The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Working for Families: Lessons from the Pilot Projects (Stage 1)

CHAPTER SIX Guidance for the Scottish Executive's Main Funding Programme

Introduction

6.1 One of the aims of the Study was to provide guidance to the Scottish Executive that would inform the development of the main funding programme. The earlier Chapters have included a variety of information that the Scottish Executive may find of value, especially Chapter 5 looking at Good Practice. The purpose of this Chapter is to focus on those aspects of the earlier work that we feel are specifically relevant to the Scottish Executive, rather than those who may be running projects. In making a variety of recommendations we have not provided detailed justifications. This generally is covered in the earlier Chapters. Accordingly we have given cross references as appropriate.

Allocating Funding

6.2 The Scottish Executive has, through the pilots, allocated funding both to local authorities and directly to a voluntary group.

6.3 We would suggest that this be the model used to determine allocations for the main programme. However, voluntary groups need to be of sufficient size to be able to run a project without external support. They also need to demonstrate that they have the experience and capability to meet the programme's objectives. This needs to be set out in the funding application ( Paragraph 6.30).

6.4 As has been argued earlier ( Paragraphs 3.51 to 3.57) the difficulty of placing the target client group into work, when compared to the relative ease with which childcare can be provided, would imply that the programme might be more effective if it were targeted at economic development organisations, rather than those with experience of childcare. Accordingly we would suggest that:

• Funding be mainly channelled through local authority economic development departments rather than those that have a childcare remit; and
• Voluntary sector economic development agencies (for example Glasgow's network of economic development companies) are invited to apply directly.

Funding

6.5 The funds allocated to the pilots range from 18,000 to over 200,000 (Table 2.1). The larger projects contain a number of elements. The costs involved in developing small projects, assessing them, monitoring and auditing are likely to be, proportionally, high. Accordingly applicants should be encouraged to develop larger projects containing a number of complementary elements. This is what the Glasgow projects have done so that clients can receive a package of support, rather than having to access a series of individual initiatives. However, it is recognised that in some smaller authorities, and those where population density means that absolute numbers of the client group are limited, this approach may not be appropriate.

6.6 We would also suggest that the maximum amount allocated to any single project be 250,000. This would allow a diversity of projects and a geographical spread. It also minimises the risks should any one fail to perform.

6.7 The lengthy time taken to set up the pilots ( Paragraphs 3.19 to 3.26), and the time that it will take to move the target group towards employability, means that progress is likely to be slow. There is also a need to demonstrate commitment to those who spend time and effort developing projects by providing a degree of long term support.

6.8 Accordingly we would suggest that funding be initially committed for 2 years. At the end of that period it should be possible for the Scottish Executive to come to an informed judgement as to what works and does not work and therefore to make decisions on future financial support.

Project Start Dates

6.9 Delays in setting up projects, despite project funding having been approved, mean that the effective start date for some projects is now October 2003, almost 6 months into the financial year.

6.10 This seems to be the reality of project development. Accordingly we recommend that the Scottish Executive recognises this and does not try to fund projects from administratively convenient dates, such as the beginning of the financial year. Funding should be only drawn down when the project can start operating. This means that staff, any funding package, premises and networks are in place.

The Programme's Target Group

6.11 We see no reason to suggest that the target groups for the programme be any different to those outlined in the Study brief. Indeed there is, as yet, no evidence from the pilots to suggest that these groups are inappropriate.

6.12 However the evidence from the FMR market research ( Paragraph 2.17) indicates that intentions towards moving into the job market may not be immediate. Accordingly there is a need to stop expenditure through the programme being spent upon those who have little intention, or motivation, of moving into work. We would therefore recommend that the Scottish Executive require all projects to undertake an initial assessment of potential clients to see if they want to move into work (or education or training). If this is not the case then such people should not be allowed entry to the programme.

Geographical Targeting

6.13 The Working for Families programme needs to consider the Indices of Deprivation as a targeting mechanism ( Paragraph 3.62 to 3.63). In particular consideration could be given to allocating the funding to a limited number of authorities that were pre-selected on the basis of their levels of deprivation. However, was this to be used as the main allocation criterion then the implications for the spatial distribution of funding need to be considered, particularly the impact upon rural areas.

6.14 The Scottish Executive also needs to consider the fact that the Indices do not incorporate some dimensions that are particularly significant in rural areas, for example access to private and public transport ( Paragraph 3.64).

Services Offered

6.15 The pilots' early developmental stages means that it is not possible to give any indication of which of the many varied approaches is the most effective in moving clients towards employability.

6.16 However, on the basis of such evidence as the FMR research and the likely financial consequences of using the programme to support those who are a long way from being job ready, we would suggest that all funded projects be required to:

• Undertake an initial assessment of potential clients to determine:
  • If they are motivated to moving into the labour market; and
  • The barriers they face to labour market access; and
• Those who are not motivated should not be admitted to the programme. Those with multiple barriers, other than childcare, should be referred to the appropriate specialists. Childcare may, however, be provided to enable clients to access the services of the specialist providers.

6.17 If the projects are to be successful then they need to establish networks with other agencies that can provide whatever specialist support is needed, be this for childcare, help entering the labour market or help to overcome other barriers to employment such as literacy or health problems. Progress in attaining targets is likely to be slow if these networks are not established. Accordingly we would recommend that the Scottish Executive require projects that are applying for funding to provide evidence that they have such networks in place.

