LEAPA manual for Learning Evaluation and Planning in Community Learning and Development. Revised Edition

LEAPA manual for Learning Evaluation and Planning in Community Learning and Development Revised Edition

LEAPA manual for Learning Evaluation and Planning in Community Learning and Development Revised Edition The Scottish Government, Edinburgh 2007

LEAP The text of this revised LEAP manual was developed by the Scottish Community Development Centre. We would like to acknowledge the invaluable contributions of the many practitioners and managers who offered advice and suggestions. Thank you for your time and insights. Crown copyright 2007 ISBN: 978-0-7559-5517-6 The Scottish Government St Andrew s House Edinburgh EH1 3DG Produced for the Scottish Government by RR Donnelley B52956 11/07 Published by the Scottish Government, November, 2007 Further copies are available from Blackwell s Bookshop 53 South Bridge Edinburgh EH1 1YS The text pages of this document are printed on recycled paper and are 100% recyclable LEAP A MANUAL FOR LEARNING EVALUATION AND PLANNING IN COMMUNITY LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Contents Preface iv Section 1: Introducing LEAP 1 i. what is the LEAP framework? 1 ii. key steps in the LEAP approach 2 iii. principles underpinning LEAP 5 iv. why LEAP may be useful 5 v. applying LEAP at different levels 7 vi. context of the revised LEAP 8 vii. LEAP and other CLD tools 9 Section 2: Exploring the principles of LEAP 14 i. a need-led approach 14 ii. building on strengths of the participants 17 iii. being change and outcome-focused 20 iv. a participatory and partnership approach 22 v. promoting continuous learning and improvement 25 Section 3: Understanding the steps in the LEAP cycle 27 Step 1: agreeing outcomes what difference do we want to make? 28 Step 2: identifying indicators how will we know we made a difference? 30 Step 3: action planning how will we go about making the difference? 34 Step 4: monitoring how are we making sure it is happening? 39 Step 5: evaluation have we made a difference, what are the lessons we have learned? 41 iii

LEAP Preface This manual revises the original Learning, Evaluation and Planning (LEAP) published in 1999. It sets LEAP in the context of current policy and practice. It is presented in three sections: Section 1: Introducing LEAP This section: Considers: i. what is the LEAP framework? Introduces: ii. the key steps in planning and evaluation. iii. the underpinning principles of the approach. Explains: iv. why LEAP may be useful to community learning and development (CLD) practitioners and planners. v. the different levels at which LEAP can be applied. vi. the context of this revised edition. vii. the relationship between LEAP and other important CLD tools. Section 2: Exploring the principles of LEAP This section examines in more detail key principles that underpin both LEAP and CLD: i. being need led. ii. building on capacity and developing assets. iii. being change and outcome focused. iv. adopting a participatory approach and building partnerships. v. promoting continuous learning and improvement. Section 3: Understanding the steps in the LEAP cycle This section explores what is involved in each step in the LEAP cycle: i. agreeing outcomes what difference do we want to make? ii. identifying indicators how will we know we made a difference? iii. action planning how will we go about making a difference? iv. monitoring how will we make sure it is happening? v. evaluation have we made a difference, what are the lessons we have learned? LEAP A MANUAL FOR LEARNING EVALUATION AND PLANNING IN COMMUNITY LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Worked Examples: Applying LEAP to real-life situations Alongside the manual, we ve also published a separate document that provides five illustrative examples of LEAP in use. The examples are set in a fictitious place in Scotland but reflect experience of real examples. The first three illustrations relate to project level practice in each of the three national priorities for CLD set out in Working and Learning Together to Build Stronger Communities 1. The fourth illustration focuses on operational development and management of a programme of CLD work. The final example illustrates use of LEAP at strategic management and policy development level. All the illustrations are written to a common format that reflects the key steps set out in section 3. Focus on the examples that relate most closely to the way that you might use LEAP. The LEAP online learning materials Learning materials that provide an interactive introduction to the LEAP model, its key steps and underlying principles, are now available online. They are illustrated with video clips from people who use LEAP. You can use them in conjunction with the manual for your own learning or when developing the use of LEAP with others. The materials can be accessed online at: http://leap.scdc.org.uk. Using the LEAP Manual This manual is designed to assist you to plan and evaluate practice in a participatory manner. How you use it will depend on the role you are playing and the level of experience you already have. This is a detailed exploration of the LEAP model. Shorter introductory explanations are available in LEAP step by step and in the online learning tool. These may be particularly useful for those coming to LEAP for the first time 2. However the manual can be used flexibly and you can focus on sections which are most relevant to you at the moment, for example: If you are completely new to the LEAP approach we suggest that you start by reading section 1 and think about how these ideas would apply to work you are doing. To understand better how it works, it may then be helpful to move straight to the case study in the Worked Examples document that illustrates using LEAP in the context most closely related to your own. (The first three case examples look at local practice in relation to the national CLD priorities: adult learning, youth work and capacity building respectively. If you focus on management or strategic development you will probably find cases 4 or 5 more relevant.) After considering an example it may then be helpful to return to section 2 to think in more depth about the underlying principles before you actually apply the model. For those that are new to LEAP the online learning materials will be particularly helpful in providing a home tutorial that explains and illustrates the basics. 1 Working and Learning Together to Build Stronger Communities (WALT) Scottish Executive Guidance on Community Learning and Development (2003) 2 Details of how to get hold of these are online at http://leap.scdc.org.uk iv v

LEAP If you are familiar with the principles of LEAP but using it for the first time you are likely to want guidance on how to develop your work at each stage. Here section 3 is of key importance and you should focus on the particular stage of your work. It may be helpful to compare what you are doing with the appropriate stage description in the most relevant Worked Example. The reality of applying the model will no doubt throw up challenges that relate to underlying principles, so use the material in section 2 for reference. If you are already using LEAP the benefit of the revised manual will primarily lie in the fact that it explains LEAP in the context of current policy and other relevant self evaluation tools and frameworks. The relationship between these and LEAP is explained at the end of section 1 but you may find the case studies in the Worked Examples document particularly useful in illustrating practice in the context of current policy and related tools and frameworks. Even when you are experienced in using LEAP it can be useful to refer to particular parts of sections 2 and 3 to refresh your thinking about the principles and issues involved. LEAP is commonly used in partnership with others. If you are introducing others to it, abstract the parts of the text that are most relevant to their experience and focus and use the online learning materials to introduce others to the steps and principles. LEAP A MANUAL FOR LEARNING EVALUATION AND PLANNING IN COMMUNITY LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Section 1: Introducing LEAP i. What is the LEAP framework? LEAP stands for Learning, Evaluation and Planning. It is a framework that supports us to plan more effectively; identify and evidence the changes that we hope to make; learn from our experiences and work in partnership with one another. LEAP is an approach to planning and evaluation that is outcome-focused, participatory and learning-based. It is a tool to aid more effective practice. By enabling clear analysis of needs, planning, implementation and review of action, it assists partners and participants to achieve the changes that they seek. The framework was developed by the Scottish Community Development Centre and is designed to be a useful tool in all aspects of project, programme and policy development, planning and management. It can be used in different contexts and by people working in different sectors. It encourages us to ask critical questions about our work and to ensure that all those involved are working to the same agenda. The LEAP framework emphasises self-evaluation, encouraging a shared responsibility for planning and evaluation throughout a project or programme. LEAP is equally applicable to all areas of CLD practice taking account of the interests of everyone who is involved. It seeks to support their personal and shared learning and empowerment, focusing attention on key questions that it is in everyone s interests to answer. Here are the questions: What is the need? What difference do we want to make? How will we know we made a difference? How will we go about making the difference? what resources will we use? what methods will we use? in what ways will we use them? How are we making sure it is happening? Have we made a difference? What are the lessons we have learned? What will we need to do now? vi 1

LEAP This logical sequence of questions, and how to get answers to them, is at the heart of LEAP and is used as the framework for each of the case examples in the Worked Examples document. In the LEAP process diagram (below) it is presented as a series of steps that respond to an identified need and develop into a continuous cycle of problem identification, planning, action, reflection, evaluation and learning. The straightforward questions that LEAP poses should be a normal part of everyday practice. The answer to the question: what is LEAP? is that it is a way of thinking that leads to better practice. How you use this manual will depend on who you are and what you want to apply LEAP to. If you are using LEAP you will be involved in a logical set of steps, each of which requires attention to particular issues. The five step cycle is very straightforward and can be understood very quickly. Complexity lies not in the model but in the work that it is applied to. In other words answering the trigger questions that LEAP poses requires thoughtful reflection on the needs, circumstances, resources and methods of action that are open to you. To keep it as straightforward as possible focus on what you need to think about in the stage that you are involved with. ii. Key steps in the LEAP approach The cycle of learning steps that the LEAP diagram describes recognises that the approach can only be helpful if there is clarity about the focus of attention. What is the need? is a question that has to be answered first. The answer has to be one that the participants recognise and want to address and one that is consistent with the purposes and principles of CLD. Having defined and agreed what it is that is causing concern and having checked its compatibility with the principles and priorities, the five-step LEAP cycle can be applied. Step 1: What difference do we want to make?: To do something about the identified need we must have a clear view of the difference that we want to make. LEAP invites us to imagine or envision a different and better state of affairs. Often in community learning and development, the need is something that lots of people share in common, so they should all share in defining the vision of change in order to be satisfied by the results that are sought. Step 2: How will we know we made a difference?: Defining the need and knowing what difference it is intended to make might seem like all we need to have sorted out before we plan and take action, but there is another vital step that is often missed out. The question how will we know we made a difference? is an essential one. As we take action we will need to collect evidence about what is happening. The evidence we will collect needs to enable us to later answer the question: are we making a difference? So to make sure that we collect relevant evidence we need to have thought about what our criteria for success will be. Defining this at the start enables us to focus on collecting evidence that matters. LEAP A MANUAL FOR LEARNING EVALUATION AND PLANNING IN COMMUNITY LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT

LEAP Process Diagram WHAT IS THE NEED? STEP 2 STEP 1 OUTCOMES What difference do we want to make? What will we need to do now? STEP 5 OUTCOME INDICATORS How will we know whether we made the difference? EVALUATION Did we make the difference? What have we learned? STEP 3 INPUTS What resources will we use? OUTPUTS PROCESSES How will we use the resources and methods? What methods will we use? HOW WILL WE GO ABOUT IT? OUTPUT MONITORING How are we making sure it is happening? STEP 4 2 3

LEAP Step 3: How will we go about making the difference?: We are now ready to plan our action. To do that we need to know what is available to us to do so the resources. These will be people, equipment, budgets, ideas, energy, motivation and many other things. The resources are the strengths that we and those we work with in communities bring to problem solving. To make use of resources we need to have skills and methods of practice that we can use well like: training, group work, negotiation, communication, research or guidance. We will need to make choices about what methods are likely to be most effective. But no method is effective if we lack the resources to put it into practice. The balance of methods and resources determines what we can actually do. So to answer the question how will we go about making the difference? there are three related questions that have to be answered what resources will we use, what methods will we use, and in what ways will we use them? Step 4: How are we making sure it is happening?: Action can now be taken, but the best laid plans can be undermined by poor implementation. An action plan needs to be clear about who will do what and when, and it needs to be monitored to see that everyone meets their commitments to do what they said they would do, when they said that they would do it. This is the reason for the question: how will we make sure it is happening?. Step 5: Have we made a difference and what are the lessons we have learned? If, by monitoring the action plan, we know that the plan has been implemented, we can then ask the question: have we made a difference?. The differences that we will be looking for are the ones that everyone who has an interest agreed on at the beginning. But we will only know if the differences have been made if we have some evidence. This is when having asked the question at step 2: how will we know we have made a difference? becomes so valuable. By collecting evidence through the process of our action we are now able to use it to make a judgement and decide what the lessons are that have been learned. It is rare for everything that we set out to do to be achieved because there will be many obstacles to change. So, looking at the action and its results we will be likely to be asking ourselves what worked and why, what would we do again, and what would we do differently? From step 5 back to step 1 renewing the cycle: What will we need to do now?: In Step 5 we will also be asking another set of questions. In the light of the difference that we have made, is the need met and no further action required, are there aspects of the need that still need to be addressed, have we identified new needs that we were not previously aware of? All of which enable us to answer the question: what do we need to do now? When we come to answer the question and begin to plan a new cycle of activity, we are better equipped because we are more knowledgeable about what works and what does not. Where we have been successful, we can be more confident about our skills and abilities, where we have not been successful we will know that we need to do things differently and will be better able to prepare ourselves for future action. The steps and key questions summarised here are explored in depth in section 3. LEAP A MANUAL FOR LEARNING EVALUATION AND PLANNING IN COMMUNITY LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT

iii. Principles underpinning LEAP LEAP planning and evaluation framework is based on the principles and values that underpin a community learning and development approach to change. These emphasise: empowerment, participation, inclusion, self determination and partnership. 3 From this basis the LEAP framework adopts an explicit set of principles that support good planning and evaluation practice: Planning should be a need led process it should set out to respond to the experiences, ambitions and concerns of communities and target issues of inequality and social justice. Planning should seek to build on the capacity and develop the assets of individuals, groups and communities. Planning and evaluation should be change or outcome focused it should aim to achieve real and measurable change in the quality of personal and community life. Planning and evaluation should be participatory it should involve all those with an interest in the desired change, particularly communities and service users that are intended to benefit. Planning and evaluation should be concerned with building partnerships it should build and develop relationships between agencies and with community stakeholders. Planning and evaluation should be concerned with learning and continuous improvement it should promote understanding of change by capturing and reflecting on as much of the process as possible and using the lessons learned to guide future action. It should highlight the learning that results. These key principles are explored in depth in section 2. iv. Why LEAP may be useful LEAP is not just a model for planning and evaluation but also a guide to best practice in CLD. By ensuring that planning, implementation, evaluation and reflection are conducted well it provides a framework for delivering best practice in all three national priorities for CLD. In relation to work with young people, LEAP supports Moving Forward: a strategy for improving young people s chance through youth work, which states that providers of youth work must work by: listening to and responding to, what young people want from youth work and goes on to say that it is important that youth workers: understand the importance of evaluation and outcome delivery and implement it in their work as a matter of course. In the context of literacies and adult learning, LEAP provides a framework to respond to the HMIE report: Adult Literacy and Numeracy in Scotland (2005), which, referring to local authority literacies work, comments: There was insufficient consultation with learners about future programme planning and they were unsure about their role in evaluation and consultation. 3 Working and Learning Together to Build Stronger Communities (WALT) Scottish Executive Guidance on Community Learning and Development (2003) 4 5

LEAP In the context of capacity building, LEAP provides a model to respond to the call in Working and Learning Together for any public agency with an interest in building community capacity to join the Community Learning and Development Partnership at strategic level and invest in local action planning and delivery. In all three contexts, LEAP will help us to: focus our work clearly; ensure that our work is purposeful and relevant to participants; work with other stakeholders; develop action plans that match resources, methods and actions to our purposes; monitor the implementation of our plans; learn what works and what does not; address issues of inclusion and targeting by identifying clearly who benefits from our work; build evidence collection into our ongoing practice; and build a body of evidence on which we can draw for the purpose of self-evaluation at individual, team, agency or partnership levels. As a consequence of all of these things: Our work and the work of our agency will be more: efficient effective fair. We will be better able to explain: what we do how we do it why we do it what benefits arise from it. We will be able to do so in the confidence that: the focus of our work relates to relevant and evidenced needs the evaluation of our work has been conducted with the participants and our partners the lessons from action inform priorities and approaches to the development of our practice. LEAP A MANUAL FOR LEARNING EVALUATION AND PLANNING IN COMMUNITY LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Overall we will have established a way of working that is securely based in the principles of CLD because LEAP is a framework that both reflects the principles that underpin CLD and supports the process of building them into practice. This is vital in itself, but the evidence of delivery of high quality, need-led services will provide evidence to meet the requirements of quality assurance processes including HMIE inspections and Best Value reviews. v. Applying LEAP at different levels LEAP can be applied at different levels of complexity. This can be looked at in three ways: The number of people that we are working with. We might apply the cycle to work that a single worker does with just one person or with a group of people or, at more complex levels, we might apply it to the work of a team or a whole organisation or a partnership of organisations. The dimensions of the need that we are setting out to tackle. We might want to apply LEAP to something relatively straightforward like finding a suitable meeting place for a group of adult learners or we might be trying to address something highly complicated like the breakdown of social cohesion in a community. The level of operation we are engaging with. Our focus might be on direct work with young people, adult learners or community members at local project/practice level. It might relate to the way that a range of different actions are conducted to meet the needs of many individuals, groups or communities at the programme/operational management level. Or it might focus on the overall strategy for supporting projects and programmes and focus at the policy/strategic planning level. 4 Exactly the same steps and questions apply whatever the level of complexity at which LEAP is applied. At all levels it is necessary to keep sight of the basic, core questions that need to be answered at each step. This is demonstrated in the case studies in the Worked Examples document that illustrate work with individuals, groups, communities, organisations and partnerships. Describing different levels of complexity also indicates that the time period over which a LEAP cycle might run is variable. It may be from a matter of a few weeks to several years. 4 The LEAP web site contains some case studies of work at each of these levels, for example: Project: East End Health Action: http://leap.scdc.org.uk/case-studies/east%20end%20health%20action/ Programme: Volunteer Centres: http://leap.scdc.org.uk/uploads/vds_leap_case_study.doc Policy: National Standards for Community Engagement: http://leap.scdc.org.uk/uploads/ a_20case_20study_20 20developing_20the_20national_20standards_20for_20community_20engagement.pdf 6 7

LEAP Differences in complexity mean that the way we use LEAP varies. For many tasks, for example organising a meeting, it may simply involve the mental process of applying the key questions. Though not written up into formal statements of the outcomes we are looking for, the indicators to assess them or the resource, methods and actions to be used, the way of thinking will assist purposeful and reflective practice. On the other hand, where the task is longer term, more complex and involves a range of participants, it becomes more necessary to produce formal plans and records. To describe the LEAP cycle in the previous section we focused on responding to just one need. In reality even at the level of the individual worker, let alone that of a team or an agency, different pieces of work are being conducted simultaneously. Each will have different demands and timescales yet the LEAP framework can be applied to them all. There is likely to be a number of different strategic initiatives that are underway. These will have different time scales and characteristics. Within such strategies there will be many components. Both the whole and the parts can be planned and evaluated using the LEAP framework. Within an agency, therefore, the LEAP framework will potentially be in use at many different levels by individual workers, groups and teams and those they engage with. This table illustrates types of work that might simultaneously be drawing on LEAP at project, programme and policy levels and across the three national CLD priorities. Level/Priority Young people Adult learners Communities Project Developing a drop in centre for young people. Establishing an individual learning plan. Organising a community conference on a regeneration outcome agreement. Programme Policy Enabling the voices of young people to be heard in community planning. Conducting a consultation on national youth strategy. Planning a literacies partnership programme. Establishing a literacies policy using a social practices model. Planning and delivering a capacity building programme for community leaders. Developing and disseminating national community engagement standards. vi. Context of the revised LEAP LEAP was first published in 1999 as a participatory planning and evaluation tool for community learning and development. It was seen as relevant to anyone adopting this approach in any context. This revised version builds on the original and on extensive experience of applying it, not only in CLD, but also across a range of other related fields. It reasserts principles that have consistently underpinned community learning and development but recognises that these have been advanced and developed in policy and guidance such as Working and Learning Together 5 and How Good is Our Community Learning and Development? 2. 6 Both of these recognise that CLD is a way of working that is adopted in many sectors and frequently through working in partnership. In particular the new LEAP encourages integrated use of the outcomes of CLD that have been highlighted in Learning Connections publication: Delivering Change. 7 5 WALT: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/publications/2003/01/16208/17068 6 HGOCLD2: http://www.hmie.gov.uk/documents/publication/cldfull.pdf 7 Delivering Change: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/learningconnections http://www.communitiesscotland.gov.uk/stellent/groups/public/documents/webpages/lccs_017262.pdf LEAP A MANUAL FOR LEARNING EVALUATION AND PLANNING IN COMMUNITY LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT

The new LEAP is therefore presented with: reference to contemporary policy and practice attention to the lessons learned from experience commitment to enabling it to be used in conjunction with other guidance and frameworks. The new LEAP for CLD takes account of the development and application of the framework in related practice disciplines including health, volunteering, green-space and as a tool in partnership working including community planning. It refers to common core LEAP materials covering all disciplines, including an e-learning package (available online at http://leap.scdc.org.uk). It also takes full account of other tools that have been developed to support best practice in CLD. vii. LEAP and other CLD tools The text cross-refers to 3 other significant tools that have been designed and developed to support best practice in CLD. These are: How Good is our Community Learning and Development? 2 Delivering Change understanding the outcomes of community learning and development National Standards for Community Engagement People often ask: Why do we have these different tools? Are they compatible? Which should we be using for what? Are we expected to use them all? The diagram below sets LEAP alongside these other tools. It illustrates that in the context of CLD all of them relate to a common purpose, achieving effective practice, and a common core of policy that is set out in the Working and Learning Together (WALT) guidance. 8 The guidance sets out the national priorities for CLD as: Achievement through learning for adults. Achievement through learning for young people. Achievement through building community capacity. 8 In the case of the National Standards this is not the only relevant policy to which the tool relates. It provides guidance on all aspects of public policy in which community engagement is central. These are brought together, particularly, in the contexts of community planning, community regeneration and health improvement. Nonetheless, the WALT guidance emphasises a key role for CLD in supporting community engagement. 8 9

LEAP All of the tools address the achievement of these priorities by supporting those involved in CLD to plan and evaluate in a way that involves the people they aim to support and that provides them with evidence of what is working well and what is not. They build on commitment in the WALT guidance that states: Quality assurance and improvement depend on thorough and organised self-evaluation of the quality and outcomes of the main areas of work. Effective self-evaluation by partners should be an ongoing process. WALT is based on a commitment to: ensuring the engagement of communities and a wide range of agencies in the development of CLD strategies and plans. enable communities to have a real influence over the planning, delivery and quality of mainstream services, as well as specific initiatives such as those aimed at achieving community regeneration and social inclusion. In this context, each of the tools performs a distinct but related function: How Good is our CLD? 2 (HGIOCLD? 2) This is simultaneously an organisational self evaluation framework and the framework for inspection of CLD by Her Majesty s Inspectorate of Education (HMIE). Increasingly inspection relates to partnership-based practice involving both statutory and voluntary sector contributors. It describes evaluation as being dependent on: shared understanding within and across service providers and stakeholders of what constitute high quality outcomes and processes. HGIOCLD? 2 invites assessment against 6 levels of performance (unsatisfactory to excellent) in relation to six high-level questions : What key outcomes have we achieved? What impact have we had in meeting the needs of our stakeholders? How good is our delivery of key processes? How good is our management? How good is our leadership? What is our capacity for improvement? HGIOCLD? 2 refers directly to the contributory role of LEAP. To answer the searching questions posed in HGIOCLD? 2, good planning and effective evaluation, which produces quality evidence is essential. Good evidence comes from practice that involves all stakeholders in deciding what constitutes success and how it should be measured. HGIOCLD? 2 states: LEAP was developed to assist partners in CLD to plan and evaluate their work. When embedded in the planning process LEAP will provide evidence to support self-evaluation and external evaluation... this publication can be used within CLD partnerships particularly if they are using the LEAP model. LEAP A MANUAL FOR LEARNING EVALUATION AND PLANNING IN COMMUNITY LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT

The most important overlap between HGIOCLD? 2 and LEAP relates to their shared concern with ensuring that practice positively impacts on individuals and communities that are the focus of CLD activity. In this respect, key areas 2.1 and 4.1 under the heading: How well do we meet the needs of our stakeholders are especially relevant. Key area 2.1 focuses on impact on the participants and looks for: Quantitative and qualitative data that demonstrates the extent to which learners are: Included and participating Achieving and attaining Progressing Extent to which participants report that their educational experiences enable them to become: Successful learners, confident individuals, responsible citizens and effective contributors Safe, nurtured, healthy, achieving, active, respected and responsible, and included Key area 4.1 focuses on impact on the local community and looks for: Quantitative and qualitative data, together with reports from community groups, that demonstrates the extent to which community groups have: Confident skilled and active community members Active and influential roles in local and wider decision making Developed local services, where appropriate, in response to priority needs Effective planning, management and evaluation arrangements Ensured that they are inclusive and value social and cultural diversity Productive networks and relationships with other agencies and organisations Using LEAP will provide sources of evidence in relation to these criteria for assessing impact. The Worked Examples document illustrates that practice can draw directly on these statements when setting outcomes. Whilst LEAP should be seen as a way of working that enables evidence to be gathered that informs self-evaluation and inspection, it is equally important to recognise that the capacity to implement LEAP plans that address personal and community needs reflects the quality of what HGIOCLD? 2 terms: delivery of key processes, management and leadership. In other words an organisation or partnership that evaluates itself, or is externally inspected, and is at the weaker end of the scale will be much less likely to use LEAP effectively than one at the stronger end. In other words the quality of organisational performance is a strong indicator of potential to use LEAP well. 10 11

LEAP Delivering change understanding the outcomes of community learning and development This is published by Learning Connections. It provides a menu of outcomes relating to the national CLD priorities that have been tested with CLD participants and practitioners. It states: We can t talk about outcomes in this field without recognising that ultimately it s the outcomes that participants want to achieve that are most important. It provides outcomes statements that can be used to measure performance and which can be readily used in the LEAP model. Referring to the example outcomes provided in the previous version of LEAP for CLD it states: Our framework aims to more comprehensively set out those outcomes. This would give someone who is using LEAP a quick and easy list of outcomes that might result. In setting out CLD outcomes, Delivering Change adopts the same approach as the original LEAP. Outcomes are identified for two core areas of practice: personal development community capacity building. The framework, which has built on the original LEAP and other sources, has been subject to wide consultation with CLD workers and participants. They have endorsed its accuracy in reflecting realities of practice. These outcome statements have therefore been adopted in place of those in the original LEAP material. However it is important to be clear that the relevance of any statement of potential outcomes needs to be considered in relation to realities of practice and adapted and developed accordingly. In addition Delivering Change has identified what are termed wider outcomes of CLD. These correspond closely to the broader quality of life outcomes identified in the original LEAP. The new LEAP recommends application of the wider outcome statements. The listing of personal development, community capacity building and wider outcomes from Delivering Change is presented as appendix 1. The Worked Examples document draws on them: The National Standards for Community Engagement (2005) The National Standards and their associated support materials promote best practice in engaging communities and include standards both for planning and evaluation that commit users to: monitor and evaluate whether the engagement achieves its purposes. Community engagement is an important aspect of CLD work highlighted in the WALT guidance particularly as a key contribution to the wider processes of community planning. The standards illuminate what is involved in achieving effective community involvement in community planning as required under section 15.1 of the Local Government Scotland Act LEAP A MANUAL FOR LEARNING EVALUATION AND PLANNING IN COMMUNITY LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT

(2003). There are ten standards and each is accompanied by a set of performance indicators that can be used within the LEAP framework in relation to this aspect of CLD process. A guidance note on the relationship between LEAP and the National Standards for Community Engagement is available at: www.http://leap.scdc.org.uk/resources-downloads/download%20documents/ In addition to the three other tools that are specifically designed to be relevant to CLD, LEAP can also be used alongside a range of other planning and evaluation tools such as the Big Picture (http://www.thebigpic.org.uk/), EFQM or Balanced Scorecard (http://www.q-excellence.de/default_e.htm?gclid= CIqju5L0oIkCFUxrMAodr1uzQA). A guidance note on the relationship of LEAP to these and other tools is available at: www.http://leap.scdc.org.uk/resources-downloads/download%20documents/ WORKING HMIE self evaluation and inspection framework for CLD How Good is Our Community Learning and Development? 2 AND Learning Connections statement of outcomes sought through CLD Delivering Change understanding the outcomes of community learning and development Effective Practice LEAP learning evaluation and planning SCDC framework for integrated participatory outcome planning and evaluation TOGETHER National Standards for Community Engagement Communities Scotland standards and performance indicators endorsed by the Scottish Executive, CoSLA and national agencies LEARNING 12 13

LEAP Section 2: Exploring the principles of LEAP Introducing section 2: You should now have a broad idea of what LEAP is, what it can be used for, how this might benefit you and how it relates to other CLD tools. In this section we look at the key underlying principles: being need led; building on capacity and developing assets; being change and outcome focused; adopting a participatory approach and building partnerships; and promoting continuous learning and improvement. i. A need-led approach In section 1, we summarised the need led approach. In this section we explore it in more depth. It is vital that we are clear about the needs we are trying to tackle: to provide the focus for planning change. to ensure that we know what we will measure progress against. In CLD, as each of the Worked Examples illustrates, before we start to do anything, we have to ask ourselves what is the need (or needs) that we are trying to tackle? These could relate to any age or social group and any aspect of community life (e.g. health, housing, safety, learning, environment, leisure, culture). It sounds logical and obvious where else would anyone start except by identifying what it is they want to make a difference to? But what seems obvious is not always what people do. Particularly when organisations are planning, they often start by thinking about what they have available to them, like: staff, buildings, equipment or knowledge, and what they can do with them. We call this resource-led planning. Because they have invested in these resources, they think about making sure they are used without necessarily asking whether this would be a relevant and valuable thing to do. This is about as logical as saying: because I own a passport I am going abroad. Of course if you want to go abroad a passport would be essential but you wouldn t use its existence as your reason for going! LEAP challenges this way of thinking. It is not saying resources are not important, they are essential. It is saying that resources are only useful in terms of their capacity to do something about needs that people really experience and want to do something about. LEAP A MANUAL FOR LEARNING EVALUATION AND PLANNING IN COMMUNITY LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT

So the LEAP approach rejects planning which starts with what resources are available, develops a plan to use them and then takes action to implement it. LEAP promotes need led practice that first investigates what the issues are, then envisions what successful changes would look like, develops plans to achieve them, identifies resources that are needed to implement the plan and then takes action. Not RESOURCE PLAN But ACT INVESTIGATE ENVISION PLAN RESOURCE ACT This is the basic principle, but need led planning is a bit more complicated than this. We need to: Clarify exactly what the need is. Be clear about whose needs are being addressed. Recognise that there is more than one way of thinking about what a need is. Consider all the dimensions of what the need is about. Clarifying the needs All of us sometimes feel uneasy, unhappy or even angry but we are not necessarily clear what it is that makes us feel this way. Until we have worked that out we can t focus any energy we may have for positive purposes. Feeling a need for change but lacking focus and, as a result, any outlet for that energy, tends to make us frustrated and depressed rather than energetic and active. We are much more likely to be motivated to take action when we are clear what needs to change and why. Any effort to achieve change therefore requires clarity about the needs or issues to be tackled. 14 15

LEAP Being need led emphasises the importance of an analytical approach. No assumptions are made about what is going on and what is important to people. Rather the process starts with systematic investigation. Whose needs? In CLD we are committed to working with people, groups or communities who experience a need they are our primary stakeholders. But, as the WALT guidance makes clear, in CLD we are also committed to principles of equity and social justice and therefore need to target our resources. If we are going to be need led we have to think about whose needs we are going to pay attention to and why. In doing so we often have to take account not just of local but also regional or national priorities. We have to be sure that the way we use our resources would promote fairness and justice. It is for this reason that we have to be concerned with different levels of intervention. Whilst at project level we will focus on the experience of particular individuals, groups or communities, we have to be confident that what we set out to do with them is consistent with a wider analysis of need that informs overall programmes and determines the overriding policy priorities. Best practice in using LEAP requires consistency between all three levels. If the LEAP approach informs the CLD strategy, CLD plans and local project action, this can be achieved. Different ways of thinking about needs People are motivated to act on things that matter to them but this may not be in the interests of others. What people feel is a need is important and we have to help people to express their concerns. But, it will be obvious that just responding to what people tell us they feel is not a satisfactory way of working. We also need to think about what the implications of responding to their views would be. This is when we make use of other ways of thinking about needs. In particular how do the concerns of this person, group or community compare with those of others? Should they be seen as a priority? When we look at the needs people express we may also want to take account of agreed standards, or norms, that have been set (for example for literacy levels, housing conditions, an adequate diet, or environmental protection). We will want to address those needs that illustrate shortfalls against such standards. So, while the starting point for participants is what they tell us they feel, we must be equally concerned with comparison with others and agreed standards. The latter will be primary influences in formulating CLD strategies. A need led approach involves thinking about all three types of approach. The dimensions of the need Understanding what a need really involves requires thought not only about the circumstances that are immediately apparent but also what lies behind them. It also requires consideration of the attitudes of other people towards the need. LEAP A MANUAL FOR LEARNING EVALUATION AND PLANNING IN COMMUNITY LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT

For example, if we identify a lack of adequate after-school child care provision as a need, we should immediately start to think about the character of the need itself and the attitudes of those people and institutions that might be relevant to it. In other words the need is not just lack of child care but all the factors that have led to and sustained this need. It is not just the people who experience the need that we should think about but it is also the people who can support activity to bring about change, those who might work in partnership with them and equally those who might actively resist attempts to achieve change. 9 Building a picture of the dimensions of the need will be crucial to working effectively on step 1 defining the difference we want to make. Each of the Worked Examples considers the dimensions of the need on which it is focused. ii. Building on strengths of the participants Sometimes a need led approach is criticised because it is thought that it creates a negative label. We look at what is wrong, not what is right in a community. Building on the latter is often called an asset-based approach. Though LEAP starts by saying we have to investigate what the needs are that require action, it equally recognises that achieving change depends on building on and using people s strengths and abilities. Need led and asset-based approaches are necessary companions. As was suggested in the discussion of the dimension of needs, it is not just the people who experience the need that we should think about but also the people who can support activity to bring about change, those who might work in partnership with them and equally those who might actively resist attempts to achieve change. The following framework can assist us and those we work with to think about the strengths and resources that might be available to address needs. Understanding strengths in relation to what we are trying to tackle helps us to be realistic and clear about what kind of difference we should aim for. The framework invites us to think about the need in relation to three key factors: Motivation this focuses on what may stimulate people enthusiastically to address the need. Capacity this focuses on the ability that people have to address it. Opportunity this focuses on the context of the need and factors that improve the chance of doing something about it. The framework considers each of these areas from the perspective of four key groups of people that are likely, in CLD work, to be involved in addressing any need: The worker and or his/her agency this is the person and/or organisation that supports and promotes action for change. The community participant(s) this is the individual, group or community that is experiencing the need. 9 In the language of systems theory these are called the client, change agent, action and target systems. 16 17

LEAP Other potential partners this consists of all others who may be interested in, concerned about, and willing to be party to action relating to the need. The targets for change these are the people/organisations that need to be influenced in order for the change to be achieved. It may contain several different groups of people. We need to think not only about the motivation, capacity and opportunities of each of these groups but the interaction between them. This is necessary because, to achieve any change, the first three groups will need to work together to influence those in the fourth. The framework is not comprehensive but suggests the sorts of things it may be helpful to think about in relation to each group. For the first three groups the focus is on what will encourage their involvement, but for the targets the focus is on why and how they might resist change and what might lead them to change their stance. The following are particularly important influences under each heading: Motivation: The degree to which a need or problem offends cherished values or is seen as having priority from a particular value stance. The policy and legislative framework that determines the focus of agencies and workers. The potential for wider benefits from being involved. Capacity: Available human and material resources. Level of and ability to use power and authority. Belief in the potential for change (frequently influenced by past experience). Confidence and trust. Opportunity: Events/crises that heighten perception of need for change. New resources. Recognition of mutual interest. Positive attitudes to build on. Weaknesses of the target system or willingness to consider change. LEAP A MANUAL FOR LEARNING EVALUATION AND PLANNING IN COMMUNITY LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT

This table identifies the kinds of factors that may be important to look at for each of the interest groups in relation to their motivation, capacity and opportunity. System Factor Worker/Agency Community Participant Motivation 1. Match with professional values and purposes 2. Match with policy priorities 3. Legal obligations 4. Importance relative to other opportunities 5. Match with personal interest and values 1. Potential to achieve aspirations 2. Threat to values from outside group or community 3. Threat to values from within group or community 4. Desire to escape discomfort 5. Perception of possibility that a difference could be made 6. Cost/benefit assessment of value of potential change Other potential partners 1. Match to values and purposes 2. Match with policy priorities 3. Meeting legal obligations 4. Potential benefits of collaboration 5. Achieving trade offs 6. Cost/benefit of involvement Targets for change Not initially motivated or negatively motivated to resist change: 1. Different values 2. Different priorities/ purposes 3. Threat to power/ authority 4. Indifference/ ignorance Capacity Opportunity 1. Human resources Knowledge Understanding Skills time energy 2. Material resources budgets buildings equipment 3. Power or authority 4. Belief in potential for change 1. Specific events or crises 2. New resources 3. Attitudes/abilities of community 4. Attitudes/abilities of other potential partners 5. Profile/acceptability of work or agency 6. Weakness or responsiveness of target for change 1. Human resources knowledge understanding skills time energy 2. Material resources budgets buildings equipment 3. Impact of previous experience on belief in potential for change including: Self confidence Confidence/trust in others 1. Specific events or crises 2. New resources 3. Availability of and attitudes/ abilities of worker/agency 4. Attitudes/abilities of other potential partners 5. Weakness or responsiveness of target for change 1. Human resources Knowledge understanding skills time energy 2. Material resources budgets buildings equipment 3. Power or authority 4. Belief in potential for change 1. Availability of resources through partnership with lead agency and/or community 2. Pursuit of shared purposes with lead agency and/or community 3. Potential to achieve influence on partners 4. Potential to use partnership to achieve own purposes Resistance capacity: 1. Human resources Knowledge understanding skills time energy 2. Material resources budgets buildings equipment 3. Counter power or authority From the standpoint of the other parties opportunities to be exploited include: 1. Internal value contradictions 2. Weaknesses in power/authority base 3. Possibility of trade offs 4. Openness to negotiation/ consideration of alternatives 5. Resource changes The Worked Examples document provides illustrations of this framework in practice. 18 19

LEAP iii. Being change and outcome-focused 10 As the three national priorities in the WALT guidance make clear, CLD is a change activity. In other words it sets out to make a difference to things that cause concern to the people who are involved. LEAP is a framework that is designed to enable positive planned change to be made to the needs that have been identified. It has adopted an outcome focus because the primary purpose of CLD is to enable a real, measurable, difference to be made to the quality of personal and community lives. Outcome-focused planning is driven by commitment to make a difference. The differences which are sought form the basis for action plans. Outcome focused evaluation is the process of assessing how successful the action plan has been in making a difference. A focus on outcomes is essentially a focus on results. It is about planning for change in response to an identified need or issue. For the purposes of reliable evaluation, the connection between the need identified, the action taken and the outcome achieved should always be clear. Following the LEAP steps, set out in section 3, enables you to do this. In LEAP the evaluation is asking what the effectiveness and efficiency was of a specific action plan in addressing need and achieving desirable outcomes. Outcomes reflect the wider reasons why we promote community learning and development. They focus on the effects and benefits which it can have in people s lives. Without a vision of the outcomes CLD lacks purposeful direction. Achieving, with your partners, a shared vision of outcomes is therefore a precondition for planning good practice. Equally it is essential for evaluation. Yet, ironically, a weakness of much planning is lack of clarity of vision and many so called evaluations simply describe the action that has been taken, rather than assessing the results. For example, if the identified need is to address inequalities in health, the action taken may be a community health fair. However this is not an end in itself but a means to an end improved health. What the evaluation needs to address is whether this has made a contribution towards better health. The community health fair is run because it may enable people to think about and do things which may benefit the quality of individual or community life. For example they may become aware of the links between poverty and ill health, they may become interested in the development of a Healthy Living Centre, they may become more personally aware of issues surrounding drug misuse or motivated to form a community group to tackle drug problems in the community. Such outcomes are the reason why a health fair may be organised. But there is no guarantee that people will participate or, if they do, that it will necessarily lead to the outcomes which were sought. In other words agencies and workers do not control outcomes and they may be different from their expectations. Nonetheless they need to know what the outcomes are because they cannot presume that the actions they take necessarily achieve what they want. 10 For further discussion see: Delivering Change Understanding the outcomes of community learning and development Learning Connections (2007) LEAP A MANUAL FOR LEARNING EVALUATION AND PLANNING IN COMMUNITY LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT

The example also illustrates another important feature of outcomes. Whilst it may be stimulating to have utopian visions of change, in the real world the changes we seek have to be realistic, though not without ambition. Participants have to believe they can be achieved and they have to be achievable. However, horizons and capacity for change grow with achievement. The initial outcome of a health fair may simply be heightened awareness of health issues and inequalities. This is a desirable and worthwhile outcome but in turn needs to lead to further aspirations, for example to have a direct impact on risk factors in community health such as drug misuse. In other words outcomes lead to identification of further potential outcomes, thus, over time, there may be chains of outcomes that have more and more impact on the identified need. However, the plans and actions that address these outcomes may involve new partners and may develop quite independently of the initial CLD activity. This is entirely positive but this ripple effect is more and more difficult to evaluate in terms of the contribution of CLD practice as it becomes more remote and subject to more and more new influences. The LEAP approach to outcome-focused planning and evaluation is also based on the understanding that the process of participatory outcome-focused planning and evaluation can be an important driver of change itself. The level of stakeholder deliberation and dialogue that is required to effectively vision and agree outcomes is necessarily a process of building relationships, sharing power, accommodating and valuing diversity, understanding different perspectives and reaching consensus. It frequently requires transparently conducted diplomacy and negotiation. In the LEAP framework it follows then that outcome-focused evaluation must be a process of shared assessment that enables partners to celebrate mutual achievement and reflect on ways of addressing ineffective or inefficient practice. The approach set out in the LEAP framework describes evaluation as an important learning, development and empowerment tool. Since LEAP was first published, commitment to outcome-focused planning has become a defining characteristic of policy for social justice, health equalities and regeneration. Funding is increasingly tied to outcome agreements, for example in the requirement for Regeneration Outcome Agreements or the Big Lottery Fund shift from grant-making to investing in outcomes. In the specific context of CLD, in response to the commitment of WALT to be able to assess more thoroughly the contribution of CLD to achieving outcomes, Learning Connections has developed a menu of potential outcomes of CLD in its publication: Delivering change understanding the outcomes of community learning and development. In common with LEAP this document defines outcomes as: the changes that come about as result of us taking actions. 20 21

LEAP iv. A participatory and partnership approach CLD is a participatory activity. The achievement of change (whether for individuals, groups or communities) involves people working together. As the discussion of needs has shown, different people have different roles and interests. Each has a stake in what happens either as contributor to, or beneficiary of, change. LEAP describes these people as stakeholders. They are the people with an interest in what is being done. The active stakeholders will include: Participants as individuals and groups. Workers and managers in CLD agencies. Partners in other agencies. There will also be a wider set of people who have an interest. These include: The wider community that is affected by change. Agencies that provide resources. Policy makers. Because CLD is about achieving change through working with people on the needs that they experience, the participants should be seen as the primary stakeholders. Involving community stakeholders must not be a token gesture. It should reflect an active commitment to principles of positive partnership and engagement. In applying the LEAP model we therefore draw attention to established principles of good practice and recommend their use in particular, the National Standards for Community Engagement. 11 The standards were developed from the experience of communities and set out a simple guide to how to work in a participatory manner. They recognise that partners have different interests, motivations and perspectives and that there will therefore be need for negotiation over: priorities; commitment of resources; time scales; and methods of working. 11 Available on the Communities Scotland website at: http://www.communitiesscotland.gov.uk/stellent/groups/public/documents/webpages/lccs_008411.pdf LEAP A MANUAL FOR LEARNING EVALUATION AND PLANNING IN COMMUNITY LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT

They also recognise and address differences in power and access to resources, in order to ensure equality of opportunity to contribute and influence. In particular they recognise that those who are members of excluded groups may have particular difficulties placed in the way of their participation barriers of language, physical access or cost for example. The underlying commitment of CLD to a participatory approach should alert us to the need to invest in compensatory support to overcome such barriers. As the discussion of need has shown, individual and community needs are the starting point but there are other factors that influence what CLD agencies and their partners will give attention to. In the light of this, if collaboration is to be a reality, those with an interest and who wish to do so, should work together to agree: What should be achieved. How it should be done. How it should be evaluated. An organisation that is committed to participatory principles is not hierarchical with power invested in a small elite group that issues directives to operational staff who deliver a service that is not open to question or influence of those who use it. It does not look like this: Policy Makers Managers Staff Users/Community 22 23

LEAP A participatory organisation looks more like this: Service users/community Front-line workers Managers Policy makers In this type of organisation there is still a commitment to a structure that ensures that there is authority to manage and direct resources but the processes by which policy is established reflects a continuing dialogue between stakeholders. Because this is a model which is need-led, the ultimate beneficiaries the service users and community are a primary source of intelligence. The response to their experience is designed around their need, formulated with their involvement and that of the staff who work with them, as well as their managers. LEAP is designed to be used in this kind of relationship. It enables planning and evaluation that is genuinely participatory. LEAP is based on the understanding that a process of shared planning is the foundation for effective continuing partnership between agencies and between agencies and the communities they work with. For this to be the case stakeholders must be involved at all stages from visioning and agreeing outcomes to evaluating impact and reviewing lessons. LEAP A MANUAL FOR LEARNING EVALUATION AND PLANNING IN COMMUNITY LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT

v. Promoting continuous learning and improvement The combination of the words learning and development in the title of an occupation focused on community change is a description of its core characteristics. Development implies change, growth and improvement and the basis for its achievement is the acquisition of awareness, understanding, skills and knowledge for effective action. LEAP embraces learning and development. It promotes effective participatory, outcome-focused planning, action and evaluation in order to achieve purposeful change, but also recognises that it is essential to learn from the experience and to apply the lessons to future practice. A learning-based approach to planning and evaluation is based on the understanding that planning and evaluation serve a particular function in learning about and working for change. If we prioritise learning, then planning becomes a process of understanding a current situation or issue in as complete a way as possible, understanding and learning about different perspectives and priorities to come to agreement about what needs to change and developing a plan of action to achieve that change. Similarly evaluation becomes a process of learning about what success means from different perspectives, what is considered to be evidence and the value that is placed on different kinds of evidence and evaluation methods. To maximise learning the approach is necessarily one of collaborative self-evaluation between stakeholders. Learning-based planning and evaluation must be outcome-focused (see principle 3). In order to maximise the learning we can gain from our work we must first be clear about what we are trying to achieve and about our criteria for success. We also need to have a clear understanding of why the action we take might lead to the intended changes (the outcomes). If we don t have this level of clarity we are limited in relation to what we can learn through evaluation. Evaluation should explore the extent to which we have achieved the change we hoped to see and provide us with some understanding of whether change resulted from the action we took. If change did not occur we should be able to discern something about why not. If negative or positive outcomes resulted other than those we planned for it is equally important that we try to understand how these are connected to the actions we have taken. In terms of learning, the unexpected is often as interesting and important as what was planned. While it is not always possible to firmly establish cause and effect, we should always be able to learn from an evaluation and use that learning to inform what we do next. The emphasis, then, is not just on learning but on continuous learning. It is for this reason that LEAP is presented as a cycle of steps in which the experience of one cycle of planning, action and evaluation feeds into new cycles of activity. Development is a continuous process and learning should constantly be feeding into it. The adoption of the LEAP approach enables this seamless relationship between learning and development to be accomplished. 24 25

LEAP The LEAP framework is based on the understanding that a commitment to learning is a key principle of good practice not just for individual practitioners but for the partnerships of stakeholders that address change and for the organisations that promote it. Hence LEAP is a model for the development of learning organisations and systems. In such settings learning is not restricted to the immediate participants in particular initiatives but shared for the potential benefit of everyone. Attention therefore needs to be given to feeding back and sharing lessons. This will apply at group, team, organisational and partnership levels. By capturing the lessons of innovative practice, for example, through case studies and reports, it can contribute to the sum of practice wisdom well beyond the local context. If we are involved in planning and delivering change that has an impact for other people, we have a responsibility to act as reflective practitioners in learning organisations and systems. This can make sure that everyone benefits from attention to learning from action. The LEAP framework sets out the key steps necessary for learning-based planning and evaluation. It raises key questions that we should consider in order to maximise shared learning that can be applied to more effective future practice. LEAP A MANUAL FOR LEARNING EVALUATION AND PLANNING IN COMMUNITY LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Section 3: Understanding the steps in the LEAP cycle Introduction In this section each of the steps in the LEAP process, introduced in section 1, is reviewed to illuminate the character of the tasks involved. The five key steps address how we will respond to the need we have identified. Each step has a trigger question: Step 1: What difference do we want to make? Step 2: How will we know we made a difference? Step 3: How will we go about making the difference? What resources will we use? What methods will we use? In what ways will we use them? Step 4: How are we making sure it is happening? Step 5: Have we made the difference? What are the lessons we have learned? What will we need to do now? Throughout the steps the principles set out in the previous sections should be apparent in the manner in which each one is conducted: Being need-led: Before embarking on the cycle thorough analysis should have been conducted of the needs to be addressed and the interested stakeholders should have been engaged. These prior actions ensure that the principles of need led and participatory practice are in place. They need to be sustained throughout. Being change and outcome-focused: Once involved in the cycle, the focus on outcomes or differences to be achieved should constantly underpin practice. Building on capacity and developing assets: In considering what are achievable outcomes at the action plan stage, particular attention should be given to building on and maximising the capacities and assets of the participants. Adopting a participatory approach and building partnerships: At all stages attention needs to be given to ensuring that the stakeholders are party to the process of agreeing and delivering both the plan and the evaluation. Promoting continuous learning and improvement: Learning from action should be an explicit goal. Learning will ultimately depend on evidence. Setting criteria for judging progress and collecting good data are therefore essential ingredients for learning from action and need to be in place throughout. 26 27

LEAP Step 1: Agreeing outcomes what difference do we want to make? STEP 1 OUTCOME What difference do we want to make? Summary of Step 1: Identify community need/concerns. Assemble the stakeholders. Establish a vision of what needs to change. Describe the vision as a series of outcomes. Once an understanding of the nature and dimensions of the need or needs to be tackled has been established (see section 2, part i), the LEAP planning and evaluation cycle gets underway. Step 1 starts by giving attention not to the need but to what participants would like to see result from action for change. The cycle therefore begins from a positive perspective on what a better state of affairs would look like. In other words what should be the outcome or result of the work that will be done. Step 1 is about what participants want to achieve. What is needed is a leap of imagination to the future in which they envision how different things should be. An important feature of this stage in terms of CLD is that the focus is on the differences that the participants want for themselves, their group, community or agency. At this stage they are not saying anything about what they might need to do to achieve that difference that comes later. We have already recognised that different stakeholders have different interests (see section 2, part ii). If they are to work effectively with one another all their interests have to be met. This will only be possible if their interests, and outcomes that they define in relation to them, are not mutually contradictory. In other words, as the stories in the Worked Examples illustrate, different stakeholders can collaborate and seek and value different outcomes provided that they are compatible. The outcomes should be drawn from the aspirations of the participants. This is essential because it is doing something about their experience that may motivate them to get involved. In relation to needs that people are experiencing, the initial task of the CLD worker is to encourage people to imagine a future state of affairs that they believe would be worth pursuing. LEAP A MANUAL FOR LEARNING EVALUATION AND PLANNING IN COMMUNITY LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT

In the context of CLD these outcomes will normally relate to personal development, community capacity and to the wider quality of life that people experience. As was noted in the discussion of LEAP and other tools (see section 1, part vii), to stimulate thinking about potential outcomes Learning Connections has produced Delivering change understanding the outcomes of community learning and development. The outcomes from this document are reprinted in appendix 1 of the worked example booklet and it may be helpful to refer them to assist in identifying appropriate outcomes. Similarly it may be helpful to refer to the qualitative indicators and indicative themes set out in HGIOCLD? 2 (especially key areas 2.1 and 4.1). However neither document should simply be treated as a ready made source of outcome statements. Rather they should be used as a means of stimulating discussion with the participants of the outcomes that they think are desirable, relevant and realistic in their particular circumstances. It is important to remember that people who have had major and sustained problems to deal with in their lives tend to have lower expectations of what it will be possible to achieve. This is not a reflection of their ability or potential but a rational response to their experiences. It is important therefore that the vision of change is one that they believe is realistic and achievable. If it is not, the result may actually be that motivation is lost. This sometimes means initially focusing on lower level changes than might ultimately be desirable. If the initial changes are successfully achieved, confidence and aspirations will grow and it will be possible to move onto higher levels, not because these are imposed by workers but because of growth in the confidence, aspirations and abilities of the participants. This is why the LEAP model presents a continuous cycle of learning and action. Recognising the level of expectation of change is not only relevant for community participants but also for other stakeholders. For example moving into partnership working requires confidence and mutual trust to be built. Belief in the potential of partnerships can grow with learning from experience of the capabilities of other partners and the partnership as a whole. Like LEAP, Delivering Change is clear that: it s the outcomes that participants want to achieve that are most important. Looking at the outcomes suggested by the document for CLD practice it will be obvious to experienced practitioners that pursing the outcomes identified by the participants will also enable the wider outcomes of CLD to be reached. The outcomes set out in the Worked Examples would also meet the requirements of key parts of the HGIOCLD? 2 framework, in particular key area 2: Impact on service users and key area 4: Impact on the community. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that the kinds of outcomes that are sought by the participants tend to be different in nature from those that are identified by those that work with them. Participants will usually have a more specific vision of the difference that they want to see because their motivation relates to resolving a need that they directly experience. 28 29

LEAP Those that work with them will be more interested in changes in capacity that occur in the process of achieving the specific resolution because these will increase the likelihood of self-sustaining ability for effective action that can be transferred in the future to new needs. Commonly participants identify what are termed end outcomes and those that work with them identify process outcomes. It is important not only to acknowledge that different participants will potentially seek different outcomes but also to be clear about which outcomes will be commonly agreed as the criteria for measuring success. In step 2 this will be relevant to identifying an appropriate range of indicators that will become the focus for collecting evidence in steps 3 and 4. It is also worth noting that some participants may wish to assess outcomes which are peculiar to their particular interests and not agreed as the common basis for judging success. If they wish to do so it is their responsibility to go on to identify indicators and collect relevant evidence (for further discussion of outcome-based practice see section 2, part iii). Step 2: Identifying Indicators how will we know we made a difference? STEP 2 OUTCOME INDICATORS How will we know we made a difference? Summary of Step 2: Together with other stakeholders, identify potential indicators that will provide evidence for measuring whether outcomes are achieved. Agree which indicators will be adopted. Think about how to build the process of collecting evidence into practice and procedures. Step 2 is one that often gets forgotten. It somehow seems illogical to ask how we will know we have made a difference before we have actually done anything. Unfortunately it is often only when it is too late that the reason becomes clear. We get to the end of a piece of work and realise that, because we did not establish the criteria for success, we have not been collecting any evidence to tell us whether what we have been doing has been worthwhile and what has changed relative to conditions when we started our work. LEAP A MANUAL FOR LEARNING EVALUATION AND PLANNING IN COMMUNITY LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT

As a result we find it very difficult to learn any useful lessons from our experience. Without good evidence and clear baselines, retrospective attempts to make sense of what happened are highly unreliable, potentially misleading and therefore dangerous. (See section 2, part v for further discussion of continuous learning and improvement.) So, before deciding what to do to achieve the outcomes set in step 1, we need to pause and reflect on how we will judge success. At the end of the process we will not just be interested in whether the outcomes occurred but, because we are trying to evaluate the benefits and impact of our actions, we will want to know if it is these actions that have influenced them. It is sometimes difficult to prove conclusively that actions we take are the cause of changes we seek. This is because many other things could be going on that would potentially also have an effect. For example, an improvement in the level of drug dealing in a community could be the result of a wide variety of influences. So what we will want to know is whether the actions we have taken with other participants have been influential in any positive changes that occur. To do this, ideally we would have some measures that could show direct effects that were caused by the actions of the participants. More often we will need to rely on criteria that suggest that there may be a causal connection. We call these indicators. To be confident that any changes are related to our actions we will usually need to collect evidence in relation to several indicators. We want to make this task as easy as possible so that it does not distract us from effort to achieve the change. On the other hand we do want to know whether what we have done has been effective or not. Since this will improve our later performance, the time taken to set criteria and collect evidence should be seen as an investment in effectiveness, not a cost. Two further questions therefore need to be addressed: what sorts of indicators could we use; and how will we collect useful evidence efficiently as part of our work? Suitable indicators Because the way in which activity develops is often unpredictable we will need to think broadly about the kind of information that will provide convincing evidence that outcomes are being achieved. It is important to take this broad view rather than commit ourselves in advance to specific indicators which might turn out not to be relevant. For example, in literacies work, an outcome like improved skills in English could be illustrated in a variety of different ways depending on the contexts in which it was set. So, what we need to have done is consider the sorts of things that could provide evidence of this outcome. This approach is adopted in the Worked Examples. 30 31

LEAP Many of the outcomes of CLD that focus on personal development and community capacity will be identifiable in the way that people behave. For instance, in relation to personal development both HGIOCLD? 2 and Delivering Change refer to greater confidence as an outcome. In advance it may sometimes be possible to identify specific circumstances in which the outcome may be tested, for example, in speaking in a public context. Where there is such specificity the circumstances in which an indicator will be applied can be planned in advance. However more commonly the opportunities to demonstrate the outcome may not be predictable. We must therefore be open to using indicators of such an outcome in many potential circumstances. The strength of our conviction of achievement will be reinforced by consistent evidence of the same outcome in several different contexts. Collecting useful evidence What we are interested in is evidence of change and progress. We can only know if something has changed if we knew where we were to start with. All evidence that is used needs to be assessed against a baseline which records the situation as it is before action is taken. This is why so much attention has been given to discussion of a need-led approach. The baseline information should look at two things: what the need is; and assessment of the potential for change. This is because what has to be changed is not just the need itself but the capacity of those involved to do something about it. We can t use the LEAP approach unless we have recorded the baseline in both these ways. As the previous section illustrated, indicators will relate to both. Once the baseline is established and activity commences, evidence will start to become available. For CLD workers the evidence will generally emerge in the process of the work that they and the other stakeholders are doing. They will be observing and recording changes through their participation in the change effort and drawing on the observations and records that are kept by others. HGIOCLD? 2 12 describes four main sources of evidence which apply equally to LEAP. These are: performance data; relevant documentation; stakeholders views and feedback; and direct observations of practice. 12 HGIOCLD? 2 page 5 6. LEAP A MANUAL FOR LEARNING EVALUATION AND PLANNING IN COMMUNITY LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT

The evidence needs to be recorded and verified, but many indicators do not require any special investigation to identify evidence. Simply maintaining and using good records of what happens, will supply what is required. For example: Minutes of meetings. Reports of events (e.g. a community conference). Personal learning plans. Diary records. Applications for funding. Crime statistics. Examination performance records. Newsletters. Web pages. In a participatory model like LEAP, records have to be publicly available to be used for evaluative purposes. The indications of change that they suggest should also be corroborated from other sources. The more sources providing evidence of the same outcomes the stronger the case will be. Whilst some outcomes will be self evident (for example, whether there is an increase in a specified skill, such as book keeping, or not) others will be more open to challenge. For example, a common outcome that is sought is a growth in self-confidence. Single instances might suggest a change of this kind but it would be the cumulative evidence of more confident behaviours in a range of settings that would provide convincing evidence of this change. Evidence of some changes will require some special enquiry. For example it might be necessary to conduct a survey of opinion about the perceptions that people have of safety in a community and whether it is improving. But it is worth remembering that perception can be misleading, we may feel safer but not be safer. So how perceptions match up with more objective evidence, for example from crime statistics, is important. The main message, then, is that evidence arises from the process of the work. LEAP is not about turning CLD workers or participants into researchers but encouraging them to make use of the direct insights their activity gives them and to build up, over time, evidence about what is happening. We need to plan how all those involved in the action will collect and record the evidence. This takes us on to the action planning step into which the process of data collection will need to be integrated. 32 33

LEAP Step 3: Action planning how will we go about making the difference? STEP 3 INPUTS What resources will we use? OUTPUTS How will we use the resources and methods? PROCESSES What methods will we use? HOW WILL WE GO ABOUT IT? Summary of Step 3 Remind yourself of what you are trying to achieve. Identify the resource you will need. Identify the methods you will use. Identify who will deliver what specific outputs where and when. Make sure you have the resources that you need. Make sure your actions match the principles of the methods you have chosen. Check that your actions are likely to succeed in achieving your desired outcomes and reconsider if necessary. Check that you have built the means of collecting evidence in to your action plan. We now know what we are trying to achieve and we have a good idea of the sort of indicators we need to collect evidence about. But we still have to work out exactly how, with the participation of all the relevant stakeholders, we are going to achieve the change (for further discussion of partnership and participation see section 2, part iv). The starting point for an effective action plan is a review of the intended outcomes. In relation to these, quite simply, we need to think about: what will need to be done; by whom; when; in what way; and what we need to have available to be able to do it. LEAP A MANUAL FOR LEARNING EVALUATION AND PLANNING IN COMMUNITY LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT

To work this out we need to involve all the active participants in answering three key questions: What resources will we use? the inputs. What methods will we use? the processes. In what ways will we use them? the actions or outputs. It doesn t really matter which of these questions we start with but in the end the answers to all three must complement each other. For example it would be no use deciding to use methods that we didn t have the time, funds, equipment or skills for. Similarly it would be of no benefit to identify lots of resources that were not relevant to the activities we planned. 1. Inputs/resources When we think about resources we are thinking about the ingredients that we will need to use to take effective action. These are the capacities and assets on which we need to build. We call them inputs because they are literally the things that we put in to the process of change. So what sorts of things are we talking about? Money/budgets. Facilities, e.g. meeting rooms, conference venues, sports grounds, catering. Equipment, e.g. video camera, transport, display boards, computer. Learning resources, e.g. audio-visual presentations, books, training packs, how to guides. People with: Time; Energy, commitment and motivation; Relevant skills; Relevant knowledge; Relevant experience; Ideas and imagination; and Authority to take action. Policies and guidance that enable the action we want to take. 34 35

LEAP We not only need to think about what resources we may need but where they will come from. As we are talking about a participatory and partnership based approach to planning and evaluation (see section 2, part iv) the resources might come from any of the stakeholders including: The community participants young people, adults, community groups and organisations. The CLD agency and its staff. Other active partner agencies. External agencies, e.g. funders or policy makers. The range and level of resources that may be needed to take action to achieve an outcome will depend on: how complex the desired outcome is; and how we want to go about it. It is not possible to simply answer the resources question and move neatly on to methods and actions. In practice what happens is that as we start to think about these other questions we refine our idea about what resources we really need. So we will inevitably return to the resources question. 2. Processes/methods It is important to think in broad terms about the style or types of action that we will take. In this question we are not interested in exactly who will do what or when but in thinking through the sort of approach that is likely to be most effective and most efficient. In choosing the methods we draw on the theories of change in CLD that reflect its underlying values of inclusive participation, equalities, empowerment and partnership. Methods relate to things like: Training. Network development. Community organising. Action research. Marketing. Information provision. Advocacy. Campaigning. Visioning. LEAP A MANUAL FOR LEARNING EVALUATION AND PLANNING IN COMMUNITY LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Within these broad headings there will be specific techniques that might be appropriate for example: Planning for Real. Future Search. World Café. Community Appraisal. Open Space. Participatory Drama. Such methods are reviewed in publications such as the Scottish Centre for Regeneration s Community Engagement: How to guide. 13 Achieving complex outcomes is likely to require the use of a range of methods and specific techniques. Identifying the kinds of methods that might be most suitable does not necessarily mean that we can use them we need to be sure that the motivation, capacity and opportunity would be available to allow us to use them (for further discussion see section 2, part ii). 3. Output and actions Action plans commonly fall down because we are not precise about who will be committed to doing what, when and where. Having looked at methods and techniques, we may have a good idea of how we will go about things but the devil is often in the detail. It may seem self evident but it is vital that the action plan actually sets out: the actions that will be taken; precisely who is responsible for taking them; and when and where they should happen. Of course it will only be possible to take these actions if we have the resources to do so. If we don t have the resources we either need to find them or adopt a different plan of action. Carrying on regardless is a recipe for disaster. Similarly, we may have identified actions to be taken but we need to be sure that these actions will enable us to apply the methods that we think are appropriate. How we go about things is not accidental but designed to deliver benefits. 13 http://www.ce.communitiesscotland.gov.uk/stellent/groups/public/documents/webpages/scrcs_006693.hcsp 36 37

LEAP In CLD we use participatory methods because the theory of our practice, derived from evidence, tells us that establishing agreement rather than imposing solutions is more likely lead to valued and sustainable change (see section 2, parts iv and v). We need to check that the actions we will take will reflect the methods and underlying principles of CLD set out, for example, in the Working and Learning Together guidance as: empowerment, participation, inclusion and equal opportunity, self-determination and partnership (see section 1, part iii). Sometimes action plans may present fine words about using methods that reflect the values of CLD but, in practice, corners are cut and lip service is paid to them. 4. Will it work? from Step 3 back to Step 1 The action plan has to be capable of delivering the change we set out to achieve. The sum of all the actions needs to be assessed to see whether it is likely to do this. In other words will the outputs that we will deliver achieve the outcomes that we have set? Of course no-one can be certain that their plans will work, even the best laid plans can be derailed by unforeseen or unforeseeable circumstances. But the stakeholders do need to have confidence in what they intend to do. Doubts will undermine motivation and commitment. It is therefore wise to ask the question: what could go wrong? The approach can be strengthened to cover weak areas and it is possible to put in place contingency plans that could be brought into operation if anticipated difficulties actually arose. But there is another possibility that needs to be considered. Have we been over-ambitious? Do we really have the capacity to achieve the outcome that we set? Vision needs to be tempered by realism. By all means be ambitious but don t set unachievable targets. If the conclusion is that the outcomes cannot be achieved we should go back to Step 1. This is prudent and mature, not defeatist. Ultimately the intended outcome may be achievable but there may be a series of interim outcomes that need to be addressed first. The journey starts with the first step! 5. Collecting the evidence In Step 2 we identified the sorts of indicators that would tell us if the outcomes were being achieved and recognised that we would have to have records to provide evidence. We noted that these could well be things that we would need to do anyway (like writing up conference reports, or preparing and reviewing learning plans). In Step 3, as a final part of the action plan, we should review it to see: What sorts of records will be produced in the process of the work that will be likely to offer evidence that illuminates indicators of change. Whether these records will be adequate or need to be supplemented in some way. LEAP A MANUAL FOR LEARNING EVALUATION AND PLANNING IN COMMUNITY LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Step 4: Monitoring how are we making sure it is happening? STEP 4 OUTPUT MONITORING How are we making sure it is happening? Summary of Step 4. Agree who is responsible for monitoring. Agree how all contributors will be held to account for delivering their contribution. Agree what evidence will convince you that the plan is being implemented. Record evidence of action and its impact. Chase progress as necessary. As the saying goes: the road to ruin is paved with good intentions. Action plans are only useful if they are implemented. Because CLD is complex implementation usually involves many people working together. All the parts of the plan have to be in place for it to be successful. So we need to know whether everyone is meeting the commitments that they have made, at the time they agreed and in the way that they agreed to do them. Monitoring the implementation of the action plan involves checking these things: Whether the specified actions are being taken. Whether the resources are in place that are needed to support these actions. Whether the resources are adequate for the task. Whether the sum of the methods of practice adopted amount to a coherent whole, enabling everything necessary to be addressed. Each of these points is in the present tense. This is because monitoring is about what should be happening and responding if it is not. However, the task of output monitoring is not just about whether things have been done, it is also about: how well they have been done; and recording evidence of impact they may have had. 38 39

LEAP It is not sufficient, therefore, to rely on simple reports that activities have taken place. We need to know if the experience of these actions was positive or not. This is where the indicators come in. We need to record evidence of the kind that we identified in Step 2. Recording needs to address the following questions: Are we doing what we said we would do? This should be quite straightforward. The plan will have set out what should happen and when. Those responsible for delivery should ensure that brief reports indicating completion of the tasks and any issues that have arisen are supplied to the monitoring co-ordinator. Are we getting the stakeholders involved? Reports of actions taken should record who has participated and whether there are any stakeholders who were expected to be involved who did not participate. Absence of expected participants needs to be followed up. Are the stakeholders able to participate well? In relation to events it will be normal to use brief questionnaires to asses satisfaction with what has been done. Records of feedback from the stakeholders about their experience can be used to monitor the quality of implementation. Observations of the lead party can also be recorded for events and for other actions involved in implementing the plan. Is the engagement system working well? Observation is an important source of understanding but should be corroborated by comment from all those directly involved. It should be normal practice to keep asking questions which provide insight into satisfaction with the overall process of the implementation of the plan. For example, are participants satisfied that they are fully informed about what is going on and that they have had opportunity to contribute as fully as they would wish? Are we learning as we go along? Learning requires shared reflection between the participants. It is important to record what is being learned from different activities as we go along, as this can enable adjustments to direction. This is called formative assessment of evaluation. Evidence gathered in this way can ultimately contribute to the overall evaluation of the action once complete this is called summative evaluation. Here is a simple example of what might be recorded in a monitoring process. A group of young people are becoming involved in a youth forum and have confidence building sessions to help them to talk to councillors and officials. Monitoring questions would be: Was this done? Did it prepare them properly? Do observations and views of participants about subsequent actions provide evidence of greater confidence? LEAP A MANUAL FOR LEARNING EVALUATION AND PLANNING IN COMMUNITY LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Monitoring therefore has to capture the perceptions that participants have of how well the action has been taken and whether it is contributing to achieving the desired outcomes. The insights gained from effective monitoring of quality enable necessary adjustments and changes to be made to the action plan. Ultimately the records provide the basis for the work in Step 5. Step 4 is probably the simplest to describe but implementing it is usually the most extended part of the process because it is actually about seeing the action through and this is likely to be over months or, potentially, years. Step 5: Evaluation have we made a difference, what are the lessons we have learned? STEP 5 EVALUATION Did we make the difference? What have we learned? Bring all the evidence together. Analyse it. Involve the stakeholders in judging the meaning of the evidence. Ask these questions: How far have we achieved the outcomes we set? Have there been any other outcomes? What are the lessons we have learned? What will we need to do now? If further action is needed, return to step one. Step 5 completes the LEAP cycle. It is about ensuring that we are learning from what we are doing (see section 2, part v.) It takes place once the action plan has been fully implemented. It is the point at which we make judgements about what we have been doing and whether it has been beneficial. To complete Step 5 satisfactorily all other steps must have been completed. 40 41

LEAP We need to be clear what it was we were trying to achieve (Step 1). We need to have identified indicators that we can use to judge progress (Step 2). We need to have developed an appropriate action plan (Step 3) and to know we have implemented it (Step 4). Within the action plan we need to have established how we will collect evidence about progress and to have built this into our monitoring. Step 5 begins by pulling together the evidence. Whilst this should have been recorded as part of the monitoring procedure it is worth checking with all the stakeholders whether they have any additional evidence relating to indicators of the intended outcomes. Once this evidence is assembled we need to make sense of it. What does it tell us about progress that has been made? But we would make a big mistake if we only asked whether the outcomes we set had been achieved there are invariably other outcomes that result from actions we take. These can be positive or negative. The stakeholders need to identify what these are because they will provide important lessons for future action. It is also important to remind ourselves that the outcomes set at Step1 are often not measurable in absolute terms. For example if we say we are looking for increased confidence or self-esteem there is no absolute measure of what this looks like. Our evaluation is often therefore focused on progress made or distance travelled. It is often helpful to think in terms of whether there has been sufficient progress to enable the participants to do the things that they need to do. Different stakeholders may have different views about what has been achieved. This may be because they prioritise different outcomes or because they make different judgements about the same outcomes. Clearly this can present difficulties in moving forward but open exploration of differences is healthy. LEAP A MANUAL FOR LEARNING EVALUATION AND PLANNING IN COMMUNITY LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Crown copyright 2007 This document is also available on the Scottish Government website: www.scotland.gov.uk This document is available in alternative formats on request RR Donnelley B52956 11/07 Further copies are available from Blackwell s Bookshop 53 South Bridge Edinburgh EH1 1YS Telephone orders and enquiries 0131 622 8283 or 0131 622 8258 Fax orders 0131 557 8149 Email orders business.edinburgh@blackwell.co.uk w w w. s c o t l a n d. g o v. u k

LEAPWorked Examples: Applying LEAP to real-life situations Revised Edition

LEAPWorked Examples: Applying LEAP to real-life situations Revised Edition The Scottish Government, Edinburgh 2007

LEAP Crown copyright 2007 ISBN: 978-0-7559-5517-6 The Scottish Government St Andrew s House Edinburgh EH1 3DG Produced for the Scottish Government by RR Donnelley B52956 11/07 Published by the Scottish Government, November, 2007 Further copies are available from Blackwell s Bookshop 53 South Bridge Edinburgh EH1 1YS The text pages of this document are printed on recycled paper and are 100% recyclable LEAP WORKED EXAMPLES: APPLYING LEAP TO REAL-LIFE SITUATIONS

Contents Introduction 2 1. Youth work the Northside Team 5 2. Adult learning Maria s story 12 3. Capacity building Northside Women s Group story 19 4. Programme/operational management level example 27 5. Policy/strategic management level example 38 Appendix 1: Outcomes of CLD from Delivering Change 48 ii 1

LEAP Introduction In this document the practice of LEAP is illustrated in relation to a number of levels: project/practice; programme/operational management; and policy/strategic management level activity. All the illustrations are set in the city of Strathinver with particular reference to the Northside neighbourhood. Three project/practice level examples illustrate a LEAP approach to each of the national CLD priorities set out in the WALT guidance: 1. The story of the Northside team, illustrates achieving change through work with young people. 2. The story of Maria, and her experience in an adult literacies programme, illustrates achieving change through learning for adults. 3. Northside Women s Group illustrates achievement of change through capacity building. Each story is related to the others to illustrate the potential interplay between the three priority areas. The fourth example focuses on a LEAP approach to planning and evaluating a programme of CLD activity. It relates to the role of CLD working with local community planning partners to instigate an initiative to respond to a shared concern about the needs of recently arrived economic migrants and refugees who have become a significant part of the population of Northside. The final example moves to the application of LEAP at policy and strategic level. It focuses on policy review and planning for an integrated, inter-agency approach to effective support for community organisations across Strathinver. Each example is set out using a common format that describes the need (see section 2, part i of the LEAP manual), identifies the stakeholders (see section 2, parts ii and iv), explores the outcomes and associated indicators (see section 3, parts i and ii and section 2, part ii), summarises the action plan (see section 3, part iii) and the monitoring arrangements for its implementation (see section 3, part iv), and finishes with a review of the evidence and lessons from evaluation (see sections 3, part v and section 2, part v). LEAP WORKED EXAMPLES: APPLYING LEAP TO REAL-LIFE SITUATIONS

The Context 1. CLD and Community Planning: The CLD team which is a significant contributor to all the examples is part of Strathinver Community Service Department. The department also includes: libraries, museums, leisure and sport, arts and information services. Strathinver Council has committed itself strongly to community planning and the Community Services Director is a member of the Corporate Management Team that seeks to present an integrated Council contribution to this partnership. The CLD team has a strong working relationship with the Northside Area Regeneration and Community Planning Officer, who is employed within the Chief Executive s department of the Strathinver Council but accountable to the Strathinver Community Planning Partnership Co-ordinator. CLD is seen as a key contributor to local community planning and develops its work in line with priorities set within the Strathinver Community Plan. Partnership and collaborative practice is therefore a defining characteristic of the way that the team works. Other statutory partners have increasingly recognised that the principles of participatory governance reflected in community planning require them to develop their practice, adopting CLD approaches within their wider repertoires of intervention. It is recognised that the sum of the partnership working collaboratively has the potential to have far greater impact than the parts working alone. Apart from the CLD team key partners involved in the Northside Partnership are: the range of Council departments delivering services in the area (Community Services, Housing, Social Work, Education, Planning and Transport, Environmental Health and Trading Standards); Northside College; Northside NHS Health Improvement Team, Strathinver Police and Fire Services. Voluntary sector involvement is from Strathinver Voluntary Action Council and Volunteer Centre and Strathinver Housing Association both of which have active involvement in Northside. Community partners are represented through the Northside Community Forum (which also operates as the Public Partnership Forum in relation to health issues and is built on a former Tenants and Residents Forum), Northside Adult Learners Forum and Northside Youth Forum. 2 3

LEAP 2. Strathinver and Northside Strathinver is a port and resort city of 155,000 people in an attractive location. It grew up around its port services, resort facilities, ship building and textile manufacturing much of which has been in decline for 30 years. Economic diversification has been based around computer manufacture, call centres and retail shopping development and regeneration of tourism. The last has been particularly significant as Strathinver has seen major investment as part of its regeneration programme in a hotel, marina, golf course and multiactivity commercial leisure complex. The Strathinver Council and Community Planning Partnership area is significantly larger than the city alone as it takes in a substantial rural hinterland with several commuter villages close by, but it also reaches out to a series of remote glens. Northside is a large post war estate built on the edges of the city as a slum clearance programme in the 1960s. It is a regeneration area with a population of 25,000 people. It consists of a mixture of high rise flats, tenement, and back and front door houses. The hub of the area is a rather bleak, windswept shopping mall that also contains a local community services centre (managed though the Community Service Department but not by the CLD team) which houses meeting facilities, a community café, youth drop-in centre, library, local learning centre and a gym. Northside suffers from a range of social, economic and health problems. Unemployment is high, poverty is common, housing conditions are relatively poor, associated ill health is apparent, educational performance and access to further and higher education is low, drug misuse is fuelling criminality and community safety is a significant issue. The area is already physically detached from the city and transport costs are high. All these factors reinforce the negative image of the area. The following table indicates socio-economic characteristics of Strathinver, Northside and Scotland as a whole: Strathinver Northside Scotland Unemployment 7% 15% 6% No formal qualifications 34% 47% 33% Long term illness or disability 21% 27% 20% Access to personal transport 70% 40% 74% Dependent children with no working parent 15% 25% 15% LEAP WORKED EXAMPLES: APPLYING LEAP TO REAL-LIFE SITUATIONS

