Table of Content

Introduction

Preface

Acknowledgements

Chapter 1: Working and Learning Together

Chapter 2: Creating a Vibrant Profession

Chapter 3: Rethinking Literacies

Chapter 4: From Engagement to Empowerment

Chapter 5: Youth Work: Still Holding Value?

Chapter 6: Learning to Improve

Chapter 7: Purpose, Ethics and Competence

Chapter 8: Communities Leading Change

Chapter 9: Learning Communities and a Learning Society

Chapter 10: Promoting Partnerships for Change

Chapter 11: Looking Forward to Change

Influencing Change: Community Learning and Development in Scotland, 2001-2015

THE MAKING OF AN EMPOWERING PROFESSION Volume 2

Preface by Charlie McConnell, President, International Association for Community Development, 2014-2016

Edited by Colin Ross

THE CLD STANDARDS COUNCIL FOR SCOTLAND

First Published January 2017

Introduction

The Making of an Empowering Profession, Volume 2

Influencing Change: Community Learning and Development in Scotland, 2001-2015

To see ourselves…

Think of yourself for a moment as the proverbial visitor from Mars. Arriving in Scotland, you are a little disappointed by the climate - isn't this planet closer than your own to the sun? - but when you come across a book called The Making of an Empowering Profession, Volume 2 you are instantly fascinated. You note that this book's subject matter covers the very recent past, and that it is the second volume in a series with several previous editions; you conclude that this is a young but vibrant and well-established profession.

Soon you observe that the Government of the small country you've landed in seems, in common with some others across the strange world it is part of, to have realised that without encouraging the active involvement of its citizens, it has little chance of success or perhaps even survival. It seems to have an imaginative approach to developing the talents of its young people, to be committed to engaging communities in decision-making and to recognise that learning can and should continue throughout life. You conclude that the developments described in the book you stumbled across play a central part in the life of this progressive society.

As we know, first impressions can be misleading; perhaps all the more so if you happen to have recently arrived on an alien planet where the more powerful inhabitants are well-versed in policy rhetoric. Would the opinions of your extra-terrestrial self change completely if she or he looked more deeply at community learning and development (CLD) and its role in Scotland in the early part of the 21st century?

While sometimes inaccurate, first impressions often carry an element of truth. This book aims to explore both the real and significant influence of community learning and development on life in Scotland; and the challenges that this "empowering profession", together with the wider society of which it is part, has faced and continues to grapple with.

To this end, it brings together the key policy documents of the past 15 years that are relevant to CLD in Scotland, together with a selection of accounts of practice and reflective or polemical commentaries from the same period. These are grouped into eleven chapters, each focusing on a key aspect of how community learning and development (CLD) practice and policy has been shaped and delivered in Scotland since 2001. Each chapter has a brief introduction to provide a context for the individual pieces; this introduction to the Reader as a whole offers one perspective on the policy debates and initiatives that have played a part in shaping the context for CLD practice, and on the issues they raise. It argues that the future of the empowering profession should be of wide and urgent concern.

Why "community learning and development"?

Community learning and development (CLD) is about supporting the personal and social development of people of all ages and building the capacity of the wider community. This book reflects the view that CLD is a profession: a profession of a very distinctive type, different in quite fundamental ways from those constituted in more traditional ways. It is defined by commitments to high standards in relation to competences for practice and ethical principles. It is a profession that starts with the real-life issues people face on a daily basis, such as poverty, youth unemployment, rural isolation, lack of literacy skills, rising sea levels, poor mental and physical health; and uses these as the starting point for learning and development activities co-designed by practitioners and the people they engage with. Through addressing such issues, the learning is by doing and the development is about people changing the conditions of their lives.

Community learning and development as a profession embraces practitioners both paid and unpaid, qualified and unqualified, while insisting that high levels of skills, knowledge and understanding are required of the practitioner, to ensure that the educational and developmental work done with communities and participants is of the quality they deserve.

An observer from far away, or even one from quite nearby, might wonder why these practitioners have not found a simpler name for their profession. The first two editions of the Making of an Empowering Profession called it community education, a term that had come into wide use in Scotland after the publication of the Alexander report, The Challenge of Change, in 1975. By the time the third edition of the Making of an Empowering Profession was published in 2001, the field had been rebranded as community learning and development. This reflected both a debate within Scotland and changes that were taking place across other parts of the UK in the late 1990s. A loosely-connected "family" of occupations - youth workers, community based adult educators, community workers, community development workers, community educators and others came together as a single workforce sector, representing hundreds of thousands of full-time, part-time and volunteer staff across the UK. Within Scotland, the core members of the family had already been co-habiting more closely under the influence of the Alexander report, although with many of the tensions, and sometimes tantrums, associated with family life.

It doesn't require too close a familiarity with the ways of our world, or of Scotland in particular, to guess that the difficulty in agreeing on straightforward terminology reflects tensions and conflicts, as well as simpler uncertainty, over the nature, coherence and breadth of this profession. Community workers have been employed in a range of local authority departments and in a wide variety of third-sector organisations, sometimes under very different terms and conditions. Practitioners in different settings and different strands of work have sometimes seen themselves as the standard bearers for differing ideologies of practice, at one end of the spectrum seeing themselves as radical social activists and at the other as service providers. Nonetheless part of the story told by this book and the previous volume is the way that over four decades or more, however hesitantly at times, an identity has been forged. This identify relies on the various occupations within this profession acknowledging the commonality of many of the ways in which they work, while recognising the need for a variety of specific expertise and for some practitioners to take on specialist roles. Experience indicates that they are stronger together than they are apart.

In the period following the election of a Labour UK government in 1997 and the consequent establishment of the devolved Scottish Parliament, tackling "social exclusion" and promoting lifelong learning emerged as key policy themes and there was widespread interest in the role of active citizenship and how it could be supported. In that context, there was both political support for a renewed role for both community education and community development practitioners and alongside this a conviction that the occupation, or range of related occupations, themselves needed renewal or possibly to be more radically reshaped.

In 1998, the pre-devolution Scottish Office established a working group, chaired by Douglas Osler, Chief HMI, that went on to produce a report titled Communities: Change through Learning[1] (the Osler report); the report heavily influenced the Circular on Community Education issued the following year. The Osler report, influenced by a report published six months earlier by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (CoSLA) called Developing Communities: Promoting Learning, and written by the Scottish Community Education Council (the government's advisory agency for community education) argued that community education had been inadequately resourced and largely as a result of this had come to see itself and be seen as an aggregation of youth work, adult learning and community work rather than as a coherent discipline with a clear purpose. It proposed that the focus should shift to the purpose and functions that had been identified by CeVe (Community Education Validation and Endorsement)[2], with a clear link to government policies, recognition that community education was and should be practised in a range of contexts, sectors and services, strong emphasis on partnership working through community learning partnerships, strategies and action plans, and a strengthened commitment to research, measurable targets, monitoring and evaluation. It also proposed that there be a review of professional training, building upon the work of the CeVe, which had been set up by the previous Conservative government in the mid-1980s.

Both in the content of the report itself, and in the responses it stimulated or provoked, Communities: Change through Learning influenced and prefigured much of the development of practice and policy that followed, and the debates that have surrounded and driven this.

The emphasis on partnership has continued (see Chapters 1 and 10) reflecting a key and distinctive feature of public policy in Scotland, which in the period since 1998 has sought to create an enabling state based on this emphasis rather than relying more heavily on contracting out public services to private providers as has happened to a significant extent in England. 15 years later, commitment to "co-production" with users of service and communities both echoes arguments articulated in the Osler report and builds on the practices developed in CLD.

While there have been critiques of what partnership means in practice, far more controversial within the CLD field has been the definition of community education "primarily as an approach to education, not a sector of it". Both Communities: Change through Learning and the later Scottish Executive guidance, Working and Learning Together to build stronger communities (see Chapter 1) have been interpreted by some as indicating that community education/community learning and development can and should be an "approach" undertaken by a more or less amorphous variety of staff working for an undefined range of partners, without the need for practitioners with a distinctive set of competences, and as a result undermining the still-young profession.

In fact, Communities: Change through Learning made clear the view that:

"The shift to a definition of community education as primarily an approach rather than a sector does not suggest the lack of a set of competences which comprise a discrete professional discipline".

However the suggestion that the definition implied there was no need for a "discrete professional discipline" proved attractive both to some who wished to maintain a more "traditional" view of the profession and some who wished to see the abandonment of the idea of the empowering profession, and the troublesome need it implied to invest in skills, in favour of a more diffuse "approach". These of course were diametrically opposed views, both appearing to rest on a misunderstanding of what was meant by the word "approach" in the context, but this did not prevent an often debilitating debate from rumbling on.

The Scottish Office circular that followed[3] just prior to the first Scottish Parliamentary elections in 1999 stated that the Government (still at this stage the UK government) accepted the recommendations of Communities: Change through Learning. It set out clearer guidance from central government than had previously existed and pointed the way ahead from community education as an isolated local authority service by setting expectations for partnership-based planning. However it did not set out an extensive framework for change and for future policy and practice as the Osler report had done. The circular referred to the statutory basis for community education, which provided a reminder that such a basis existed but at the same time highlighted its weakness. It did not address the question of resourcing.

While the Osler working group was meeting, statutory and voluntary sector interests, trade unions and professional associations across the UK, including those from Scotland, had secured approval by the UK Government (including the Scottish Office) for the recognition of a discrete community learning and development workforce sector and the creation of a single National Training Organisation (NTO)[4] to undertake workforce planning, set occupational standards and enhance workforce skills across the sector. It was formally appointed by the UK Government in January 1999.

The new body was called PAULO, honouring the radical Brazilian educationalist Paulo Freire (while neatly sidestepping the need for an unwieldy composite title or tongue-twisting acronym). Across the UK as a whole, the sector was in fact far looser and less coherent than within Scotland, but all those involved had recognised the practical advantages of similar occupations joining together rather than finding themselves as small elements with little influence within other NTOs. They saw PAULO as providing an opportunity to strengthen the community learning and development sector as a whole, raise its profile and attract government investment. The community development world decided to join PAULO rather than the social care sector NTO and played a significant part in creating the new CLD sector body.

Following the creation of PAULO, The term "community learning and development" began to gain some currency and the tactical advantages of a formulation that could at least potentially attract wider identification than "community education" were noted by influential figures in Scotland. A barrier to the push towards a more holistic practice in Scotland was the division that had developed between practitioners of "community education" and of "community development", despite the fact that often they had gone through the same course at the same training institutions. While "community learning" was briefly considered by the government and HMI in Scotland as an alternative signal for change, it did not help in bridging this divide and "community learning and development" began to be seen as the best available formulation to express the need to refresh practice, building on the strengths of a diverse field while creating the conditions to recognise common principles. More than at any time since the period in the mid-seventies when the Alexander report was published, the Regional and Island Councils were created and Strathclyde Region developed its deprivation and community development strategies, there was a sense of optimism that community learning and development was coming out of the shadows.

The first devolved government: change, opportunity and frustration

The first elections to the new Scottish Parliament in 1999 resulted in the formation of a Labour/Liberal Democrat coalition Executive (the title given to the new devolved government). The new Ministerial personnel, who included some with a background in community education and community development; the policy emphasis on social justice, lifelong learning and active citizenship; and perhaps the general sense of a fresh start all led to optimism that community learning and development could play a significant role in achieving the goals set by the new policy agenda.

However there was also a reality in which Ministers and civil servants needed to adjust to new roles and grapple with translating policy ambitions into coherent programmes. The new Scottish Executive had more Ministers and departments than the pre-devolution Scottish Office; responsibility for the different elements of community learning and development was split between three ministries: Education and Young People (responsible for youth work), Lifelong Learning (responsible for adult learning) and Social Justice (responsible for community capacity building), which took the lead.

The first significant initiative of the new Executive in relation to community learning and development was the establishment of a Community Education Training Review (CETR) in 2000 by the Deputy Minister for Education, in response to a recommendation in Communities: Change through Learning. The recommendations of the Training Review later (February 2003) led to the Executive setting out its policy for "the future of Community Learning and Development Training in Scotland" in the Empowered to Practice report (see Chapter 2).

In the meantime other policy developments relating directly to community learning and development emerged. One was the Adult Literacy and Numeracy in Scotland (ALNIS) report commissioned by the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, Henry McLeish, and published in 2001 (see below, and Chapter 3); the other was the Executive's community regeneration statement, Better Communities in Scotland: closing the gap, launched by the Minister for Social Justice, Margaret Curran, in June 2002 (see Chapter 1).

Alongside the community regeneration statement in June 2002 the Executive published Community Learning and Development: the Way Forward as its first statement of overall policy for CLD. Following a recommendation by the Community Education Training Review, The Way Forward confirmed that the government would now describe the profession as Community Learning and Development. It made clear that this indicated the need for a clear focus on community development as well as community learning, and sought to clarify the national structures through which CLD would be supported. The Way Forward began to establish a national policy presence within the devolved government for CLD as a coherent discipline although there was a distinct sense of playing catch-up and of seeking ways to compensate for the limited commitment of resources.

A significant change in the organisation of policy and practice support for community learning and development accompanied these policy developments, although apparently with limited consideration of the impact of the organisational change on implementing the policies. Community Learning Scotland (set up as a Non-departmental Public Body in 1982 and originally known as the Scottish Community Education Council) was abolished as part of a loudly-proclaimed "bonfire of the quangos". CLS's staff, and its responsibilities for advising Ministers and the field, were dispersed. Those for supporting the development of community learning strategies and plans and for endorsing and validating professional training were transferred, with minimal staffing, to the new housing and community regeneration agency, Communities Scotland, while its Youth Issues unit was joined with YouthLink Scotland, which was given a wider remit than its previous one and designated as the national youth work agency. Other national 'development centres' for aspects of CLD including the Scottish Community Development Centre and Scottish Adult Learning Partnership were designated.

Communities: Change through Learning had argued that community education/CLD should develop as "a coherent practice in relation to all ages and both individuals and groups" and had been endorsed by central government. While a key role in community regeneration, a strong focus on improving literacy and numeracy skills and an enhanced national youth work agency were entirely consistent with this, and reflected the report's ideas on applying the community education/CLD "approach" in a range of policy areas, the loss of the dedicated national support agency for CLD as a "coherent practice" at the very time when these initiatives were being launched within an overall context of complex change was at best risky.

The broad rationale for the creation of Communities Scotland, and for including CLD within its remit, was clear enough; practitioners of community education or CLD would be among the first to argue that "regeneration" needs to be as much or more about people and communities as about housing and the built environment if it is to have a real and sustainable impact. However bringing different perspectives together in a productive way while creating an entirely new organisation was enormously challenging, and took time. 'People and place' figured strongly in the new agency's rhetoric, but the reality was that the vast majority of the several hundred staff within the new agency came from Scottish Homes, the former non-departmental public body focused on housing, which had also been abolished, with a smaller number of staff transferred from the civil service unit responsible for urban regeneration.

The difficulties from a CLD perspective were compounded by the fact that rather than creating a powerful section within the new agency to champion the "community" aspect of regeneration and provide coherent national support for CLD, a highly specialised "development engine" for adult literacy and numeracy, charged with implementation of the recommendations of the ALNIS report, was established, alongside a much smaller team with responsibility for support for CLD in a broad sense. The results of this were unproductive tensions and a staffing mix that was not fully fit for purpose, difficulties that were only partly mitigated by the creation of a "Learning Connections" unit including both these teams.

So from 2002, a new network of national support evolved, in which non-governmental development centres, funded in a variety of ways, sometimes contract-based, worked with Communities Scotland/Learning Connections and other sections within the Scottish Executive. The resulting partnership work was often creative but lacked the clear strategic direction to drive the CLD agenda in the way that the opportunities and risks of the situation demanded. Meanwhile the field, seeking to ensure that communities had access to CLD support in a context where all services were under ever closer scrutiny and subject to change, grew increasingly frustrated by the gap between the new devolved government's positive rhetoric about the role of CLD and the limitations of more concrete support.

Mixed with this sense of frustration was the feeling that this was, or should have been, a time of great opportunity. By 1999 the UK Labour government's commitment to maintain the spending plans of the previous Conservative government had run its course and for the first time for many years there was a willingness to invest significantly in public services. Governments at both UK and devolved levels were strongly committed to investing in education and community regeneration and appeared to be supportive of CLD aims and methods in working with excluded young people, second chance learners and communities. PAULO was arguing on the basis of its workforce planning forecasts that the training of thousands of more CLD staff across the UK was needed over the following decade, to meet the challenges of creating a more democratically participative and inclusive, learning society.

However, the expansion of public spending was not grounded in the type of political consensus that had existed a generation earlier on the importance of public services. Governments felt themselves under greater pressure to justify and demonstrate the value and impact of expenditure programmes, in a context where a variety of developments from increased consumerism to 24 hour news was sharpening the emphasis on short-term results; and these pressures had a particularly strong impact on government approaches to, and caution about, investment in CLD.

One reason for this was that community education and community development were strongly associated by some decision-makers with what were often perceived as the failures of a previous era: as being well-intentioned but weak on results, or as valuing radical rhetoric over practical impact. There were some lingering political scores to settle in the aftermath of the reorganisation of local government in 1995/96. CLD was a comparatively easy target compared to the main public sector interest groups, in particular those in formal education, health and social care; and at times this seemed to obscure the fact that the levels of expenditure devoted to CLD (and so the scale of savings available) were so much smaller.

Within this context, there was a strong lobby from the organised voluntary sector that CLD practitioners should be increasingly employed by non-governmental organisations; this lobby exerted significant Influence. There is little doubt that there have been positive results in the development of diverse and innovative practice across the voluntary sector, but equally the shift in employment opportunities in CLD from local authorities to the third sector (within the particular context in which it has happened) has tended to be associated with the adoption of short-term contracts, lower rates of pay, a client or project-based rather than a strategic approach to the community learning and developments needs of an area, and erosion of the core capacity of the profession.

A further result of the pressure to justify additional investment was that the CLD field, and the support agencies at national level, were required to invest an enormous amount of time and energy in developing better ways of evaluating, demonstrating and articulating the impact of CLD (see Chapter 6). This effort can be viewed as having had a key role in CLD achieving greater self-confidence and recognition as a profession. At the same time, it can be suggested that it has also had more ambiguous implications. A strong focus on outcomes agreed through dialogue with participants and communities was a powerful positive influence on practice; but as a "focus on outcomes" became an orthodoxy, at times a mantra, the phrase has come to be used in a variety of quite different ways. Within top-down structures and cultures, an outcomes approach often ignores the value of dialogue and engagement, and become a target-driven process by another name. As CLD practitioners, services and agencies have sought to assert their role and place within Community Planning processes that have remained largely top-down, the balance between achieving the recognition needed for continued funding and developing powerful CLD practice based on the core principles of the profession has continued to be a difficult one to achieve.

New Policies and (some) new investment

New financial investment did take place, in particular in community-based adult literacy and numeracy programmes and practice development, following the recommendations of the Adult Literacy and Numeracy in Scotland report (see Chapter 3). In an area of provision that had suffered particularly serious neglect in the 1990s this had a major and in some ways, in the short term at least, dramatic impact. Strong support for the "social practices" model resulted in an upsurge of creative practice. Adult Literacy and Numeracy in Scotland (ALNIS) had been clear that funding allocated for implementation of its recommendations should be channelled through the Community Learning/CLD Partnerships. Intense lobbying initially resulted in a proposal that the new funding should instead be routed entirely through Further Education colleges. A major counter-lobbying effort by CLD interests resulted in this decision being reversed in favour of the original ALNIS recommendation, with colleges along with local authorities and voluntary sector providers able to bid for funding and take part in decisions on allocation through the Community Learning Partnerships.

On the surface this appeared to provide the basis for adult literacy and numeracy funding to be used as part of an overall plan to develop learning in communities, support progression by participants and build wider community capacity with some of the most disadvantaged people. However many of the CLD Partnerships were newly formed and had no additional or dedicated resources either for development or provision. As a result adult literacy and numeracy provision tended to develop separately from other aspects of CLD, often overseen by a sub-committee that could easily in effect become a quite separate partnership. Access to other types of community-based adult learning remained patchy or became more so. Crucially, much of the funding channelled into supporting adult literacy and numeracy developments was used for short-term posts.

Following the closure of Community Learning Scotland in 2001, the bulk of its budget was transferred to YouthLink Scotland, which as a result, unlike the other "national development centres", benefitted from the stability of a relatively substantial core budget. Once YouthLink found its feet and established itself as the national youth work agency, the fact that it had core resources to underpin this role proved to be crucial in strengthening support for and funding of youth work (see Chapter 5).

When "working draft guidance" for CLD appeared in January 2003 it confirmed the sense of overarching Scottish Executive policy for CLD needing to catch up with developments relating to specific aspects of CLD practice; but its publication did confirm Ministerial support and it was quickly followed by Empowered to Practice - the future of community learning and development training in Scotland (see Chapter 2). Both Empowered to Practice and the final version of the guidance, Working and Learning Together to Build Stronger Communities, which was published in January 2004, were informed by extensive consultation with the field; taken together they could be seen as providing the basis for a roadmap for the next stage of the CLD journey.

Working and Learning Together (WALT) (See Chapter 1) was described in its Foreword as setting out "a long term framework for the development of CLD"; this statement was signed by the Ministers for Social Justice, for Finance and Public Services, for Education and Young People and for Lifelong Learning, the last of these also being the Deputy First Minister. This gave a strong indication of progress in embedding CLD into key areas of policy implementation for the devolved government as a whole. It was significant that, within an Executive that identified social justice as its central priority, lead responsibility for CLD had been taken by the Social Justice ministry. The involvement of the Minister for Finance and Public Services also reflected the emphasis given to CLD's role in Community Planning.

The expression of the ambition for more joined-up government through sponsorship of the guidance by four different ministries on the one hand resulted in further frustration for the field as the process of approval of the document ground slowly forward; on the other, the novelty of the process was a significant recognition of the importance of CLD. It resulted in the guidance receiving a degree of scrutiny, and therefore attention, at Cabinet level that would otherwise not have happened.

WALT provided a clearer framework for CLD to work in a coherent and empowering way with individuals and communities and to deliver on social justice objectives set by the devolved government but consistent with the aspirations of learners and communities. From 2004, Communities Scotland co-ordinated a programme of support for implementation; this included some financial support, which was small-scale but nonetheless important given the circumstances in which partnerships had been seeking to develop their work.

Inevitably the lack of larger-scale additional investment in CLD led to criticism. Sometimes critical comment on the limited resources was linked to a view that the guidance should have been more prescriptive, placing requirements that would be in some way binding on local authorities and other partners; equally there was great suspicion in some quarters of anything that suggested a wish for central control, alongside concerns that the CLD agenda as articulated by WALT was too narrowly instrumental.

On the other hand, some in the field valued the fact that the guidance provided local partners with a basis for taking the initiative and saw the lack of prescription as consistent with the ethos of CLD. This was reflected in examples of dynamic and creative partnership working; the challenge and often the downside proved to be in a lack of consistency in developing strong partnership arrangements that could address the particular needs and aspirations of their areas. The cross-ministerial statement provided by WALT was an important milestone for CLD; unfortunately it had taken five years from the establishment of the devolved government to reach it. The slow pace of change was to prove critical given the change in the economic climate that affected all public services from 2008 onwards.

