« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Early Approaches to Monitoring and Evaluation of the Better Neighbourhood Services Fund
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Part of ongoing research carried out by DTZ Pieda Consulting and latterly Tribal HCH regarding the implementation of the Better Neighbourhood Services Fund (BNSF), this topic report is one of a series exploring key issues which have emerged over the development of the programme. The report considers best practice in monitoring and evaluating BNSF. BNSF is a 90 million programme operating in 12 local authority Pathfinder areas. Guidelines for implementation stated that 'the resources available should be used to develop the quality and/or quantity of local services to deliver real and substantial improvements for local people which can be measured under local outcome agreements'.
1.2 The use of Local Outcome Agreements (LOAs) to outline the changes Pathfinders intend to deliver in return for funding created monitoring and evaluation requirements different from those of previous programmes of a similar type. Each Pathfinder was required to define as an integral part of their programme the outputs and more specifically, the outcomes, which they anticipated their programme would achieve. From ongoing contact with Pathfinders it is clear that the importance of outcomes as the focus of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) is widely acknowledged and is receiving substantial attention. However, it is also apparent that arrangements and progress to date vary significantly among Pathfinders. This topic report aims to enhance understanding and establish best practice at this stage of the programme.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1.3 The overall objective of this topic report is to report on best practice in monitoring and evaluating BNSF. Given the timing of this report, greater emphasis is placed on monitoring arrangements.
1.4 Discussions between DTZ Pieda and the Scottish Executive led to the identification of the following specific issues which were to be addressed in this topic report:
- what do Pathfinders see as the purpose of monitoring and evaluation?
- quantification of resources allocated specifically to monitoring and evaluation (e.g. dedicated officer, baseline surveys, use of consultants etc.)
- is there a common definition and understanding of inputs, outputs and outcomes?
- capturing 'soft' outcomes and process issues - experience to date and what could be done now to ensure such benefits are recorded.
- what are the difficulties faced in establishing attribution? What information gathering arrangements can be put in place to allow attribution to be assessed?
- what kind of support is required or would have been helpful, from whom and at what stage (e.g. in identification outcomes and outputs, establishing M&E framework, collecting data etc.)?
- what role can/should the Scottish Executive play in the process ?
METHODOLOGY
1.5 This report is based on information gathered from the following sources:
- prior desk research undertaken by DTZ Pieda of Pathfinder LOAs, Annual Reports and additional monitoring and evaluation material and earlier discussions with Pathfinders regarding monitoring and evaluation arrangements. This earlier work resulted in the publication of a Monitoring and Evaluation Overview Report and individual Pathfinder Monitoring and Evaluation Reports which presented detailed information on the monitoring and evaluation arrangements established by the Pathfinders.
- telephone interviews with the co-ordinators from the following Pathfinders: North Lanarkshire, Dumfries & Galloway Vulnerable Young People, Western Isles, West Dunbartonshire and Dundee Neighbourhood Management. The interviews were conducted in September 2003 using a structured topic guide, which is attached as Appendix A. Our normal procedure was to phone in advance to arrange a mutually convenient time for an interview, and then to forward the topic guide to allow the interviewee to consider the issues and prepare for the discussion. In some cases, this preparation involved collating the views of a number of colleagues.
- discussions with Scottish Executive staff involved in BNSF management.
1.6 Note that the timing of the consultations and drafting of this report predated the Executive's second Annual Report guidance and the subsequent Pathfinder reports. The report does not therefore include a detailed analysis of the content of the second Annual Reports although limited reference is made on occasion to the second Annual Reports.
REPORT STRUCTURE
1.7 The remainder of this report is structured as follows:
- Section 2: discusses the key issues
- Section 3: highlights conclusions relating to best practice and future policy
« Previous | Contents | Next »