Project/practice level stories 1 Youth work the Northside Team The need (see LEAP manual section 2, part i) The Northside Team is an informal group of 13-15 year old young people who live in the Northside district of Strathinver. They are keen on skateboarding and BMX riding but have been getting into trouble with the police for doing this in their favourite gathering place at the local shopping mall and for being generally rowdy. They feel they are being hounded. They don t want to be in trouble and would like things to change. By speaking to the outreach youth worker they express the needs that they feel. But their perceived needs are only part of what needs to be considered before a decision is taken to work with them. The role of the outreach worker is to help implement a children s services plan that emphasises the importance of protecting the safety of children and of taking a preventive approach to anti-social behaviour. Evidence from the police indicates that youth crime, particularly related to under age drinking and drug misuse, is growing. From this perspective there is a recognised need to protect young people and the statistics also show that the risks are higher in Northside than elsewhere in the town. This represents a combination of expressed, normative and comparative need that justifies targeting resources on this group. In addition the motivation shown by the group, and the fact that working with them would be consistent with the intent of policy, suggest that there will be strengths to build on. The stakeholders (see section 2, parts ii and iv) By stating their wish to do something about their situation, the Northside Team are the primary stakeholders. If a response is to be made they need the support of the outreach youth worker who, in turn, needs the support of his CLD team and its managers. They too are stakeholders. But they know that responding to the needs that have been identified will ultimately need wider collaboration with others (for example the Strathinver police, planners and sports and arts team). They are not yet actively involved but in the long run they may be. Though not immediately involved, a range of policy makers concerned with children, young people and regeneration has created the conditions in which it is possible for the CLD team and others to work with the Northside Team. These policy makers are also potential stakeholders because they have an active interest in actions taken to fulfil policy objectives and may need to be persuaded to make available new resources. 4 5

LEAP Stakeholder analysis (see framework in LEAP manual section 2, part ii.) System Factor Motivation Capacity Outreach Youth Worker/Agency Personal and agency commitment to social inclusion and targeting youth work support. Congruence with national youth strategy and children s service plan priorities. Awareness of risk to young people. Skills and experience of detached youth work. Access to drop in centre in town. Operational support budget. Equipment, e.g. minibus, computer. Managerial and policy support. Confidence about the potential of young people. The Northside Team Frustration about being hassled by the police. Wanting better facilities. Escape from boredom. Vision of a difference that could be made. Energy. Enthusiasm. Time. (But limited knowledge, experience, confidence and trust.) Other potential partners Community arts worker: Personal and agency values. Benefit of collaboration. Police: Reduced anti-social behaviour and risk of drugs offences. Parents: Greater safety. Purposeful activity. Community arts worker: skills and knowledge; access to arts resources and equipment. Police: Time of community police officer. Parents: Time, experience of young people. Targets for change Motivation to resist change: Planners: do not see project as a priority. Adults in the community: Punitive and negative attitudes to young people. Councillors: tight budget constraints. Local press: Negative reporting about young people and anti-social behaviour. Council control of public funds. Responsibility for planning regulations and advice. Power of the press to mould public opinion. Expression of negative public attitudes. Opportunity Potential for support from the community arts worker. Interest of Communities Committee in targeted youth work following youth work strategy consultation. Already being known to the Northside Team. Knowing the outreach worker. Access to arts budget. Policing with the community policy. Setting up of women s group in Northside. Contradiction between Communities Committee policy and Council funding constraints. Neutrality of the planning officers. Potential to get good newspaper stories about young people doing things for themselves. LEAP WORKED EXAMPLES: APPLYING LEAP TO REAL-LIFE SITUATIONS

Agreeing outcomes the difference the stakeholders wanted to make (see section 3, parts i and ii and section 2, part ii) The young people are agreed on quite specific outcomes somewhere in the neighbourhood where they can gather and have fun in peace preferably a proper skate park. The outreach worker, his team and manager are influenced by the intended outcomes of CLD work with young people as set out in Delivering Change and section 2.1 of HGIOCLD? 2. They are interested in the self-confidence of the young people, their self-expectation, self responsibility, increased ability to come up with ideas and solutions and capacity to work with adults. As partners in developing the children s service plan, like other agency staff and policy makers, they share a desire to achieve outcomes for children that make them; safe, healthy, achieving, active, included, respected and responsible. Other potential stakeholders, like the police, may bring a desire to achieve additional, often more specific, outcomes such as reduced complaints about young people, reduced public disorder and levels of youth crime. Outcomes and outcome indicators The young people want this outcome: somewhere in town where they can gather and have fun in peace. Outcomes identified by other stakeholders: Self-confidence. Increased expectations of themselves and each other. Increased responsibility for themselves and their actions. Increased ability to come up with ideas and solutions. Working together and with adults. That they are safe, healthy, achieving, active, included, respected and responsible. These are potential indicators of success: A facility is established that enables them to meet and enjoy themselves. There are no complaints to the police about their behaviour. These are potential indicators of success: The group members speak confidently to adults, e.g. they take their issues to the Councillor s surgery. The young people recognise that they need to acquire skills and seek to do so. The direction of activity is driven by realistic ideas coming from the young people. Adults with whom the young people come into contact report favourably on their maturity. Anti-social behaviour and substance misuse do not become problems for these young people. 6 7

LEAP Action planning (see LEAP manual section 3, part iii) The initial action plan is drawn up at a first formal meeting with the Northside team in the youth drop-in centre in town. The meeting follows informal street-based contact between the young people and the outreach youth worker, which has identified the desired outcomes of the young people and demonstrated that these are compatible with the outcomes sought by the youth work team. Inputs/resources Processes/methods Outputs/specific actions Time Youth worker/team Outreach and Week 1 organisation Meeting place The Northside Team members Community arts worker Arts resources Police Councillor/s Planners Funders Youth forum Community groups Community Safety Forum Investigation Capacity building for campaigning and negotiation Campaigning The outreach worker will meet with the group in the youth drop-in centre in town to help them to think about what is involved in taking action and decide how they want to proceed. The outreach youth worker will support the group to find out about skate-parks, what they cost, where they can be located, who would need to be persuaded to provide the funds, who might be able to help them to develop a good campaign, etc. The investigation would include a seeing is believing visit to Southtown to meet young people who have successfully campaigned for a skate-park there. With the help of the outreach worker and the support of the community arts worker, who has agreed to be involved, the group will think about what is involved in an imaginative campaign. Together they will work out whose support they will need, what sorts of communication are likely to be most effective with different sorts of people, etc. Arts workshops will be used to design leaflets and posters. Leaflets and posters will be distributed, a petition will be organised. Contact will be made and meetings sought with: the youth forum, community police officers, the Planning Department, the local councillor, the chair of the Communities Committee of the Council, the Community Safety Forum, and local community groups. Weeks 2-5 Weeks 6-12 Weeks 12- onwards Confidence building Reflection and learning Sessions using drama and role play will be provided by the community arts worker to rehearse speaking to the people they want to influence. Mock up art work will be tested. No formal process will be used but throughout, in consultation with the group, the outreach worker will record progress and encourage the group to think about what has worked, what has not and why. Weeks 12-20 Throughout LEAP WORKED EXAMPLES: APPLYING LEAP TO REAL-LIFE SITUATIONS

Northside team s plan in brief How will we go about it? What resources will we use? What methods will we use? Northside Team Outreach youth work Youth worker/team Investigation Arts worker/resources Capacity building Police Campaigning Councillors Confidence building Planners Reflection Funders Learning Youth forum What actions will we take? Meeting with Northside Team Information gathering about skate parks Planning for campaign Preparation of publicity Drama and role play Contacting key people Meetings with officials and councillors Recording and reviewing progress What difference do we want? Self-confidence Relating to adults Health & safety Achieving Included Responsible Recreation opportunities How will we know? Reduced complaints Access to facilities Representing selves Seeking skills Good response from adults What is the need? Trouble with police Feeling hounded Lack of recreational opportunities Untapped potential At risk drink, drugs, crime Disengaged/detached Anti-social behaviour 8 9

LEAP Monitoring (see LEAP manual section 3, part iv) Though several other people are potentially involved the pivotal role in the action plan falls to the youth outreach worker. It is therefore agreed that all other contributors, including the young people themselves, will report to him on agreed actions and how they have gone. To enable him to monitor progress he uses a pictorial wall chart prepared with members of the Team that sets out the action plan with key tasks and dates for their completion. This is displayed publicly on a wall in the drop-in centre and provides a visible and shared record of what is happening. Evaluation (see section 3, part v and section 2, part v) This review focuses on the evaluation of the action plan that the Team were party to drawing up. To conduct their evaluation of progress at the end of this stage the stakeholders who have been actively involved meet at the drop-in centre. The participants include several members of the Northside Team, the outreach youth worker and the community arts worker. Though other people, such as the police, planners, councillors, the Youth Forum and the Community Safety Forum have a potential stake in the activities, up to this stage the action plan has treated them as targets to influence rather than as partners. Part of the evaluation is to assess whether others are now willing to be part of the active stakeholder group. They begin by reviewing their pictorial wall chart. For the most part they agree that the plan has been put into action but they note that the timescales have slipped a bit and that some of the members of the team who had said they would come on the visit to Southtown did not turn up. This group has been very negative saying that the idea of a campaign is a waste of time and that no-one will listen to them anyway. Though this has been discouraging to the others, who have been subject to derogatory comments and a degree of ridicule, they have stayed involved. The records show a core group of eight young people have been consistently involved. The primary reason they give for this is that the visit to Southtown and the contacts they have made with the Youth Forum have convinced them that young people can take action and that it is possible to get the kind of facility they are looking for. However they also comment that they have enjoyed the arts and drama workshops, are proud of the posters and leaflet they have created and surprised that the people they had wanted to lobby have been willing to talk to them. In particular they are impressed that the Chair of the Communities Committee has invited them to come and present their case for a skate park at the committee. They have met with the chair and vice chair of the Youth Forum which has gone on to discuss their campaign and give it support. As a result of their posters and leaflets they have also been contacted by the Northside Women s group who have said they will support them in their campaign. They are wary that the Youth Forum and the Women s group might steal their thunder but have decided to work with them. LEAP WORKED EXAMPLES: APPLYING LEAP TO REAL-LIFE SITUATIONS

In terms of the outcome they had set for themselves the Northside Team members believe they have made some progress toward getting a skate park. Though they have been warned by the councillor and the planning department that there is no money currently available for their project, they feel they are being treated seriously and being listened to. They still fear that they might be being patronised by the adults they are in contact with. They think the Youth Forum is made up of swots and are ambivalent about being associated with them. Though it was not an outcome they stated, they acknowledge that being involved in the campaign has made them feel more positive about themselves and more confident. Outcomes sought by the outreach worker, the community arts worker and by policy makers and managers concerned with children s services are also in evidence. Though there is disappointment that not all members of the Northside Team have become involved, for those that have there is evidence both in the behaviour of the young people, and in the feedback from adults they have been in contact with, that self-confidence, self-esteem and self-responsibility have grown. It is clear that they are learning to work with adults and negotiate their ideas; the young people are achieving, active, socially included and involved in local democracy. There are also some outcomes that had not been anticipated. On the positive side, several of the young people have enjoyed the arts workshops so much that they have become involved in a wider community arts project that is producing murals for public buildings in Northside. On the negative side the split in the Northside Team is raising fears of bullying of those who have become involved by those who have not. As an expression of their disaffection the latter group also seems more prone to anti-social behaviour and potentially to be more at risk from the drug dealers. Another unexpected outcome is that the experience of contact with the Youth Forum has led to discussion in the CLD team about how representative of typical young people the Youth Forum is and whether this issue needs to be addressed. Though the primary outcome from the point of view of the Northside Team remains to be achieved, at the end of this stage of the action plan all active stakeholders are satisfied by progress but aware that they need to reflect on the experience to decide what they should be doing next, both to progress work on their desired outcomes and to address negative outcomes that have emerged. As they move back to step 1 and the question what will we need to do now? they are aware that there are new stakeholders who will potentially be involved and new forms action to be resourced. 10 11

LEAP 2. Adult learning Maria s story The need (see LEAP manual section 2, part i) Maria, age 45, is a UK citizen who originally came to Northside as a refugee from Chile with her husband but he has died. She is now a socially isolated lone parent with two children (Graciella aged 4 and Pablo aged 13). She has been unable to find employment since the electronics factory she worked in as a manual worker closed down two years ago. She is dependent on benefits and is on medication for depression. Maria has been assessed as eligible for literacies support. English is her second language, and she still has difficulty communicating effectively in it. She is particularly worried about Pablo who seems to spend a lot of time with a group of young people in the local shopping mall. Maria attends a community health fair, organised in collaboration with the Community Mental Health Team, where she talks to workers on the adult literacies stall. The fair has enabled her felt needs to be expressed The workers recognise her concerns as ones that are priorities to be addressed in the literacies partnership strategy in which statistical evidence indicates a high level of literacy difficulties in Northside. The strategy is based on the social practices model of literacy work and seeks to respond to literacy and numeracy needs with a focus on helping people to achieve social benefits. As in the Northside Team s story Maria s expressed needs are compatible with priorities defined using normative criteria. In addition Maria s particular circumstances reflect a wider range of needs of refugee and migrant communities in Northside that are currently being assessed by the Northside Partnership (see example 4). The stakeholders (see section 2, parts ii and iv) Maria is of course the primary stakeholder but, as in the Northside Team s story and for the same reasons, workers, agency managers and policy makers/resource providers involved in the literacies partnership all have a potential stake in the response that is made. The Community Mental Health Team also has a stake in that it has encouraged Maria to address her literacy needs as part of its response to her depression. LEAP WORKED EXAMPLES: APPLYING LEAP TO REAL-LIFE SITUATIONS

Stakeholder analysis (see framework in section 2, part ii) System Factor Literacies team Maria Motivation Personal and agency commitment to social practices model of literacies. Fit with national literacies strategy and local CLD priorities. Awareness of risk for Maria and her children. Desire for better health. Desire for social connection and ability to communicate. Fulfilment of her potential. Escape from poverty. Concerns about welfare of her children. Vision of a different quality of life. Other potential partners Health: Support to Maria in achieving health improvements. Child care: Providing nursery support service for priority groups in Northside. Targets for change In this case there is no immediate resistance to change coming from external sources though there is concern that if Maria is to fulfil her ambitions she could encounter discriminatory attitudes and behaviours, e.g. from potential employers. Capacity Opportunity Skills and experience of literacies work. Access to literacies resources including operational support budget, equipment, e.g. computers. Managerial and policy support. Confidence about the potential of adult learners. Maria s own motivation for change. Potential for support from the Community Mental Health team. Emerging interest in refugee communities in Northside (see example 4). Time. Coping skills already demonstrated in managing extremely demanding life circumstances. But initial capacity likely to be affected by lack of confidence, self esteem, depression. Positive support and encouragement from literacies team and health worker Access to funded service. Community Mental Health Team: Skills and experience in working with women with depression. Childcare: Payment for service for Graciella. Community Mental Health Team: Potential of relationship with Literacies team established through health fair and shared support for Maria Not yet apparent. Not yet apparent. 12 13

LEAP Agreeing outcomes the difference the stakeholders wanted to make (see LEAP manual section 3, parts i and ii and section 2, part ii) The outcomes that Maria wants are that she will have new skills, including language, to enable her to get a job, provide for her children, lead a more fulfilling social life and be free of depression. As these are totally consistent with the purposes of the literacies programme these outcomes are shared by the literacies workers, their manager and other members of the literacies partnership. The outcomes are also consistent with Learning Connections adult learning outcome statements and the HIGIOCLD? 2 emphasis on successful learners, confident individuals, responsible citizens and effective contributors. Specific agencies within the literacies partnership may have a particular emphasis, for example Job Centre Plus on employability outcomes, but such priorities are perfectly compatible with the wider range of outcomes sought. Outcomes and outcome indicators Maria wants these outcomes: To acquire new employability skills. To improve her English. To provide for her children. To be more socially involved. To experience better mental health. Other stakeholders have identified these outcomes: Successful learning. Individual confidence. Responsible citizenship. Effective contributor. These are potential indicators of success: Maria achieves vocational qualifications. She gets a skilled job. Maria writes a successful job application. She participates in group discussions in English. Maria assists her children with homework and reports that they do better at school. She can afford to take her children on holiday. Maria joins in social activity in the community. Maria comes off tranquilisers. She is optimistic about the future. The same indicators as those relating to Maria s outcomes would also provide evidence in relation to other stakeholder s outcomes. LEAP WORKED EXAMPLES: APPLYING LEAP TO REAL-LIFE SITUATIONS

The Action Plan (see section 3, part iii) The action plan for Maria assumes that there is a wider literacies programme and strategy within which the specific responses to her needs are developed. However it also recognises that the needs that Maria presents may be ones that affect others and that the action plan should include attention to newly emerging needs that might require development of new features of the literacies programme. If it becomes clear that Maria s experience indicates similar needs in the community it is likely that a new LEAP process will emerge that sets down outcomes for wider work, relevant progress indicators and an action plan. Inputs/resources Processes/methods Outputs/specific actions Time Literacies programme co-ordinator. Information/publicity. An information pack about adult learning/literacy opportunities will be sent immediately to Maria by the programme co-ordinator. Immediate Maria. Literacies volunteer tutor. Child care support. Learning materials. Equipment to support learning. Travel costs. Peer support. Support from other professionals, e.g. mental health services, children s teachers, refugee support agency. Outreach work. Literacy tutoring. Confidence building. Securing resources. The programme co-ordinator will arrange to meet Maria at her home to discuss options that could help her achieve her ambitions. If appropriate, the programme co-ordinators will match Maria with a volunteer tutor and a programme of literacy support will be planned with her for a specified period drawing on the learning resources of the local literacies programme. In the process of the literacies programme volunteer tutors will encourage participants to support one another and arrange specific joint events and activities in the Northside learning centre. The volunteer tutor will identify opportunities for Maria to use her new skills to positively reinforce the progress she is making. The programme co-ordinators will arrange child care support for her younger child to enable Maria to participate in learning and will make enquiries about potential financial support with travel costs. By week 2 By week 4 Throughout Throughout Counselling/guidance. A date will be set 3 months after commencing tutoring, for a review between Maria, the programme co-ordinator and the volunteer tutor of Maria s progress in achieving her aims. Guidance will be offered at that time about further learning opportunities and other ways that she can make progress in meeting her needs, in particular information about community resources and activities that might be helpful to her. By week 4 Referral to other services. Progress reviews between the tutor and the programme co-ordinator will consider whether referral to other agencies could be helpful, e.g. to Northside Association for Mental Health or the careers service. This will be discussed with Maria and where appropriate referral will be made. Week 16 Networking and resource development. The programme co-coordinator will review wider supports for refugee families and report on development of literacies services for refugees including potential for collaboration with specialist refugee agencies. 4 weekly Week 1-8 14 15

LEAP Maria s plan in brief What resources will we use? Maria Literacies co-ordinator/ tutor Child care Learning materials Equipment Travel costs Peer support Support from other professionals, e.g. mental health, refugee agency How will we go about it? What methods will we use? Publicity Outreach work Tutoring Confidence building Securing resources Counselling Guidance Referral Networking What actions will we take? Information pack Interview with Maria Learning plan Child care package Tutorials Review meeting Guidance on further learning Records of progress What difference do we want? Job Literacy skills Adequate income Provide for children Social networks Good mental health How will we know? Employment applications Employment Support of children Social activity Confidence Qualifications Optimism What is the need? Refugee status Social isolation Skills for employment Poverty Mental health Benefits Language skills Parenting role Lack of confidence LEAP WORKED EXAMPLES: APPLYING LEAP TO REAL-LIFE SITUATIONS