Reinventing a profession

Progress from the Community Education Training Review, to the Scottish Executive's policy response (Empowered to Practice) to substantive action in relation to professional learning and standards (see Chapter 2) was no more straightforward than the development of guidance for CLD. Following the submission of the Community Education Training Review to government there was uncertainty within the civil service over what to do with it; for over a year it was placed on file, until picked up by the former Chief Executive of CLS when appointed as Head of CLD within the Scottish Executive. At the centre of the agenda that was then set out in Empowered to Practice was support for the creation of "a practitioner-led body responsible for validation, endorsement, accreditation and registration for community learning and development, with enhanced capacity, building upon the work of CeVe"; effective action on many of the other issues identified, such as establishing a system of registration for practitioners, and improving induction and fieldwork placements, were wholly or partly dependent on putting in place the "practitioner-led body".

The questions to be answered over what the status and structure of the new "body" should be, who would be eligible to be part of it, what "registration" would mean in the context of CLD, and what the costs would be, were ones that the civil service found challenging; perhaps it is more surprising that progress was made at all rather than that the pace was slow. There is little doubt that without strong support from political level the proposal for the new body would have been left to gather dust. A key step was the formation of a task group, with strong representation from senior level across the broad CLD field and a remit to advise Ministers on the establishment of a "practitioner-led body" as envisaged in Empowered to Practice. It reported in 2005 and recommended the establishment of "a distinctive type of professional body, promoting both high standards and inclusiveness, with the potential for resulting wider benefit"; but it was not until 2008 that an interim "CLD Standards Council" could begin work.

What then developed was a professional body, as envisaged by the task group, with the aspiration to be practitioner-led, as Empowered to Practice had proposed. The interim body became the CLD Standards Council for Scotland in 2008 (seven years after the Community Education Training Review made its recommendations and five after the publication of Empowered to Practice).

From the outset, the CLD Standards Council engaged closely with the field and while its staff were employed within the government structure, its committees, drawn from the field, enabled it to develop a peer-led ethos with leadership by registered members as the longer term goal. From this basis, the new body updated the competences for CLD, widened their use beyond initial training, produced for the first time a Code of Ethics for CLD, established the first continuing professional development strategy for the CLD field, championing the idea of a learning culture as the basis for professional development and improving practice, and established a (voluntary) registrations system for CLD practitioners (see Chapter 7). In 2015 the future governance of the Standards Council was still under active consideration; how to combine the independence required by a professional body able to set credible standards for practice and build the collective confidence of members, on the one hand, with stability and financial sustainability on the other remained a critical issue.

Community Planning and community engagement

Statutory guidance on the Local Government in Scotland Act published in 2004 stated that:

"The two main aims of Community Planning can be described as: (1) making sure people and communities are genuinely engaged in the decisions made on public services which affect them; allied to (2) a commitment from organisations to work together, not apart, in providing better public services." (Our emphasis.)

Given that, as already noted, Community Planning was, and has continued to be, seen as central to the whole approach to the development and delivery of public services in Scotland since 1997, this could be seen as a hugely important statement about the role of communities in decision-making. Partnership working, with Community Planning at its core, has been seen as the basis for an alternative to the heavy reliance on contracting-out of public services in England. It was unsurprising then that "community engagement" became a major focus for attention (see Chapter 4).

The Scottish Executive's guidance on Community Planning acknowledged the role of CLD practitioners in ensuring that local people could engage with and influence the planning process. Equally it emphasised that a wide range of agencies and practitioners already took on roles in community engagement, and needed to develop these roles and the skills required for them. Whilst in some places CLD practitioners were able to use their distinctive skills to work effectively with others to widen opportunities for communities to influence decision-making, in others there were tensions. Often these tensions resulted from a lack of understanding on the part of some of those seeking to engage with communities that the communities concerned had their own legitimate agendas; sometimes, the anxieties of CLD practitioners that "their" territory was being encroached on contributed to them.

The demand to ensure that people and communities were engaged in decision making posed real challenges. Many of those working in the broader field of public services, including the voluntary sector, lacked the competences required to listen and engage with people of all ages and from diverse backgrounds, while the confidence and capacity of many CLD practitioners to grasp the opportunities presented by Community Planning and other policy initiatives that endorsed public participation had been weakened by a lack of support and access to professional development.

The development of National Standards for Community Engagement was a bold initiative, coming initially from the Scottish Community Development Centre and strongly supported by Communities Scotland. It provided a way in to addressing these issues but started from a fresh angle. The Standards were developed with the involvement of both community organisations and agencies, and were to apply to all partners in an engagement; but it also was clearly implicit that they could be seen as a tool for communities to hold agencies to account. When the Standards were launched in 2005 as a joint Scottish Executive/Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (CoSLA) document, endorsed by bodies including Scottish Enterprise, the Scottish Council of Voluntary Organisations (SCVO), the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland (ACPOS) and Black and Ethnic Minority Infrastructure in Scotland (BEMIS) this widespread support for a practical means of shifting influence to communities was a landmark.

The Standards have since been widely used. CLD staff have used them in a range of ways, and in the initial period after their adoption in particular, this included using them to help in establishing, or re-establishing, a community development role. Bringing about a more broad-based change in the way that agencies relate to communities resulting in tangible positive changes in people's lives proved more elusive, which has led some to question the worth of the Standards (see Chapter 8). A fairer judgement might be that other levers for change in the culture of public service provision were also needed to complement the role of the Standards. The durability of the Standards is demonstrated by the fact that in 2015 a review process was initiated by the Scottish Government in order to update them for use in the context of a further significant effort to create these levers, the Community (Scotland) Empowerment Act (see Chapter 11).

A new era?

Two events in 2007 and 2008 were of critical importance for CLD as for other aspects of life in Scotland in the following period. The elections to the Scottish Parliament in May 2007 resulted in the formation of a minority Scottish National Party administration. The significance of this as something more like a change of regime rather than just a routine change in governing administration is better understood in the context of a the long period over which the Labour Party had dominated local government in Scotland than by simply considering the two previous devolved administrations, both Labour/Liberal coalitions.

The other event was a global one - the economic crisis that engulfed the main "developed" economies and from which in 2015 the world economy was only tentatively "recovering". In the period up to 2007, there had been sustained growth in the UK economy for an unusually long period and latterly this had resulted in significant growth in public expenditure. As described earlier, despite this providers of CLD had needed to justify not just any new investment but existing expenditure; where growth had taken place it had usually been on the basis of short-term funding or special projects; and all of this had been in a relatively favourable public spending environment. While in teaching, social work and the health professions there were significant increase in practitioner numbers, there was no comparable change in CLD. The potential impact as the economic sectors that had been relied on for growing tax receipts collapsed, and in many instances themselves began to suck in vast amounts of public money, was obvious. This made the caution over investing in CLD in the years up to 2007, by an Executive that was well-placed to understand its importance, look like a serious missed opportunity. As the economic crisis hit home, public policy debate increasingly highlighted the imperative of empowering individuals and communities for governments that found themselves faced with apparently insoluble problems in funding adequate public services.

The new minority SNP administration swiftly renamed itself as the Scottish Government (rather than the Scottish Executive). Among the other signals it gave that it intended to adopt a different style of government was a series of "first one hundred days commitments", which included the production of a new "skills strategy" (Skills for Scotland - A Lifelong Skills Strategy) for Scotland (see Chapter 9). The wish to focus support for the development and utilisation of skills more sharply on the economy and employment was clear; the implications of this for continuing commitment to a broader concept of lifelong learning linked to community development, and so to the recognition of CLD as an important element in the strategy, were less so.

The debate that followed was largely an internal one between different strands of government, taking place within the tight time constraints that had been put in place. What emerged was more ambiguous than might initially have been expected, with the emphasis on employment-related skills clear, but with both recognition of CLD and expectations of what it would contribute quite prominent; and with the document billed as the "lifelong skills strategy". Ironically, given the emphasis on moving swiftly from policy idea, to strategy, to action, the most high-profile change to result from the strategy was the creation of a new agency, Skills Development Scotland, bringing together a number of previous bodies including Careers Scotland; this proved as time-consuming a process as previous attempts to improve policy implementation through organisational re-structuring.

Two key elements of the SNP government's longer-term approach were the development of a national performance framework and, based on this, a "Concordat" with CoSLA. The declared intentions were to establish a clear focus for all government activity, to drive progress in joining up policies, programmes and activities around national outcomes and to replace micro-management of local services with agreement on priorities with local government based on the national outcomes. This was initially widely welcomed by local authorities as addressing concerns about power becoming more centralised within Scotland following devolution from UK level; and the use of the national performance framework as the tool to develop a new approach to government has been widely praised as a successful innovation.

What received less attention was that the gradual dismantling of ring-fenced funding programmes that followed resulted in a major shift of resources away from the local authorities with major concentrations of deprivation to the better-off areas. Questions only slowly emerged, as the Concordat was rolled out through Single Outcome Agreements between the Scottish Government and each of the local authorities, over whether the more seamless links being established between national outcomes, single outcome agreements and the activities of Community Planning Partnerships could provide the means for a more comprehensive centralisation of decision-making.

CLD adapting to change

There was concern that the effective removal of indicative budgets within the overall allocations to local authorities would make CLD all the more vulnerable to cuts, alongside a growing awareness firstly of the need to demonstrate the impact of CLD in relation to the outcomes being set for local public services through the Single Outcome Agreements, and secondly of the potential opportunities presented by the emerging new system. A joint statement on CLD by the Scottish Government and CoSLA (2008) (See Chapter 1) indicated that the new administration's view of CLD was in many ways similar to that of the previous one, albeit that the policy and delivery framework within which it was expected to achieve a positive impact was significantly different.

Moving Forward - a strategy for improving young people's chances through youth work (see Chapter 5) had been published in March 2007, before the Scottish election, and again there had been concern in the immediate aftermath of the election that the new SNP government might have different priorities. However by this time YouthLink had led the creation of a strong lobbying presence for youth work, which had successfully argued for resources to be attached to the strategy and convinced the new government that it should maintain the commitments that had been made.

By the time of the 2007 spending review, undertaken by the Scottish Executive before that year's election, with decisions implemented by the new Scottish Government after it, the small CLD team located within Communities Scotland (which by this time had responsibility for policy advice relating to CLD as well as for practice development) was well enough established to engage effectively with the process, and to bid successfully for new resources for "upskilling" the CLD workforce. As with the Youth Work Strategy, the new government maintained the course set by the previous one, and although as pressures on spending increased in the context of the emerging economic crisis the original spending commitments were reduced, the investment in "upskilling" went ahead. Although in the larger context of public expenditure on workforce development the sums involved were in fact relatively small, in comparison to what had been a long drought in CLD territory, a two year programme with annual expenditure rising from £1M to £3M (2010-11) represented a flood of investment in continuing professional development.

A third aspect of positive continuity from a CLD perspective was the establishment of the new CLD Standards Council. This, in conjunction with the "upskilling" programme, enabled a significant re-invigoration of professional development in the CLD workforce. However, some of the positive impact was blunted as a result of a weakening of support for policy development and implementation. This seems to have occurred as an unintended consequence of other decisions at political level. The SNP manifesto had included a commitment to abolish Communities Scotland and this was duly implemented. On the surface, it appeared that the CLD functions of the agency would be effectively secured by a prompt transfer to the Lifelong Learning Directorate of the Scottish Government; however, the Learning Connections unit sat uneasily within the environment of the "core" civil service. CLD was seen as peripheral within a Directorate heavily focused on the areas of large-scale public expenditure on higher and further education, and which, despite its name (and the capacity for highly effective project-based work that had led to the rapid creation of the skills strategy) was not strongly influenced in its day-to-day work by an overall concept of lifelong learning.

Several key personnel had left Learning Connections and re-building the staffing, structure and strategy of the Unit was not seen as a priority by the Lifelong Learning Directorate. Within Communities Scotland, the team had been able to derive some advantages from combining responsibility for policy advice to Ministers with a practice development role. With a weakened CLD team in a less supportive environment, the difficulties inherent in combining these roles became more damaging. Among the consequences of all this was that the management of the 'upskilling programme' lacked strategic focus and coherence in delivery. There was a serious delay in agreeing how the funding would be released from government in a way that would satisfy legal and procedural requirements; the position was further complicated when it became clear that Lifelong Learning UK (LLUK), the relevant Sector Skills Council[5], (of which PAULO had become a part in 2004), which had eventually been agreed as an acceptable intermediary to hold and distribute the funding, was itself to be abolished as part of a cost-cutting rationalisation at UK level by the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition government. (The dismantling of LLUK further fragmented the CLD field across the UK, with only Scotland maintaining a government-funded body, the Standards Council, to support the profession as a whole).

In part what was exposed by the difficulties in progressing the "upskilling" programme was the lack of a national infrastructure adequate to support relatively modest but vitally important development programmes for CLD. The eventual timescales for translating the broad outlines of the programmes into detailed plans and then delivery were absurdly short, which meant that the ambition to support sustainable professional development rather than simply one-off learning opportunities looked unrealistic. What happened as a result was undoubtedly uneven and significantly less than what might have been achieved with the resources available; however the more notable aspect is that real and positive change did happen.

The CLD field showed its maturity by more often grasping the opportunities than using the inadequacies of the overall programme delivery as a reason for inaction. The injection of funding from the Scottish Government was essential given the degree to which professional development in CLD had been starved of resources, but it was the stimulus it gave to a renewed focus by partnerships and employers on developing the workforce that turned out to be its most important result. This was supported by the CPD Strategy (A Learning Culture for the CLD Sector in Scotland) developed by the CLD Standards Council through close consultation with the field and its emphasis on developing "a learning culture for the CLD sector in Scotland" (see Chapter 7). In some parts of the country, new partnerships across local authority (and to some extent sectoral) boundaries played an important role in developing better professional development opportunities for practitioners.

Public service reform, community empowerment - and inconvenient questions about power

The electoral system for the Scottish Parliament, based on a form of proportional representation, had been designed to make it very difficult (some had suggested impossible) for any one party to gain a majority; the motivation having been to reassure opponents of the Labour Party who favoured devolution, but feared that a new parliament would become the stronghold of a Labour one-party state. It was therefore ironic as well as unprecedented that the 2011 Scottish general election returned a majority SNP government. The Labour/Liberal administration had also introduced proportional representation for local government elections, which, in a further irony, was a major factor in the shift from a position where Labour had a dominant role in local government, in particular in the central belt, to a much more mixed and fluid situation where coalitions or minority administrations were the rule.

It is striking that since 1999, all the devolved governments of whichever party have declared themselves in favour of decentralising power, yet by 2014 a Commission for Strengthening Local Democracy voiced the concern that Scotland has one of the most centralised systems of government in Europe and that there was an urgent need for change. The structure of 32 local authorities remains in 2015 the one introduced by a Conservative UK government in 1995-96, in what was widely viewed as a "reform" driven more by party political considerations than a search for good governance.

Well-meaning interest in decentralising power was increasingly linked to a debate about the future of public services in the context of constraints on public expenditure and rising demands. Perceptions that governments in advanced economies were finding it increasingly difficult to impact positively on the lives of citizens had gained some currency in the period before the crash of 2007-08; under the impact of the global economic crisis these concerns were given practical urgency and addressing them began to be described, rhetorically at least, as an imperative. In Scotland the debate was crystallised through the work of a Commission on the Future Delivery of Public Services which was established by the First Minister in November 2010 and reported in June the following year (see Chapter 10).

The Commission's report, which became known by the name of the Commission's Chair, Campbell Christie[6] (who, sadly, died only months after its publication) was very clear in pressing the urgency of change and setting out principles that should inform it. First among these was that:

"Reforms must aim to empower individuals and communities receiving public services by involving them in the design and delivery of the services they use." (Emphasis as in the report)

In itself this was a relatively familiar theme in public policy, as were the statements about the need for closer partnership working, integrated service provision and improved efficiency. Also not new was the expression of support for public services that "prevent negative outcomes from arising". However, the statement, as a founding principle, that expenditure on preventive services should be prioritised, suggested that the Commission was trying to find its way beyond the well-trodden paths of worthy sentiment.

In doing this, the Commission was able to draw on a wide range of existing experience of what the stated principles could mean in practice. Despite the gaps that there had often been between policy rhetoric about community-based solutions and practical support for these, many communities had been able to take advantage of the opportunities provided and overcome barriers and setbacks in order to create positive changes and take greater control of their own futures. This experience of communities leading change had developed as much in rural areas as in urban, the role of charitable trusts such as Carnegie (notably through its Charter for Rural Communities) had been significant, and organisations such as development trusts and social enterprises had played an increasingly important role, often taking over land or buildings for community use and/or economic development.

It is also important to note that more prosperous communities had seen the potential benefits of organising themselves and were able to use well-developed skills and networks to secure these. CLD practitioners were often not strongly involved in the developments referred to in the previous paragraph; whether because the groups and areas involved, or the aims being pursued, were not considered as priorities; or because their role and skills were not seen as relevant. The relationship between CLD practitioners, those who see themselves as specifically community development practitioners, and the growing "community sector" has continued to be a source of tension (see Chapter 8).

Whatever the implications of these issues, the Commission's report was widely seen as credible in large part because it was supported by their extensive consideration of existing practice, and because its analysis and recommendations appeared to be based on this consideration, focusing as much on the needs and aspirations of communities (in particular those faced with the greatest challenges) as on the problems faced by government:

"Reforming the delivery of these services is not only a matter of fiscal necessity. We also have to implement reforms that improve the quality of public services to better meet the needs of the people and the communities they seek to support"

As a result, the Christie Commission's report was seen by many as the potential starting point for real and positive change.

The SNP 2011 manifesto proposed a Community Empowerment and Renewal Bill (see Chapter 11) which it said would "give local people a greater say in their area, enabling them to deal more easily with derelict and eyesore properties and take over underused or unused public buildings for the benefit of their community". This suggested a relatively narrow focus with an emphasis on physical regeneration, and, having received comments about the need and opportunity for something wider and more ambitious, the Christie Commission report recommended that the Bill should "promote significantly improved community participation in the design and delivery of services".

As a result of a thorough and extensive process of consultation on the Bill, there was wide-ranging and detailed comment on ways that community empowerment could be supported through legislation. The depth of this discussion in itself perhaps contributed to a degree of disappointment when the Bill was published; the legislative proposals did not go as far as many had hoped in providing the means for communities to shift the balance of power in their favour. Indeed there were some concerns that processes for participation required by the Bill could, in practice as against intention, make it more difficult for communities to influence decisions affecting them.

Alongside widespread welcome for the overall intention and direction of the legislation, there was another area of significant concern. This was that the opportunities for communities to empower themselves would be much more extensively taken up by communities that were already "empowered", that is in general those that are better-off. It was strongly argued that without real investment in building the capacity of poorer communities, the community empowerment legislation would fuel greater inequality.

This concern arose in a wider context where, particularly from 2007 onwards, there was a seemingly inexorable growth of inequality and poverty. The "austerity" policies pursued by the UK Conservative/Liberal coalition government from 2010 were not followed by the high levels of unemployment seen in the 1980s, but as real wages continued to fall, poverty was widespread among those in low-paid work as well as those not in employment, while the benefits regime became increasingly stringent and in many instances punitive. The widespread growth and use of food banks provided a very visible indicator of the impact of all of this. Clearly there was a major segment of society that was being disempowered in fundamental ways, and while the Scottish Government vigorously declared its opposition to the policies being pursued at UK level, it faced its own challenges, not least in moving from the aspirations of empowerment to making it a reality for those in most pressing need of change.

These challenges had been brought into sharp focus by campaigning for the independence referendum. In the latter stages of the legislative process, the SNP government gave greatly increased attention to how the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill (as it was now titled) could play a positive role in reducing inequality. When it became the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act in July 2015, it could have been said that the serious and difficult work was only then about to begin; nonetheless the passing of the Act was clearly a landmark: the empowerment of individuals and communities beginning to form a core part of public policy, in legislative reality as distinct from rhetoric.

Passing the CLD parcel?

In April 2010, the uncomfortable co-habitation of the Learning Connections unit with the government's Lifelong Learning Directorate was brought to an end. The new arrangements produced following a review conducted within the Directorate involved the creation of a Communities Team located within Learning and Teaching Scotland (LTS), a non-departmental public body that, conveniently, happened also to be going through a review process. LTS's previous involvement in CLD was limited. It had worked closely with CLS on promoting education for active citizenship in the early 2000s, but this was very much an exception to the general rule that its primary focus was on school-based learning. There was sufficient recognition of the importance of broadening-out support for the implementation of Curriculum for Excellence (the national 3-18 curriculum built around "capacities" that resonated strongly with CLD principles and practice) beyond the school gates to provide at least a semblance of policy justification for this manoeuvre, and the work done around the Bridging the Gap report gave a genuine starting point for a CLD "presence" within LTS, albeit a peripheral one. It was also proposed that a small policy team should be established within the Lifelong Learning Directorate, based on previous responsibilities for adult literacy and for ESOL, but its remit and resources for CLD in a broader sense remained tenuous.

By June 2011, LTS in turn ceased to exist and its functions were brought together with those of HMIE Inspectorate of Education within a new Executive Agency, Education Scotland. By the following year, the Lifelong Learning Directorate divested itself of responsibility for CLD by offloading its policy role in this area to Education Scotland. This meant that the new agency, while grappling with how to obtain synergy, across all its functions, between its inspection and development roles (and at the same time maintain the separation between these required for their integrity) now needed to find a way of carrying out policy, as well as scrutiny and development functions for CLD without any one of these compromising the others.

Did a development role need more distance from government to be as in touch with the field and creative as it needed to be? Would the high status of the inspection function, and its dominance within Education Scotland, result in an over-emphasis on the conclusions from scrutiny processes as the basis for development priorities? Would the agency's pre-occupation with Curriculum for Excellence result in pressure for a narrowing of the focus of CLD at the very time when there was a need to grasp the opportunities presented by the "Christie agenda" and the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act? These have remained troubling questions up to the time of writing in 2015; there seems to be little evidence of an attempt to learn from previous experiences of shifting national policy and practice support responsibilities for CLD (or aspects of it) around different locations within government and its agencies.

Ambitions, Strategies, Legislation: a substitute for action, or progress in difficult times?

Another priority of the SNP government was the reform of 16+ education and this also turned out to have important implications for CLD. Proposals centred on the future of colleges (what emerged was a regionalised structure intended to provide a more strategic approach and to make savings in management costs), but the "pre-legislative paper" (Putting Learners at the Centre: Delivering our Ambitions for Post-16 Education - see Chapter 10) referred to CLD roles, for example in the context of "activity agreements" with young people who had disengaged from the formal education system; and it committed the Scottish Government to producing a CLD Strategy. In addition, a central purpose of the paper was to identify what needed to be included in the planned "reform of 16+ education" legislation, and consideration of what legislative provision might be needed to support improved effectiveness of CLD became a part of the process.

One purpose of the post-16 reform programme was to reduce expenditure. There was also continued downward pressure on local authority budgets, which in some places led to severe reductions in spending on CLD provision. The constraints on overall resources and the range of their statutory commitments, together with the lack of any indicative nationally-set budget for CLD, could have been expected to lead to universal large-scale cuts in CLD programmes. What actually happened was a continuation of the pattern of there being very different outcomes for CLD in different areas; it became apparent that some local authorities recognised their CLD programmes and partnerships as having a key role in their wider strategies, while others saw it as of peripheral importance at best. It was also clear that to a considerable extent, these differences were self-perpetuating: where CLD was starved of resources it was increasingly difficult for practitioners to show a significant impact from their work.

