The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Developing Local Outcome Agreements for the Better Neighbourhood Services Fund

Chapter Three Design and Implementation

Introduction

3.1 This section draws on thirteen in-depth telephone interviews with those who prepared the Local Outcome Agreements for each Pathfinder. By reviewing local authorities' experience at each stage in the presentation, development and early implementation of the BNSF programme, it considers how effectively the Executive explained the concept of LOAs, supported local authorities and their partners in designing and introducing LOAs, and how useful the Pathfinders found the Executive's advice and Guidelines for Implementation.

THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS

3.2 Ministerial Announcement: A joint announcement by the Minister for Finance & Local Government and the Minister for Social Justice on 15 January 2001 gave details of the Better Neighbourhood Services Fund. Intended to 'improve the quality of neighbourhood services and encourage greater community involvement', the announcement specified how the 90m budget would be allocated to the twelve Pathfinders. The participating authorities were selected on the basis of above average proportions of Income Support recipients. However, as this approach would not have included a sufficient sample of rural authorities, and to ensure that the lessons learned from Pathfinders could be rolled out across Scotland, three rural authorities were also selected. The announcement stated that the fund would be focused on 'securing results' and that 'Councils will set targets', although there was no specific reference to Local Outcome Agreements.

3.3 Guidelines for Implementation were sent to the 12 Pathfinders on 27 April 2001. These Guidelines "set out the framework within which the Scottish Executive is inviting the local authorities selected, in consultation and partnership with other bodies, to bring forward strategies for the delivery of better services within neighbourhoods in their area". The Guidelines also 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 set out and measured under local outcome agreements".

3.4 The seven page Guidelines contained information on the rationale for the BNSF programme and the methodology which had been used to select the 12 Pathfinder areas. However, the majority of the text gave guidance to the Pathfinders on the information required by the Scottish Executive, specifically in relation to:

• the content of the LOA
• selecting neighbourhoods
• community involvement
• identifying services
• establishing a baseline
• monitoring and evaluation
• finance
• timetable for submission and implementation

3.5 Although the Guidelines outlined the required content of the LOA they stated that there was no single model for LOAs. The required content was listed as follows:

• the specific services that will be supported in each Pathfinder neighbourhood;
• evidence of the community's views of the services and the reasons for selection;
• how these will relate to existing Social Inclusion Partnerships, Working for Communities and Initiative at the Edge initiatives;
• the improved outcomes and outputs being sought;
• the current baselines in terms of level of service provision and, where appropriate, community satisfaction against which progress will be measured;
• the timescales for achieving specific targets;
• the arrangements to monitor progress taking into account the relationship with existing monitoring arrangements applicable for each area; and
• arrangements for ensuring continuing community involvement.

3.6 The Guidelines for Implementation also stated that COSLA had agreed to arrange briefing for local authorities on the background to and different possible models for Local Outcome Agreements. An indicative timetable was also provided which is set out on p. 15, where timetable issues are discussed in more detail.

3.7 A minority of interviewees said that they had found the Guidelines helpful, particularly given that very little other information was available to local authorities and their partners about LOAs. Two authorities undertook their own research on outcome agreements in order to inform the development of their LOA.

3.8 The majority of interviewees - around seven out of twelve authorities - indicated that they would have welcomed more detailed guidance, with a further two neutral on this point. Only two Pathfinders suggested that they had found the initial flexibility helpful or that they wished to see a more flexible approach. Virtually all Pathfinders suggested that the sample LOA subsequently provided in October 2001 had been by far the most useful element of the Guidelines for Implementation, but for many it had emerged too late in the day to be helpful. This was a frustration in some cases, because they had already done most of the work on the LOA, and found it difficult to integrate what they had produced with the format suggested.

3.9 There were some opposing views. One Pathfinder co-ordinator who indicated that they would have welcomed greater detail also commented that the lack of detail gave them greater flexibility in formulating their LOA, which they found to be beneficial. A small number of other Pathfinders commented that they wanted greater freedom to reflect local circumstances. The Pathfinders who commented that they would have welcomed more detailed guidance on the content of LOAs included two out of the three rural authorities and three other authorities whose LOAs were subject to a period of negotiation with the Executive.

3.10 Two Pathfinders made comparisons with the English situation, based on what they had heard at a conference from speakers from England. One Pathfinder stated that they felt the Guidelines for Implementation seemed as if the Scottish Executive had taken an English idea and applied it to Scotland without giving it sufficient thought.