6.18 The programme aims to bring together childcare and economic development skills. Accordingly we would recommend that if a project is:

• Providing childcare only then there needs to be a clear statement as to how it intends to meet the economic development aims of the programme;
• Likewise if a project is essentially economic development there needs to be a clear statement as to how it aims to overcome the barrier to employability of childcare; and
• If projects are providing neither of these services (for example community transport) then there needs to be a statement explaining how they will meet both the childcare and economic development aims of the programme.

Staffing

6.19 The skills that project staff have will be determined, in part, by the activities that the project is involved in. However, there is a need to network and signpost clients to what might be a wide diversity of agencies. This implies that appointing someone as a guidance worker or mentor for clients is likely to increase the chances of attaining the outcomes that the Scottish Executive wants.

6.20 Accordingly we would recommend that the Scottish Executive suggest that project effectiveness is likely to be increased if one of the staff has a guidance and mentoring role.

Outcomes

6.21 We feel that the programme's main outcomes should be revised to include volunteering, which can be seen as a halfway house between economic activity and employment (Paragraph 3.45). However, it needs to be stressed that the programme is not aiming to promote volunteering other than as a step towards employment.

6.22 Accordingly the number of people who go from any supported project to volunteer positions should be limited. The project should also assess these clients to ensure that their medium term intention is to move into work.

6.23 We would suggest that the project guideline be that a maximum of 10% of clients move into volunteering in a year. More than this and there is a danger that the aims of the programme become confused and subverted.

Monitoring and Evaluation

6.24 Chapter 4 considered monitoring and evaluation at some detail. We would recommend that the Scottish Executive require all projects funded through the programme to:

• Collect monitoring information covering client profile information, "hard" outcomes and "soft" indicators covering distance travelled. The pro formas contained in Appendices 2 , 3 and 4 could be used for these purposes;
• Collate this information and submit it electronically using an Excel spread sheet (or a similar package specified by the Scottish Executive) to the Scottish Executive on a 3 monthly basis; and
• Use the pro formas to track those who have left the project at 3, 6 and possibly 12 monthly intervals. Tracking beyond this time might be difficult but could be considered.

6.25 If the Scottish Executive is agreeable to this then the monitoring pro formas need to be placed into Excel format and distributed electronically to all funded projects.

6.26 We assume that, in addition to this outcome monitoring, all projects will have financial control and audit systems. We would also encourage projects to collect their own monitoring information that is project specific and which may relate to outputs, rather than outcomes.

Local Outcome Agreements

6.27 Using local outcome agreements did not emerge as an issue in the Study. Accordingly these seem to be an appropriate way to allocate funds, either to local authorities or other agencies.

6.28 However, if they are to be used then we would recommend that they commit projects to:

• Trying to attain clear and unambiguous quantitative targets that relate to outcomes not outputs, that is moving clients nearer, or into, employability;
• Using the Scottish Executive's monitoring and evaluation framework;
• Supplying information to the Scottish Executive on a 3 monthly basis using this framework;
• Supplying the information electronically on an Excel spreadsheet or some similar easily manipulated data base; and
• Participation in the 6 monthly dissemination fora and providing the Scottish Executive with the required Learning Review (Paragraphs 6.32 to 6.35).

6.29 These requirements need to be monitored and guidance should state that failure to conform to them could jeopardise project funding.

Project Approval Criteria

6.30 When approving projects we would suggest that the guidance from the Scottish Executive indicates that decisions will be made on the basis of the following criteria, which will be set out in any application form:

• The extent to which what is being proposed is based on research that has identified a need that meets the programme's objectives;
• The extent of deprivation within the project's target area, based on the 2003 Indices;
• The estimated numbers of the target group within the project's target area;
• Justification of the proposal in both economic development and childcare terms;
• A detailed description that explains how the project will meet the programme's aims;
• Evidence of the capability of the applicant to deliver the proposed project;
• Evidence that the type of supportive networks that are likely to be needed to attain targets are in place; and
• Having clear and unambiguous quantitative outcome targets. If possible these should be justified in terms of such things as the performance of similar projects elsewhere.

6.31 We would also suggest that the Scottish Executive stresses that targets, especially for innovative projects, will initially be treated as indicative. Failure to attain them may not result in any sanctions being applied. However the Scottish Executive will look for an explanation and will expect that targets be revised in the light of experience. This is to be done at the end of year one. As a consequence of target changes funding allocations may be altered.

Good Practice Dissemination

6.32 The programme is innovative in the way that it tries to bring economic development and child care together in a practical way in order to improve employability. As such it may be that there will be lessons that could usefully be learnt.

6.33 To ensure these lessons are highlighted, and disseminated, we suggest that, as a grant condition, projects are required to:

• Attend a regional forum that would be held on a 6 monthly basis;
• Produce for this a short "Learning Review" that highlights the lessons learnt and the good practices that the project is felt to exemplify. These would form the basis of a number of short presentations at the forum, followed by discussion; and
• The Learning Reviews should be submitted to the Scottish Executive.

6.34 The Learning Reviews, along with the monitoring information ( see Paragraph 6.24), will mean that evaluating the impact of the programme should be relatively easy and very cost effective.

6.35 A local authority in each region (the West, East, Centre and North of Scotland) should be designated as the forum leader. Modest funding should be included in the grant aid to pay for the costs of facilitating this.

« Previous | Contents | Next »