The other side of this coin was that where resources had been maintained at something close to a realistic level, this tended to be on the basis of robust strategic planning, a sustained commitment to continuing improvement of practice and hard-won support from decision-makers at officer and political levels. CLD in Dundee - making a strategic impact in Chapter 10 provides an example of what could be achieved. When the Scottish Government's commitment to a national CLD strategy progressed into consultation on "strategic guidance" on CLD, engagement with the field was able to draw heavily on the experience of the local authority led partnerships that had achieved this type of impact.

Input from the field was critical in ensuring that despite its origins in a specific "post-16 education" agenda, Strategic Guidance for Community Planning Partnerships: Community Learning and Development (June 2012) located CLD very clearly as having a key role in the radical reform of public services advocated by the Christie Commission, in building "on the assets and potential of the individual, the family and the community" and developing new partnerships between communities and public services (see Chapter 10).

In response to concerns that the previous national priorities, focusing discretely on adult learning, youth work and community capacity building, had encouraged continued "silo" working, the guidance instead indicated that, within an overall statement of purpose that "CLD should empower people, individually and collectively, to make positive changes in their lives and their communities, through learning", the focus of CLD should be on:

- "Improved life chances for people of all ages, including young people in particular, through learning, personal development and active citizenship; and

- Stronger, more resilient, supportive, influential and inclusive communities."

With legislation expected to follow, the guidance indicated an expectation that CLD should at last become a core part of public services, not an optional extra:

"The implementation of this guidance provides the impetus for CLD to be delivered as a consistent, central element of public services in Scotland and will be based on a continuing dialogue with key stakeholders."

Meanwhile it had become apparent that legislation in relation to CLD did not fit with the provisions being developed for "16+ education" and in particular the regionalisation of colleges. What emerged, rather than a section within new primary legislation, was a Scottish Statutory Instrument; secondary legislation under the powers of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 (see Chapter 11).

The Instrument consisted of a short set of provisions under the title of The Requirements for Community Learning and Development (Scotland) Regulations 2013. Rather than seeking to define "minimum standards" for CLD provision (which would both have led to complex issues of legal definition, and have carried a risk that the "minimum" would soon become the norm or even the ceiling) the Regulations emphasised requirements that CLD must be "secured" through a process based on engagement with communities to identify needs, and to produce 3-yearly plans for CLD. The "requirements" were placed directly only on local authorities (the primary legislation did not give Ministers powers to place requirements on others) while emphasising that they must discharge their duties through partnership. The existence of the Instrument made clear that the duty in the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 to make "adequate and efficient" provision of "further education" included CLD within its scope.

Views on the likely impact of the Regulations varied. Some questioned the validity of legislating for CLD in the first place, suggesting that the effect would be to compromise practitioners' scope to work in ways that enable critical awareness and independent community action. Although the logic of this argument raises the question of whether CLD should rely on public funding, consideration of, for example Partnership in Action - a personal reflection (see Chapter 10) suggests why the concern arose. The account it gives of practice as an employee of one of the local authorities that valued CLD most highly illustrates the tightness of the constraints within which almost all CLD practitioners have increasingly been required to work.

Others welcomed the Regulations as a strengthening of the position of CLD within Local Authorities in particular, and the fact that they embedded a participative planning process for CLD provision as a continuing requirement. The Regulations came into force in September 2013 and set September 2015 as the deadline for each local authority to have its first three-year plan in place; the eventual impact of the legislation may depend largely on how it is used by providers of CLD, and perhaps by communities themselves, as well as by government.

Meanwhile work was also under way on a new or refreshed strategy for youth work (see Chapters 5 and 11). YouthLink Scotland and other national agencies affiliated to it, including for example Youth Scotland and the Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme, had established an influential voice with national decision-makers, strengthened also by the involvement of the major uniformed youth organisations. Links between the chief officers of the key voluntary organisations in the field and the locally authority CLD Managers (CLDMS) grouping provided a basis for improved cross-sector partnership working, particularly once formalised through a joint group involving the CLDMS youth work sub-committee. As a result of all this, there was no question over the commitment of the Scottish Government to a strategy statement of some kind, but in the more hostile financial climate compared to the period when the Moving Forward strategy had been developed, the kind of programmes and resources that had been included within the earlier strategy were no longer seen as an option by government; and in the absence of these it was more difficult to establish a tangible sense of purpose and direction.

The title of the new "National Youth Work Strategy 2014-2019", Our ambitions for improving the life chances of young people in Scotland (April 2014) signposted an emphasis on aspiration and shared endeavour rather than more definitive objectives; and this was reflected in the content of the strategy. By early in 2015 work was under way on how to translate the aspirations into practical collaboration in areas including improving the engagement of young people in policy decisions and enhancing workforce development, and this was underpinned by the cross-sector partnership working referred to above. Efforts continued to combine the strength derived from the social reach of the varied youth work field with a robust common CLD identity.

In the period from 2001 up until 2014, government policy in relation to community-based adult learning in Scotland had, as we have seen, focused largely on its role in adult literacy and numeracy and to a lesser although significant extent in English for speakers of other languages (ESOL). Through much of this period, a range of voluntary organisations received funding for a variety of activities that rolled forward for a number of years without any sign of the purpose of this, or whether it contributed to wider priorities, being kept under review.

Creative practice and critical thinking on community-based adult learning as a core dimension of CLD continued (see Chapter 9); but collaboration, or certainly joint lobbying, between the national adult learning agencies had been less developed than in the youth work field. Strong political support from the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning played an important part in establishing a collaborative process through a National Strategic Forum for Adult Learning, chaired by the Cabinet Secretary, which led to a parallel document to the youth work strategy.

Adult Learning in Scotland (May 2014) was presented as a "Statement of Ambition" and like the Youth Work Strategy it was strong on aspiration while being light on indications of how the aspirations were to be turned into action. However the process had undoubtedly forged a stronger sense of shared commitment and direction by the agencies involved, and these represented a range of interests, and of expertise, that had perhaps never been brought purposefully together before. They included Learning Link Scotland, Scotland's Learning Partnership, Newbattle Abbey College, the Workers' Educational Association, the CLD Managers group, representatives from the college and university sectors, the Association of Directors of Education (ADES), LEAD (Linking Education and Disability) Scotland and the STUC, together with Education Scotland. As a set of principles and broad aims, the Statement could be seen as a starting point for a more purposeful, substantial and dynamic role for community-based adult learning; at the same time, it left many questions to be addressed in the process of making this real, in relation both to resources and the specifics of more effective collaboration.

By May 2014, strategic guidance for CLD, statutory regulations setting out "requirements" for CLD, a national strategy for youth work and a statement of ambition for adult learning were all in place. There was however no parallel strategy or statement on the CLD role in community development. The Scottish Community Development Centre had increased its reach and influence, linking with a number of Scottish Government policy areas and working directly with communities as well as practitioners through a variety of programmes. The Community Development Alliance Scotland brought together a widening network of national organisations with a commitment to community development, promoting good practice, enabling debate of key issues and engaging with government. A practitioners' network, the Scottish Community Development Network, which had survived largely through the persistence and commitment of a small group of practitioners, had begun to achieve greater recognition both within the field and in terms of some small-scale financial support from the government.

In their different roles, each of these bodies drew on the role of community development in a wide range of settings, many of these with little connection to the CLD field, while also building on this further. Meanwhile, evidence continued to indicate that the proportion of limited CLD resources directed towards community development was relatively small. For two reasons this can be seen as a significant missed opportunity. Firstly, the CLD competences and Code of Ethics provide the framework for quality practice in community development in Scotland, and CLD practitioners carry a key skills base for community development. Secondly, the ability of CLD practice to link youth work and community-based learning with community development is potentially transformative. Responses by CLD providers to the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act indicated that community development roles were being given increased priority, and guidance on the Act, to be developed in 2016, provides an opportunity for putting in place more coherent support for community development practice.

The addition of a strategy statement on community development to existing statements, guidance and legislation would ensure that Scotland in 2016 has a more comprehensive policy framework for CLD practice than at any time in the profession's existence. It would be more than ironic if this framework proves to be no more than decorative and the practice itself is allowed to dwindle into insignificance.

Change, achievement and unfinished business

The attraction of "ambitions" over more specific objectives can be seen as related to the broader political scene in Scotland in 2014 and 2015, which was dominated by the referendum on independence and its aftermath. The campaign undoubtedly generated greater active involvement in electoral politics than had been seen for many years, as reflected in the turnout of voters and in the rise of membership of political parties, in particular the SNP. The granting of the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds, their obvious interest in the campaign and their readiness to use their votes in similar numbers to older adults was probably one of the most widely-agreed successes of the campaign. It may have done something to dispel myths about "political apathy" as a phenomenon specific to young people.

Some CLD practitioners played a significant role in promoting debate and awareness around the referendum; others were or felt constrained by their employers' attitudes to anything that could be construed as political involvement by staff. In the aftermath, there was much discussion, in some CLD circles as in other parts of society, of how to capitalise on the energy and enthusiasm for involvement in public issues that had been generated by the campaign. In one sense, this was perhaps a question that answers itself: if there is a readiness for active involvement in a community, then surely CLD practitioners should be ready to support people to empower themselves through learning and action? Undoubtedly there were opportunities for CLD practice that did exactly this.

At the same time, it can be suggested that there was a type of trap here that community workers had fallen into frequently in the past. Political campaigns have their own identity and dynamics, different from (if sometimes interlinked with) those of community organisations and informal learning programmes, while the "small p" political impact of CLD is closely linked with its professional integrity. It can be suggested that for the vast majority of CLD practitioners in Scotland in 2014 and 2015, the real and present political issue relating to their professional practice was securing the space to practice according to the values of CLD and utilising their CLD competences.

At the same time, and in a wider perspective, the independence referendum campaign and the fallout from it can be seen as part of a political, social and economic process that has fundamental implications for all aspects of our future, CLD of course included. What happened in Scotland was one example of a related complex of developments across Europe (and arguably beyond): from Syriza in Greece to the UK Independence Party, from the French National Front to the UK Green Party, from Podemos in Spain to the SNP, there has been an upsurge of movements, often but not always nationalist, hostile to the political parties that have been electorally dominant for decades, and in some cases to the financial elites that have been widely and increasingly seen as wielding far more real power. The sheer variety of the aims and ideologies of these parties and movements should act as a warning against drawing simple conclusions about the implications of all of this for CLD. More broadly, the scale and nature of the impact that these political developments will have in a world dominated by a globalised economic system remains very uncertain. However, what does seem clear is that the attraction of "alternative" political views at a level that would have been hard to imagine only a few years previously is an indicator of deep-seated uncertainty, disquiet, even revulsion stemming from equally deep seated economic tensions that carry the potential for repeated or continuing crisis.

Alongside and closely connected with the economic difficulties is the growing recognition of a crisis of sustainability, most obviously as a result of climate change but arguably even more pervasive in its sources and impact. Scotland is also increasingly directly affected by change and conflict at an international level; in the course of 2015, the refugee crisis has become the most obvious and pressing aspect of this. All of this - the pace of change and the scale of the challenges - suggests that a reassertion of long-held values and a demonstration of particular outcomes achieved may not in themselves be sufficient if CLD is to be and seen to be relevant and essential. What more can CLD practitioners do? Continued re-examination and renewal of practice, testing out principles and methods; engaging with the rapidly-changing realities of communities; cohesive, evidence-informed and assertive statements of the value of these principles and methods and their specific relevance to new challenges and opportunities; sustained engagement as committed professionals in the policy debates that shape (or close off) the opportunities for practice; these are some at least of the essentials for progress.

We hope this book will stimulate you, whatever your interest and involvement in CLD, to engage in that process within the realities of your own situation. However, while practitioners share a responsibility to play an active part in the change that is required, the responsibility does not lie solely or predominantly with them. In June 2014, the International Association for Community Development, with the CLD Standards Council as its partner, held its conference in Glasgow. Delegates from 32 countries across the world, and speakers and workshop facilitators from many of them, showed the vibrancy of community development and its increasingly central role as the need for people and community-based solutions becomes more obvious; equally striking was the quality of participation from practitioners from Scotland.

Yet many of those taking part in the conference, from Scotland and perhaps also from further afield, may have had a sense of re-arriving at a familiar crossroads. While the policy rhetoric supporting individual and community empowerment as a pre-requisite for progress is often insistent, the changes in the parameters for major public policy decisions, and the shift in the practices of public service agencies needed to translate the rhetoric from aspiration to achievable plan remain elusive. Community learning and development practitioners have shown that the competences and values of their profession are a robust means of releasing the capacity of communities that have been excluded from the economy, of enabling young people with the poorest prospects to find and realise their potential, and of making lifelong learning a reality for those who have been excluded from educational opportunity. Doing these things, not haphazardly but as part of "normal business", has the potential for large-scale positive change across many of the most pressing issues of the next decades. The question of how to properly constitute an 'empowering profession' with the skills, knowledge and understanding required should be a burning question not just for community learning and development practitioners but for government and the wider society.

Preface

Community Learning and Development: The Making of an Empowering Profession. Volume Two

It gives me great pleasure to be writing the preface to Volume Two of Community Learning and Development: The Making of an Empowering Profession. I edited the first edition twenty years ago, at a time of the re-organisation of local government in Scotland. Then the field felt hugely apprehensive about its future, following years of salami cuts in public expenditure that had impacted hard upon both local authority and voluntary sector service providers. As a largely non-statutory service, practitioners had to demonstrate every penny of the value of their work.

I wanted the book to help lift the confidence of this still very young profession, (it was just coming of age at 21), by gathering together a canon of influential texts in the field of community education and community development, published in and about Scotland since the Alexander Report and the creation of local authority Community Education Services in 1975. I wanted to remind our profession just how far we had come in creating a new kind of public service professional who could help people and communities to have a voice, especially in the more deprived areas, through widening access to community-based education and organisational support for young people and adults.

1975 is seen by the profession in Scotland as the 'take off' year, when for the first time central government and local authorities created a named Community Education Service, as part of their wider strategies for community development (particularly strong in the West of Scotland, but eventually covering most areas). Nor was this unique to Scotland; community education and community development approaches and professionals were being increasingly employed in other 'developed' OECD countries at this time. This was in recognition that underdeveloped areas and groups in poverty remained widespread across the richest countries in the world. And in the OECD league table, Scotland was at the bottom in terms of socio-economic indicators of disadvantage as it went through the challenges and the pain of structural change in the 1970s, 80s and 90s.

The Making of an Empowering Profession was the second Reader I had brought together. The first, Community Education and Community Development, published in 1982, covered the initial optimistic years. New professional qualifications had been created and a national development centre, the Scottish Community Education Council, had been set up to support the field and to advise Ministers (evidence that the new Conservative Government elected in 1979 also supported the community education approach). In the nineteen eighties and early nineties there was a blossoming in writing about this work in Scotland, with publications from academics and practitioners and a wide range of central and local government reports and publications from the non-governmental sector. The Making of an Empowering Profession was an attempt to gather together the most influential of these, working with an editorial advisory group. It became a set text for graduate students training to enter this field and ran to three editions, with new texts added to each, bringing the book up to the early years of devolution following the creation of the Scottish Parliament and government in 1999.

This new volume covers the period from the publication of the first two major reports about community learning and development emanating from the new Scottish government - Empowered to Practice and Community Learning and Development: The Way Forward. As with the earlier Readers, this volume traces the health of the profession by way of key texts, from government reports to practitioner case studies. It includes papers that are critical of both policy and practice and with a healthy self-critical analysis of performance and of how to do the work better, signs of a confident profession that not only has a strong values base, but also a sense of reality as to what it can deliver. Huge congratulations go to Rory MacLeod, who initiated the development of the new volume as Head of the Community Learning and Development Standards Council before his retirement in 2015, Colin Ross the editor, the authors of the introductions to individual chapters and the editorial advisory group (of which I was one) for gathering together this new material. I know what hard work this has entailed.

The post-devolution years saw growing optimism amongst community learning and development professionals in Scotland. The Labour Party's social justice and communitarian rhetoric and the Liberal Party's longstanding commitment to community politics, suggested that community learning and development would be a key component of the new Labour/Liberal coalition government's plans for regenerating communities, for lifelong learning, active citizenship and for creating what came to be called the 'empowering state'.

As this volume documents, much of this did indeed happen. The new Scottish government supported the UK government's formal recognition of the community learning and development occupational sector in 1999. This year is as significant as 1975 in the history of the profession, in that it at last brought together community education and community development professionals into one officially recognised occupational sector across the whole of the UK. Scottish employers and professional interests played a central role in achieving this official recognition. And it was a great honour for me when I became the first chair of the UK's training and occupational standards body for the sector.

The post-devolution years saw significant economic growth and public sector investment in Scotland and labour market forecasting by the Sector Skills Council projected a need for the employment of more professionals with community learning and development skills. Although there was overall growth in the workforce, frustratingly these professionals found themselves increasingly employed on short term contracts in the voluntary sector, with less employment available in local authorities. Until 2013, successive Scottish governments (Labour/Liberal and Scottish Nationalist) sadly failed to strengthen the legal basis requiring the provision of community learning and development support for communities. This, as I predicted, gave little protection to community learning and development jobs, after the 2008 financial crash.

Colin Ross' excellent introduction to this volume illuminates how opportunities were lost, particularly in the early years of the devolution, with policy drift, ineffective organisational change at the centre and an over obsessiveness with short termism. Investing in more staff and giving community learning and development workers time and space to deliver, in collaboration with the other public service disciplines (governmental and non-governmental) that aim to improve people's lives, would have achieved so much more. Those in government, as much as those in the field, need to learn from this.

Since 1999 up to the present, the field in Scotland (in noticeable contrast with England), has, however, managed to retain a distinct professional identity. This is in large part due to the excellent work of the field-led and government funded Community Learning and Development Standards Council, which oversees professional standards, training and registration. One must also add the important support role for the field played since the early 2000s, by such bodies as Youth Link Scotland, the Scottish Community Development Centre, the Scottish Adult Learning Partnership, the local authority Community Learning and Development Managers Scotland group and the Community Learning and Development Inspectorate team within the HMI.

The work of professional community learning and development practitioners has changed over the past decade and a half, reflecting the changing challenges facing young people and adults in urban and rural communities. Community learning and development employers, trainers and the Standards Council have done a superb job in supporting continuing professional development and in creating more flexible and accessible forms of professional training at undergraduate level. Community learning and development professionals are now employed by a wider range of employers than ever before and with a myriad of job titles (indeed the minority are called community learning and development workers). There are also now more specialists addressing specific age groups and issues. They continue to support some of the most vulnerable young people and adults and communities across Scotland.

The current 'empowering state' rhetoric in Scottish public policy and administration now adopts much of the language and practice developed and advocated by those working in the community learning and development field for the past forty years. We can be proud of this achievement. Notwithstanding the tight fiscal environment, at forty, the 'empowering profession' looks ready to make an ever greater contribution to the challenges facing young people and adults in Scotland. Many of these challenges are similar to 1975 - unemployment, low literacy levels, poor health and socio-economic inequality. And there are new ones - climate change, the nature of Scotland's democracy, the opportunities for social networking via the internet, an aging population, the re-emergence of xenophobia and concerns about immigration and Scotland's place in Europe and a globalised world. As we look forward, government, employers and the profession itself must invest in a workforce that is up for tackling such issues and, has the resources to support young people and communities to deal with these new challenges of change.

In 1999, the headquarters of the International Association for Community Development was set up in Scotland. This reflected a longstanding feature of Scottish practitioners' engagement internationally in youth work, adult education and community work networks. And why Scotland's work in this area is admired by people in other countries. This Reader is an honest showcase for Scottish community learning and development policy and practice. I congratulate the Community Learning and Development Standards Council for Scotland for publishing it and commend it as core reading for practitioners, trainers, students, policy advisers, employers and researchers in Scotland and internationally.

Charlie McConnell

President

International Association for Community Development (2014-2016)

Acknowledgements

The CLD Standards Council is grateful to all the contributors of introductory material for this book: Christine Barber, Ian Fyfe, John Galt, Charlie McConnell, Mike Naulty and Stuart Hashagen; and to the other members of the Advisory Group: Alex Downie, Steven Greig and Kirsty Walker. Charlie McConnell, the editor of the original Making of an Empowering Profession to which this book is a companion volume, was particularly generous with his support and time, providing the Preface as well as detailed and insightful comments throughout. Rory MacLeod, who retired as Head of the CLD Standards Council while work on the book was in progress but has continued to advise and support, was the prime mover in the project and in committing the Standards Council to it.

In a broader sense of course, in bringing together a collection of texts that aims to provide the basis for an informed understanding of the role and development of CLD in Scotland over the last dozen years, the book draws on the experience and reflection of the wider body of those involved in the practice of CLD over that period. So in addition to the specific acknowledgements below, we would want to recognise that debt.

The Standards Council would like to thank the following people and organisations for permission to use previously published material:

The CLD Approach, by Fraser Patrick, paper for "Serious Fun Too" conference, 2007

Are We Being Served? Top Tips Guide to Involving Disabled People Glasgow Disability Alliance, 2005 http://www.gdaonline.co.uk

Statement on the Nature and Purpose of Youth Work, YouthLink Scotland, 2005, 2009 http://www.youthlinkscotland.org

Standing at the Crossroads - what future for Youth Work? By Ian Fyfe and Stuart Moir and Are we really moving forward? Evaluating the impact of the national youth work strategy, by Mike Bell, both in Youth work at the Crossroads, Concept journal, 2013 http://concept.lib.ed.ac.uk

Scottish Youth Work: same, but different, Howard Sercombe, Jim Sweeney, Ted Milburn, Marcus Liddell, Rory MacLeod, Phil Denning, Glasgow, 2014

Reclaiming Social Purpose: framing the discussion, by Ian Martin, in Reclaiming Social Purpose in Community Education, 2008

Developing Local Organisations, by Alistair Hunter, in Journeying Together: Growing Youth Work and Youth Workers in Local Communities, edited by Mark Smith and Alan Rogers, Russell House Publishing Ltd, 2010 www.russellhouse.co.uk

A Charter for Rural Communities - The Final Report of the Carnegie Commission for Rural Community Development, Carnegie Commission for Rural Community Development, Carnegie UK Trust, 2007 http://carnegieuktrust.org.uk/

Capacity building for activism: learning from the past for the future by Lynn McCabe in Community Empowerment: Critical Perspectives from Scotland, edited by Akwugo Emejulu and Mae Shaw, 2010

Learning, knowledge and development by Lyn Tett, from Community Education, Learning and Development, Dunedin Academic Press, 3rd edition 2010. Any further reproduction of the chapter requires the permission of the publisher.

http://www.dunedinacademicpress.co.uk

Adult Education In Scotland, Past and Present by Ian Martin and Jim Crowther, Concept journal, 2010 http://concept.lib.ed.ac.uk

Partnership in Action: a personal reflection by Stuart Fairweather in Community Empowerment: Critical Perspectives from Scotland, edited by Akwugo Emejulu and Mae Shaw, 2010

CLD in Scottish Local Authorities - A Changing Scene 2012-13, Community Learning and Development Managers Scotland 2013 http://www.cldms.org.uk .

Community Development - Everyone's Business? By Alan Barr, Scottish Community Development Centre, 2014 http://www.scdc.org.uk .

Public sector information included in this book is licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3

Biographies of Contributors

Christine Barber is currently working as an Educational Consultant and a part time lecturer. She is a member of the CLD Standards Council for Scotland, Approval Committee and a Board of Director for Dundee Carers. Christine has over thirty years of experience working as an educator and a senior manager in Community Learning and Development, Further Education and Higher Education in Dundee. A key focus of her work practice is adult learning and the promotion of partnership working in achieving a fair and just society.