3.11 The Pathfinder in question felt that the English approach was more coherent - because Local Strategic Partnerships (the equivalent of the Community Planning Partnership) were more firmly established than their Scottish equivalent. It was also believed that the English system offered more reward for effort - much larger sums of money were involved, Partnerships received funding to produce their bids, and indeed that those who were successful in achieving their targets were rewarded with additional funding ². This view was based on an understanding of what had been said at the conference and it was acknowledged that it might be not be entirely solidly based - it might be a case of the 'grass being greener'.

3.12 The other Pathfinder felt that the English model was more coherent and standardised, and that in consequence, there was much greater clarity about the setting of targets and their subsequent monitoring. We would certainly agree that the Neighbourhood Renewal Unit's suggested approach in its Performance Management Framework offers a very clear and coherent approach to performance assessment, albeit a very detailed and fairly demanding one.

3.13 BNSF Workshop: In addition to the written guidelines, a workshop for Pathfinders was held on 30 August 2001. A presentation from the Executive provided further detail on their requirements for LOAs and attempted to clarify the use of outcomes. Presentations from two Pathfinders outlined their thoughts and experiences in formulating their LOA. Feedback from three Pathfinders suggested that the workshop had been a welcome feature as it clarified the Scottish Executive's requirements and expectations for LOAs. Pathfinders had found that there were limitations to what could be understood from the written Guidelines and the exchange of emails. Two or three authorities suggested that they found direct personal contact with the Executive much more helpful.

3.14 At the workshop a number of Pathfinders requested further information from the Executive on the content of the LOA. The workshop discussions suggested that people found it hard to envisage what an LOA would look like, and that everyone was feeling their way. Although there had been a view on the part of the Executive that they did not wish to be too prescriptive and that there was no single LOA model, it was agreed that a sample LOA would be helpful to Pathfinders in drawing up their programme and would be provided following the meeting.

3.15 Sample LOA: In response to queries about the content of the LOA raised during the submission phase, particularly at the August workshop, the Scottish Executive issued a sample LOA (see Appendix A) on 5 October 2001. The sample LOA included the following headings:

• Vision
• Headline outcomes
• Outputs (implementation strategy)
• Baseline
• Progress towards achieving outcomes and outputs
• Monitoring and evaluation
• Resources
• Annexes
  • Rationale for selection of area/client group
  • Key resources going into area/client group

3.16 The Sample LOA was essentially a worked example. Under each heading the sample LOA provided examples of the text that might be expected and points of clarification. The examples included:

• outcomes such as 'a reduction in the number of crimes committed by ..% from x to y by 2003/04';
• outputs such as 'deployment of .. neighbourhood wardens in A, B and C' and
• baseline 'The number of crimes committed in 2000 was x in AA community. The target is to reduce the number of crimes by 5% to x-5% in AA by 2003/04. Source: police/local crime surveys'.

3.17 The Executive made it clear in the sample LOA that the baseline situation with respect to the outcome indicators would require to be presented - the Guidelines for Implementation had not made this clear.

3.18 Almost all Pathfinders suggested that the sample LOA was welcomed because it gave a much clearer picture of what was expected in the LOA. However, its timing was problematic. The Scottish Executive supplied the sample LOA to the Pathfinders at the beginning of October - approximately five months after the Guidelines for Implementation and less than one month before the original deadline for submission of the LOAs. Almost all Pathfinders commented that earlier publication would have allowed them to produce an LOA that was more closely aligned to the Executive's thinking.

3.19 It is apparent from a review of the final LOAs that few Pathfinders followed the sample LOA closely. A small number of pathfinders suggested that they saw the sample LOA not as a template but as a guide to the content, which should be tailored to local circumstances.

3.20 There was also a suggestion from one of the three rural pathfinders that the sample LOA used vocabulary that was more readily associated with urban area regeneration programmes ("the vocabulary of the model LOA was aimed at area regeneration, not people based projects") and did not recognise the different programmes and terminology required for rural or people-based programmes. We would tend to agree that the Guidelines were less helpful to authorities who were planning to use the funding in a rural area or to serve a target client group over the whole local authority area, mainly because the sample LOA, the most helpful element of the guidance, did not include a rural services or a broader authority-wide example.