Monitoring (see LEAP manual section 3, part iv) Once Maria has become active in the literacies programme, as with other learners, a learning plan is established which reflects the agreed action plan. The plan is an open record shared between Maria, the volunteer tutor and the literacies programme co-ordinator. It is used both to record actions that have been taken and evidence of progress towards the agreed outcomes for Maria. Evaluation (see section 3, part v and section 2, part v) In Maria s story step 5 is built in to the review meeting that was set for week sixteen of the action plan between Maria, the volunteer tutor and the literacies co-ordinator. By this time Maria has been working directly with the volunteer tutor for three months. The learning plan provides a primary source of information for the evaluation. It records the outcomes that Maria said she was looking for, the elements of the action plan and subsequent developments arising through the tutoring sessions she has had. They begin the meeting by reviewing whether the action plan has actually been carried out. They are all satisfied that it has. Maria has enjoyed the tutoring relationship. She has felt understood and valued. The tutor has recorded evidence of improved capacity to understand English and communicate in writing and orally. The tutor feels that Maria s apparent literacy difficulty actually has as much to do with her self-confidence as it does with her basic ability. The tutor has spent time with Maria role-playing situations in which she has felt disadvantaged by her language competence such as going to her children s school open evenings, going to the job centre, attending her local church. The lack of self-confidence has contributed to her social isolation. In the process of their work the tutor has discovered that Maria has felt unable to properly support her children in their school work because their use of English is much better than hers and this has spilled over into a general lack of confidence as a parent, which is particularly worrying her in relation to Pablo who likes to hang out with his mates in the local shopping mall. In one of the joint student events in the literacies programme Maria has met a neighbour who has joined a newly formed women s group in Northside. The neighbour has invited her to go along with her and she is now a member of the group and, motivated to protect her son Pablo, she is particularly interested in the Northside Team skate park campaign. Maria tends to be self-deprecating and to have lower expectations of herself than appropriate for her abilities. The positive experience of the literacies programme encourages her to be more positive about herself and think about the kind of work she would like to do. She expresses an interest in social care work. With the support of her tutor she has arranged an interview with the careers service. Overall she expresses much more optimism about her future. 16 17

LEAP In terms of the outcomes Maria is seeking she feels that she has achieved some of them and is making progress towards others. She has developed sufficient confidence to join the Northside Women s group and in so doing feels she is doing something to support Pablo to become more responsible. Maria reports that getting involved in the literacies programme and establishing social contact in her community has made her feel more positive. She is also more confident that she can establish the skills she will need to be employable and has taken action to identify what she needs to do. From the point of view of the literacies programme the same evidence demonstrates progress that relates to the overall outcomes set for the programme. Though Maria has not yet set out to achieve formal qualifications, there is ample evidence of successful learning in her increasingly confident engagement with her neighbours and community. Her self-esteem has benefited greatly by being confident enough to contribute to community life by involvement in the women s group. There are also some unanticipated outcomes. As part of the action plan the literacies co-ordinator agreed to review the wider needs of refugees for literacies services. As a result she has been in discussion with Northside Refugee Council and is planning a joint initiative with them to publicise literacies services. Maria expresses interest in being involved in this. In the light of the evaluation of progress made consideration is given to the question: what will we need to do now?. Some of Maria s outcomes remain unchanged but new ones are emerging. Similarly the experience of working with Maria has resulted in recognition of wider needs of refugees and the literacies team is embarking on a new LEAP cycle to address these. LEAP WORKED EXAMPLES: APPLYING LEAP TO REAL-LIFE SITUATIONS

3. Capacity building Northside Women s Group story The need (see LEAP manual section 2, part i) The women s group in Northside was formed after women in the area protested spontaneously about discarded needles being found in the car park at the back of the shopping mall. They see this as a symptom of the increasing risk from drug dealing and misuse in their community. They are particularly fearful of the risks to their children not only from the drugs themselves but increasing violence and risk of being drawn into criminality. They have achieved publicity for their concerns in the local paper and have approached the CLD team for support. On the basis of relevant statistical evidence of deprivation, Northside is within the worst 15% in the country and already designated as a regeneration area. Crime statistics highlight drug misuse as a problem. The community development worker recognises the relevance of the expressed need in the context of the general problems of regeneration and the policy commitment to action in the area. He also knows that the spontaneous action of the women will provide strengths on which to build and that being involved in these issues will fit with policy priorities The stakeholders (see section 2, parts ii and iv) The women s group is the primary stakeholder. As they are acting on an issue that others in the community may have an interest in, potentially there could be other community stakeholders that emerge. As in the other stories the worker, managers and policy makers have an established interest. These interests are not limited to the CLD team but also potentially involve a range of other agencies that are involved in the Northside regeneration partnership and the Strathinver community safety partnership (for example: health improvement, Northside Housing Association, Strathinver police). 18 19

LEAP Stakeholder analysis (see framework in section 2, part ii) System Factor CLD team Women s Group Motivation Capacity Individual worker and agency commitment to building capacity of community to address local needs. Fit with national CLD priorities and Strathinver CLD strategy. Commitment to tackling drug culture and its consequences for community safety. Skills and experience of capacity building. Access to resources including operational support budget, equipment. Access to specialist advice and support of Alcohol and Drugs Action Team (ADAT). Managerial and policy support. Belief in the potential of the Women s group. Anger about threat to safety and welfare of children. Fear of dangers to children and adults. Vision of a safe, attractive and positive community. Enjoyment of working with others to achieve change. Time. Energy. Resilience in face of adversity. Self-organisation skills. Communication skills in highlighting the threat. Confidence/self belief to tackle the threat. Other potential partners Alcohol and Drugs Action Team: Goal of tackling drug misuse. Police: Concern for community safety. Need to tackle drug crime. Health: Promotion of health improvement. Schools: Safety for children. Politicians: Commitment to tackle drug trade and misuse. Other community groups: Shared concern about impact of drug trade. (N.B. most of these come together in the Community Safety Forum) Each of the above brings relevant knowledge, skills and resources that can contribute to tackling the issues. Targets for change Drug suppliers and dealers: To maintain power and income, likely to be actively resistant and potentially threatening. Drug Users: Likely to resist loss of access to supply but may also be motivated by personal desire for change. Passive members of the community: May not wish to challenge behaviour of neighbours or family members. Resistant professionals among potential partners: Fear of the consequences of the confrontational style of the Women s Group. Drug suppliers and dealers: Violence and threat of violence. Hold over drug users. Resources to promote and extend drugs market. Drug users: Anti-social behaviour, collusion with suppliers and dealers. Passive members of the community: Inaction. Resistant professionals: Use of professional power and authority, control of access to resources. LEAP WORKED EXAMPLES: APPLYING LEAP TO REAL-LIFE SITUATIONS

Stakeholder analysis continued System Factor CLD team Women s group Opportunity Shared interest of other potential partners in tackling drug misuse. Heightened sense of crisis indicated by spontaneous protests. Positive support from CLD team. Interest expressed by other potential partners. Positive response from local press. High profile of the issues in national and local policy. Other potential partners For all agencies interested in drug misuse the potential to work with a local driven campaign. Targets for change Desire for change among users. Desire for change among passive community members. Ability of Women s Group to demonstrate competence to resistant professionals. Agreeing outcomes the difference the stakeholders wanted to make (see LEAP manual section 3, parts i and ii and section 2, part ii) The women s group in Northside are highly motivated to achieve change and their vision of the outcome they want is a safe community where their children are free of the risks of the drug trade and have opportunities for enjoyable and worthwhile activities in an environment that will encourage them to become mature adults. The community development worker, CLD team and their managers regard these as desirable outcomes but they see them in a wider context that is informed by policy for their work. In line with HGIOCLD? 2 and the Learning Connections CLD outcomes guidance they emphasise process outcomes for the group: growth in confidence and skills, capacity to plan and take action together, widened community networks, becoming more influential, accessing and using resources to achieve change and influence on policy and practice of agencies working in the community. Other agencies, for example those in the Strathinver community safety partnership, are interested in supporting the women s group for other reasons. For example the health improvement team identify outcomes in terms of reduced drug dependency, the police seek outcomes related to reduced crime and the housing association seeks an improved image for the community. 20 21

LEAP Outcomes and outcome indicators The women want these outcomes: A safe community where their children are free of the risks of the drug trade. Opportunities for enjoyable and worthwhile activities for young people. Other stakeholder have identified these outcomes: Growth in confidence and skills Capacity to plan and take action together Widened networks in the community Become more influential Access and use resources to achieve change. Influence policy and practice of agencies working in the community. Improved image for the community. These are potential indicators of success: Recorded drug related crime reduces. People say they feel safer walking in the neighbourhood at night. Group collaborate with others, e.g. support to the Northside Team campaign for a skate park helps them to achieve their outcome. Potential indicators of success The group applies for and carries out a Community Action Research Fund project. The group supports the Northside Team campaign. The group is invited to present its research findings to the Alcohol and Drugs Action Team. The group participates in the development of the Youth Strategy and is invited to present a workshop based on its research project. The group lobbies the local councillor and MSP who respond by agreeing to regular meetings with them. The Action Plan (see section 3, part iii) In the Northside women s group story the action plan also falls into stages. It can be confidently predicted that stage 1 can be carried through because the inputs are committed. However stage 2 and 3 would depend on further developments and commitments and are therefore more speculative. In presenting outlines of the kind of content that could be included in action plans for Maria, the Northside Team and the Women s Group, the following should be noted: Action plans may in practice evolve in stages that are dependent on commitment of new inputs. The inputs may come from a wide variety of sources but have to be securely committed before they can form the basis for a plan. The processes and methods reflect the overall practice theory and competences that underpin CLD and should be familiar to all qualified workers. The outputs are statements of actions that will be taken, the purpose of which is to make progress towards the intended outcomes identified at step 1. Responsibilities for delivering the outputs are clearly identified. The timescales within which the outputs should be delivered are clearly identified. LEAP WORKED EXAMPLES: APPLYING LEAP TO REAL-LIFE SITUATIONS

Inputs/resources Processes/methods Outputs/specific actions Time Stage 1: Community development worker. Women s group. The wider community. Alcohol and Drugs Action Team (ADAT). Meeting place. Stage 2: All the above plus: Scottish Community Action Research Fund (SCARF). Stage 1: Outreach. Information. Acquiring resources. Stage 2: Capacity and confidence building. Investigation Stage 1: Community Development (CD) worker will meet with women s group to discuss issues and actions. CD worker will provide information about action that other community organisations have taken about drug issues. Alcohol and Drugs Action Team will be asked to provide information about drug misuse and services and ongoing advice. Women s group, supported by CD worker, will apply to SCARF for funding to carry out investigation into attitudes to drug misuse in the community and local services and actions that could be effective at community level. Stage 2: CD worker will work with group to identify, audit and where necessary develop specific skills they may need to take action on the identified issues. If application to SCARF is successful this will be supplemented by specific research skills support from a research mentor Immediate Weeks 2-6 Weeks 6-10 Weeks 6 onwards The women s group will conduct its research project and prepare a report on potential actions Weeks 16-40 Stage 3: All of the above plus: Councillors. MSP. Police. Community Safety Forum. Youth Forum. Social Work Department. Health Board health practitioners Stage 3: Campaign planning Campaigning Networking and resource development Evaluation, reflection and learning Stage 3: Using evidence gathered and supported by the CD worker the group will prepare a campaign plan including identifying key influencers (e.g. MSP, Councillor, Divisional Police Commander) considering how best to put over information they have gathered, considering how to build community support and involvement and how to engage the interest of service providers, (e.g. Health Board and Social Work). Meetings arranged by group, discussion held, reports distributed, lobbying conducted, etc. The group will develop and sustain contact, and where possible collaborate, with others with a shared interest in the need, e.g. ADAT, Community Safety Forum, Northside Youth Forum. Evidence of progress against intended outcomes will be recorded by group and CD worker and reviewed at the end of each stage of the action plan. Weeks 40-44 Week 44 onwards Week 44 onwards Weeks 10, 40 and 6 monthly thereafter 22 23

LEAP Northside Women s Group plan in brief How will we go about it? What resources will we use? What methods will we use? Women s group Outreach CD worker Information gathering Wider community Capacity building ADAT Investigation Meeting place Planning campaign SCARF Campaigning Councillors Networking MSP Seeking resources Police Review and learning Council Departments Health Board What actions will we take? Planning meeting Information pack SCARF application Programme of development meetings Research planning, data collection, analysis, dissemination Campaign plan Contacting other interested parties Monthly progress reviews What difference do we want? Safe community Opportunities for young people Networks developed Confident organised influential group Policy changes How will we know? Reduced drug related crime Collaboration with others Funding for investigation Feeling of safety Influence on policies What is the need? Drug misuse Risks to children and adults Safety Crime Health Violence Fear Poverty Regeneration Responsive public services, e.g. police, housing, etc. LEAP WORKED EXAMPLES: APPLYING LEAP TO REAL-LIFE SITUATIONS

Monitoring (see LEAP manual section 3, part iv) The lead role in achieving change is taken by the women s group itself and it is agreed that they will co-ordinate monitoring of the action plan. Supported by the community development worker they will do this by using the minutes of their meetings to record all action points that would be required to implement the action plan. At each meeting these actions will be reviewed to ensure that progress has been made on the tasks identified. Any evidence of progress against the intended outcomes will be recorded in the minutes. Evaluation (see section 3, part v and section 2, part v) The women s group set out a three stage action plan that they agreed would be evaluated at the end of each key stage, with a commitment to six monthly reviews thereafter. The evaluations of progress are based on the records kept by the group and observations and records of other stakeholders. At the end of the first stage the key stakeholders were the group, the community development workers and a worker from the Alcohol and Drugs Action team that is providing advice and support. In stage 2 as they were successful in getting funding for the community action research project, a worker from the fund also became an active stakeholder. As they move into stage 3, their campaign phase, they have established a collaborative relationship with the Community Safety Forum and the Northside Youth Forum who also become active stakeholders. There are other people they are still seeking to influence such as the MSP and councillor, the police, health board and social work department. As yet they are not actively involved as stakeholders but as we shall see by the end of stage 3 they too are on board. By the end of stage 1 the women s group has not achieved any of the end outcomes it is seeking, however they have established a positive working relationship with the community development worker and the ADAT team member that has enabled them to acquire a better understanding of drugs issues and the kinds of responses that community organisations can make. They have also applied for funding to investigate attitudes to drug misuse in their community They recognise that these are necessary preliminary actions and are satisfied that they are in a stronger position to move forward. For the community development worker there is evidence of the process outcomes that he is seeking. The group is demonstrating its continuing commitment to learning about drugs issues, showing that it can access and use resources and beginning to show competence in planning and taking action together. By the end of stage 2 the women s group has still not achieved any of the end outcomes it is seeking, however they have run a skills development programme with the support of the community development worker, successfully obtained funding, developed their research skills and carried out a community led research project. 24 25

LEAP All of these things demonstrate that the process outcomes prioritised by the community development worker are being achieved. The research fund officer is also able to identify the capacity building outcomes that the programme seeks to achieve. The group is increasingly self-confident, well organised and resourceful. The worker encourages them to recognise and value the process outcomes as these will improve the chances of addressing the core problem of drug dealing and misuse. Whilst the underlying problem remains, the women do feel that the activity has been worthwhile. They had not set it as an outcome but the fact that they no longer feel helpless in relation to tackling the drug issue is seen as valuable. They are also pleased that they have been able to provide support to the Northside Team campaign for a skate park. Such collaboration directly with young people acting on their own behalf is an unexpected outcome. By the end of stage 3 of the action plan the group has established a good working relationship with the MSP and the councillor who are both supporting their campaign. The MSP has raised questions about drug policy in the Scottish Parliament. The group has also established a good working relationship with the Northside Youth Forum, which is also raising the issues. Prompted by the political support for the group, police, health board and social work department are all now meeting regularly with the group. The group has also been invited to be represented on the community safety forum and drug issues have been given high priority in its work as part of a Strathinver Community Plan well-being theme. An unexpected outcome is that several of the leaders of the group have become well known public figures, regularly interviewed in the press and consulted by service agencies. But another unanticipated and negative outcome is that they have also been threatened by drug dealers. Worrying as this is it does suggest to them that they may be beginning to have some direct impact on the drugs trade. The threats have prompted higher profile police action and residents are expressing the view that the streets feel safer. Police statistics are beginning to show a decline in recorded drug crime in the area. By this stage, then, the group is seeing direct evidence that its primary outcomes are beginning to be achieved. Worryingly, though, police report increased drug related incidents in other neighbourhoods which may mean that the problem is being displaced rather than being resolved. As the group and the other active stakeholders look to further stages in their action and ask the question what will we need to do now? they recognise that they need to retain attention on the original end outcomes but widen the campaign to the whole of Strathinver. The network of stakeholders with commitment to the outcomes originally formulated by the women s group is now extensive and involves policy, programme and project levels. A new LEAP action plan is to be developed through the Community Safety Forum on behalf of the Community Planning Partnership. Whilst the women s group welcome this they also fear loss of their own identity and edge and decide that they also need a plan for their own independent actions. LEAP WORKED EXAMPLES: APPLYING LEAP TO REAL-LIFE SITUATIONS

4. Programme/operational management level example Northside Partnership New Communities Initiative At this level the focus is on the use of LEAP as a tool for planning and evaluation at team, organisational or local partnership levels. For illustrative purposes the example will focus on the work of the Northside community learning and development (CLD) team and its partners in the Northside Partnership. In it they use LEAP to develop a co-ordinated approach to the needs of refugees, asylum seekers and economic migrants in the area. The need (see LEAP manual section 2, part i) Northside has recently seen a significant demographic change with the arrival of approximately 1500 migrant workers, asylum seekers and refugees in an area that has traditionally been predominantly made up of indigenous white working-class residents. Several factors have led to this change. Firstly the Scottish Government is encouraging in migration to compensate for the decline of the Scottish population. Surplus housing stock particularly in the high rise areas was used by the Council to house asylum seekers as part of a national dispersal programme. Many of them have now acquired refugee status and remained in the community where family members have been able to join them. The widening of the European Union which has led to internal economic migration has attracted significant numbers of workers who are finding employment opportunities, particularly in the resurgent tourism industry. They too have been able to benefit from the availability of surplus housing stock in Northside. The three groups are in many ways quite different but also have similarities. The refugees and asylum seekers come from all parts of the world and many of them have had to deal with traumatic circumstances which impinge on their health and ability to adapt to their new circumstances. Their journeys have been enforced whilst those of the economic migrants have been by choice. The refugees enjoy a degree of security that asylum seekers do not. The economic migrant workers are generally white, whilst refugees and asylum seekers are frequently visibly more distinct because of their racial origins. Migrant workers are often younger and single. Asylum seekers are also often on their own whereas the refugees are more likely to be in family units. Transience is a characteristic of all the groups. Refugees and asylum seekers frequently prefer to relocate to areas where there are others from the same place of origin and the economic migrants do not necessarily see their long-term future in Scotland. For nearly all of them English is a second language. However their levels of educational qualification (though not necessarily recognised in the UK) are typically higher than for the indigenous community. 26 27