Dr Ian Fyfe is Head of Institute for Education, Community and Society and Lecturer based at Moray House School of Education, University of Edinburgh. He has a professional background in youth work and community-based education with over 20 years practical experience based in Scotland, USA and Australia. His current academic teaching and research interests include youth work practice, youth studies, education for citizenship, youth transitions and young people's political participation.

John Galt has worked in community learning and development in the public sector for over 20 years - as an adult education worker in the south side of Glasgow, a youth worker and manager in Cambuslang and Clydebank, and a CLD policy officer with Glasgow City Council and Glasgow Life. He has been a Development Officer with Education Scotland since 2014 and an HMI Associate Assessor since 2009.

Stuart Hashagen is former Director and Co-Director of Scottish Community Development Centre, and was one of the group that established SCDC back in 1993. Today his work focuses on community development theory and practice, and on community engagement, linking these to current debates on empowerment, democratic renewal and to the case for investment in community development. He is currently Chair of the European Community Development Network.

Charlie McConnell retired as President of the International Association for Community Development in 2016. This followed a career of over forty years in community development and education. He was the CEO of the Scottish Community Education Council; CEO of the Carnegie UK Trust; Principal of Schumacher College; European Director of the Community Development Foundation; and the first Chair of the UK's National Training Standards Organisation for Community Learning and Development. Charlie has written and edited several books, including the first three editions of The Making of an Empowering Profession.

Mike Naulty is a former lecturer at the University of Dundee where his teaching and research interests included CLD, Education, Social Work and Inter-professional learning. He has been involved in CLD practice in a variety of settings and is Chair of the CLD Standards Council Professional Learning Committee.

Colin Ross is currently Policy and Practice Development officer with the CLD Standards Council. He worked in community development in Glasgow as a practitioner, fieldwork teacher, manager and on regional and city-wide strategy and practice support. Since 2001 he has been involved in the development of policy and strategy for CLD in Scotland, working in a variety of national agencies.

Chapter 1: Working and Learning Together

Contents

References

Introduction - Working and Learning Together

Working and Learning Together to Build Stronger Communities

(Scottish Executive Guidance for Community Learning and Development, 2004)

Developing an Effective Community Learning Plan (Illuminating Practice, Case study 5)

(From Illuminating Practice: Case Studies in CLD, Scottish Community Development Centre for Learning Connections/Communities Scotland, 2004)

Angus Glens Project (Illuminating Practice, Case study 6)

(From Illuminating Practice: Case Studies in CLD, Scottish Community Development Centre for Learning Connections/Communities Scotland, 2004)

The Community Learning and Development Approach

(A starter paper for the "This is Serious Fun Too" conference; Fraser Patrick, Centre fore Research in CLD, University of Dundee, 2007)

References

Core texts

Working and Learning Together to Build Stronger Communities (Scottish Executive, 2004)

Developing an Effective Community Learning Plan (Case study from Illuminating Practice - see below) (Scottish Community Development Centre for Learning Connections, Communities Scotland, 2004)

Angus Glens Project (Case study from Illuminating Practice - see below) (Scottish Community Development Centre for Learning Connections, Communities Scotland, 2004)

The CLD Approach (Fraser Patrick, for "Serious Fun Too" conference, 2007)

Related Content

Better Communities in Scotland - Closing the Gap (Scottish Executive Community Regeneration Statement, 2002)

National Priorities in Education Newsletter (Scottish Executive, 2002)

Life through Learning - Learning through Life (The Lifelong Learning Strategy for Scotland, Scottish Executive, 2003)

Illuminating Practice: case studies in community learning and development (Scottish Community Development Centre for Learning Connections, Communities Scotland, 2004)

A Rich Network - involving the voluntary sector in the planning of community learning and development (Learning Link for Communities Scotland, 2005)

Inside Policy: A guide to Scottish Executive policy for people working in CLD (Learning Connections, Communities Scotland, Scottish Executive, 2005, updated version 2007)

Making a difference in Scotland's communities - A five year review of community learning and development in Scotland (HMIE, 2007)

Community Learning and Development Activity Survey 2007 (Scottish Government, 2008)

Building on Working and learning together to Build Stronger Communities - joint statement by CoSLA and SG, 2008

Same Difference (LTS/Education Scotland, 2010)

Working and Learning Together

Introduction by Colin Ross

"The Scottish Executive believes that Community Learning and Development (CLD) has an essential role in achieving our priorities of improving public services and promoting community regeneration, social inclusion, lifelong learning and active citizenship.

This guidance sets out a long term framework for the development of CLD. It is the outcome of an extensive period of review and practical action to ensure that community learning and development is central to our vision for Scotland."

The opening paragraphs of the Ministerial Foreword to Working and learning together to build stronger communities could hardly be clearer in asserting that CLD had a central role to play in delivery of the priorities of the Labour/Liberal Democrat Scottish Executive coalition, a point underlined by the fact that the Foreword was signed by 4 ministers.

The main elements of the "long term framework" set out in Working and learning together (WALT) were:

- Three "national priorities" (focusing respectively on adult learning, youth work and community capacity building);

- An expectation that CLD resources should be targeted, in ways to be determined by individual Community Planning Partnerships, in order to "close the opportunity gap";

- A strong role for CLD in community planning;

- The development of cross-sector partnership working at strategic (local-authority wide) and locality or thematic level;

- A range of approaches to "ensuring high quality CLD services".

The general introduction to this book has already suggested that translating this positive rhetoric and broad policy framework into the kind of consistent support for practice needed to reflect the stated ambitions was not straightforward. Nonetheless, the way in which Working and learning together (WALT) located CLD as an integrated practice with an "essential role" in relation to the overall policy priorities of the devolved government was significant.

As the basis for progress, the Ministers in their Foreword declared that CLD "should incorporate the best of practice undertaken in the fields of 'community education' and 'community development'". In The community learning and development approach, Fraser Patrick (who as a Director in Dundee City Council and Chair of the Community Education Training Review was at the heart of these changes) explored what this bringing together of community education and community development meant. He discussed the key features of youth work, adult learning, community development and "literacies" and concluded that they shared "definitive characteristics": voluntary association; starting where people are at; the empowering process; the dialogical relationship; and that as a result:

"The different elements, operating interdependently, represent a potent force greater than the sum of the individual parts."

WALT was not accompanied by any major funding programme or by robust mechanisms for accountability. Nonetheless, the "potent force" identified by Fraser Patrick is illustrated by the Illuminating Practice case studies. Developing an Effective Community Learning Plan shows the community learning planning process being used as a vehicle for positive change in the Easterhouse peripheral housing scheme in Glasgow, while the Angus Glens Project, addressing isolation, lack of economic opportunity in rural Angus, exemplifies the impact of integrating lifelong learning and community development.

The case studies also highlight some of the challenges that were encountered by practitioners and agencies in this context, and the approaches used to address these[7]. While operating with constrained or fragmented resources and under pressure to meet demands for direct service delivery determined by agency priorities, the efforts to develop practice that started with an analysis of needs and opportunities undertaken with communities as the basis for an integrated CLD response bore significant fruit. Across Scotland there were examples, such as those selected for inclusion in Illuminating Practice, of CLD partners making effective use of the mandate provided by the WALT "framework".

At the heart of the changes affecting CLD was a change in the roles of local authorities, of voluntary or "third sector" organisations and in the relationships between them, which of course extended well beyond CLD provision. Local authorities had previously been by far the dominant employers of CLD practitioners, and there had been a degree of consistency of provision across the Regional Councils, but after local government re-organisation in 1996 both aspects of this had changed. There had been a reduction in local authority expenditure on CLD combined with a growth in CLD activity in the third sector. This appears to have resulted on the one hand in an overall increase in the number of CLD posts; but on the other, in many of the new posts being on fixed-term contracts. These fixed-term posts tended to be project-based rather than with a remit clearly focused on working with communities and learners to identify their aspirations and work towards them. The new local authorities had located their community education and community development functions in a variety of ways, some of which provided much more fertile soil for their flourishing than others.

A different perspective on these changes is provided by A rich network: involving the voluntary sector in the planning of community learning and development (2005). This report, produced by the Voluntary Sector Community Learning Support Partnership for the learning Connections unit at Communities Scotland, took a broadly positive view of the diversity of provision and practice that the WALT framework supported, while identifying substantial issues that needed to be addressed if the value of partnership working was to be realised. It made clear that some of these, such as the challenges for the voluntary sector in engaging with a growing variety of complex partnership arrangements, were not specific to CLD but common across the Community Planning landscape within which CLD needed to work (albeit in this having instance having an added edge due to the particular importance of small, community-based organisations in planning CLD); and that responsibility for addressing barriers to voluntary sector involvement needed to be shared between local authorities in their lead role and voluntary sector organisations themselves.

At the heart of issues specific to CLD that were identified by the Rich Network report was the challenge of integrating community learning and community development. The report suggested that some participants, mostly but not exclusively from the voluntary sector, who had related straightforwardly to Community Learning Partnerships focused on informal education, found the broadening of the remit to include community development confusing. At the same time, WALT's concern with core skills, achievement, young people gaining "a voice influence and place in society" and communities developing influence on decision making or providing local services was seen as "utilitarian"; voluntary organisations expressed concerns that learning for enjoyment seemed to have no place in the work of CLD Partnerships.

WALT's focus on social justice linked together its emphases on disadvantaged communities and on equalities; it quoted a Scottish Executive /CoSLA working group statement that:

"We want to increase opportunities for individuals and communities who are excluded, improve public services where it will make most difference, and create a more socially just Scotland."

This echoed the value-base that was widely agreed as underpinning CLD practice and spelt out in WALT, and its commitment to inclusion, equality of opportunity and challenging discrimination. The Illuminating Practice case studies reflect this commitment in a variety of ways, notably in the account of community development work with people with a learning disability (Quality Action Group, Stirling, in Illuminating Practice).

Many other examples of CLD practice that demonstrated the profession's strong commitment to equality could be identified. At the same time, ensuring that practice and the way that provision was prioritised consistently reflected the commitment and aspirations remained an important focus for attention. Same Difference drew on a range of examples of planning and delivering CLD in providing guidance on "how to work with people experiencing disadvantage".

The WALT case studies and the Voluntary Sector Community Learning Support Partnership's Rich Network report indicate the creative energy with which CLD was practised and promoted in the period around and following from the publication of the Working and Learning Together guidance. Equally they reflected an awareness that:

"The CL&D approach does not need defending against other partners' interest. But the approach arguably does need to be articulated clearly and demonstrated soundly."

(The community learning and development approach)

Working and Learning Together to Build Stronger Communities

(Scottish Executive Guidance for Community Learning and Development, 2004)

Section Contents

- Ministerial Foreword

- Executive Summary

- Introduction

- Part one: What is Community Learning and Development (CLD)?

- Part two: CLD and community planning

- Part three: CLD partnerships, strategies and action plans

- Part four: Ensuring high quality CLD services

- Annexes

MINISTERIAL FOREWORD

The Scottish Executive believes that Community Learning & Development (CLD) has an essential role in achieving our priorities of improving public services and promoting community regeneration, social inclusion, life long learning and active citizenship.

This guidance sets out a long term framework for the development of CLD. It is the outcome of an extensive period of review and practical action to ensure that community learning and development is central to our vision for Scotland.

Community learning and development should incorporate the best of practice undertaken in the fields of 'community education' and 'community development'. It should enable individuals and communities to make real changes to their lives through community action and community-based learning. CLD is an approach which enables agencies to work with communities and provide access to their involvement in learning, action and decision-making.

Community learning and development is a key feature of our approach to lifelong learning. We believe it should be accorded the same status as the work of schools, colleges, universities and work-based learning providers.

We have placed our approach to CLD at the heart of our work on community planning. This means that for the first time community learning and development is being taken out of the margins and placed at the centre of the decision-making process within our communities. We want CLD to become a central feature of the way in which planning authorities and service providers engage with the communities and citizens we are all here to serve.

We expect to see a significant expansion in community learning and development opportunities. Multi-agency partnerships will use this approach across a wide range of public service policies, from health and environmental education, to supporting active citizenship, literacy, community safety and much more.

We have a strong tradition of CLD in Scotland. Indeed we have often been at the forefront of policy and programme initiatives within the UK, EU and internationally. This guidance will help us to build on those foundations.

Margaret Curran

Minister for Communities

Andy Kerr

Minister for Finance and Public Services

Peter Peacock

Minister for Education and Young People

Jim Wallace

Deputy First Minister and Minister for Lifelong Learning

Executive Summary

This guidance for Community Planning Partnerships sets out a long term framework for the promotion and development of community learning and development (CLD). Its aim is to embed the principles of community learning and development more firmly within key Scottish Executive priorities such as the improvement of public services, community regeneration, social inclusion, life long learning, the forthcoming national youth work strategy and active citizenship. It replaces Scottish Office circular 4/99.

This guidance has been produced following discussion with a range of key stakeholders, including consultation on Working Draft Guidance prepared in liaison with the Scottish Executive and Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA) CLD Group.

Part 1: What is Community Learning and Development?

Community learning and development describes a way of working with and supporting communities. We see community learning and development as central to 'social capital' - a way of working with communities to increase the skills, confidence, networks and resources they need to tackle problems and grasp opportunities. We want community learning and development to bring together the best of what has been done under the banners of 'community education' and 'community development' to help individuals and communities tackle real issues in their lives through community action and community-based learning.

National Priorities for CLD

Three national priorities have been developed for community learning and development.

- Achievement through learning for adults

Raising standards of achievement in learning for adults through community-based lifelong learning opportunities incorporating the core skills of literacy, numeracy, communications, working with others, problem-solving and information communications technology (ICT).

- Achievement through learning for young people

Engaging with young people to facilitate their personal, social and educational development and enable them to gain a voice, influence and a place in society.

- Achievement through building community capacity

Building community capacity and influence by enabling people to develop the confidence, understanding and skills required to influence decision making and service delivery.

These priorities should be reflected in the CLD strategies and Action Plans developed and delivered by community planning partners.

Targeting of CLD resources

We see community learning and development as a key tool in delivering our commitment to social justice. We want Community Planning Partnerships to target their CLD capacity to support strategies and activities aimed at closing the opportunity gap, achieving social justice and encouraging community regeneration.

Part 2: CLD and community planning

Community learning and development has an essential role to play in giving communities the confidence and skills they need to engage effectively with community planning. This will 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.

Part 3: CLD Partnerships, Strategies and Action Plans

CLD Partnerships

We want to build on the successful track record of Community Learning Partnerships which have already played an important role in raising the profile of community learning over the last two or three years.

We would expect any public organisation that has an interest in building community capacity, learning and social development to join the Community Learning and Development Partnership at a strategic level and to give staff time and investment to local action planning and delivery. Particular efforts should be made to engage the voluntary sector in such partnerships.

Community Learning and Development Strategies

We expect each Community Planning Partnership to produce a Community Learning and Development Strategy. The first strategy should be published no later than 1 September 2004 and cover at least a three year period.

Community Learning and Development Strategies should be shaped and jointly agreed by all community planning partners. They should influence and reflect the community plan and related strategies; highlight how and where they link with other strategic plans; set out the framework for operational planning and demonstrate substantial community involvement.

Community Learning and Development Action Plans

Each Community Planning Partnership should prepare and publish Action Plans for community learning and development. CLD Action Plans are joint work plans in which communities and agencies set out how CLD inputs, processes and outputs will achieve agreed outcomes.

These Action Plans should not just focus on problems. They should build on the vision and strengths of people, young and old, and their communities.

CLD Action Plans should make reference to the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework (SCQF).

The role of the local authority and other partners in planning for CLD

The overall responsibility for planning for CLD rests with the Community Planning Partnership. We expect the local authority to take responsibility for ensuring that arrangements are in place to set up and maintain partnership working at both strategic and operational levels. This role is likely to include providing a secretariat for the partnerships which develop CLD strategies and Action Plans. Local authorities have a particular role in ensuring the engagement of communities and a wide range of agencies in the development of CLD strategies and plans.

Other community planning partners are expected to support the local authority and, in some cases, may take the lead in developing CLD Action Plans. This support can include ensuring a collective approach to community involvement; working together to provide information for strategies and plans; and nominating staff to be involved in planning for CLD.

Part 4: Ensuring high quality CLD services

Evaluating CLD services

All those involved in CLD have an interest in ensuring that the service they provide is to a consistently high quality. Effective self-evaluation by partners should be an ongoing process. CLD Partnerships should consider using the quality assurance framework provided by HMIE in How Good Is Our Community Learning and Development? and the planning and evaluation framework provided by LEAP (Learning Evaluation and Planning).

HMIE will continue to evaluate the quality of local authority CLD services through its inspection, reporting and follow through programme.

Raising the profile of CLD

The experience of community learning plans has highlighted the importance of raising the profile of CLD with elected members, partner agencies and the public. Regular reporting through the local media, particularly celebrating the achievements of individuals, groups and communities is a proven way of raising awareness of the value of CLD.

Communities Scotland is working with the Scottish Executive/COSLA CLD Group to ensure that this work is supported and complemented at a national level and will be commissioning the production of profile-raising materials.

Investing in staff skills

Our policy on developing the CLD profession and future priorities for professional training are set out in more detail in the report Empowered to Practice - The Future of Community Learning and Development Training In Scotland. At local level, we are keen to see CLD Partnerships supporting the skills agenda for staff at all levels, including volunteer staff and community representatives.

Communities Scotland will be working with the key national partners and local partnerships during 2004 to identify and deliver appropriate support in relation to the implementation of this guidance.

The Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework (SCQF) provides a context and appropriate mechanism for the credit rating of programmes of learning and training.

Management information

We want to assess more thoroughly the contribution of CLD to achieving outcomes. In July 2003, we launched the first phase of a National Development Project intended to develop common data definitions and management information systems with CLD Partnerships

INTRODUCTION

1 In June 2002, the Scottish Executive issued Community Learning and Development: The Way Forward which set out how we intend to embed community learning and development more firmly within our priorities such as the improvement of public services, community regeneration, social inclusion, lifelong learning and active citizenship. This policy statement identified a range of activities being undertaken to achieve this, including measures to support professional training, establish clearer management information systems, link community learning strategies with community plans and streamline the management of community learning and development (CLD) across Scottish Executive portfolios.

2 As part of this process, Ministers announced that guidance for Community Learning and Development would be prepared to replace the existing Scottish Office Community Education Circular 4/99. Ministers recognised that the policy context affecting community learning and development had moved on and that Scottish Executive guidance needed to change to reflect this. The Executive's priorities in areas such as social justice and lifelong learning and the growing recognition of how CLD could boost social capital meant that existing guidance needed to be expanded and updated.

3 Following discussion with a range of key partners, Working Draft Guidance was prepared in consultation with the Scottish Executive and Convention of Scottish Local Authorities' (COSLA) Community Learning and Development Group.

4 Consultation on the Working Draft Guidance ran until 25th April 2003 and consisted of a series of seminars and an invitation to submit written comments. Seminars involving over 250 people from local authority, voluntary and community sector organisations took place across Scotland. Invitations for written comments were sent to all local authorities, Health Boards, Social Inclusion Partnerships, Councils for Voluntary Service, Volunteer Centres, New Community Schools, Further Education Colleges, Local Enterprise Companies and Racial Equality Councils. Ninety three written responses were received. Both the discussion at the seminars and the content of the written responses have played a key role in shaping this guidance.

5 This guidance sets out a long term framework for the promotion and development of CLD. It is set out in four parts.

6 Part one - sets out our national priorities for, and definition of, community learning and development

Part two - explains the role of CLD in the context of community planning

Part three - advises on our requirements for CLD partnerships, strategies and plans

Part four - explains how measures such as training and evaluation can help to ensure the provision of consistently high quality CLD services

7 Threaded through the guidance are extracts from a statement prepared by the Scottish Executive/COSLA CLD Group that provides an overview of the contribution that CLD makes in building stronger communities. (This statement is set out in full in Annex 1).

8 Brief descriptions of examples of current CLD practice which embody the principles set out in the guidance are also included. These examples show how the new national priorities are already being addressed. A list of these examples is given in Annex 2. The Scottish Community Development Centre is preparing more detailed case studies of these examples and these will be published to accompany the guidance. We are grateful to the communities and agencies whose co-operation has been essential in providing these practical examples.

9 Annex 3 is a glossary of the main terms used in the guidance.

PART ONE: WHAT IS COMMUNITY LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT?

We are using the term 'community learning and development' to describe a way of working with and supporting communities. We are encouraging our partners to use the term as well. We see community learning and development as being central to increasing the supply of 'social capital' - a way of working with communities to increase the skills, confidence, networks and resources they need to tackle problems and grasp opportunities.

We want community learning and development to bring together the best of what has been done under the banners of 'community education' and 'community development'. Its main aim is to help individuals and communities tackle real issues in their lives through community action and community-based learning. Community learning and development also supports agencies to work effectively with communities which will open doors to involvement in learning, action and decision-making.

Extract from a statement prepared by the Scottish Executive/COSLA working group (see Annex 1 for the full statement).

10 Community learning and development is learning and social development work with individuals and groups in their communities using a range of formal and informal methods. A common defining feature is that programmes and activities are developed in dialogue with communities and participants.

11 CLD approaches are now well established in youth and community work and in community based adult-learning services. This style of working has now become more familiar in other public service disciplines, such as health promotion, environmental protection, formal education, culture and leisure, economic development, social welfare and regeneration. We strongly support this trend and want to see Community Planning Partnerships using this approach across a range of programmes.

12 We believe that community learning and development activities should be based on a commitment to the following principles:

- Empowerment - increasing the ability of individuals and groups to influence issues that affect them and their communities;

- Participation - supporting people to take part in decision-making;

- Inclusion, equality of opportunity and anti-discrimination - recognising that some people may need additional support to overcome the barriers they face;

- Self-determination - supporting the right of people to make their own choices; and

- Partnership - recognising that many agencies can contribute to CLD to ensure resources are used effectively.

1.1 National priorities for community learning and development

We are focusing our attention on achieving realistic results. Community learning and development has clearly identifiable outcomes, such as:

- improvements in the effectiveness, range and joint working of community organisations;

- increased confidence and motivation of excluded young people; and

- improved core skills, allowing individuals whose previous experience of education has been negative to tackle important issues in their lives.

Extract from a statement prepared by the Scottish Executive/COSLA working group (see Annex 1 for the full statement).

13 We have identified three national priorities for community learning and development. These will contribute to our overall priorities of improving public services and promoting community regeneration, social justice, life long learning and active citizenship.

- Achievement through learning for adults

Raising standards of achievement in learning for adults through community-based lifelong learning opportunities incorporating the core skills of literacy, numeracy, communications, working with others, problem-solving and information communications technology (ICT).

- Achievement through learning for young people

Engaging with young people to facilitate their personal, social and educational development and enable them to gain a voice, influence and place in society.

- Achievement through building community capacity

Building community capacity and influence by enabling individuals, groups and communities to develop the confidence, understanding and skills required to influence decision making and service delivery. This could include enabling communities to provide and manage services to meet community needs.

The national priorities for CLD apply equally to urban and rural areas and are intended to focus on the needs of disadvantaged individuals and communities (see section 1.2). They are relevant to activities such as youth work, adult learning and community capacity building and reflect the priorities set out in the Executive's strategies on community regeneration,[8] lifelong learning[9] and education[10]. The Partnership Agreement for a Better Scotland also commits Ministers to encourage the active participation of young people through, amongst other things, the development of a national strategy for youth work.