THE EXECUTIVE'S SUPPORT TO PATHFINDERS

3.21 A number of Pathfinders felt the direct assistance they received from the Executive staff was helpful, as was the Sample LOA. The Guidelines were felt by most authorities to have been insufficiently detailed to be helpful. However, most Pathfinders felt that LOAs were also a learning experience for the Executive and a small minority that they 'changed the goalposts' throughout the submission phase by issuing guidance in two stages.

3.22 For some, the publication of the sample LOA signified a change in the Executive's requirements. One Pathfinder felt that they had been asked by the Executive at a much later stage in the process for a large amount of detailed contextual information relating to their LOA, and they felt that the initial Guidelines had not made it clear that that amount of information would be needed. One authority stated that they had been advised at an early stage in the programme that capital projects were not eligible for BNSF funding, and then subsequently the sample LOA and indeed the approval of other Pathfinder programmes which included capital projects, suggested that they were in fact eligible. No other Pathfinder mentioned this issue.

3.23 Further definition and explanation of the specific terminology such as 'outcomes' and 'outputs' would also have been welcomed by one or two Pathfinders.

3.24 Executive officials involved in the development of the programme agree that the Guidelines could have been clearer in what was required, that the sample LOA would have been beneficial at an earlier date and that more training and support had been needed. Had there been more discussion within the Executive about an outcome based approach or about what an outcome agreement would look like, and training on these issues, there would have been greater recognition that Pathfinders would need training and support.

CHALLENGES FACED BY PATHFINDER AUTHORITIES

3.25 A number of challenges were identified by Pathfinders in relation to drawing up LOAs:

• unfamiliarity with LOAs
• understanding and selecting outcomes
• staff resources and timetable
• community involvement
• service mapping
• monitoring and Evaluation

UNFAMILIARITY WITH LOAS

3.26 Pathfinders - and Scottish Executive officials - highlighted the newness of LOAs as a major challenge. This approach represented a steep learning curve for all concerned. The outcome-based approach was new to all and designing an outcome-based programme was seen by all interviewees as a major challenge.

3.27 The Pathfinders' lack of previous experience of drawing up a programme of this type was exacerbated by the absence in the Guidelines produced by the Scottish Executive of detailed guidance on the content of the LOA and the definition of outcomes.

3.28 We considered whether some of the difficulties which authorities experienced in preparing an LOA might be the result of a lack of previous experience of Scottish Executive funded regeneration programmes. Certainly for some rural authorities such as Dumfries and Galloway, this was felt to be the case. However, the difficulties were also experienced by urban authorities with considerable experience of SIP and other earlier regeneration programmes, and they appear therefore to have been much more general.

UNDERSTANDING AND SELECTING OUTCOMES

3.29 Pathfinder interviewees noted that they would have welcomed fuller discussion and explanation of how an outcome-based programme might be designed and that this advice was needed at an early stage in the Programme. In addition, the selection of outcome indicators to capture the key impacts services and projects might achieve represented a new approach, and one which was different from previous programmes, such as the SIPs.

3.30 The issue of evaluation terminology was a difficulty for some authorities. The distinction between outputs and outcomes was unfamiliar to some Pathfinders and the Executive's Guidelines for Implementation did not define terms such as outputs and outcomes.

3.31 One element of outcome setting that was seen as particularly challenging by some was estimating what change was realistic within a three year timeframe. Pathfinders referred to a trade-off between being able to meet targets but being ambitious enough to make a difference and appeal to the Executive sufficiently to secure funding. Several authorities felt some anxieties about their commitment to what might prove to be quite demanding targets over a relatively short time scale for implementation.

3.32 The specific nature of some programmes made the setting of outcomes more difficult than others. For instance, North Lanarkshire felt that their focus on community safety helped the data collection process - there are already standardised questions from the Scottish Household and Scottish Crime Survey, as well as recorded crime statistics ³. In contrast, Dundee's focus on a specific cohort of individual young people created challenges for defining and collecting outcomes - new administrative systems had to be set up to collect information on this particular target group. A further challenge with outcomes highlighted by one Pathfinder was trying to get communities to focus on them rather than specific project ideas during the local consultation process.