LEAP Whilst only a relatively small part of the overall population, these new arrivals have potentially much to contribute to the local economy and community. However, there are needs to be addressed. Refugees and asylum seekers in particular have been a focus of racism and discriminatory behaviour, and community cohesion is under threat. The police have recorded several incidents of racially motivated attacks and a racially-based gang fight has raised concern. The local schools have been challenged by the increased number of children for whom English is not their first language and there has been negative reaction from other parents. Youth workers are aware of heightened tensions on the streets. Adult learning workers are experiencing new demands for ESOL support. Health workers are aware of new health needs but also identify reluctance to use services. Local residents complain that new job opportunities in the tourism industry have gone to economic migrants but fail to recognise that they frequently lack the necessary skills for this market. Whilst the new arrivals are a focus for community tension, it is apparent that there are no organised groups that represent the interests of these communities. The stakeholders (see LEAP manual section 2, parts ii and iv) In the light of these circumstances the Northside Partnership identified responding to the issues as a priority. A working group of the partnership was charged with developing and implementing a coordinated interagency plan of action. The group consisted of the Area CLD Officer (with a lead role in co-ordinating the partnership), the Area Community Planning and Regeneration Officer, the NHS Public Health Practitioner, a depute principal of Northside College, a police inspector, the Northside Voluntary Action Council Director, Strathinver Community Relations Forum Director and two representatives from the Community Forum. However at the start there were no organised groups representing the respective migrant communities. It was recognised that they should be key stakeholders but were not yet able to be. LEAP WORKED EXAMPLES: APPLYING LEAP TO REAL-LIFE SITUATIONS

Stakeholder analysis (see framework in section 2, part ii) System Factor Motivation Capacity CLD Officer Personal and agency commitment to equalities and promotion of community cohesion. National commitment to target disadvantaged communities including ethnic minorities. Commitment to building partnership with agencies involved in local community planning. Support and commitment of the Northside Partnership. Previous experience of co-ordinating working groups. Time committed within workload. Access to facilities, equipment and budget. Support of staff team in Northside. New communities of Northside Other partners Targets for change Motivations yet to be investigated. Capacity yet to be investigated. All other agencies in the partnership share common commitment to equalities and social cohesion policies. Some individuals, (e.g. Community Relations Forum Director) have strong personal commitment to anti-racism. Time commitment agreed through Northside Partnership. Specific skills and knowledge from relevant professional roles. Resource support particularly from Council, Police and College. Connections to voluntary sector through Voluntary Action Council. Specific knowledge, skills and resources of Community Relations Forum Director. Among Staff of partner agencies: Discriminatory attitudes and behaviours. In the Northside Community: Discriminatory attitudes and behaviours. Fear of change. Lack of interest in some groups to engage with wider community. Among Staff of partner agencies: Overt challenge to policy unlikely but capacity to resist change through passivity and covert behaviour with potential peer support. In the Northside Community: Active criticism of attention to new communities, e.g. through local press; potential links to far right political campaigns; sectarian and nationalist divisions in and between new communities. Opportunity Shared motivation of a range of agencies to work together in a new forum. Opportunity to capitalise on access to diverse resources. Potential of the new communities to contribute positively to Northside. Not yet clear. Shared motivation of a range of agencies to work together in a new forum. Opportunity to capitalise on access to diverse resources. Potential of the new communities to contribute positively to Northside. Exploitation of community tensions. Agreeing outcomes the differences the stakeholders wanted to make (see section 3, parts i and ii and section 2, part ii) The stakeholders envisioned the difference they would like to see. Each had different priorities but it was possible to identify a package of outcomes that everyone could agree on. The ultimate outcomes sought were: a safe, healthy, socially cohesive, economically thriving community in which new arrivals would be able to prosper as individuals and families and participate fully as equal and contributing members. 28 29

LEAP To achieve this, intermediate outcomes were identified: elimination of racist behaviours and threats; establishment of skills that enable individual refugees and migrants to participate fully and community leaders effectively to represent community interests; establishment of strong social capital within the new communities represented by their own organisations and strong social networks that are connected into the community as a whole. Initially, however, it was recognised that first stage key outcomes would need to be: establishment of understanding of the aspirations, assets, needs and priorities of the new communities and how they related to those of the wider community; and development of capacity for the communities to articulate and represent their own interests. Outcomes and outcome indicators Stage 1 The new communities are engaged. Needs and aspirations of new communities are known and used to inform planning by agencies. Communities are organised and able to represent themselves effectively. Potential indicators Members of the communities participate in events. Reports based on reliable evidence illuminate understanding and are reflected in policies and practices of agencies. There are representative organisations of self-identified communities and interest groups. These organisations are participating in planning for their communities. Stage 2 Racist behaviour has been eliminated. Member of the community have the skills they need. Community leaders have the skills that they need. Strong social capital has been formed. New community networks link with those of the existing community. Police report no racist incidents. Community groups report positively on the absence of threatening behaviours. Participation in learning opportunities; qualifications achieved; success in accessing job opportunities; increased incomes. The communities are well represented by their leaders issues and concerns appear on agendas, they are given serious attention, agency policies and practices indicate responsiveness to community concerns. There is an infrastructure of local self-help groups and activities, people feel that their communities enable them to meet their own needs, members of the community are contributing to each other s welfare in informal and formal ways. Established community structures including the community forum, youth forum, adult learner s forum include representatives from the new communities. Issues specific to their needs are given proper attention and the representatives contribute to work on commonly experienced concerns. LEAP WORKED EXAMPLES: APPLYING LEAP TO REAL-LIFE SITUATIONS

Stage 3 The new communities are: Safe. Healthy. Socially cohesive. Economically thriving. Participating and contributing fully. Crime statistics improve. New residents feel safe. Health statistics improve against baseline evidence. Inter-communal threats and violence cease. Community organisations act in the common interests of all. The communities of Northside celebrate their own and each other s identity. Employment statistics, patterns and type of employment are more secure and adequately paid. Member of the new communities have become equally involved in community organisations, interest groups, political parties. The action plan (see LEAP manual section 3, part iii) The action plan was built on CLD principles as all stakeholders believed that a participatory and empowering approach would be essential if an appropriate response was to be made to the community needs. It was therefore recognised that action planning would need to be developed through a series of LEAP cycles relating to the staged outcomes they had identified. It was agreed that all the agencies and community bodies which had contact with members of the new communities would collaborate in an effort to establish a working dialogue with them. It was recognised that they would themselves need to address their own competence for the task and need to be able also to call on specialist external resources, for example, translators and interpreters. The grid below sets out a summary of the action plan for stage 1 which focused on better understanding of the needs of the communities and building their capacity for engagement. This plan represents the overall work that the partnership would undertake. Many of the activities (for example the open day) represented project level elements of the emerging overall programme and were subject in their own right to specific LEAP plans to aid their conduct. 30 31

LEAP Inputs/resources Processes/methods Outputs/specific actions Time Stage 1 Area Community Planning and Regeneration officer (ACPRO). CLD Team. Northside College Community links worker. Public Health Practitioners. Community Police Officers. Agency capacity building. Outreach and street work. As preparation for the instigation of activity, a day seminar will be organised by the Northside College community links worker and CLD Capacity Building Team for staff of local agencies and community leaders about rights, circumstances and needs of asylum seekers, refugees and migrant workers. The organisers will seek support from specialist agencies (COLSA Consortium, Scottish Refugee Council). The CLD capacity building team will conduct a programme of street based and house to house contact with members of the new communities to find out more about their priorities and concerns. The youth work team will conduct a similar process of street based contact with young people. To be held at week 10 From week 10-16 Chief Executives Department Research Team. Voluntary Action Council. Training resources and advice from: Scottish Refugee Council, COSLA Refugee and Asylum Seeker Consortium. Strathinver Community Relations Forum. Community Forum. Youth Forum. Adult Learning Forum. Interpreters and translation services. Investigation/research. Data analysis. Providing and sharing information. Organisational development. The ACPRO and Senior CLD officer (capacity building) working with the Chief Executive s Dept Research Team, drawing on the insights from the street work, will prepare a plan and tools for investigating needs of the new communities. All front line workers in all agencies in contact with members of the new communities will participate in collection of data over a two week period using these tools. Analysis of data will be conducted by the CE Research team The CLD capacity building team working with the Voluntary Action Council and the Community Relations Forum will co-ordinate the organisations of an open day event for members of the new communities in the Northside Community Centre at which all local services, voluntary and community organisations will be asked to provide information stalls about what they do. This event will incorporate an informal world café session where participants will be able to eat lunch around tables where there will be themed discussions about issues such as health, learning, jobs, housing, arts, leisure, sport and recreation that draw on the research evidence. Based on contacts made through all of the above members of the capacity building team will take a lead in encouraging the formation of one or more community group around area of common interest. Preparation week 16 to 20, research period 20-22 Weeks 22-25 Planning from week 10, event held week 28 From week 10 onwards Knowledge exchange and review. A further day seminar for the partnership agencies will be organised by the capacity building team and Northside College to share the knowledge gained from the investigation and the open day/world café event and review its implications for further action. Week 31 LEAP WORKED EXAMPLES: APPLYING LEAP TO REAL-LIFE SITUATIONS

Northside New Communities Initiative stage 1 plan in brief How will we go about it? What resources will we use? What methods will we use? What actions will we take? ACPRO CLD team College Comm links worker Public health practitioner Community police CE research team Refugee Council COSLA Community relations Community, youth and adult learning forums interpreters Capacity building Outreach/street work Investigation/research Data analysis Information sharing Organisational development Knowledge exchange and review Agency preparatory day seminar Outreach to establish profile of community needs Investigation project by front line staff Data analysis by research team Open day event and world café Capacity building support to development of new organisations What is the need? What difference do we want? Social dislocation Racism Needs known Aspirations known Insecurity Needs and aspirations inform plans Poor health New communities engaged New communities organised Poverty Language How will we know? Community members participate Organisation Reports evidence understanding of needs Untapped potential Policies and practices reflect needs Organisations set up and involved Skill development Social isolation Violence Trauma 32 33

LEAP Monitoring (see LEAP manual section 3, part iv) The initial stage of the development programme was complex. It required the active collaboration of a wide range of participants in a series of actions, each of which involved careful planning in its own right. Ensuring that all elements of the programme were effectively conducted and integrated was essential. To this end the partners agreed that the CLD Area Officer would take on a co-ordinating role on behalf of all agencies and contributors. Each of the initiatives in the first stage had an identified leader and it was agreed that these people would report directly to the CLD Area Officer and form a co-ordinating group that would meet with her on a six weekly cycle to retain oversight of the action plan. Evaluation (see section 3, part v and section 2, part v) The stage 1 action plan was evaluated as the basis for the second round of LEAP planning. This was conducted at two levels. At the first level, project leaders, working with the CLD Area Officer and appropriate stakeholders, conducted evaluation of each of the initiatives that they were responsible for (i.e. the agency capacity building/knowledge exchange, outreach and street work, investigation/research and data analysis, open day, organisation building). At the second level, the project leaders and the CLD Area Officer, meeting as a co-ordinating group, considered the outcomes that had resulted from the sum of the activities as a programme. They drew on the evidence of each of the elements of the programme and used this as the basis for an evaluative review of progress with all the stakeholders, conducted as part of the week 31 knowledge exchange event. Evaluation of specific elements of the programme revealed mixed success and some unexpected outcomes. From the initial day seminar for agencies it became apparent that whilst the Northside Partnership was presenting a common commitment to an effective response, some staff of some agencies were reluctant to give the issues priority. Several who had been registered to attend did not do so or left the seminar early. Resistance was mostly passive but it was felt that further actions could be undermined by lack of commitment. More direct challenge to the initiative also surfaced at the seminar with representatives of the community forum questioning why a specific initiative was being organised around the needs of newly arrived members of the community when problems affecting many long-standing community members remained unresolved. The street work by the capacity building and youth work teams had been aided by good summer weather and both had been able to build up contacts. By being on the streets the workers had also become more aware of the tensions that were in evidence. Unexpectedly they had discovered that there were not only tensions between the indigenous and new communities but also different national groups within the refugee and asylum seeker communities. LEAP WORKED EXAMPLES: APPLYING LEAP TO REAL-LIFE SITUATIONS

They had also found that their contacts had more commonly been with men and boys than women and girls and feared that they were at risk of developing a partial understanding of community perspectives. Generally, however, the contacts had reinforced prior perceptions of the issues that the communities were experiencing (see needs section above). Fortunately the weaknesses of the street work as a basis for understanding community needs were to a degree compensated for by an investigatory research project which proved more successful in reaching women in the communities. The research project had developed a simple questionnaire to be used in contacts with members of the new communities by agency front-line staff over the designated two week period. This focused on hopes, fears, positive and negative aspects of living in Northside. Again the evidence reinforced the perceptions of the needs at the start of the programme (see needs section above). A significant additional feature of the evidence was a very high level of confusion about public service entitlements and how these are accessed. However it was acknowledged that the approach had been flawed because it required community members to be in touch with agencies for there to be opportunity to express themselves and it was already known that level of service take up was an issue. Both the street-work and research project had revealed the frequency with which language was a barrier to effective communication and the difficulty of accessing interpretation at the point when it was needed. This difficulty was much greater for the refugee and asylum seeker community. Interpreting services were available but advance notice was needed and more spontaneous exchange was often very limited in scope. Children and young people often inadvertently became interpreters. Whilst in the informal street-based contact this was not of so much concern, for more formal contacts that involved discussion of more personal difficulties it was recognised as an important issue. The street-work and research project had helped the open day to be widely publicised. All agencies had participated as planned. Those representing agencies demonstrated a strong commitment to the purpose of the event. Overall it was well attended with 350 people from the communities participating. 150 of them had participated in the world café event which had produced further important insights into the needs of the new communities. A positive but unanticipated aspect of the event was the opportunity it gave for agency staff to network with one another at an event where information about what services provided was on display. Agency participants frequently commented that they had learned much about the roles of other services and had made useful contacts that could enable more collaborative practice not just in relation to the target group for the event but in other areas of practice, for example, practical integration of children s services. 34 35

LEAP More negatively publicity for the event had elicited critical comments from some members of the wider community. Letters had been published in the Strathinver Post complaining of preferential treatment for migrants and lack of attention to the long-standing needs of Northside. One of the letters was signed by an office bearer of the Community Forum resulting in a counter response from another. It was clear that the initiative had created a split in the ranks of the forum that would need to be addressed. Organisational development within the new communities of Northside had been fostered with the support of the CLD capacity building team. Three meetings had been held of an informal group of community representatives that was now in the process of constituting itself as a formal community organisation called Kune, the Esperanto word for together. The participants were mainly men from the refugee and asylum seeker communities though there was interest from all the newly arrived groups. The purpose of the group would be to address commonly experienced needs and promote a positive role in the community as a whole. The issues identified from the various elements of the programme were presented at the partnership knowledge exchange event. Participants concluded that they had made reasonable progress in relation to the outcomes set for stage 1 (namely that needs and aspirations of new communities are known and used to inform planning by agencies and the new communities are organised and able to represent themselves effectively). They felt that though their methods of engaging the community had not reached everyone, they had a much better understanding of the experience of these communities. However they had also learned a great deal about the difficulty they would have in making effective responses. These difficulties related to an emerging recognition of the need to improve professional skills, develop responsive and cultural sensitive practice and acquire new resources such as readily available interpreters. However the need to do these things was not universally acknowledged. As a result some participants felt the responses of some agencies had revealed latent institutional racism, as well as discriminatory attitudes on the part of some staff. This was a significant source of tension. The problem was also reflected in the wider community responses to the special initiative. While some of the negativity seemed to be overtly racist, it was widely recognised that the community as a whole had major problems that should not seem to be overshadowed by action to address the needs of a minority. It was agreed that much more attention needed to be given to a strategic approach that demonstrably addressed the overall needs of the community. Without this there was a fear that the initiative, far from promoting community cohesion, could actually undermine it. At the same time the majority view was that a more overtly anti-racist stance was required on the part of all agencies and groups in the community. LEAP WORKED EXAMPLES: APPLYING LEAP TO REAL-LIFE SITUATIONS

The emergence of Kune as a potential vehicle for the participation of the new communities was generally welcomed. Given the tensions in the community it was felt that support for its development needed to encourage links with existing mechanisms for community representation, especially the Community Forum. The evaluation of progress at stage 1 led into a review by the Northside Partnership of the outcomes that were set for stages 2 and 3. All of these remained valid indeed the need for them was reinforced. Elimination of racist behaviour remained central, however the assumption that racism was a community and not an agency problem had been challenged. Developing the individual skills of community members through adult learning opportunities was still a priority and the need for specific skill development for emerging community leaders was apparent. The building of social capital remained an important concern but how far this should be treated as distinct from the social capital of Northside as a whole needed to be addressed. Working links between the new and old communities of Northside remained a desirable outcome but the dimension of inter-community tension had become more apparent and would need to be addressed. The long term outcome of stage three that the new communities are: safe, healthy, socially cohesive, economically thriving and participating and contributing fully remained unchanged but there was emerging recognition that unless this was true for all members of the Northside community it would be unachievable for part of it. With this in mind the New Communities Initiative would need to be developed in a much more integrated way with strategic regeneration of Northside as a whole. With these issues in mind a new LEAP planning and evaluation cycle commenced. 36 37

LEAP 5. Policy/strategic management level example Building strong community infrastructure for Strathinver The need (see LEAP manual section 2, part i) Strathinver Council and its community planning partners, in line with the requirements of the relevant legislation and guidance, adopted a commitment to participation of communities in the planning and delivery of all services. In the conduct of this approach it became apparent that from the perspective of community participants the integration of support services to community and local voluntary organisations was not as effective as it could be. The following problems were reported: duplication of roles between agencies; gaps in support in particular areas and to particular types of group; inconsistency in attitudes to the independent authority of community groups; lack of integration of budgets to provide most effective support; short-term funding strategies; need for more effective community engagement methods; poor overall co-ordination of activities; inconsistent and confused approach to capacity building. The partners decided that a participatory review of policy and practice was needed that fully involved those that the services were intended to benefit. It was recognised that within Strathinver those agencies with the competences to conduct the review were also service providers. There were therefore potential issues relating to objectivity, especially if one organisation conducted the review. They therefore chose to bring together a consortium of senior representatives of lead agencies who would plan and conduct the work involving representation from three city-wide community groups and employing external consultants. The lead officers were drawn from the Community Service department CLD team, the Chief Executive s department Community Planning and Regeneration division, the Strathinver Voluntary Action Council and the Strathinver Housing Association. Community representation was from the Strathinver Community Regeneration Forum, the Strathinver Community Care Forum and the Strathinver Tenants and Residents Federation. Together they successfully applied for funding to enable them to conduct a review with the assistance of external consultants, who would facilitate community engagement and undertake desk research. The grant would be paid to the Voluntary Action Council which would employ the consultants. Consideration was given to which services should provide support to local organisations, what forms this should take and how it could best be structured. Though ultimate decision-making authority in relation to recommendations from the review was retained by each agency, they would take advice from a procedure in which community organisations were at the heart and which was conducted collaboratively between statutory and voluntary sector agencies. LEAP WORKED EXAMPLES: APPLYING LEAP TO REAL-LIFE SITUATIONS

The stakeholders (see section 2, parts ii and iv) In practice the initial stakeholders were the organising group. They comprised the agencies for which community support was a primary role and the three council-wide community representative structures. Though they were the initial stakeholders they were charged with developing a review process that would enable a wide range of others to be actively engaged. The wider stakeholders in the review potentially included all the agencies that provided or could provide supports to community and local voluntary organisations and all of those that used or could use the services on offer. A range of other service providers was identified who either provided some community support as part of their wider functions or for whom such activity in Strathinver was part of commitment across a wider geographical area. The first group was made up of agencies that provide support that relates to their specific functions and responsibilities: NHS Strathinver (health improvement), Strathinver Police (crime prevention and community safety), Strathinver Fire Service (community safety) and from the council; Social Work (care services) and Housing (tenant involvement). The second group included two national voluntary organisations that have local community capacity building projects. All of these were potential stakeholders The number of community organisations that could potentially have been considered stakeholders was uncertain as a complete mapping of such groups was not in place. Even if only those that were in membership of the Voluntary Action Council and those that had already had direct support from the agencies were concerned, there were over 250 local organisations with an active interest. These included neighbourhood community regeneration forums, tenants and residents associations, community enterprises, community arts and recreation groups, organisations of and for young people, older people, black and minority ethnic groups, health and care service users, and disabled people, amongst others. No single body represented all these interests. At the start they were all potential stakeholders and the review was open to their participation but not all of them chose to exercise their stake. Though external consultants were to assist the review process they did not have a direct interest in the outcomes of the focus of the engagement and were not therefore stakeholders but facilitators. 38 39