14 We want to see Community Planning Partnerships (CPPs) setting clear and measurable targets for each of the three national priorities as part of their CLD strategy and Action Plans, and ensuring that systems are developed to monitor progress against these. The Scottish Executive is organising a National Development Programme between 2003 and 2006 to assist in this process. These targets should be nested within the performance monitoring and management framework being developed for community planning, and, where relevant, be related to outcomes set out in CPPs' Regeneration Outcome Agreements.

15 Examples of how local agencies and communities are already working to achieve these national priorities are given in the box below.

16 Communities Scotland is putting in place a programme of support for Community Learning and Development Partnerships, to assist them to focus on these national priorities as a means of addressing local needs and opportunities. Exchanging and disseminating good practice between areas and across sectors will play a key part in this.

17 Communities Scotland will be co-ordinating work within the Scottish Executive to ensure that there is continuing support for the work of CLD Partnerships at national policy level.

- Achievement through learning for adults

Angus Council community education service has helped adults in rural communities within the Glens to develop new skills which have enabled them to adjust to social and economic change.

Local people identified computer skills as their immediate training need. Farmers needed to e-mail stock movement information and do their accounts. ICT skills were seen as essential to people looking for full time jobs and local families recognised their value in maintaining links with people who had left the Glens. Training was first delivered in local farmhouses and now takes place in a range of community managed venues. To date, 600 learners have participated in ICT training out of an adult population of 1,500.

From the outset, engaging with local people to develop computer training and community access to new technology was seen as a means to empower individuals and the community as a whole, rather than as ends in themselves.

Local management groups co-ordinate all aspects of the project, supported by a worker. Community led partnerships with a range of agencies have brought resources to the project and community action has successfully accessed funds to refurbish and, in one case build, community halls.

The project now covers a wide range of community activity reflecting a re-awakening of community consciousness and action across the Glens. Achievements include the community managed angusglens website, a renewable energy project and a community land purchase.

- Achievement through learning for young people

North Lanarkshire Council have developed a Young People's Strategy involving agencies, youth workers and young people themselves. Community Education Teams and Social Work staff helped to build local Youth Forums, and young people from North Lanarkshire are active at national level, including as Members of the Scottish Youth Parliament (MSYPs).

After consultation the Strategy was approved by the Council in August 2000. Targets included setting up Youth Forums and a Youth Partnership. The focus has shifted from specific policy development to a commitment to youth participation and involvement which should encourage proposals by young people to tackle their key priorities.

Subsequent projects led and/or supported by young people have included an annual Youth Conference; young people being trained to survey youth views; a 'Peer Led Training Pack'; an international youth conference in Motherwell; national and international exchanges; proposals to recognise businesses and services that make a commitment to better treatment of young people; opening of a music studio; and production of a CD showcasing musical talent.

- Achievement through building community capacity

One of the main outcomes of the North West Dumfries Communities in Partnership pilot is the North West Resource Centre.

Project partners include Careers Scotland, local churches and the local rural partnership, all of whom have a stake in the Community Resource Centre. The centre was previously a residential care home. Following closure of the building, community groups identified it as a potential base for expanding much-needed childcare, support and advice to small businesses and job creation, and to provide a meeting space for local organisations. It is now a vibrant multi-purpose resource offering a range of services and activities.

The total value of partners' contributions is £1.8m drawn from ERDF Objective 2, Dumfries and Galloway Council, Scottish Enterprise Dumfries and Galloway, NOF, Dumfries and Galloway Childcare Partnership and the local management committee.

The Community Planning Pilot was a catalyst for bringing community groups and voluntary childcare providers to the table with public sector partners to plan how best to use the building to improve services locally, meet the needs and aspirations of a range of community organisations and maximise resources identified through the pilot.

The project works with community organisations, the business community and residents to provide services and activities from the Resource Centre. These include: information and advice; 'wraparound' childcare, from 6 weeks to after-school provision; creating employment and training opportunities; boosting the local economy by assisting the development of new businesses; providing high quality, accessible, learning opportunities; and providing local health related services and encouraging positive health choices.

1.2 Targeting CLD resources to achieve social justice

We want to increase opportunities for individuals and communities who are excluded, improve public services where it will make most difference, and create a more socially just Scotland.

Extract from a statement prepared by the Scottish Executive/COSLA working group (see Appendix 1 for the full statement).

18 We see community learning and development as a key tool in delivering on our commitment to social justice. We want Community Planning Partnerships to target their CLD capacity to support strategies aimed at closing the opportunity gap, achieving social justice and encouraging community regeneration.

19 The Scottish Executive's statement on community regeneration Better Communities in Scotland: Closing the Gap[11] made clear the importance of community learning and development in building skills and confidence in disadvantaged communities to promote social inclusion. It pledged the Executive to work with national and local partners to build a shared vision for CLD and to make sure local people were able to engage effectively with community planning processes to improve service outcomes in disadvantaged communities. As well as working with communities, it called for work to build individual skills, particularly literacy and numeracy, both directly and through a development centre within Communities Scotland to support people providing these services.

20 CLD makes an important contribution to preventing anti-social behaviour. By providing people, including young people, with lifelong learning opportunities aimed at helping them fulfil their individual potential and make a positive contribution to their communities, CLD can help prevent anti-social behaviour. By building community confidence, skills and understanding CLD can develop the social cohesion required to ensure that anti-social behaviour does not take a hold.

21 In many parts of Scotland poverty and disadvantage are concentrated in particular neighbourhoods, but other individuals and groups can also be affected. CPPs should identify how disadvantage impacts locally and agree responses that aim to close the opportunity gap between disadvantaged communities and the rest of the population. The resources provided to support CLD, and how they are targeted, should be underpinned by needs assessments undertaken with local communities and informed by use of statistical and other information.

22 The development of Neighbourhood Statistics will help CPPs to identify disadvantaged individuals, groups and communities. CPPs will also want to refer to the work being developed by the Scottish Centre for Research into Social Justice.

23 We accept that the priority given to providing CLD support to deprived neighbourhoods and individuals means that less disadvantaged communities may receive a lower level of CLD resources.

24 The statutory framework for equal opportunities should also guide Community Learning and Development Partnerships in allocating and prioritising resources.

25 The Local Government in Scotland Act 2003 put a responsibility on CPPs to mainstream equal opportunities in the planning and delivery of services. This requirement to prevent, eliminate or regulate discrimination applies to community learning and development. CPPs should also have regard to other specific requirements that arise through the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the Race Relations Act 1976 (amended 2000) as these relate to community learning and development.

26 Further guidance on mainstreaming equalities is contained in Guidance on Equalities, Best Value, Community Planning and Power of Well-Being which was produced by COSLA in consultation with the Scottish Equalities Co-ordinating Group.

Stirling Quality Action Group - Engaging with people with learning disabilities

Following concerns that people with learning disabilities who had moved out of hospital did not feel part of the local community, the former Scottish Office, Key Housing Association and Enable developed the 'quality action initiative'.

In a pilot project in Stirling a staff member was seconded to meet with managers of mainstream facilities to explore how people with learning disabilities might feel more included. It became obvious that people with learning disabilities themselves needed to meet the service managers. A group was formed and one of their first activities was a tour of local community centres.

The group were clear about the outcomes they were seeking. They wanted to:

- make changes to the way services are delivered;

- make changes to the way they are treated, both by services and by the community at large;

- have a voice in all the areas that impact on their lives; and

- advocate for people who remained in hospital.

In order to achieve these outcomes, the group became constituted and attracted resource from the Community Fund, Lloyds TSB, and European Social Fund amongst others. It is now managed by a committee of 23 adults with learning disabilities, supported by Key Housing and Stirling Council Community Services. The group has provided an opportunity for personal growth. Individuals who started out scared to voice an opinion and struggling to manage their money have learnt to chair meetings and to manage large budgets.

The group employs its own staff, delivers on service level agreements with Stirling Council, manages premises and is part of the consortium which runs the Scottish Centre for Learning Disability. It combines providing services with lobbying on behalf of people with learning disabilities at a local and national level.

PART TWO: THE ROLE OF CLD IN COMMUNITY PLANNING

We want to increase opportunities for individuals and communities who are excluded, improve public services where it will make most difference, and create a more socially just Scotland.

Through community planning, we aim to make sure that agencies work with communities to improve their wellbeing. Through community learning and development, we aim to make sure that communities can be full partners in this.

Extract from a statement prepared by the Scottish Executive/COSLA working group (see Annex 1 for the full statement).

26 Community planning aims to ensure that public, private and voluntary agencies work together more effectively to provide good quality public services and that communities affected by their decisions and using their services are part of this process. CLD has an essential role in ensuring that individuals and communities - particularly those facing discrimination and disadvantage - gain the confidence and skills to participate in community planning and influence decisions that affect their lives.

27 This guidance is intended to complement guidance on community planning and, in particular, the requirements for Community Planning Partnerships (CPPs) to increase the involvement of communities in shaping strategic planning and service delivery. This includes the requirement under section 15 of the Local Government in Scotland Act that CPPs must involve communities in the planning process. Statutory guidance makes it clear that this must include consultation, co-operation and participation.

28 The introduction of community planning and stronger requirements to support community engagement means that we must be sure that CPPs have sufficient skills and abilities in relation to community learning and development. We must build on existing good practice to ensure that the quality of community engagement offered by all CPPs is 'fit for purpose'.

29 In this new environment CPPs need to:

- draw on the expertise of CLD practitioners;

- use a variety of methods to support community engagement in planning and decision-making;

- engage a wide range of members of the community concerned and not just those who are already active;

- learn from people's experience of being engaged; and

- avoid consulting people too much.

The experience from community learning strategies and plans shows that CPPs need to deal with these issues consistently to avoid "consultation fatigue". They also need to ensure that they have the skills and abilities to undertake effective community learning and development work.

30 CLD practitioners therefore have a key role in ensuring that communities are fully engaged in the community planning process. The importance of CLD approaches is highlighted in the statutory guidance on community planning, and in the accompanying advice note on community engagement, which supports the implementation of the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003.

31 Community Planning Partnerships have enormous experience on which to build given the pilot work carried out since 1999 on the development of Community Learning Strategies and Plans. Skilled CLD practitioners can also contribute their expertise to the task of enabling CPPs to consult the public, and help them take part in the planning and delivery of services. This is particularly important for people who are less well organised and confident. This consultation and engagement should cover not just issues around the planning and provision of CLD services, but also the wider remit of community planning partners.

32 CPPs have a key role to play in community regeneration. This will be enhanced as they begin to take on the responsibilities of Social Inclusion Partnerships (SIPs). In order for SIP structures and resources to be integrated into the community planning framework, CPPs must demonstrate that they have effective arrangements in place for community engagement or that significant and tangible progress is being made in this area. In particular, CPPs must demonstrate that they have engaged, or propose to engage "difficult to reach" groups and a wide variety of people. Guidance on the integration of SIPs and Community Planning Partnerships highlights the important role of community learning and development approaches in achieving the integration criteria.

33 CPPs should also note that the Scottish Community Development Centre, on behalf of Communities Scotland, is developing standards for community engagement. Draft standards will be prepared by December 2003 and tested in pilots over the period to April 2005, As these develop, CPPs are expected to use these standards as an element of good practice.

Voluntary Action East Renfrewshire - supporting communities to influence community planning

Voluntary Action (VA) is the Council for Voluntary Service in East Renfrewshire and serves on the East Renfrewshire Community Planning Partnership. It does not act as a representative for the whole community and voluntary sector, but rather is an agent for information, networking, monitoring and research which enables and supports communities to organise and to influence community planning.

VA's role has developed in two main ways. Firstly, it has engaged in a dialogue about the future development of community involvement in East Renfrewshire, including promoting discussion on community involvement in monitoring and evaluation of the Community Plan. Secondly, VA has directly built capacity for, and raised awareness of, community planning amongst community and voluntary groups, largely from within its own resources and has organised or contributed to several events. Local Community Councils invited VA to survey their interest in and preparedness for community planning and later to help them create a network.

The Scottish Executive's Empowering Communities funds for SIPs are administered locally by community representatives. VA has been commissioned to provide needs assessment and training on the transition to community planning for SIP area groups and then for the whole sector.

Aberdeen City - Involving citizens in community planning

Preparations for an Aberdeen Community Plan began with an exercise to 'Imagine Aberdeen' in the year 2010 which involved the public through Open Days, workshops and questionnaires. The themes were developed by a Core Group, which included representatives from the community. The first Community Plan, 'aberdeenfutures', proposed the establishment of a new decision making alliance involving the public, voluntary and community sectors, and the development of a Civic Forum.

Proposals for the Civic Forum were drawn up by a Steering Group of Council members and community representatives. Support to the Forum is given primarily by specially funded staff in the Community Development section of the Council's Chief Executive's Department.

The Forum has been constituted with representatives of each area of the city and of seven established communities of interest (e.g. Senior Citizens' Forum, Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender (LGBT) Forum). Two seats were created for Gypsy Travellers, at their request. Four Forum members have been elected as representatives on the city Alliance. The Forum is also represented on each Alliance subgroup. Around 100 of 129 places on the Forum have been filled so far, and representation from "harder to reach" sections is strong, though work continues.

A survey of Forum members was used to establish training and support needs and initial topics for discussion. Training in "Speaking Up in Meetings", and the use of computers is already being offered.

Aberdeenfutures now has responsibility for developing the existing 'Strengthening Local Democracy' strategy. This works through three main structures: the Forum, Neighbourhood Community Action Plans and Plans for Communities of Interest. Participation guidelines are being developed to set standards for good practice. The strategy promises support to communities especially from Community Learning and Development staff, but also from Community Police, Tenant Participation Officers, Community Development Officers, Public Health Co-ordinators and others.

PART THREE: CLD PARTNERSHIPS, STRATEGIES AND ACTION PLANS

3.1 Community Learning and Development Partnerships

Community Learning Partnerships in each local authority area have already made real progress in using the multi-agency, cross-sector approach we see as being essential.

We are looking to Community Learning and Development Partnerships to play the central part in making sure that:

- people working in all aspects of community learning and development work together to build communities that are more organised, skilled and influential, and that have more control over resources;

- there is a strong community-based dimension to the new Scottish Executive agenda for lifelong learning;

- community work skills are used to help communities get involved in community regeneration and community planning;

- youth work is fully recognised and supported as part of the development of stronger communities; and

- community learning and development support is targeted to help close the gap between the worst off individuals and communities and the rest.

Extract from a statement prepared by the Scottish Executive/COSLA working group (see Annex 1 for the full statement).

34 We are keen to see further development of the positive experience that has arisen since strategic and local collaborative partnerships for community learning were set up in 1999. We believe that these partnerships have greatly improved the profile of community learning and increased the investment available for learning and social development within communities. We need to build on these foundations through Community Learning and Development Partnerships which focus on our national priorities.

35 The report prepared by HM Inspectorate of Education (HMIE) in 2002 on putting community learning plans into practice[12] confirms the value of partner agencies working together with local communities to agree strategies and plans for community learning and development.

36 We would expect any public organisation that has an interest in building community capacity, learning and social development to join the Community Learning and Development Partnership at strategic level and to give staff time and investment to local action planning and delivery.

37 Community Learning and Development Partnerships should have a clear focus on mainstreaming equalities issues, in both their composition and the way they go about their work (see sections 24-26).

38 The voluntary sector is a major provider of community learning and development support, and will need to be represented at both strategic and operational level.

39 The diversity of the voluntary sector, and the reality that many voluntary organisations are national rather than local, has sometimes proved difficult in terms of the sector's ability to be as actively involved as it would wish. Again, local circumstances will differ, but at strategic level, we would expect the Council of Voluntary Service, Local Volunteer Bureaux and other local voluntary sector umbrella organisations who are key stakeholders in relation to community development, youth work and adult learning, to be represented. All voluntary organisations supporting CLD in priority areas or communities of interest should also be actively involved as partners in action planning. CPPs should ensure that partnership arrangements facilitate the full involvement of the voluntary sector. This should be in line with the Scottish Compact principles[13].

40 Involving the voluntary sector is not the same thing as engaging communities. CLD Partnerships need to ensure that voluntary organisations that provide CLD services - whether national, local or community based - are fully involved in the Partnership. Equally, all partners have responsibility for ensuring that communities, learners and participants are actively engaged in, and empowered through, the planning process.

Communities Promoting Healthy Living in Dunbar

Dunbar Hallhill Healthy Living Centre opened in September 2001 and is managed by the Dunbar Community Development Company, made up of representatives from sports clubs, churches, businesses, disability groups, schools, children and families, and is chaired by a local councillor. The centre is a purpose built community controlled facility comprising extensive playing fields, a childrens' playground, an indoor badminton court, two squash courts, several meeting rooms (providing public access to computers, a crèche, etc) and a bar/café.

East Lothian Council provided land and funding supplemented by the Sports Lottery and the Landfill Tax. Now the centre is almost self-sufficient receiving only a small grounds maintenance grant from the council.

Dunbar has a population of approximately 7,000 people and 2,000 of them come through the doors of the Healthy Living Centre every week. The centre has achieved its aims of supporting people to have healthier lifestyles as well as promoting social cohesion. On weekdays mothers and toddlers use the meeting rooms and playground, schoolchildren play sports at lunchtime and local sports clubs use the pitches. In the evenings young people have deserted the High Street in favour of playing pool alongside the adults in the bar area. At weekends community events and sporting fixtures take place and families come down to the bar for a meal. People with disabilities use the facilities for activities and centre staff work with children who have been excluded from school.

3.2 Community Learning and Development Strategies

We believe communities and a wide range of agencies have a real role to play in the success of community learning and development. It is crucial that the people who are most closely involved in community learning and development - practitioners (paid or unpaid), managers and their agencies - work with us to promote a shared vision for community learning and development and the contribution it can make to 'building better communities in Scotland'.

Extract from a statement prepared by the Scottish Executive/COSLA working group (see Annex 1 for the full statement).

41 We expect each CPP to produce a Community Learning and Development Strategy. The first strategy should be published no later than 1 September 2004 and cover at least a three year period.

42 The Community Learning and Development Strategy is a jointly agreed statement to which all Community Planning Partners should contribute, and be commited to. CPPs may determine the best fit between community planning and planning for community learning and development and whether CLD strategies are produced as stand-alone documents or as part of a wider community planning document.

43 The Community Learning and Development strategy should sit firmly within the wider community planning process and relate to the strategies and development plans of partner agencies.

44 CLD strategies are one of a number of thematic elements underpinning the community plan. CLD should also be a key part of thematic strategies and partnerships for addressing cross-cutting issues such as community regeneration, health improvement and sustainable development.

3.2.1 Aims and content of CLD strategies

45 Community Learning and Development Strategies should aim to:

- influence and reflect the community plan and related strategies;

- highlight how and where they link with other strategic development plans;

- be shaped by all the partners; and

- demonstrate significant community involvement in the planning process.

46 In terms of content, CLD strategies should:

- set out the joint vision of the CPP for CLD;

- highlight the priorities for CLD in relation to the three national priorities, and set outcome targets for these;

- provide evidence that these priorities have been based on engagement with local individuals, groups and communities;

- detail the partners involved and the operating principles they will follow, including how the partnership will be sustained to avoid partnership overload;

- set a framework for operational planning of CLD, including the geographical areas and/or themes to be covered by Community Learning and Development Action Plans;

- aim to identify overall levels of investment and resources, including staff, to be provided by partner agencies;

- detail measures for supporting the skills development of paid and unpaid staff involved in CLD; and

- identify how the partnership will monitor progress, and evaluate quality.

47 CPPs should work to ensure that CLD strategies are aligned with overall arrangements for Community Planning in their area.

48 As outlined above, in the first instance, Community Learning and Development Strategies should be published no later than 1 September 2004. They should cover at least a three year period and be reviewed regularly. It is important to stress that these are not meant to be detailed action plans, but rather set the broad framework for operational planning (see section 3.3).

49 CLD strategies should be sent for information to Communities Scotland. These strategies , together with local CLD plans, should be publicly and widely available and accessible to local communities.

50 In recent years, some Community Learning Partnerships have developed separate youth strategies. We would expect to see a link between these and CLD strategies which deal with youth work issues. Similarly, since 1999 a number of Community Learning Partnerships have tried to tackle wider lifelong learning issues. Again, we would expect to see a close relationship between CLD partnership planning and local strategies on lifelong learning.

3.3 Community Learning and Development Action Plans

51 Each CPP should prepare and publish Action Plans for community learning and development. Community Planning Partnerships, together with local communities, should focus on developing a limited number of Action Plans. These may relate to core community planning strategies, such as Regeneration Outcome Agreements or Health Improvement strategies, or be geographic (addressing the issues involved in a particular area), or focussed on a particular community of interest (eg young people, Black and minority ethnic groups).

52 The Community Learning and Development Strategy should set out whether these will be stand alone Action Plans (within the Community Planning framework) or form an integral part of their local and thematic Community Plans. Whichever model is adopted, the following offers a framework for local and thematic CLD Action Plans.

3.3.1 Aims and content of CLD Action Plans

53 CLD Action Plans should identify and set out proposals for dealing with community needs, aspirations and priorities. These plans should enable communities and partner agencies to set out their shared agenda for change, developed into practical work plans relating to the area or community of interest covered. They should be reviewed and updated regularly, in line with local community planning arrangements. These plans are joint work plans within which communities and agency partners agree how CLD inputs, processes and outputs will be used to achieve agreed outcomes. CLD Action Plans should be a regular reference point for the community and agency partners to guide their daily work and to track progress.

54 Community Learning and Development Action Plans should:

- be based on a thorough analysis of issues and needs that have been identified with communities;

- show major community involvement, in particular by people who are not usually involved and other priority groups;

- be shaped by and involve appropriate community learning and development partners; and

- influence and reflect the Community Plan, CLD Strategy, and other local plans.

55 In terms of content, they should:

- detail important information about the area or community of interest to be covered;

- provide baseline figures for current support provided in relation to the national and local priorities;

- audit current CLD support and gaps in provision and how these will be filled;

- identify local/thematic priorities within the framework set by the CLD Strategy;

- translate these local/thematic priorities into specific outcome targets, and show the relationship of these to the three national priorities;

- detail, where possible, the overall investment, provision and staffing support to be made by partner agencies in line with community budgeting principles; and

- cover at least a three-year period.

56 The CLD Partnership should consider carefully how best to tell the community about their work. This information can then contribute to arrangements for accountability. The information contained in the CLD Action Plan should be easily accessible to the community, and the Partnership should provide regular reports on progress which are publicly available at community level and on the internet. Information should be provided in minority languages and on tape, where required.

57 Information on the needs of disadvantaged individuals and communities needs to be set alongside their hopes and aspirations. CLD practitioners have a lot of experience in developing community profiles, village appraisals and so on that bring together community and agency views. It is important to stress that Community Learning and Development Action Plans should not just focus on problems. They should build on the vision and strengths of people, young and old, and their communities.

58 CLD Action Plans should make reference to the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework (SCQF). This framework currently covers most mainstream Scottish qualifications. In time, and based on the SCQF credit rating guidelines, it will also credit rate informal, experiential and community based training and development work. This will help people to recognise their own learning achieved in informal settings and through activities in the community, and to see how each learning experience connects with other opportunities, as part of a process of life long learning. The Scottish Executive will fund a worker to work with local authorities and other partners to raise awareness of the SCQF and how it can assist the development and implementation of CLD Action Plans.