STAFF RESOURCES

3.33 LOAs required significant work to meet the Executive's requirements. Different elements of the LOA were highlighted by different Pathfinders as time consuming but there was a consensus that community consultations and gathering baseline data were onerous in the time permitted. Pathfinders felt that the time taken to properly develop and submit the LOAs was not understood by the Executive and that this was compounded by a number of other initiatives coming out of the Executive at the same time which also required significant input from those involved in BNSF. The hidden workload that falls onto other members of staff not involved in submitting the LOA, but who have to take on roles relinquished by those who are involved, was also a significant issue for authorities.

TIMETABLE

3.34 The timetable for the submission of LOAs and the start of the programme is shown below:

3.35 In retrospect, there is an acceptance on the part of Pathfinders and Executive officials that the original timetable was unrealistic. The timetable did not take into account the fact that two significant steps (selection of areas and community consultation), each of which required the involvement of other actors aside from the local authority, were required before the LOA could be finalised. Programme design was in fact a two stage process with Pathfinders having first to consult with community planning partners to select the target communities and thereafter with communities themselves to draw up LOAs.

3.36 The timetable from approval to recruitment was also seen by the majority of Pathfinders as being unrealistic, given the need to involve both Community Planning partners and the local community.

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

3.37 The Guidelines for Implementation stated that Ministers were placing 'great emphasis on the involvement of the communities concerned in the selection of services and the determination of outcomes to be achieved'. Our discussions with Scottish Executive officials suggest that they recognised that combining the new outcome based approach with community consultation was a further challenge for Pathfinders.

3.38 Some LOAs relied on existing consultation material to demonstrate community involvement in setting outcomes e.g. Dumfries & Galloway Young People Pathfinder used evidence gathered for the Children's Services Plan that was produced in April 2001. The reasons given for this were either that consultation had recently been carried out and/or that the time allowed for submission of the LOA did not permit new consultation, in which case some Pathfinders, such as North Lanarkshire, planned further consultation after the LOA had been submitted. Other Pathfinders undertook specific BNSF consultation. For example, Dumfries & Galloway Older People arranged focus groups which were attended by over 200 older people. All Pathfinders could see the rationale behind community consultation.

3.39 The greatest difficulty with community consultation appeared to be the timescale which was described by a number of Pathfinders as unrealistic. The majority of Pathfinders engaged in some consultation and some achieved substantial consultations in a short space of time - for instance the Dumfries & Galloway Older People consultations were arranged within a matter of weeks of the decision being made to target that age group.

3.40 There were opposing views among Pathfinders on whether community consultations were really necessary. A number of Pathfinders felt that they were aware of the issues without the need for consultations, as service deliverers already knew the main issues from working in the area or from previous consultations; in their experience, where additional consultation was carried out for BNSF, these views tended to be confirmed.

3.41 Executive officials accept that community wide consultation is not needed in cases where there has already been extensive and genuine consultation, but it wished to be convinced in all cases that local people either had or would be consulted on the development and delivery of the BNSF programme.

3.42 There were also opposing views about the adequacy of community consultation measures. In particular, two Pathfinders noted that genuine community consultation, where the community could contribute on their own terms, would require a longer lead in time - perhaps as long as a year. In West Dunbartonshire the lack of appropriate existing consultation mechanisms/structures for consulting with young people has been recognised in the LOA, which is itself putting in place appropriate mechanisms for such consultation and involvement.

3.43 In Dundee, it was felt that the timescale for submission of the LOA was unacceptably tight, and meant that the details of the LOA were being hastily worked out for presentation to the Executive, at times when consultation with interested parties was still ongoing. It was felt that both the Scottish Executive and local government were caught between the desire to push ahead with implementation of policies and the timescale required to genuinely engage communities and partners.

3.44 Although Dundee City Council held public meetings in both neighbourhoods selected for the BNSF programme, the feedback from community representatives to the BNSF Pathfinder indicated that they felt that they did not have time to develop their own options and were being steamrollered along a timetable not of their choosing. The Council commented on the need for the Executive to recognise that there needs to be a sufficient lead in period if consultation at a local level is to be meaningful and not "done" to people.

3.45 Internal communication within some Pathfinder authorities was also an issue which impacted on the time available to submit their LOA as some authorities did not circulate the Guidelines sufficiently quickly after their receipt. In some other cases where central policy teams were initially in receipt of the Guidelines, the staff who eventually took the lead were not engaged in the process until July or August 2001. This cut the time the service delivery departments had to put together the LOA.

