scotland and further afield, but that more needed to be done to promote these and spread good practice.
47. As the report emphasised, innovative approaches to service provision are particularly important for rural communities. We came across a large variety of examples of innovative service provision across rural Scotland, although we did not find any whose development had been influenced by the findings of the services report. There was, however, enthusiasm among public, voluntary and private sector representatives to consider more innovative approaches, such as sharing premises, remote or mobile provision. HIE told us about their mobile surgeries, and the support they had given to the Screen Machine. The Banks, in particular, are already making use of mobile banks and home visits/"flying" bankers, but this provision is not universal, even across remote and rural areas, and we were told that there continue to be concerns among the banks about providing banking services in community facilities, for example, for security reasons.
48. We also heard about a number of developments being promoted by the Executive to facilitate better and more innovative service provision, making particular use of information technology - for example, the broadband pilot, Modernising Government Fund promoting electronic kiosks and information points, developing call centre best practice, a target to provide public access internet points within 5 miles of all rural households, supported by a 24-hour training support line, and the piloting of a debtline telephone service in Fife. Many of these initiatives were highlighted in the Executive's response to the services report, which was published in September 2001. In addition, the Executive announced in early 2002 that it would be supporting 2 integrated rural transport pilots, and these are due to be established in the coming months.
49. While we noted these examples, we were concerned that we did not find many new examples of innovative approaches to service delivery in remote and rural areas, inspired by the services report. While there appears to be a willingness among most providers to consider innovative approaches, there continue to be "obstacles", whether real or perceived, blocking any progress - for example, lack of funding to kickstart an initiative, unwillingness of one partner to "give ground"/patch protection, commercial considerations. While sharing good practice (which we will move on to discuss) can go some of the way in encouraging more innovative approaches, we suspect that this, in itself, is unlikely to spark any wholesale changes in the way services are delivered in remote and rural areas. Steps might therefore need to be taken to ensure that innovative approaches are developed and rolled out in remote and rural areas. On this note, it will be interesting to see whether work to take forward the Community Mall concept can help in any way. (This is discussed later in this report.)
Sharing Good Practice
50. We followed up the report's findings on the importance of sharing good practice, and looked for evidence of progress to enhance opportunities on this front. We are pleased to report that we found many examples of new developments which should enhance the exchange of information on rural service provision.
51. For example, the Executive's response of September 2001 referred to a number of steps which it was taking to facilitate networking and dissemination of good practice - for example, by supporting (along with SCVO and CoSLA) an annual rural services conference - the first held in Inverness last September, and the second In Dumfries in October 2002 - and a Rural Community Transport Conference in July 2001; commissioning a scoping study into establishing a rural community gateway website; and preparing a number of good practice guides, including one of case studies of innovative approaches to service delivery in remote and rural areas, one looking at international examples, and a good practice guide focusing on Rural Community Transport schemes. To date, only the last of these guides - on community transport - has been published. Since producing its response, the Executive has announced that it will be supporting the setting up of a Rural Community Gateway website, and hopes that it will be up and running by early 2003. It is also undertaking work to map the provision of key services in remote and rural areas, and expects to be able to publish the output of this work later in 2002.
52. Aside from the Executive, many other service providers have been working to encourage the sharing of ideas and good practice. For example, SCVO is rolling out its voluntary sector portal (www.workwithus.com), with its interactive forum. While the portal does not have a specific rural channel at present, this could be developed at a later stage. HIE told us that they hold meetings with LECs several times a year to encourage LECs to learn from one another, as well as supporting a number of conferences throughout the year, including a recent one on community websites. A number of LECs also have their own local websites which include information about local initiatives, many of which are linked to the HIE site. Scottish Enterprise aims to use its own portal to encourage exchanges of good practice across its Network, with a target date of March 2004, as well as discussing good practice at meetings of the Network's Rural Group. Children in Scotland also reported on the wide range of activities which it provides to help spread experience and good practice.
53. We found limited evidence of any efforts among the private sector bodies we met, to share good practice either across their own organisations or with other companies - although the Co-operative Society does run training and best practice seminars for its members.
54. While we were encouraged to hear of so many examples of how organisations are trying to spread good practice, there is a risk that the process becomes so proliferated with information available from different sources and in different forms, that those who need to access the information find it far from straightforward to do so. This is an issue which will need to be watched carefully over the coming years, particularly as the SCVO portal and the Rural Community Gateway Website become fully operational. We also feel that it is important that there are opportunities to hear about good practice at different levels, including from other countries such as Scandinavia, Australia and Canada.
« Previous | Contents | Next »