59 We are keen to see a closer relationship between CLD Action Plans and those of other relevant agencies. These include Regeneration Outcome Agreements, the development plans of New Community Schools' and FE colleges, health improvement plans, Changing Children's Services plans, race equality schemes and community guidance strategies. Similarly, we want to see CLD reflected in the service development plans of other community planning partners.

Greater Easterhouse - Developing an Effective Community Learning Plan

Greater Easterhouse Community Learning Plan was one of Glasgow's pilot CLPs. Unusually, it is led by the local Social Inclusion Partnership, through its Education and Lifelong Learning subgroup led by John Wheatley College. A recent HM Inspectorate report judged community learning planning in Easterhouse and many aspects of its delivery as 'Very Good'.

Consultation events involving 42 local organisations led to the adoption of the 2001-04 Plan, whose priorities were: core skills (including ICT), health and poverty. Targets were set for establishing Learning Centres; access to guidance on learning; planning a core skills package; providing childcare to support learning; and support for people becoming active in their community.

The plan focused on developing the Greater Easterhouse Learning Network (GELN) as its key mechanism for delivery. Fifteen local centres have become involved in the Network - including a wide range of council and college centres and voluntary groups working on employment, family and other issues. These organisations provide a whole range of other services, but have given a commitment to support learning.

The eventual target is 21 centres. A complex mixture of funding allowed them all to be offered PCs with fast net connections, and tutor support from the College. Volunteers are trained to offer additional support where possible. Refurbishment and disabled access were funded.

All residents can get free internet access and support through the centres. A website brings together support to learners with information and advice on everyday problems and local news.

Increasingly mainstream funding and other strategies have been influenced to support GELN. Child care developments are planned in, or close to, centres and the new adult literacy and numeracy service will work through them. The Plan is due for revision soon, following a new citywide Community Learning Strategy. This will allow better integration of work with young people with other activities.

The Corner, Dundee - Young People Shaping Service Delivery

The Corner is a partnership between Dundee City Council, Tayside NHS Board, Tayside Primary Care Trust, the Scottish Executive and young people. It provides an integrated range of health and information services through its high profile city centre drop-in facility and through outreach work in local communities.

Following consultation by partners with young people in Dundee, the need was identified for health & information services which were exclusively for young people and were both informal and confidential.

The Corner is committed to ensuring that its services are relevant and "young people friendly". Young people have played a major role in shaping, designing and influencing the project's direction. The Corner is valued by young people who see it as 'different' compared to mainstream services. One of the main reasons for this is the caring and helpful staff who show young people respect and offer informal learning and support on issues they may not feel confident in raising with other agencies, such as sexual health.

The multi-disciplinary staff team combines nursing, health promotion and youth work skills, as well as a sessional family planning doctor. The Corner has developed its practice based on the principles of the United Nations Conventions on the Rights of the Child with the best interests of young people as the core element. Over 20,000 copies of the project's Principles and Policies statement - "Challenging Myths - Working with Realities" have been circulated across Britain, Europe and internationally.

Over 200 agencies have referred young people to the project and on many occasions the project has been a resource for other professional staff. 1 in 3 young people within the main target group (11 - 18 years) have used the Drop-In which has received 80,000 enquiries since 1996. There are on average 175 new contacts each month.

In June 2002 The Corner attained charitable status as part of a long-term strategy to build sustainability.

3.4 The relationship between CLD Strategies and Action Plans

60 It is essential that the practical work undertaken under the remit of CLD Action Plans influences the way CLD Strategies are set and developed. It is at the Community Learning and Development Action Plan level, that is, within local and thematic communities, that learning and social development work mainly takes place and where the work with communities is at its most dynamic.

61 Within the broad framework of the national CLD and community planning priorities, there will be a great deal of local diversity in terms of the support needed and how this is provided. The key is to arrive at local outcomes that have been agreed between the partners and communities. CLD practitioners need to use the framework of the three national CLD priorities to address real issues in people's lives.

3.5 The role of the local authority and other partners in planning for CLD

62 The overall responsibility for planning for Community Learning and Development rests with the Community Planning Partnership. We expect the local authority to take responsibility for ensuring that arrangements are in place to set up and maintain partnership working at both strategic and Action Plan levels. This is the same arrangement as with existing community learning strategies and plans. In some cases, however, other bodies, such as voluntary organisations, can and do take the lead in planning for CLD. This role is likely to include providing a secretariat for the partnerships that will develop CLD strategies and Action Plans. Chief Executives of local authorities are expected to make sure that a chief officer is responsible for maintaining the partnership.

63 The local authority's main community learning and development support provider is likely to be responsible for making the strategy and plans easier to put into practice. It is important to stress, however, that other council services should also be involved. The overall ability of local authorities to support CLD will depend on contributions from services such as education, planning, social work, community services, environmental protection, consumer services, housing, arts and leisure and libraries.

64 Under the community planning provisions in the Local Government in Scotland Act, all Community Planning Partners are expected to support the local authority. In particular, the partners must:

- make sure there is a collective approach to community involvement

- work together to prepare the strategy and Action Plans, including access to all necessary information; and

- make sure that they have the necessary skills and motivation to take part in the process.

65 We expect agency partners, particularly the local authority, to support the participation and representation of communities and users in the CLD planning process. Partnerships should discuss with community and user interests the most appropriate form for their involvement at all levels in the CLD planning process. Community and user interests should, wherever possible, be involved at a strategic partnership level. These interests should represent the communities covered by CLD Action Plans. At the local and thematic level, such interests could be represented by, for example:

- tenants' organisations;

- local youth councils;

- community councils;

- equalities groups;

- adult learning fora;

- after-school care fora.

66 At strategic level, we expect the partners to be represented on CLD Partnerships at a senior level to make sure that the people represented by the partnership are able to drive things forward. At operational level, appropriate staff should be nominated by the respective partners, to ensure the action focus of the Plan is maintained.

67 It is important to consider how best to maintain motivation and involvement in strategic and local partnerships. We propose that CLD Partnerships meet every three months to monitor progress and review the partnership strategy.

68 At the Community Learning and Development Action Plan level, these are intended to be operational groups, bringing together staff from the partner agencies within interdisciplinary teams, together with community and user interests. This means they are likely to meet on a more regular basis to plan and review joint work.

PART FOUR: ENSURING HIGH QUALITY CLD SERVICES

We are committed to measuring the effect of community learning and development, in ways that focus on what makes a difference for communities, so that we know how well we are doing and can plan ahead realistically.

Extract from a statement prepared by the Scottish Executive/COSLA working group (see Annex 1 for the full statement).

4.1 Evaluating CLD services

69 All those involved in CLD have an interest in ensuring that the service they provide is to a consistently high quality. Quality assurance and improvement depend on rigorous self-evaluation of the quality of service provided and the outcomes achieved. Effective self-evaluation by partners should be an ongoing process. The information collected from this process provides a context for agency and partnership planning aimed at improving quality. CLD Partnerships should use the evidence collected through self- evaluation to report to communities regularly on progress made towards achieving targets and improving the quality of services provided. CLD Partnerships should consider using the framework provided by HMIE in How Good Is Our Community Learning and Development? to assist in self-evaluating the quality of their provision[14].

70 How Good is our Community Learning and Development? has been designed to support self- evaluation by CLD providers and can also be used for the inspection of services. This is supported by Learning, Evaluation and Planning ( LEAP), the planning and evaluation framework developed to help CLD Partnerships plan for achieving and assessing desired outcomes. CLD Partnerships may want to use the LEAP framework as a way of planning and monitoring progress on both the national and local priorities[15].

71 HMIE will continue to evaluate the quality of local authority CLD services through its inspection, reporting and follow through programme. As part of this inspection programme HMIE may also inspect and report on the contribution of other publicly funded CLD partners. The main purpose of inspections is to promote quality through external evaluation. They will:

- give an account of the quality of services in the area inspected;

- identify and share good practice;

- provide national evidence on the quality of services and on progress; and

- independently moderate the findings of self-evaluation.

4.2 Raising the profile of CLD

72 We have emphasised the need for regularly involving the community in planning and monitoring the outcomes of community learning and development. Experience from the community learning plans developed since 1999 has highlighted the importance of raising the profile of CLD with elected members and the public. Regular reporting through the local media on the work of the partnership and, in particular, celebrating the achievements of individuals, groups and communities is a proven way of raising awareness of the value of CLD. Partnerships may want to consider joint branding of programmes and services.

73 Communities Scotland is working with the Scottish Executive/COSLA CLD Group to ensure that this work is supported and complemented at a national level and will be commissioning the production of profile raising materials.

4.3 Investing in staff skills

74 Investing in the skills of public service staff is an important part of our lifelong learning strategy. Together with this guidance, we have announced our policy to develop the CLD profession and the future priorities for professional training. This is set out in more detail in the report Empowered to Practice - The Future of Community Learning and Development Training In Scotland[16].

75 At local level, we are keen to see CLD Partnerships supporting the skills agenda for staff at all levels, including volunteer staff and community representatives. We would encourage the development of joint training programmes and, where appropriate, sharing investment provided for Continuing Professional Development.

76 CLD strategies should include targets relating to skills training. Partnerships should consider setting up joint training committees to tackle common training issues. Communities Scotland will be working with the National Development Centres and local Partnerships during 2004 to identify and deliver appropriate support in relation to the implementation of this guidance.

77 The Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework (SCQF) provides a context and appropriate mechanism for the credit rating of programmes of learning and training. The SQF will facilitate the inclusion of training in CLD skills and approaches in programmes of learning for other disciplines. It will also help to ensure that training and development work undertaken by residents of disadvantaged communities is properly recognised. The SCQF can enable people to see how a particular learning experience connects with other opportunities. In this way, participants in CLD can build up their skills in a coherent and demonstrable way that supports their life and career goals.

4.4 Management information

78 The Scottish Executive and COSLA CLD Working Group is currently working on developing more effective management information systems for this area. We want to be able to assess more thoroughly the contribution of CLD to achieving outcomes. In July 2003, we launched the first phase of a National Development Project intended to develop common data definitions and management information systems with CLD Partnerships.

West Lothian ABE Team - Raising the profile of Adult Basic Education

The Adult Basic Education (ABE) team is part of the West Lothian Literacy Partnership which co-ordinates literacy/numeracy provision. The partnership includes other council services, local further education colleges and voluntary organisations.

The team provides tuition to adults wishing to enhance their literacy and/or numeracy capabilities. It provides for some 400 adults each year, approximately 160 of whom are new learners. Provision is made within the well resourced adult learning centre in Bathgate and in 15 community venues. Tuition is delivered in 30 groups by paid tutors, supported by volunteers, to ensure that each learner receives individual attention. The team has been expanding its capacity over the last three years to meet its targets within the national literacy strategy.

A multi-stranded marketing strategy ensures that the take-up of learning places matches the team's delivery capacity. The strategy includes promotional articles in local papers, an awareness raising video, a CD-ROM and targeted advertising. Five hundred staff from the West Lothian Council and other agencies have been trained to identify and support prospective learners in referring themselves for help.

Great care is taken to ensure a high quality learning experience for participants through systematic dialogue with tutors. Standards achieved by the team are consistent with the latest national advice on teaching and learning and tutor training. A learning to learn philosophy underpins all aspects of the learning experience, which maximizes the involvement of learners. Learning programmes and teaching strategies are designed to empower learners to manage their own learning.

Selection of volunteers and paid tutors is rigorous and is conditional on their attending a specified minimum number of hours training each year. A coherent, and extensive, training framework supports progressive skill development.

Eighty seven per cent of all learners reached their goals in 2002-03. These included coping with literacy requirements in work; helping their children with homework; being more effective in community organisations and progressing to further education.

Annex one: Community learning and development: Working and learning together to build stronger communities

- Statement prepared by the Scottish Executive/COSLA working group

We are using the term 'community learning and development' to describe a way of working with and supporting communities. We are encouraging our partners to use the term as well. We see community learning and development as being central to increasing the supply of 'social capital' - a way of working with communities to increase the skills, confidence, networks and resources they need to tackle problems and grasp opportunities.

We want community learning and development to bring together the best of what has been done under the banners of 'community education' and 'community development'. Its main aim is to help individuals and communities tackle real issues in their lives through community action and community-based learning. Community learning and development also supports agencies to work effectively with communities which will open doors to involvement in learning, action and decision-making.

The activities of youth work, community work and community-based adult learning are at the centre of community learning and development. We want to emphasise that these activities are delivered by skilled people with a wide variety of job titles, working in different sectors and in a range of agencies, and to encourage joined-up working across all of these.

We want to increase opportunities for individuals and communities who are excluded, improve public services where it will make most difference, and create a more socially just Scotland. The figure below shows how we see the different strands of community learning and development activity working together to build stronger communities and contributing to our main policy aims.

Community Learning Partnerships in each local authority area have already made real progress in using the multi-agency, cross-sector approach we see as being essential. The Partnerships have developed Adult Literacy Action Plans which is an important step forward.

We are looking to Community Learning and Development Partnerships to play the central part in making sure that:

- people working in all aspects of community learning and development work together to build communities that are more organised, skilled and influential, and that have more control over resources;

- there is a strong community-based dimension to the new Scottish Executive agenda for lifelong learning;

- community work skills are used to help communities get involved in community regeneration and community planning;

- youth work is fully recognised and supported as part of the development of stronger communities; and

- community learning and development support is targeted to help close the gap between the worst off individuals and communities and the rest.

Through community planning, we aim to make sure that agencies work with communities to improve their wellbeing. Through community learning and development, we aim to make sure that communities can be full partners in this.

We are focusing our attention on achieving realistic results. Community learning and development has clearly identifiable outcomes, such as:

- improvements in the effectiveness, range and joint working of community organisations;

- increased confidence and motivation of excluded young people; and

- improved core skills, allowing individuals whose previous experience of education has been negative to tackle important issues in their lives.

We are committed to measuring the effect of community learning and development, in ways that focus on what makes a difference for communities, so that we know how well we are doing and can plan ahead realistically.

We believe communities and a wide range of agencies have a real role to play in the success of community learning and development. It is crucial that the people who are most closely involved in community learning and development - practitioners (paid or unpaid), managers and their agencies - work with us to promote a shared vision for community learning and development and the contribution it can make to 'building better communities in Scotland'.

Annex two: List of practical examples

National priorities:

Angus Council - Achieving through learning for adults

North Lanarkshire Council - Achieving through learning for young people

North West Dumfries Partnership - Achievement through building community capacity

Other case studies:

Stirling Quality Action Group - Engaging with people with learning disabilities

Voluntary Action East Renfrewshire - Supporting communities to influence community planning

Aberdeen City - Involving citizens in community planning Communities promoting healthy living in Dunbar

Greater Easterhouse - Developing an effective Community Learning Plan The Corner, Dundee - Young people shaping service delivery

West Lothian ABE Team - promoting adult basic education

Annex three: Glossary

Community or communities

This can be either a 'geographic community' (a group of people living in one area) or a 'community of interest' (a group of people who share a common characteristic or identity, such as black and minority ethnic communities).

Community-based adult learning

Adult education available in a community setting rather than in an institutional context such as a college, and with programmes and activities developed in dialogue with participants.

Community budgeting

This is a process where information about the spending of partner organisations in particular communities is collected and made available. The information can then be used to involve communities in the main decisions about services.

Community capacity building

Measures that strengthen the collective ability of a community.

Community learning and development

Learning and social development work with individuals and groups in their communities using a range of formal and informal methods. A common defining feature is that programmes and activities are developed in dialogue with communities and participants.

Community Learning and Development Strategy

A statement that highlights the joint aims of community learning and development partners over a three year period across a local authority area.

Community Learning and Development Action Plan

A joint three year work plan for a specific theme, local geographic area or community of interest agreed by the community learning and development partners.

Community planning

This is a strategic process whereby the public services in the area of the local authority are planned and provided after consultation and ongoing co-operation among all public bodies and with community bodies.

Community regeneration

This is the process of tackling poverty, deprivation and social exclusion in a particular geographic area or within a particular group of people.

Deprivation Index

This index is put together using indicators measuring characteristics of deprivation, such as health, education, poverty and unemployment.

Neighbourhood statistics

This is a set of statistical data covering a small local area.

Youth work

Informal learning and personal and social development work with young people, enabling them to gain a voice, influence and place in society.

Outcomes

Outcomes are what we expect to achieve and the effect of what we do.

Social capital

This is the skills, resources, networks, opportunities and motivation that a community has which enable it to work together effectively to promote its own wellbeing.

Social justice

This is the equal and fair distribution of social values such as freedom, income and wealth, and the opportunity to take part in society.

Developing an Effective Community Learning Plan (Greater Easterhouse, Glasgow)

(From Illuminating Practice: Case Studies in CLD, Scottish Community Development Centre for Learning Connections/Communities Scotland, 2004)

Summary

Greater Easterhouse Community Learning Plan (CLP) was one of Glasgow's pilot plans. Unusually, it was led by the local social inclusion partnership, through its Education and Lifelong Learning sub-group, which itself is led by John Wheatley College. A recent report from Her Majesty's Inspectorate judged community learning planning in Easterhouse, and many aspects of delivery, as 'very good'.

A process of consultation events involving 42 local organisations led to the adoption of the 2001-04 plan, in which the priorities were core skills (including ICT), health and poverty. Targets were set for establishing learning centres; access to guidance on learning; planning a core skills package; providing childcare to support learning; and support for people becoming active in their community.

The plan focused on developing the Greater Easterhouse Learning Network (GELN) as its key mechanism for delivery. Fifteen local centres have become involved in GELN - including a wide range of Council and College centres and voluntary groups working on employment, family and other issues. These organisations provide a whole range of other services, but have given a commitment to support learning.

The eventual target is 21 centres. A complex mixture of funding allowed them all to be offered PCs with fast net connections, and tutor support from the college.

Volunteers are trained to offer additional support where possible. Refurbishment and disabled access were funded.

All residents can get free internet access and support through the centres. A website brings together support to learners with information and advice on everyday problems and local news.

Increasingly, mainstream funding and other strategies have been influenced to support GELN: childcare developments are planned in or close to centres; the new Adult Literacy and Numeracy (ALN) service will work through them.

The plan is due for revision soon, following a new city-wide community learning strategy. This will allow work with young people to be better integrated with the rest.

What was the problem or need that was to be addressed?

Greater Easterhouse Community Learning Plan 2001-04 was one of Glasgow's three pilot CLPs. It aims to contribute to lifelong learning, promote social inclusion and support the development of individuals and communities.

There were three priorities for action:

- health: factors such as low self-esteem;

- poverty: financial barriers to involvement in learning, and the contribution of learning to economic improvement;

- core skills: literacy, numeracy and use of computers and information technology.

A particular priority was to involve men and boys in community learning and activity.

The Greater Easterhouse CLP covers the same boundaries as the social inclusion partnership (SIP), which covers 15 neighbourhoods and five wards, all of which are among the 50 most multiply deprived wards in Scotland.

Widening and simplifying access to learning was already on the local agenda. John Wheatley College has a campus in the middle of Easterhouse and most students are local. But, as one community project says, 'we knew that some of our people would no more have set foot there than flown to the moon'. The College was beginning to think about using existing community facilities, and promoting 'digital inclusion', since local access to computers was known to be very low.

What difference was the initiative intended to make?

The plan was intended to:

- improve the co-ordinated planning and delivery of learning activities;

- improve their responsiveness to those most socially excluded and disengaged from learning.

The aims were to:

- achieve improvement in areas such as adult literacies;

- support growth in access to, and use of, information technology;

- support the involvement of people in the development of their communities.

But much of the detail of what needed to happen was left for a strengthened network of organisations to develop. The actual plan document is a relatively short one, which some see as a strength.

How was success to be judged?

The plan stated that improvement would be broadly measured against two key questions:

- have the numbers involved in community learning increased?

- are the benefits being realised in their lives and/or in the lives of their communities?

Targets were set for:

- establishing learning centres;

- access to guidance on learning;

- publicising community learning opportunities;

- planning a core skills package;

- identifying gaps in childcare, especially to support learning;

- support for people becoming active in their community.

Timescales were set for each, and a wide range of agencies and organisations were identified in co-ordinating or supporting roles. The first annual review of the plan was produced in September 2002. Community learning and development in Greater Easterhouse has since been the subject of a report by Her Majesty's Inspectorate. At present the plan is being revised to respond to that report and to new national and city guidance.

Who was involved?

After the initial approach from Glasgow City Council, the Greater Easterhouse Community Learning Plan has been led by the SIP, through its Education and Lifelong Learning sub-group. That is chaired by an assistant principal of John Wheatley College, who is the only non-Council lead officer for a Glasgow CLP.

Its membership includes staff from the College, SIP team, and City Council (Cultural and Leisure, Education and Social Work Services); the local community school; business and economic development agencies; Careers; and local community projects.

The Council established a central Community Learning Support Team. Its role 'was highly valued by partners for its contribution to developing and implementing the CLP' (Her Majesty's Inspectorate).

Consultation on the 2001-04 plan was aimed at all known local organisations with a community learning remit. Forty-two organisations were involved in consultation events, and a questionnaire was circulated.

How did they go about it?

The key mechanism for delivery of the plan has been the development of the Greater Easterhouse Learning Network (GELN). Fifteen local organisations have been invited to join GELN and each has provided space for a learning centre. They include two existing college outreach centres and two Council-run centres, but the majority are run by voluntary groups. These organisations provide a wide range of other services, but have given a commitment to support learning. Some centres were already actively involved in adult learning; all recognised that their work had a learning element. The eventual target is that there should be 21 learning centres.

Learning centres contain from two to thirty computers, linked to the College on a high-speed network. All residents can get free access to the internet and IT skills support and, if required, literacy skills support there. In addition the network will eventually provide access to college e-mail services and learning materials for 3,500 learners in Greater Easterhouse.

GELN has taken over and developed an existing community web portal, offering local information provided by local people and support to learners.

The plan also sets objectives for adult literacy and numeracy and childcare services. One of the key aspects of its implementation is that work in these fields has been closely tied to the development of GELN.

The partnership and College obtained funding to develop the Positive About Literacies project (PAL). This uses GELN as the main vehicle for an enhanced approach to developing skills, because it offers:

- access to target groups;

- referral of users with difficulties;

- ICT-based resources for learners.

The main gaps in the supply of childcare have been identified. Plans have been commissioned for new facilities. These were required to take into account the location of learning centres and gaps in childcare within them. Two projects are now proceeding, and possibly four more over the next two to three years.

Arrangements for community capacity building in Easterhouse, led by a new Community Support Service, were being re-launched at the time of the community learning plan. The plan is said to have added priority to what was under development and stimulated thinking about how to support people, not just structures.

The plan also proposed a local Adult Guidance Network. This work is acknowledged to be less developed. A network was established to provide information and guidance on learning opportunities and progression routes. It has been a regular but small forum, not perhaps involving the voluntary sector as much as other initiatives, but has supported inter-agency promotional events and looked at the progression from school.

What resources were needed?

The implementation of the plan has required resources at many levels, and has not been easy. GELN became operational in January 2003. It took two years to get funding and fully develop it. The initial refusal of a major lottery grant was a particular blow.

Staff of the social inclusion partnership, College and Community Learning Support Team played a major role in developing the plan and GELN.

The SIP's adoption of the plan as the strategy for its Education and Lifelong Learning sub-group should encourage the partners already involved in providing community learning and development services to target their resources on plan objectives. However, the integration of the work of the Council's community learning and development staff is hindered by the fact that team boundaries are much wider than those of the SIP and the plan.