SERVICE MAPPING

3.46 Service mapping was generally found to be a problematic area. The Guidelines for Implementation highlighted the need for service mapping, stating:

'Action to tackle neighbourhood services does not take place in a vacuum. A lot of action is already in place, and partners will need to map and recognise this before deciding what else is needed. The LOA will need to demonstrate clearly what the fund will buy i.e. how outputs/outcomes will be achieved. To judge the success of the LOA, it is important to measure existing service levels, be able to monitor progress and demonstrate that the fund has made significant and real difference'.

3.47 This was significant because it suggested that Pathfinders were required to map existing activity in order to inform the content of their BNSF programme; the content of the programme would then set out the additional services to be provided, over and above what was already being provided. It was also significant because it stated that monitoring progress and demonstrating change were the tools for judging the success of the LOA. The Guidelines highlighted the importance of quality baseline data in defining existing service levels so that the change in service levels and their impact could be measured.

3.48 In October 2001 each Pathfinder was offered 25,000 to assist them in identifying baseline information for their LOA: specifically to gather information on mainstream spending going into neighbourhoods/target groups. The offer was made in response to concerns about the mapping exercise raised during discussions with the Pathfinders at the BNSF workshop on 30 August 2001. The offer letter reiterated the LOA deadline as end of October 2001 noting that: "in your LOA you should provide as much baseline spend data as is available, together with a timetable for the collection and presentation of remaining information by April 2002".

3.49 Pathfinders welcomed the additional money, especially the smaller/rural authorities which did not have significant internal research capability. Although the majority of Pathfinder interviewees were clear about what was expected, a minority felt that the Executive were vague about the intended use of the money. The results of this exercise and the extent to which these were used in drafting LOAs were generally felt to be limited by data availability issues.

3.50 Pathfinders reported numerous difficulties with the collection and interpretation of the data. The difficulties with data stemmed from the fact that much of the data was not routinely collected for the client groups or geographies in question. Timing was another problem - it was clear that very few Pathfinders were able to complete a baseline service mapping exercise in time to inform an LOA to be submitted by October 2001.

MONITORING AND EVALUATION

3.51 BNSF's emphasis on achieving specific outcomes necessitates robust monitoring and evaluation arrangements. Both the Guidelines for Implementation and sample LOA dealt with this issue, but only the latter considered it in any degree of detail. The Guidelines emphasised the importance of putting in place arrangements to monitor and evaluate progress although it gave no further details of what was required. The sample LOA included a section on monitoring and evaluation which provided examples of the various methods with which monitoring data could be gathered; the examples included six monthly focus groups, annual household surveys and local crime surveys.

3.52 The content of the LOAs on monitoring and evaluation varied across the Pathfinders, perhaps because the initial guidelines could have been more detailed on what was required, but also because the Pathfinders did not have time to draw together appropriate indicators with appropriate baseline data after they had received the sample LOA. In a number of Pathfinders the LOA lacked specific detail on what information would be gathered, by whom and at what intervals.

3.53 The importance of outcome - as opposed to project - monitoring was not reflected in the majority of LOAs. Some Pathfinders acknowledged that further work was required. For instance in both Dumfries & Galloway LOAs BNSF money is addressing long standing issues of information gathering and information sharing which will improve the programme's own monitoring and evaluation. The Executive's view of the importance of monitoring and evaluation was backed up by the release of significant additional money for the 12 Pathfinders (1.5m in total) by the Executive in early February 2002 specifically for this purpose.

3.54 The sample LOA provided examples of outcome-specific baseline data and made it clear that a baseline position would be needed for each target outcome. However, we concluded in our review of the LOAs and subsequent monitoring and evaluation arrangements that the Executive's requirement on outcome specific baseline data was not fully reflected in the majority of LOAs, several of which provided only broad contextual baseline data. This may have been because it was only in the sample LOA that the need to establish a baseline position for each outcome was stressed by the Executive.

3.55 The Pathfinders and the Executive, with the support of DTZ, have striven to improve this situation. In particular, reports prepared by DTZ - the review of annual reports and monitoring and evaluation overview report, as well as a separate topic report on monitoring and evaluation ⁴ - highlighted situations where there was a need to strengthen monitoring and evaluation arrangements.