LEAP Stakeholder analysis (see framework in section 2 part ii) Factor System Core Agency Partnership members (CLD, Community Planning, Vol Action, Housing Assoc.) Core Community Partnership members (Regen Forum, Care Forum, Tenants and Residents Fed.) Wider partners agency and community Targets for change Motivation More effective community support. More efficient use of support resources. Maximising benefits of role of community sector. Commitment to principles of vibrant civil society. Fulfilment of national and local policy objectives. Increased capacity for the community sector. Improvement of support system e.g. sustainable funding, better community engagement. Greater influence for the community sector. Resolution of specific deficiencies of the support system. Commitment to the value of voluntary action. Agency: Clarity about support systems. Synergy from collaborative planning. Integration of specific support schemes with wider programmes. Community: Access to appropriate sustainable support in a straightforward manner. The primary targets for change were the core and wider partner agencies themselves. Motivation to resist change would therefore be internal to the members of the partnership and could come, for example, from fear of loss of control over resources, distrust of potential partners, negative attitudes to community empowerment. Capacity Opportunity Skills, knowledge and experience of supporting the community sector, leading and conducting participatory policy reviews. Commitment of time and resources for the review process and employment of consultants. Previous positive experience of collaboration with partners. Funding. Shared recognition between agencies of the need to address the issues. Willingness of lead community bodies to participate. Legislation and guidance emphasising importance of supporting community sector. Established experience of engagement with the agencies leading the review. Communication and negotiation skills. Strong networking relationships with range of groups in the community sector. Access to expenses to support participation. Commitment of partners to a participatory approach to the review. Chance to establish commitment to best practice. Use of National Standards for Community Engagement and other best practice guidance. Agency: Skills, knowledge and experience of specific aspects of community support. Established links through Community Planning. Community: Front line experience and knowledge. Agency and community: Specific policy guidance relating to community involvement. Community: Use of National Standards for Community Engagement and other best practice guidance. Use of countervailing power or influence by senior staff or elected members to subvert the process. Token commitment to respond to recommendations. Unwillingness to release or share resources. Lack of staff commitment to culture of community partnership and participation. Tight spending restrictions. Lack of binding legislation relating to performance in community support and engagement. LEAP WORKED EXAMPLES: APPLYING LEAP TO REAL-LIFE SITUATIONS

Agreeing outcomes the differences the stakeholders wanted to make (see LEAP manual section 3, parts i and ii and section 2, part ii) The outcomes identified here reflect the reasons why the Community Planning Partnership supported a review and the initial visioning exercise conducted by the lead consortium. It was anticipated that as the review developed a wider range of stakeholders would become engaged and be able to influence its direction. Outcomes were identified at two levels. Firstly the consortium was concerned that the review itself should result in a positive working relationship between the stakeholders that built up trust and capacity to work together effectively. However these outcomes were seen only as assisting the development of policy and practice that, once implemented, would lead to direct improvements in the conduct of support to community groups. At this second level, the key outcomes sought were that community organisations in Strathinver should: be fully aware of the support and resources available to community groups; be able to access appropriate support and resources to enable them to contribute effectively to community well-being; be engaged effectively; experience a consistent and integrated approach from agencies; feel that their independence was respected and valued; be recognised for their substantial role in meeting the needs of and representing the communities of Strathinver. The consortium identified an overarching outcome which was that support agencies would have developed the ability to maximise the role and potential of the community sector in Strathinver to the benefit of residents. Outcomes and Outcome Indicators Outcomes First level The process of the review would establish: Trust between stakeholders. Effective joint working relationships. Second level Community organisations in Strathinver should: Be fully aware of the support and resources available to community groups. Be able to access appropriate support and resources to enable them to contribute effectively to community well-being. Be engaged effectively. Experience a consistent and integrated approach from agencies. Feel that their independence was respected and valued. Be recognised for their substantial role in meeting the needs of and representing the communities of Strathinver. Potential indicators: First level Increased willingness to participate. Confidence expressed by stakeholders about the conduct of joint work. Willingness to address controversial issues and deal with them constructively and openly. Second level Records of level and appropriateness of requests for support. Take-up of available support. Satisfaction level with: funding application procedures; speed of grant assessment; level of funding; length of funding period; ease of monitoring and accountability procedures. Satisfaction with accessibility and usefulness of capacity building support. Satisfaction with collaboration between support agencies. Celebration of the contribution of community groups. Satisfaction with engagement methods and positive attitudes of elected members and officials towards community groups. 40 41

LEAP The action plan (see section 3, part iii) The action plan developed by the consortium was in effect a LEAP plan for the conduct of community engagement relating to reviewing the support needs of the community sector and the way that partner agencies could most effectively respond to them. They were already familiar with, and using, the National Standards for Community Engagement and prepared the plan in the light of the standards and best practice indicators. They recognised: that the plan would need to enable all the potential stakeholders to participate if they chose to do so; that appropriate supports would therefore need to be in place; that the methods would need to be varied, accessible and appropriate; that they would need to enable effective dialogue between the participants that was seen as relevant from all perspectives; that there would need to be attention to the quality of the information about the review, its conduct and the issues to be addressed; and that good means of feedback would be essential. The consortium felt that the conduct of the review needed to be both in-depth and provide extensive opportunity for participation. They therefore adopted a variety of engagement methods. It was also recognised that the outcomes that had been identified would all be dependent on the development of an effective policy that was adopted and implemented by all relevant agencies. It was agreed that the review should not be rushed and it was therefore planned that it would be completed over a one year period with a further commitment to evaluate the impact of the resulting policy and practice changes one year later. The main elements of the plan were as follows: LEAP WORKED EXAMPLES: APPLYING LEAP TO REAL-LIFE SITUATIONS

Inputs/resources Processes/methods Outputs/specific actions Time The consortium lead members. Recruitment. The consortium will draw up a tender brief for the consultants and recruit. Week 1-6 Community organisations. Support service providers. Funding. External consultants. Meeting places and facilities. Publicity. Desk research. Community engagement, action research and data analysis. Preparation, by the consortium, of a leaflet explaining the purpose and conduct of the review to be distributed to all known community organisations and inviting expressions of interest in participating. Mapping by the consultants of the current funding programmes (level, purposes, eligibility conditions, application procedures, etc), capacity building and other supports provided by all agencies, statutory and voluntary, across Strathinver. 1. Focus groups to be conducted by the consultants in partnership with consortium lead members in each local community plan area (8) and on a partnership wide basis with thematic groups: youth, older people, LGBT, black and minority ethnic, disabled, health and care, tenants, environmental, transport (9). Focus groups to test knowledge of the current supports identified through the mapping, distil the positive and negative features of the support currently offered to community organisations and envision alternatives.. Week 6 Week 10-16 Week 20-28 2. Citizen s jury to be formed consisting of one representative selected by the participants in each focus group. Jury to be serviced by the external consultants, and to draw on the focus group records to identify core areas for evidence gathering. Jury will have powers to call for evidence from all local services providers and from experts in funding and capacity building for the community sector. Report preparation and dissemination/ feedback. Consultants to prepare interim report on findings of focus groups and jury and work with the consortium lead members to identify draft policy recommendations. Report to be prepared in accessible format. Week 30-32 Review event. Strathinver community conference to be organised by consultants and consortium to enable broad based discussion between members of community organisations, voluntary and statutory agencies and elected members. Week 33-35 Policy proposals. Final report with formal policy recommendations to be prepared by the consortium for consideration by the Strathinver Community Planning Partnership Board and the individual partners. Week 40 Co-ordination and monitoring and evaluation of policy implementation. Providing a satisfactory policy proposal is prepared that is adopted by all partners, the consortium lead group will establish a monitoring system for the implementation process and evaluate its impact through a survey and recall community conference. Week 40-46 42 43

LEAP Strathinver community support review: plan in brief How will we go about it? What resources will we use? What methods will we use? What actions will we take? The consortium lead members Community organisations Support service providers Funding from Communities Scotland External consultants Meeting places and facilities Recruitment Publicity Desk research Mapping of support services to community Community engagement, groups action research and data analysis Focus groups Report preparation and dissemination Review event Policy proposals Implementation monitoring Tender brief Leaflet Citizen s jury Interim report Community conference Final report and policy recommendations Monitoring and evaluation system What difference do we want?: Trust/confidence Awareness of and access to support Effective engagement Consistency & integration Respect for independence Recognition of role of groups How will we know?: Quality of working relationship Level of requests for support Take up of support Satisfaction with funding Methods of engagement, collaboration Celebration of role What is the need?: Duplication of support roles Gaps in support Poor agency attitudes Short termism Poor engagement Lack of integrated approach Inconsistency Confused approach to capacity building LEAP WORKED EXAMPLES: APPLYING LEAP TO REAL-LIFE SITUATIONS

Monitoring (see LEAP manual section 3, part iv) The purpose of establishing a consortium approach to the conduct of the review was to ensure that there was a core group who could co-ordinate the involvement of all the key stakeholders in IT and in debate about the findings of the review. However it was agreed that it was desirable that a named individual should be designated the co-ordinator for the review process. It was agreed that the Director for the Voluntary Action Council (VAC) should play this role. This reflected recognition of well established contacts with all service providers and extensive networks within the community sector. Given the employment of the external consultants through the VAC the director was also seen as the operational manager for the consultancy. However the partnership basis of the review required a regular cycle of progress monitoring meetings. Eight were scheduled on a six-weekly basis to be convened by the VAC director. The option of further co-ordinating meetings at critical stages was retained. Evaluation (see section 3, part v and section 2, part v) Whilst they were able to review satisfaction with engagement in the policy review through feedback from participants at the completion of each element of the process, the consortium recognised that the second level outcomes that were sought could only be tested once the new policy was established and implemented. This evaluation of impact was accomplished by a survey of perceptions of all the community groups and agencies of how well the process was working and a stakeholder conference held one year after the new policy was established. A special meeting of the consortium was held at the end of year two to review and evaluate the whole process and consider what might now need to be done. In terms of the process of the review the varied participatory approach was particularly welcomed by the community organisations. They also welcomed the key lead role played by the voluntary sector in the process and the use of independent consultants who were not associated with any of the support agencies. Over 100 community groups and a total of 180 individuals directly contributed to focus groups and, though this was felt to be satisfactory, concern was felt that this still represented a minority of known community groups. The citizen s jury process had been particularly influential with positive feedback from jury members and witnesses about: the process of selection of jury members; the opportunity for in-depth exploration of options; the chance to draw on knowledge and experience from outside as well as within Strathinver. An unexpected outcome of the jury process was that members wanted to continue to play a monitoring role to follow through the response made to their proposals. While this was potentially beneficial it also raised some tensions with the members of the existing representative structures for community groups across Strathinver who felt that their roles were being usurped and that the jury was not properly accountable. The use of a community conference to critically examine the ideas emerging for the jury was seen as valuable. 44 45

LEAP Agencies were positive about the quality and realism of the proposals that emerged but community representatives complained that the deliberations of the Community Planning Partnership board were protracted and not always transparent, often seeming to be conducted beyond public scrutiny of the community and voluntary sector representatives. Thus whilst trust and confidence had been built up through the process of the review, at the final stage it was to some degree undermined by the way that the community planning partners dealt with it. The policy that emerged from the process involved the establishment of: An integrated community engagement strategy including establishing a new civic forum representing all neighbourhoods and interest communities that would act as the primary mechanism for partnership wide engagement with community organisations. An integrated community capacity building strategy. An agreement by partners to report to the partnership on all financial support to community organisations. The establishment of common procedures and requirements for applications for grants. A common protocol for the assessment of grant applications. A common protocol between agencies relating to terms and condition of funding to community groups, including a commitment, when funding local groups to provide services, to move, wherever possible, to a three year funding cycle with a review built in at the end of year two. The establishment of an annual awards scheme to celebrate the most successful and innovative community initiatives. To facilitate the implementation of these changes the core support agencies that had formed the consortium for the review (alongside representatives of the three Strathinver-wide community groups) agreed to contribute, through staff secondments, to the establishment of a community support unit to be managed by the partnership and located within the Chief Executive s department. All partners agreed to work with this unit. The unit was set up to: Establish and support the new Civic Forum. Co-ordinate and monitor the conduct of all formal engagement between service providers and community groups (including a calendar of engagement activity and supporting collaboration in areas of common interest). Provide capacity building support for community engagement to agencies and community groups. Monitor the overall demand for and allocation of support resources to community groups. LEAP WORKED EXAMPLES: APPLYING LEAP TO REAL-LIFE SITUATIONS

Monitor allocation of resources by neighbourhood, in line with indicators of need used in establishing Regeneration Outcome Agreements. Monitor allocation of resources by interest community. Monitor the application the agreed protocol between agencies relating to terms and condition of funding to community groups. Manage the awards scheme. Assess the experience of community organisations of the new policy. Report to the Community Planning Partnership on performance and make recommendations for further policy and practice changes. In terms of the second level outcomes it was believed that these initiatives would have significant impact on the quality and effectiveness of community support. The assessment at the end of the year, conducted by the consortium, identified the following headlines: Significant improvement in the co-ordination of funding to community organisations. More coherence in the conduct of community engagement but some difficulty establishing the relationship between the civic forum and other Strathinver wide community structures. Need to extend the capacity building support to agencies to establish confident and skilled engagement practice. Need to focus capacity building for community leaders on those that were now involved in the increasingly complex procedures. Satisfaction among community groups that the support processes were becoming more transparent and particularly that the complexities of different funding streams and procedures had been reduced. Concern that the complexity of the task, and the propensity of agencies to operate without taking account of the need to work collaboratively, had been underestimated. Concern that whilst the unit had a co-ordinating role it lacked the authority to hold partners to account. With these issues in mind the newly formed community support unit facilitated a new LEAP visioning and planning exercise with the board of the Strathinver Community Planning Partnership. 46 47

LEAP Appendix 1: Outcomes of CLD from Delivering Change (Learning Connections, 2006) CLD IS ABOUT PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT 1. CLD supports people to become confident individuals. Through being involved in CLD adults and young people: 1.1 Are more confident. 1.2 Feel better about themselves (increased self-esteem). 1.3 Expect to achieve more. 1.4 Are more able to do things for themselves. 1.5 Are more able to take responsibility for themselves and their actions. 1.6 Are more able to understand and discuss their own values and beliefs. 1.7 Are more able to understand and discuss their needs and aspirations. 2. CLD supports people to become effective contributors. Through being involved in CLD adults and young people are more able to: 2.1 Communicate with other people. 2.2 Solve problems and make decisions. 2.3 Work with others. 2.4 Form and develop good relationships. 2.5 Use their skills and experience to support and lead others. 3. CLD supports people to become responsible citizens. Through being involved in CLD adults and young people are: 3.1 More able to discuss and understand complex issues that affect their community, society and the wider world. 3.2 More able to plan and take action on issues for their community, society and the wider world. 3.3 More able to make sure that their views and opinions are heard and taken on board. 3.4 More aware and understanding of different people s experiences, abilities, backgrounds and beliefs. 3.5 Better able to get on with people with different experiences, abilities, backgrounds and beliefs. LEAP WORKED EXAMPLES: APPLYING LEAP TO REAL-LIFE SITUATIONS

4. CLD supports people to become successful learners. Through being involved in CLD adults and young people: 4.1 Have more belief in their ability to learn. 4.2 Are more motivated to learn. 4.3 Are more able to identify and understand what they need and want to learn. 4.4 Understand different ways to learn. 4.5 Are more able to choose ways of learning that suit them in different situations. 4.6 Are more able to take control of how and what they learn 4.7 Are more able to share their learning with others. 4.8 Are more able to use what they have learned in different situations in their lives. 4.9 Are more able to use ICT (e.g. computers). 4.10 Are more able to use their skills with numbers. 48 49

LEAP CLD IS ABOUT BUILDING COMMUNITY CAPACITY 1. CLD supports people to be confident, skilled and active community members. Through involvement in CLD, adults and young people: 1.1 Are more confident about working with others in their community. 1.2 Have more skills and knowledge they can use in their community. 1.3 Are more able to use what they have learned in different situations in their community. 1.4 Are more able to see how things in their community can change for the better. 2. CLD supports communities to be active and influential. Through involvement in CLD, adults and young people are more able to: 2.1 Make links with others in their community and build working relationships with them. 2.2 Take action together on the issues that are important to them. And community organisations: 2.3 Have more influence on the issues that are important to them. 3. CLD supports community organisations to be resourced and to deliver services effectively. Through support from CLD, community organisations become more able to: 3.1 Access resources (like meeting places, equipment and money) that allow them to work on the issues they think are important. 3.2 Control assets that allow them to work on the issues they think are important. 3.3 Deliver services directly, where that s the most appropriate way of addressing an issue they think is important. LEAP WORKED EXAMPLES: APPLYING LEAP TO REAL-LIFE SITUATIONS

4. CLD supports effective planning, management and evaluation by community organisations. Through support from CLD, community organisations are more able to: 4.1 Find out about and understand issues for the community. 4.2 Develop a plan of action on issues identified by the community. 4.3 Manage themselves well. 4.4 Learn lessons from what they do and act on them. 5. CLD supports the development of inclusive community organisations Through support from CLD, community organisations: 5.1 Are more aware of different cultures, backgrounds and beliefs within their community. 5.2 Value and use the positive contributions of people with a wide range of experiences, abilities, backgrounds and beliefs. 5.3 Are more able to work well with other organisations representing people with different experiences, abilities, backgrounds and beliefs. 6. CLD supports productive networks and relationships Through support from CLD, community organisations are more able to: 6.1 Make links with organisations from other communities and build working relationships with them. 6.2 Develop and keep working relationships with other organisations and services in their area 50 51

LEAP Wider Outcomes of CLD Outcomes related to economic activity and employment These might include: Improved employability; Increased levels of employment; Improved labour market position (e.g. getting a better paid or more skilled job); Increased levels of activity in the social economy; and Increased entrepreneurial and enterprising attitudes. Outcomes related to learning and education These might include: Improved performance at school; Reduced levels of truancy and exclusion; and Increased participation and progression in lifelong learning, including to further/higher education. Outcomes related to democratic participation and engagement These might include: Increased and more inclusive participation in democratic processes; and Improved engagement between democratic representatives and communities. Outcomes related to health These might include: Improved health; Higher levels of physical activity; and, Improved support being available to community members. LEAP WORKED EXAMPLES: APPLYING LEAP TO REAL-LIFE SITUATIONS

Other wider outcomes of CLD In addition to these, there are a range of other areas where the end outcomes of CLD can also be important. These include: Outcomes related to community safety such as reduced crime or fear of crime (including anti-social behaviour). Outcomes related to community cohesion and inclusion such as decreased discrimination and increased celebration of identity and diversity. Outcomes related to artistic, sporting and cultural participation. Outcomes related to the physical and natural environment. 52 53

Crown copyright 2007 This document is also available on the Scottish Government website: www.scotland.gov.uk This document is available in alternative formats on request RR Donnelley B52956 11/07 Further copies are available from Blackwell s Bookshop 53 South Bridge Edinburgh EH1 1YS Telephone orders and enquiries 0131 622 8283 or 0131 622 8258 Fax orders 0131 557 8149 Email orders business.edinburgh@blackwell.co.uk w w w. s c o t l a n d. g o v. u k