The development of GELN itself required a complex mixture of funding, totalling around £1 million:

- Scottish Further Education Funding Council, Strategic Development Fund;

- Social Inclusion Partnership;

- Glasgow City Council Social Inclusion budget;

- New Opportunities Fund;

- European Regional Development Fund;

- John Wheatley College (teaching and administration).

The project has three staff: a network manager, web editor and support officer.

The host organisations for learning centres contribute a lot of staff and volunteer time to support the work. In many cases they access other local funds and projects to provide additional tuition or activities. Some produce additional publicity, as does the SIP through a regular magazine for residents. Two of the voluntary sector centres previously obtained their computer suites through other grants. The College's Queenslie centre was partly funded by the Scottish University for Industry.

The PAL project, supplementing work by existing adult literacy and numeracy staff, is supported by a fund established as part of the Glasgow Community Learning Partnership's Adult Literacy and Numeracy Action Plan. It is understood that Easterhouse was awarded a substantial grant because it could prove that the work was linked to other community learning developments.

The childcare strategy is being developed by Childcare Greater Easterhouse, a SIP-funded body involving a variety of partners.

What were the actions taken?

The social inclusion partnership did the initial 'selling' of the idea to potential centres. It consulted them on their expectations before funding was finalised. It was recognised that each would have different management arrangements.

Eleven learning centres are newly established in premises refurbished to College standards, including decor and disabled access. The impression deliberately created is that the network partners value learners. All have been supplied with new PCs and hardware. This has helped the centres to meet the national quality standard for adult literacy and numeracy. The centres with existing computer suites benefited from new high-speed connections and refurbishment. The centres run by the College have been brought into GELN. These are staffed to support learners on a full-time basis.

For at least one session a week in each centre, initially, a College tutor provides a flexible learning session, building computer skills. Learners negotiate their course with the tutor, from a wide range of starting points, and get time in the centres for practice. A range of options with Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) recognition is offered, from Access 3 level to the European Computer Driving Licence (ECDL).

Most centres offer sessions for support with literacies. Some host other College activities. At other times, centres are kept open by local staff and volunteers. In some there are no staff and all support comes from volunteers.

The centres vary greatly in approach and client group. Four voluntary sector examples are described below. By contrast, Queenslie serves an industrial estate, and has a focus on the ECDL, with around a third of users supported directly by employers. Two centres are devoted respectively to substance abuse rehabilitation, and family support. They provide similar access programmes for those client groups but offer more limited public access.

At the request of the centres themselves, the College has introduced a photographic membership card. All users go through a simplified version of the College's registration process. Membership gives them access throughout GELN. So far over 300 have registered, but this is only a beginning. Soon an initial 1,000 local college students will join them, once they have been through an induction programme.

The centres also requested common internet filtering and security arrangements. Access to public chat rooms is barred, but the network provides access to both general and private local chat facilities.

The College has provided training in running a learning centre and basic computer skills for 30 staff and/or volunteers, covering each centre. Further training to be offered includes the ECDL.

Centre users are offered the use of a core skills assessment tool. Follow-up support can be provided directly by tutors, by existing literacies services, or through the PAL project. This provides support to people over 16 years old who want to improve reading skills - at any level - or basic writing, numeracy or computing skills.

Nine centres currently offer PAL group sessions, but support will be offered to any class where needs are identified, and outreach classes are held in other venues. It is hoped that the groups will provide a progress route for people receiving one-to-one support from existing services. Training has been provided to non-specialist staff to raise awareness of adult literacy issues and provision.

Additional grant assistance (ESF Objective 3) has been obtained to develop multi- media teaching and learning materials to address literacy and numeracy issues.

These materials are now available for use over the network.

As GELN develops, so do its links to local community capacity building programmes. The SIP's Empowering Communities budget was used to offer community representatives home computers, Internet connections, and training.

It is intended that a wider group of around 140 community representatives, including those at local 'suburb' level, will be able to use the network's software and communications system - effectively the College intranet - offering stable, secure, and free communications at home or in any centre. Online conferences would be available, matching individuals to their committee membership.

Family Action in Rogerfield and Easterhouse (FARE)

FARE is a local voluntary organisation, established in 1989. It provides services to families, children and young people, ranging from a cafe to befriending services and youth clubs, in a tenement block. They already hosted some classes, but realised that these did not allow people's learning to progress.

GELN provided six computers. One weekly session of tutor support is provided. This runs from 5-8 pm, in order to attract a wide range of drop-in users, often for relatively short sessions. Six further sessions are 'open access'. In fact much use takes place outwith these times, by youth clubs and others, provided at least two staff are on duty. Everyone in the centre can help people with computer basics, although they would like to be able to do more.

Ninety per cent of learning centre users are new to FARE. They are also typically new to computers. The majority are over 40, and around 60 per cent are male. The project has always offered support for literacy programmes and has a dedicated room for one-to-one support. The centre has created new opportunities for their youth programme, such as the alcohol project (see later).

Garthamlock Community Enterprise Centre

The Garthamlock Community Enterprise Centre has a long history of providing employment, training and advice services in converted shops in the middle of the community. It already had ICT facilities including eight computers. These have become part of GELN, which funded additional work to improve access etc. There is one weekly session of tutor support. But the learning centre is open for at least three other morning and five afternoon sessions a week, supported by Garthamlock staff. Additional ICT training is provided as part of the general programme. One PC is located in a separate room to allow public access during classes, or for confidential support.

The centre encourages literacy and numeracy services to use its facilities for one to one or group sessions, and the learning centre offers access to additional diagnostic and learning tools. The centre had an existing creche room. It is hoped that the current short-life premises will be replaced by a multi-purpose centre. The childcare element is part of the Greater Easterhouse forward programme. It believes strongly in the need to work through local networks and tries to keep the local community planning group aware of GELN.

The Pavilion Youth Centre

The Pavilion Youth Centre has been open for three years. Joining GELN served two main purposes. Its primary interest is for young people, taking part in activities six nights a week, to have access to the 11 PCs. Though they resist anything resembling a classroom setting, they are all registered network members and get half-hour access sessions, in between other activities. These are mainly for (filtered) leisure use, but the centre also incorporates internet use into projects, quizzes etc. The centre charges 1Op per session and puts the proceeds back into youth activities.

But a condition of the provision of learning centre facilities was that they were open to the wider community. This is still developing, but in addition to the weekly tutored session, several groups now have regular structured sessions - an after-school group, a women's group and groups undertaking personal programmes in preparation for work, with College tutor support under other local programmes. Staff admit to initial doubts about daytime access, but feel that, although still developing, it is now getting a lot of very appropriate users. Fast internet access has also helped them enormously, for instance with funding applications.

Easterhouse Women's Centre

The Easterhouse Women's Centre has just four GELN computers, with one tutored session, five advertised open access sessions and one PAL literacy drop-in weekly. But their approach has been to incorporate use of the facility into their ongoing activities as far as possible. It shares space with counselling services. Staff say that because women use the facilities and have support to do 'real things that matter in real lives', they are learning without seeing it as learning. Although women start with an informal approach, dipping in and out of computer use, some are now doing the European Computer Driving Licence.

Several women with no previous ICT experience have learned to keep in regular touch by e-mail with offspring working elsewhere in the world, including a photographer in Iraq. Some have made contact with old friends, and the centre runs a family history club. Others have been able to do additional study related to a course or work.

How was the practice co-ordinated and monitored?

The network manager reports to funders and the partnership on progress. Currently GELN is the subject of an external evaluation, which should lead to a forward plan. This will probably include more specific usage targets, negotiated with each centre.

Representatives of the centres meet every month to six weeks to discuss common issues, and meetings are well attended. Staff and volunteers were also trained to use an e-mail-based community to manage GELN. This provides a more continuous input and has influenced decisions on membership, filtering etc.

The overall plan is overseen by the SIP sub-group, and forms not just one item on its agenda, but virtually the whole business. The targets and activities in the plan form an integral part of the SIP's monitoring framework.

In 2002 the partnership consulted its people's panel about lifelong learning, training and childcare. A development day for board members then looked solely at these issues.

The plan is due for revision soon. This will take into account:

- Glasgow's new Community Learning And Development Strategy 2004-2007;

- the Board's new priorities, which include more specific impact and outcome indicators;

- new consultations, which will use the SIP's consultative structures more fully.

How successful was it?

The HM Inspectorate report looked at the whole range of community learning and development service provision in Easterhouse.

Community learning planning was 'very good'.[17] The plan's key achievements were the development of GELN, the development of provision for adult literacy, numeracy and guidance, and the initiation of improvements in childcare.

Among the aspects highlighted were:

- engagement with and support for adults were very good.[18] The centres in local communities offered significant potential to reach excluded individuals and groups, and improve the take-up of learning;

- learning opportunities were very good:[19] a large and diverse range of high quality opportunities, well matched to local priorities. There were a range of opportunities for learners to progress to more advanced learning;

- the delivery of learning opportunities was very good.[20] The variety of methods used was appropriate to the needs of participants. Staff were flexible and adapted materials to meet individual needs;

- participant achievement was good.[21] A majority of learners reported that they had achieved their goals. They had increased confidence and developed skills in communication, numeracy and ICT. Achievement in the core skills of problem solving and working with others was more limited;

- community achievement was very good.[22] Community representatives were more influential in decision-making than they had been over many years. They reported a strong sense of community ownership of major initiatives such as GELN. Community capacity building was supported by an appropriate mix of voluntary organisations and local authority services;

- leadership was good overall.[23] The partnership and College provided very effective leadership;

- the achievements of partners in securing external funding, and the very effective partnership work,[24] were praised.

Overall, only a few aspects of youth work were 'fair', and everything else was either 'good' or 'very good'.

The common core approach has been flexible enough to allow specific client groups to be served, for example:

- The learning centre located in Greater Easterhouse sports centre supports the E-male project, aiming to re-engage unemployed and unskilled men in learning;

- one centre is located close to the largest local concentration of refugees and asylum seekers, which has enabled a range of education, including English as a second language, to be planned;

- two centres, as we have seen, target specific groups only, and the Women's Centre works with women generally.

What else happened?

Not everything has gone as expected - for example, higher standards of childcare registration have reduced the ability to provide childcare in some cases.

In general, the experience has increased the partnership's confidence in inviting a wider range of partners to take the lead in projects. For example the new multi-agency 'Wellhouse Hub' development, which will incorporate a learning centre, is led by a local housing association.

GELN is stimulating a new understanding of how informal learning can be built in to other work. It is attracting new users for centres. These include many people with skills levels below those required for the most basic college provision. The College says that this is no surprise in theory, but has brought it home to them in a practical way.

Although GELN is aimed mainly at adults, it has provided new opportunities for youth work in several centres. For example, at FARE an NHS Glasgow pilot project is looking at alcohol issues with young people, some of them school non-attenders. They have surveyed their schoolmates, researched how media are marketed and targeted and developed their own poster campaign and website, all using learning centre computers.

What are the key lessons?

The central lesson is that the success of the community learning plan came not just from identifying all the right issues, setting the right targets, or even involving the right partners, but from adopting a strategy with a real integrated vision and a practical project to put this into effect.

Her Majesty's Inspectorate calls for the approach to be developed in order to improve partnership working between youth work providers, links to local schools, integration of the work of community capacity building agencies, and of the Council's mainstream community learning and development services. All of these have been identified as priorities locally and are likely to be emphasised in the revised plan.

Other lessons that participants have drawn include:

- the fact that initial suspicion of the community learning plan process was unjustified. People felt that it was not clear what was in it for Easterhouse, nor whether resources would follow. But because they have come up with a successful strategy, resources have followed;

- the need to keep looking for progression routes for informal learning students e.g. by attracting them into college to use more sophisticated multi-media facilities, or by making links to the active local community arts scene;

- the need to get the existing networks for community involvement actively engaged to ensure future success.

The Easterhouse plan has been used as a model for other areas of Glasgow. Partners have tried to replicate the breadth of its partnership elsewhere.

Angus Glens Project: from personal development to community capacity

(From Illuminating Practice: Case Studies in CLD, Scottish Community Development Centre for Learning Connections/Communities Scotland, 2004)

Summary

Angus Council Community Education Service established a community education worker post - funded by the European Social Fund - within the Glens in 1999. The purpose of the post was to address problems resulting from the lack of services and resources, economic difficulties and changing social structures. The community education worker's objectives were to:

- identify training needs;

- support the community in enhancing its social and economic capacity;

- enhance the viability and range of uses made of community meeting places.

After consulting local people, computer skills were identified as the immediate training need. Farmers needed to be able to e-mail stock movement information and to computerise their accounts. People seeking full-time employment perceived these skills as essential and local families recognised their value in maintaining links with members who had left the Glens. Initially training was delivered in local farmhouses and now takes place in a range of community-managed venues. To date 600 learners have participated in information and technology (ICT) training out of an adult population of 1,500.

From the outset, the community education worker engaged with local people to develop computer training and community access to new technology, primarily as a means to empower individuals and the community as a whole. Local management groups co-ordinate all aspects of the project, supported by the community education worker. Community-led partnerships with outside bodies such as Angus Council Training Service, Scottish Enterprise Tayside and Dundee University have been effective in securing additional resources for the project and bringing support services into the area. Community action successfully secured funds to refurbish village halls, and in the hamlet of Memus, completely rebuild the hall.

The project now encompasses a wide range of community activity, much of which interacts with economic development. The range of activity reflects the capacity of the community to use new technology as a development tool, and a re-awakening of community consciousness and cross-Glens activity, previously at a low level. Achievements include the community-managed angusglens website, a renewable energy project and a community land purchase.

What was the need that was to be addressed?

The main Angus Glens - Isla, Prosen, Clova, Lethnot and Esk - descend in parallel from the Grampian Mountains to the lowland farming country west of Arbroath. The Glens lie within large agricultural and private estates, which along with farming have historically been the principal sources of employment. Households are scattered throughout townships and small hamlets.

Angus Council Community Education Service identified the following problems within the Glens in 1998, which, in their assessment, inhibited social and economic development:

- isolation from commercial and public services. Shopping and all other commercial services were located in Brechin, Kirriemuir, Arbroath, Dundee and further afield. Some local primary schools had closed, as had sub post offices. There was no public transport. Adult education and training were provided in the local towns and were difficult to access, particularly in winter. Village halls, the sole community meeting places, were generally in poor condition and unattractive. Community education service involvement in the Glens was limited and reactive: staff based in the local towns did not have sufficient time to be proactive due to their wider responsibilities;

- a lack of substantial sources of employment to compensate for the reduction of farming and estate work. The potential for developing alternatives was particularly restricted because of a weak economic infrastructure and skill base. The wives of workers on the estates and in farming lacked the ICT skills necessary to secure full-time employment to supplement the income of their farms. Part-time work was in short supply. Newcomers to the Glens who established businesses tended to be self-contained or worked elsewhere therefore not opening up other employment opportunities to local people;

- movement of families and young people away from the Glens, and the influx of new families, was changing the structure of the community. The traditional relationships between estates and their tenants were changing. Also, the relationships between members of farming families were changing as economic necessity forced them to seek other sources of income, away from the farm. There was little community activity focusing on social or economic development and there were few community groups. Opportunities were lacking for people new to the Glens to contribute to the community.

What difference was the initiative intended to make?

Angus Council Community Education Service secured funding from the European Social Fund in 1998 for a one-year Building Blocks programme to address the issues outlined above. The service envisaged four building blocks leading to the achievement of the project outcomes: refurbished village halls, effective community groups, sustainable community projects and activities, and economic development. The overall intended outcomes were that people active in their community would develop and manage projects that contribute to community sustainability. This would result in a real improvement in the quality of life of the area and establish skills that were transferable to other projects. It was anticipated that the confidence and experience gained through participation in the project would lead to the development of further projects. Specific intended outcomes of the project were:

- communities confident in their ability to establish and manage aspects of projects and promoting activities necessary for community sustainability;

- effective community groups dedicated to the regeneration of the area;

- effective networking by groups and individuals within the Glens;

- upgraded or rebuilt village halls acting as a base for community projects;

- effective community links with economic development agencies;

- economic development.

How was success to be judged?

Three targets were used to judge the success of the Building Blocks, based on the ESF funding criteria:

1. targets would be achieved for both individual and group participation, and progress in training courses in community organisation;

2. four community projects would be identified and training provided to participants which would enable them to submit four proposals for funding and four community projects with steering groups would be established;

3. participants would report increases in community networking and self-reliance.

As the project developed, success was also judged against the targets set for each stage of development: for example, village hall refurbishment. The success of projects such as Making Connections, funded by European Social Fund (ESF), and Getting Started, funded by the New Opportunities Fund (NOF), was gauged against participant targets agreed with the funders. The most recent project, Getting Started, is designed to provide stability and expansion of the provision in the Glens. There is no conflict or tension with community aims, in fact the reverse. Community members were delighted that there was now sufficient capacity and stability of staff and resources. However, in order to achieve the numbers - 200 new learners per annum - the project encompasses a wider geographical area than the Glens. It is pretty well a straight provision of community-based adult learning (CBAL) in these areas. There has not been, and there is unlikely to be, a community development process such as went on in the Glens.

Who was involved?

At the outset the community education worker was involved with individual members of the community and the few existing community groups. However, as new aspects of the project developed the range of groups extended beyond the outcomes stated in the Building Blocks application. This was primarily as a result of ICT training being identified by local people as their immediate need and the consequent involvement of specialist ICT organisations.

The principal groups that developed in the Glens were: computer management groups in each glen in which computers were based, the Cross-Glens Computer Management Group, the angusglens website management group, the Glens Millennium Group, the Glenesk Trust, and the Cortachy and Glens Out-of-School Learning Club.

The main external agencies and specialist ICT organisations working in partnership with the community were, Angus Council Community Education Service, the Council's Training Services, Scottish Enterprise Tayside, the Angus Rural Partnership, Dundee University Department of Applied Computing, and the Scottish Agricultural College.

How did they go about it?

Over the first two months the community education worker consulted extensively with individuals, teachers, children and existing community groups. Three local people came forward to assist as a result of the initial consultation exercise. Issues that had emerged through this were built into further consultation, using structured conversations that focused on the perceived needs that had led to the project being set up. The conversations were designed to elicit views on these needs, including their validity and how they might be met. The intended project focus was on training of community groups and activists. However, ICT training emerged as the immediate and primary need and served as a vehicle for community skills training and development in the following ways:

- farmers needed to be able to e-mail stock movement information and learn to computerise their accounts;

- people seeking full-time employment also perceived ICT skills as essential;

- families recognised the value of ICT in maintaining links with family members outwith the Glens.

The Scottish Agricultural College collaborated with the community education worker in identifying the specific computer training needs of the farmers and developed stock management and farm accounts skills.[25]

At this point there was no public access to ICT equipment. Also, the minimum student numbers required by mainstream training providers prohibited local provision, as these numbers could not be achieved in the Glens. A rough survey undertaken by the worker suggested that while three in ten households had a computer, only one in ten used it.

The community education worker then made the crucial decision which was to underpin the work of the project and lead to its continuing success. Rather than simply provide ICT training to individuals and set up public access for individuals, ICT was used as the means through which the aims of the project would be achieved. The community were involved in deciding on the training they wanted, securing and managing the use of ICT equipment and managing the direction of further developments as they emerged.[26] A second key element in the development of ICT provision was that all training and computer development would be accompanied by learning and technical support.

The original Building Blocks aim of training members of community groups in organisational skills was addressed in parallel to the ICT developments. A lecturer from Dundee University and the Angus rural partnership officer collaborated with the project worker in delivering this training.

A farmhouse was the venue for the first computer training, using four laptop computers, one for each learner. A local person tutored the courses and the content was responsive to the learners' needs. The learners paid the tutor's costs. Within two months there were 14 such courses and the venues expanded to include village halls, pubs and church halls. However, the project was unable to cope with the demand for courses, with an ever-increasing waiting list.

Over the course of the next six months, the community education worker supported the development of six local computer management groups: Glenesk, Lethnot, Menmuir, Tannadice, Memus and Glenisla. Each group assumed responsibility for programming courses in their own glen. However, there was not sufficient ICT technical knowledge or hardware to develop and expand the project's course programme. This gap was filled by the formation of Angus Glens On-line Resource Action (AGORA), a partnership of representatives from Angus Council Training Service, Scottish Enterprise Tayside's Information Service Initiative (ISI), Dundee University Department of Applied Computing, the Angus rural partnership officer and the Community Education Service.

The partnership's aims were to support the further development of the project on a number of fronts, including the development of internet technology as a business and community tool and the development of electronic commerce as a tool for local businesses. Angus Council Training Service then installed two computers - complete with printers, software and internet access - in each of five village halls, leaving the resources under community control. In addition, the ISI allocated the same level of equipment to the Glenesk Retreat Folk Museum which, although primarily a commercial facility, was used as a community resource.[27]

The six management groups formed a cross-Glens computer management group which co-ordinated the development of ICT in the Glens. At the same time support was given to village hall management committees to develop funding applications for the refurbishment and upgrading of a number of village halls and supported the development of a completely new hall at Memus.[28] AGORA disbanded after two years as the management effectiveness, technological knowledge and confidence of the community representatives grew.

By this time the community education worker had supported the community in establishing the Angus Glens Website Management Group, which co-ordinated the development and management of a community website. This provided opportunities for enhanced community contact and included economic elements such as tourism and a business directory. The community management groups were now successfully applying for resources from a range of sources, supported by the worker and the input of expertise from the specialist organisations which had been members of AGORA. Additional specialist support was identified and brought in as the need arose.[29]

The effective use of ICT as a tool for community and economic development was in place by this time. The core elements were:

- raising the ICT skills and awareness of individuals and community groups;

- fostering the development of effective community management groups to co-ordinate each aspect of the ICT it developed, including identifying emerging training needs;

- linking community management groups to specialist ICT support which further developed understanding of the technology's potential;

- supporting the community groups in accessing financial and other resources.

The management skills and confidence of the ICT management groups was now a platform for the development of projects not directly related to new technology. The ICT classes and management meetings provided new opportunities for people to meet. The community education worker was sensitive to ideas and issues raised by participants that had the potential for further development of community capacity and resources, and supported the formation of groups to pursue development possibilities. These included:

- the Glens Millennium Group, which successfully developed projects including an oral and photographic history project and placement of memorial seats throughout the Glens. Income from the folk history project is being used to install a multi-media facility in Memus village hall;

- the Cortachy and the Glens Out-of-School Learning Club, which addressed the shortage of local after-school provision. The group secured funding from the New Opportunities Fund, administered by Angus Council, to deliver a three-year project, for which it has a service level agreement with the Council;

- the Glenesk Retreat Funding Research Group, whose preparatory work has led to a successful community land purchase by the Glenesk Trust. The Trust purchased a major community facility, housing a folk museum and restaurant, with potential for further community and economic development.[30]

What resources were needed?

The Community Education Service sponsored the ESF initial Building Blocks project that funded the community education worker and a small operational budget. When the ESF funding terminated in 2000, the Council assumed responsibility for the project and established a permanent community education worker post dedicated to the Glens. The Council also sponsored a further ESF project, Making Connections, which has been training small business people from the Glens in ICT skills. It has subsequently secured a grant from the Community Access for Lifelong Learning (CALL) fund for the Getting Started project. The project employs a team of two ICT specialists to provide the technical and clerical support necessary for continuing development of the Glens ICT project, to extend the range and scope of the skills training programme and to make tuition free to participants.

The community website management group meets the full costs of the website, i.e. hosting fees and the domain name, in addition to development costs. Hall rental costs are met by participants in ICT training and are subsidised currently by the Getting Started project and the Cross-Glens Computer Management Group.