KEY PERSONNEL

3.56 The workload involved in formulating an LOA was said by most authorities to be significant. The main personnel involved in writing the document came exclusively from the local authorities and tended to be either senior management from the service department taking a lead in delivery and/or senior policy officers from a central services team. In a number of cases a steering group or working group was formed with representatives from various departments and policy officers; representation on the groups was of an equally senior level as the key personnel. In a number of cases these groups involved partners or community reps or linked into community planning - e.g. Renfrewshire's proposal was progressed through a range of community planning sub-groups.

3.57 Three or four Pathfinder interviewees noted that in some instances involvement in formulating the LOA was at the expense of other duties which had to be shared by other staff; this was said by one of the rural authorities to be a greater problem in smaller/rural authorities, who tended not to have designated staff for external funding bids or special initiatives. Preparing an LOA created a hidden workload for the department which provided the staff member who worked on drawing up the LOA, and Pathfinders felt that this might not be fully appreciated by the Executive.

3.58 In these circumstances, the use of consultants might well have been appropriate. The timescales for the programme might however have been problematic, given that most authorities wish to put assignments of this type to competitive tender.

CHALLENGES FOR THE EXECUTIVE

3.59 The outcome-based approach was new for many in the Executive too, and there was a need to spread knowledge about the approach. Retrospectively, Executive officials are of the view that it might have been beneficial to devote even more time and internal discussion to considering what shape an LOA might take, and how best to adopt an outcome based approach to BNSF.

3.60 Introducing LOAs also proved a resource intensive process for the Executive. Substantial amounts of time were spent at the submission stage appraising LOAs, advising Councils about the Executive's requirements, assessing revised drafts, and subsequently reviewing progress, monitoring and evaluation arrangements and so forth. However, this has to be weighed against the likelihood that such information about the overall impact and success and failure of BNSF programmes will be required in future. The Executive is still assessing the merits of the LOA approach and the BNSF programme as a whole. Some interviewees felt that too much time has been spent on reviewing and assessing Pathfinder programmes and trying to assess their impact.

Relationships in the early stages

With the Executive

3.61 There were mixed views among Pathfinders on the impact of LOAs on relationships with the Executive. Two Pathfinders said that LOAs had not resulted in any change, but five felt the impact on relationships had been positive with one Pathfinder commenting 'there was a real sense that the Executive trusted the Council'. Another Pathfinder commented on the flexibility the Executive was allowing them. The majority of Pathfinder interviewees felt that the Executive had been flexible and understanding about the difficulties they faced in implementing this new approach.

3.62 In four cases, it was felt that relationships with the Executive had become more difficult as a result of the BNSF programme. It was in those cases where there had been particular challenges in formulating and finalising the LOAs that it was felt that discussions over the LOA had resulted in a deterioration of relationships between the authority and the Executive. In three out of four cases, this involved authorities who reported some pre-existing tensions in their relationship with the Executive. Regardless of the state of relationships between the Executive and the authority as a whole, Pathfinder staff reported that in most cases they had a good working relationship with the Executive's staff involved in BNSF.

With Community Planning Partners

3.63 A number of Pathfinders stated that submission of the LOA was building on existing good relationships with partners but it was the first real test of community planning partnerships; the majority felt the experience had been beneficial to partners working together. The general view was that the process of drawing up a LOA had helped to engage community planning partners.

3.64 One Pathfinder stated that 'BNSF was the catalyst for closer relations between partners' while another felt that the BNSF had helped partners see the bigger picture beyond their own service. In one Pathfinder area the community planning partnership was used as the vehicle to make a decision on the location of the initiative without the political difficulties that would have been anticipated if the Council had been asked to do so.

3.65 Some difficulties were reported however which were a consequence of involving partners. One challenge identified by a number of Pathfinder interviewees was the additional time taken to involve partners and get their feedback when time was already limited. A second challenge, raised by North Ayrshire and West Dunbartonshire Pathfinders, was the difficulty in narrowing down the very wide and diverse scope of the LOA which was a direct consequence of involving a range of partners. It was suggested that in some cases the wide ranging nature of the LOAs in BNSF Pathfinders was a reflection of the desire to satisfy a range of partners' aims when it might have been preferable to focus on a smaller number of priorities.

3.66 Dundee Council commented that engagement with community planning partners had been positive but was still a learning process. In Glasgow the Council interviewees acknowledged that partner involvement could have been better. The long term impact of the BNSF programme on relationships with Community Planning partners and with the community in question will be evaluated more fully at a later date.

« Previous | Contents | Next »