- Angus Council Training Service provided and maintained two computers, complete with printers and scanners, in each of five locations. The service has subsequently arranged for the village halls to be validated as examination centres for the European Computer Driving Licence qualification. It also supports candidates and monitors the completion of course modules by learners;

- Angus Council Education Department is funding a three-year out-of-school education project through the New Opportunities Fund. The project is managed by the community and staffed by local people;

- Scottish Enterprise Tayside (SET) contributed expertise on ICT in general and more specifically in relation to the internet and website design. The enterprise company also funded C2, a website management company, to support the transfer of content from the pilot website to the new community website. The website management group will be responsible for the technical management costs. Most recently it has provided satellite connection to broadband technology in two locations and a total of eight laptop computers into two village halls;

- Dundee University Department of Applied Computing provides advice on the use of ICT in rural areas and specifically on its uses for older people;

- The Lotteries Commission, with other funders, has supported the refurbishment of nine village halls. It has also met the cost of a complete re-build at Memus;

- The Glenesk Trust secured a funding package of over £500,000 from the Community Land Fund, the Regional Development Fund, the Landfill Tax Fund, Angus Council and others. This will meet the cost of comprehensively refurbishing the Glenesk Retreat, now renamed the Glenesk Heritage and Development Centre;

- The Scottish Communities Renewable Energy Initiative is part-funding the development of renewable energy technology in all of the village halls in which computers are based where this is feasible;

- The Scottish Agricultural College used ESF funding to deliver seven ICT training courses to farmers.

What were the actions taken?

The Community Education Service, through the community education worker, has been the principal professional agency involved since the inception of the project. The key outputs have been:

- a range of ICT training opportunities responsive to the needs of local people including introductory courses, training on specific software packages and the European Computer Driving Licence. The programmes have the capacity to meet expanding and changing demand. About 155 participants have been involved in 48 courses between April and October 2003;[31]

- seven courses for farmers on ICT for stock management and accounting;

- a training course for members of community organisations, Training for Community Participation, delivered in partnership with Dundee University Community Education Department and the Angus rural partnership officer. Other training courses have been developed on issues such as local exchange trading, consultation, and funding;

- effective links between the community and specialist agencies in ICT, rural development and training;

- development of community groups co-ordinating the ICT training programme, the website development and other projects;

- training and ICT applications advice for small businesses.

The outputs of community effort in the project have been:

- effective co-ordination of the ICT initiative, including course programming and management of the resources;

- funding packages for projects such as refurbishing village halls and purchasing Glenesk Retreat;

- locally led projects such as the Glens Folk local history project, the out-of-school education project and the renewable energy project[32]

How was the practice co-ordinated and monitored?

The community education worker was managed through Angus Council's community education officer. Annual workplans were produced and monitored at three-monthly intervals. Progress was evaluated against agreed outcomes and output targets. Latterly the LEAP framework (the planning and evaluation tool designed specifically for community learning and development work) has been used in this process. The intended outcomes established for the project at the outset have provided the backdrop for all planning and evaluation. In addition, progress towards the output targets agreed with the funders of the Building Blocks, Making Connections and Getting Started projects have also been monitored by the Community Education Service and the ESF.

Community groups with which the community education worker has been engaged have worked to specific targets such as securing funding for a particular purpose, or the achievement of a goal, such as the purchase of the Glenesk Retreat. A range of methods were used from formal planning exercises to community consultation and public meetings. Workshops have been used to identify possible development and to evaluate success. At regular points in the development of all aspects of the project, the worker has supported groups in reflecting on what they have achieved and how they should pursue their goals in the light of evaluation.[33]

The Community Education Service (CES) evaluated the quality of tuition of Building Blocks courses by using the scheme of quality indicators then in use by Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools (now HM Inspectorate of Education). The co- ordinator of the Making Connections and Getting Started projects systematically evaluates the quality of the learning experience of participants. Learners participate in the process through systematic feedback, which focuses on their perception of their progress.

How successful was it?

The use of ICT as a tool for building the capacity of the Glens communities to develop and manage projects designed to enhance their quality of life has been very successful.

The interest of a range of people across the Glens in developing their individual skills proved to be a platform from which to foster effective community action. The skills and confidence acquired by community groups through their involvement in the ICT project has been transferable to projects not directly related to ICT.

Funding the initial Building Blocks project and subsequent ICT training through grants from the ESF and other bodies has been beneficial in that otherwise finance would not have been available. Latterly, the resources provided through Getting Started have made provision more equitable through the provision of free training. However, using such funding sources has obliged the CES to meet participation targets not perfectly suited to the development. The targets for Getting Started require the project to recruit 200 additional learners each year for three years. This is being addressed by extending training opportunities to areas outwith the Glens. This expansion will prove a challenge to the CES if it is to underpin provision of tuition with a community development process.

The ICT training programme has attracted 30 per cent male participants, an unusually high proportion of total enrolment. It has also led to a dramatic increase in home computer use from one family in three using their equipment to all computer- owning families using them. Although it is not possible to attribute a direct causal relationship between the project and the level of computer ownership in the Glens, it has risen from 30 per cent to 70 per cent since the project began.

Members of community groups involved in all the projects and developments that have come on the back of the original Building Blocks project, as well as participants in the ICT training courses, have no doubts on their impact on the sense of community in the Glens. They volunteer comments such as 'this project has re- invented the community in the Glens'. There is a palpable sense of community cohesion and the confidence that community action has the potential to achieve more for the Glens in areas previously unthought-of.[34]

What else happened?

The integrated ICT and community development processes are stimulating unforeseen developments including:

- a group of older people, who have developed a cyber cafe in one of the village halls, is pursuing the installation of webcams in the homes of older people at risk. Dundee University Department of Applied Computer Studies is supporting this pilot to explore the application of new technology in the care of older people;

- the community in Glenesk is exploring the development of a virtual consultancy based on ICT, to make it easier for patients to access the doctor;

- a local primary school is working with the co-ordinator of the Getting Started project to set up an internet link with a school in Tanzania.[35]

What are the key lessons?

The importance of the initial period of consultation and community investigation was demonstrated by the identification of ICT as the vehicle which underpinned the project's development.

The original intention of the Community Education Service was to facilitate the community development process by training community groups in organisational skills. However, the worker's perception that the individual ICT training needs of the community could be met and integrated into a community development process was crucial to the success of the project. The ability to be responsive and non-directive, while holding to the longer-term agenda, was key.

The involvement of specialist agencies in ICT, funding and planning was crucial to all aspects of the project. The developing confidence and effectiveness of the community groups enabled the establishment of an interaction with these agencies which reinforced community control and nurtured the community development process.

The Community Learning and Development Approach

(A starter paper for the "This is Serious Fun Too" conference; Fraser Patrick, Centre fore Research in CLD, University of Dundee, 2007)

Foreword

At the Serious Fun Conference in June 2006 there was much discussion around the nature of Community Learning and Development. It was agreed that this would be a focus for the follow-up Conference.

The Centre for Research in Community Learning and Development at the University of Dundee was commissioned to prepare a short starter paper which is being sent to all participants in advance of the Conference which will be held at the University of Stirling on 12/13 June 2007.

The paper will form the basis for the Conference's first session, the output of which will provide the themes for the remaining Conference programme.

All those attending the Conference are invited to read the paper prior to their arrival in Stirling.

Elenor MacDonald, Community Education Training Network

Mike Naulty, University of Dundee

1. Introduction

At the Community Education Managers Scotland Annual Conference on 25 April 2002 the then Depute Minister for Social Justice, Margaret Curran, announced that it was the Scottish Executive's view that the term community learning and development 'should now be adopted in Scotland'.

In May 2002 in the paper Community Learning and Development: The Way Forward, the Scottish Executive formally recommended the adoption of the term describing it as 'an educative and developmental approach to community empowerment based around working in dialogue with communities to tackle the real issues in peoples' lives'.

The publication, in January 2004, of Working and learning together to build stronger communities the Scottish Executive guidance for Community Learning and Development, produced a definition for community learning and development.

"Community Learning and Development (CL&D) is learning and social development work with individuals and groups in their communities using a range of formal and informal methods. A common defining feature is that programmes and activities are developed in dialogue with communities and participants". (paragraph 10)

The guidance expressed its belief in the principles of empowerment, participation, inclusion, self determination and partnership as those upon which CL&D is based. (paragraph 12)

It also affirmed the aim of CL&D with reference to the statement prepared by the Scottish Executive/COSLA working group which had expressed the aim as:

To help individuals and communities tackle real issues in their lives through community action and community-based learning. Community learning and development also supports agencies to work effectively with communities which will open doors to involvement in learning, action and decision making. (Annex one)

The guidance therefore defined the 'new' term, detailed its main aims and affirmed its values base.

The Guidance also, however, stated that the CL&D approaches are now well established in youth and community work and in community based adult-learning services (and that) this style of working has now become more familiar in other public service disciplines… We strongly support this trend… (paragraph 11)

Since the publication of this Guidance the CL&D approach has been much lauded and advocated particularly through Community Planning Partnerships and the related public, voluntary, community and private sector fields.

It appears, however, that defining the distinctive features or definitive characteristics of the CL&D approach has not received so much attention. This omission needs to be addressed if the promotion of the approach is to be continued against a background of clearer understanding. A more specific articulation of the approach would also inform current deliberations around continuous professional development, support for activists and volunteers as well as professional pre-service and postgraduate training and education.

2. The Approach - different perspectives

It is the stated wish of the Scottish Executive and COSLA that CL&D brings together the best of what has been done under the banners of 'community education' and 'community development'.

It might be useful therefore to look at the four elements of CL&D separately in order to discover whether there are similarities in the way each describes what it is that is does and the way it does it.

2.1 Youth Work

In Youthlink Scotland's 'Statement on the nature and purpose of youth work' (2005) it offers, what it refers to as, the three essential and definitive features of youth work. These are:

- Young people choose to participate

The young person takes part voluntarily. She/he chooses to be involved, not least because they want to relax, meet friends and have fun. The young person decides whether to engage or to walk away.

- The work must build from where young people are

Youth work operates on young people's own personal and recreational territory - within both their geographic and interest communities. The young person's life experience is respected and forms the basis for shaping the agenda in negotiation with peers and youth workers.

- Youth Work recognises the young person and the youth worker as partners in a learning process

The young person is recognised as an active partner who can, and should, have opportunities and resources to shape their lives. The relationship and dialogue between the young person and youth worker is central to the learning process.

In its conclusion the statement notes that 'youth work is an empowering process. Youth Work is thus one of the very few practices whose remit provides for young people to exercise genuine power - to take decisions, follow them through and take responsibility for their consequences. Youth Work seeks to tip the balance of power in young people's favour'.

Later in 2005 'Youth and Policy' published Bernard Davies' paper Youth Work: A Manifesto for our Times. The following are extracts from the paper.

"What distinguishes youth work from other related and often overlapping practices is its methods: how it seeks to express those values, and particularly its process … " (p4)

"…practices which start where young people are starting, intellectually and emotionally. One of this paper's main arguments is that such starting points, broadly defined, constitute a key defining principle - even the raison d'être - of all youth work." (p5)

"…youth work is always an 'unfinished' practice … a constant exercise of choice, recurrent risk-taking, a continuing negotiation of uncertainty. As a 'professional' practice, it is guided by vision combined with tactical 'nous' and requiring balance, timing and nerve. The actual course of its practice, however, is ultimately decided by human interactions which are always fluid, continuously shifting and which therefore can offer no guarantee of reaching certain and final endpoints." (p21)

2.2 Community based adult learning

Informal adult learning, like youth work, is rooted in the societal turmoil of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century. Its early focus on the disadvantaged and on the ideal of learner directed learning is evident in the following two quotations the former being from Albert Mansbridge, founder of the WEA

"It is not enough for the workers to provide ready-made audiences for university lecturers. They must have a say in the quality and direction of the education provided" (1899) and to John McLean "what we need in this country is an educated working class".

(1913)

The Scottish Institute of Adult Education report in 1968 pointed however to a growing trend away from these earlier aspirations - "adult students are more and more noted to be already highly educated". This reality became one of the central themes of the report 'Adult Education. The Challenge of Change' (1975).

Sir Kenneth Alexander's Report observed that "Society is now less certain about the values it should uphold and tolerates a wide range. Individual freedom to question the value of established practices and institutions and to propose new forms is part of our democratic heritage". (paragraph 66) It continued "needs… are derived from an individual's way of life and his environment… Their identification emerges as a result of a process of interaction involving those thought to be in need and those able to provide for its satisfaction. Nor must it be assumed that the assessment of need is a once-and-for-all matter. It must be a continuing process and in regard to adult education is an essential one if provision is to be relevant". (paragraph 67)

The Report also recognised that "the process by which those who live in a community, defined in either geographical or social terms, are helped or encouraged to act together in tackling the problems which affect their lives has come to be called community development… The educational character of community development is therefore readily recognised and the youth and community service has long been involved in the process… Adult education should participate increasingly in community development and much more experimentation is needed". (paragraph 85)

The actual process specifics are more clearly identified in the WEA's document celebrating its centenary in 2003. "For the WEA the process of 'volunteering' begins with the student who freely chooses to participate in educational activity… The individual's life experiences are valued, their enthusiasm for learning is acknowledged and their collective participation in course activity creates 'added value' within the course and potentially beyond into wider society. In 2001 a research study… revealed a correlation between participation in the WEA and first time involvement in the community for those with no prior experience of community activism… the role of the tutor is vital in this process. A deeply held belief in the value of students and tutors working together through the practical democracy of the 'negotiated' curriculum remains a guiding principle of the WEA. A true understanding of the WEA's curriculum can only be appreciated if it is acknowledged that 'subject' and 'student' cannot be separated… (nor) the ability of students to exercise control over their own learning process", [A Very Special Adventure (2003)]

2.3 Community Development

In Gary Craig's paper for the OECD titled Community Capacity Building, Definitions, Scope, Measurements and Critiques (2005) he includes the following definition of community development:

"Community development is a way of strengthening civil society by prioritising the actions of communities, and their perspectives in the development of social, economic and environmental policy.

It seeks the empowerment of local communities, taken to mean both geographical communities, communities of interest or identity and communities organising around specific themes or policy initiatives.

It strengthens the capacity of people as active citizens through their community groups, organisations and networks; and the capacity of institutions and agencies (public, private and non-governmental) to work in dialogue with citizens to shape and determine change in their communities.

It plays a crucial role in supporting active democratic life by promoting the autonomous voice of disadvantaged and vulnerable communities.

It has a set of core values/social principles covering human rights, social inclusion, equality and respect for diversity; and a specific skills and knowledge base."

In the standing Conference for Community Development's "Strategic Framework for Community Development" (2001) it is noted that

"A community development approach starts with people in communities coming together (and) supports the connections that exist between them and the fact that individuals, groups and organisations need to learn from each other and co-operate if consistent and sustainable change is to be achieved".

It further states that:

"Informal education and mutual learning are important aspects of community development. Through their involvement in community groups and activities, people acquire and rediscover talents, skills, knowledge and understanding which enable them to take on new roles and responsibilities. This contributes to life-long learning by creating opportunities for reflection and evaluation of experience, allowing knowledge to be shared through critical dialogue and building confidence amongst people."

2.4 Literacies

In Britain the national literacy campaign began in the early 1970's.

In 1975 Helen Callaway stated that learner centred education had 'gained a fresh emphasis, a new vitality'. In her research she observed that 'many had used an anthropological perspective of working with the learners to discover their own reality and then using that "inside model" as a basis for teaching reading and writing. The model is also a way of discovering with the learners how they themselves perceive their problems and the relevance of literacy programmes to their lives. This concept of learner centredness was characterised by participation of a wide variety of learners in actively creating their own objectives, in moving away from teacher domination to the idea of the teacher being a resource in the activity of learning. The result was communication viewed as a two way process and the success of such programmes was measured in the "personal growth of the learners, their new perception of themselves and their enhanced capacities as active agents of change".

3. The definitive characteristics

Using the above definitions and statements it is possible to suggest that there are at least four distinctive and significant common strands across the four areas of work.

3.1 Voluntary association

The norm in all CL&D arenas is for the individual to have decided to become involved. Be it the young person in a youth programme, the community activist in a community council or the student in a community based health-awareness group, each has become involved on a voluntary basis. And, equally significantly, can elect to leave the group, organisation or programme of their own freewill. This reality places significant importance on the interpersonal relationships formed both within the group or organisation and, where relevant, with the community learning and development worker.

3.2 Starting where people are at

In all aspects of CL&D work the individual's life experiences are valued and respected. It is these lived experiences that are the starting point for the negotiation of the focus for attention between the worker and local person/student. This focus is neither pre-set nor 'sold' to the student. It grows from the fertile ground that is the collection of dynamic encounters between every human being and her/his total environment. This focus on the locally perceived issues and interests becomes the starting point for an exploration, considered action and self conscious reflection by all those involved.

3.3 The empowering process

The CL&D approach, through all of its strands, emphasises the empowerment of local communities; promotes growth of active citizens; tips the balance of power in favour of the local person young or older; and seeks to increase the control of each individual over their own learning process. In order to be effective in this regard the worker will constantly be assessing and re-assessing the nature of the impact not only she/he is having on the inter-personal relationships and the group dynamics, but also the impact of those taking part, through the various action and learning activities and moments, on themselves and each other. The CL&D approach requires the worker to use his/her authority ie legitimised power, to enable local people to discover and express their own power in order to act together to shape and determine change.

3.4 The dialogical relationship

As is demonstrated above it is not only in Freiran adult learning that the word 'dialogue' is used. The other areas of CL&D work and significantly the Scottish Executive's definition, include this key term.

Dialogue is a very particular process and practice. It is not something you do to another person. It is something you do with people. As Isaacs, in his book Dialogue, and the art of thinking together (1999) puts it, "Dialogue is a living experience of inquiry within and between people." A dialogical approach is consistent with what we know, as CL&D workers, about the condition of learning which Isaacs describes as:

"Settings in which people listen well to one another, respect difference, and can loosen the grip of certainty they might carry to see things from new perspectives … it challenges traditional hierarchical models and proposes a method for sustaining 'partnership' " between worker and local people, tutor and student and students/local people with each other. Isaacs concludes "dialogue can empower people to learn with and from each other".

3.5

Taken together as the cornerstones of the CL&D approach these represent a quite distinctive - which is different from superior - stance and style demonstrated by the CL&D worker. It might be suggested that this approach truly exhibits the best in 'community education' and 'community development'. The different elements, operating interdependently, represent a potent force greater than the sum of the individual parts. As such the CL&D approach makes a very particular contribution which is self-evidently based on a belief in the positive potential of human beings and the benefits achieved by learning and acting together.

4. The approach as a contested area

As was stated earlier, the Scottish Executive is keen to support the trend towards other public services taking on board 'this style of working'. Increasingly the CL&D approach is being adopted and adapted by colleagues from different professions and disciplines. Rarely, however, are all the elements able to be honoured as an integrated whole. For example, whilst Further Education staff can argue, with some justification, that students will attend voluntarily the syllabus followed is rarely negotiated. Similarly whilst group work methods are often admirably operated by school teaching and social work colleagues the elements of voluntary attendance and shifting the balance of power are often more problematic in most such contexts.

The nature of these developments is not, however, a feature to be fought against. The CL&D approach does not need defending against other partners' interest. But the approach arguably does need to be articulated clearly and demonstrated soundly. The focus should be on ensuring that that which is central to the CL&D approach is promoted and that the style and stance vis a vis, our belief in local people and our skills, theoretical understanding and practice ensure the continuing development and recognition of a quite distinctive educational and political contribution. In SALP's Learning Times (Spring 2007) Beryl Levinger is quoted thus: "Democracy and Learning have much in common. Both flow from the conviction that there are extraordinary possibilities in ordinary people. Both lead to unforeseen outcomes. Proficiency in both is dependent upon concrete action, reflection and dialogue." And Davies, quoted above, comments on the matter of unforeseen outcomes - "the actual course of its practice however is ultimately decided by human interactions which are always fluid, continually shifting and which therefore can offer no guarantee of reaching certain and final endpoints." It is incumbent therefore on all involved in the development of the distinctive CL&D approach to develop ever sharper qualitative measures which can illustrate, as Callaway suggests the "personal growth of the learners, their new perception of themselves and their enhanced capacities as active agents of change".

5. Summary

This short paper suggests that there is a quite distinctive CL&D approach which needs to be clearly articulated and promoted.

It further suggests that it is possible to root this approach within the foundations and definitions of community education and community development.

The paper identifies the four cornerstones of the CL&D approach which, if taken together, are the foundation of a significant contribution to learning and the development of an active and critically engaging democracy.

The paper acknowledges, and welcomes, the promotion of the CL&D approach within other work arenas but recognises that in a number of these contexts there will be a reduction in one or more of the distinctive elements of the approach. Under these circumstances there will need to be recognition of different expectations, and need for discussion amongst partners around potential mismatches of organisational cultures and patterns of relationships.

Finally there remains a continuing challenge to illustrate the effectiveness of the CL&D approach whilst recognising the reality of unforeseen circumstances, the fluidity of human interactions and the excitement of extraordinary possibilities.

References

Callaway, H (1975) Learner Centred Innovations in Literacy Work, Pergamon

Cooke, Anthony (2006) From popular enlightenment to lifelong learning NIACE

Craig, Gary (2005) Community Capacity Building, Definitions, Scope, Measurements and Critiques a paper prepared for the OECD, Prague, Czech Republic

Doyle, Mel (2003) A Very Special Adventure. The illustrated history of the Workers' Educational Association, WEA

Dialogue, and the art or thinking together (1999) William Isaacs, Doubleday, Random House Inc.

Scottish Education Department (1975) Adult Education. The Challenge of Change, HMSO

Scottish Executive (2002) Community Learning and Development: The Way Forward

Scottish Executive (2004) Working and learning together to build stronger communities

Standing Conference for Community Development (2001) Strategic Framework for Community Development

Walker, Maria (1994) A History of Adult Basic Education in Scotland, MEd thesis

Youthlink Scotland (2005) Statement on the nature and purpose of youth work

Chapter 2: Creating a Vibrant Profession

Contents

References

Introduction - Creating a Vibrant Profession

Empowered to Practice - The Future of Community Learning and Development Training in Scotland

(Scottish Executive, 2003)

Strengthening Standards - Improving the Quality of Community Learning and Development Service Delivery

(Report of Short Life Task Group Chaired by Professor Ted Milburn CBE, January 2006)

A Learning Culture for the CLD Sector in Scotland

(CLD Standards Council, 2011)

References

Core texts

Empowered to Practice (Scottish Executive, 2003)

Strengthening Standards: Improving the Quality of Community Learning and Development Service Delivery (Report of Short-life Task Group to Communities Scotland, 2006)

A Learning Culture for the CLD Sector in Scotland (CLD Standards Council 2011)

Related Content

Situating the Curriculum - Developing an Integrated Approach to Work-based and Part-time Training in CLD (The Scottish Community Learning and Development Work-Based and Part-time Training Consortium, 2007)

Youth Work National Occupational Standards (LLUK, 2012)

Community Development National Occupational Standards (LLUK, 2009)

Subject benchmark statement, youth and community work (Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, 2009)

Profile of the community learning and development workforce in Scotland, 2010, LLUK (2011)

CLD Standards Council - The Story So Far (2015)

A professional development framework for Scotland's adult literacies workforce (Education Scotland, 2012)

A Registration System for Community Learning and Development Practitioners in Scotland (CLD Standards Council, March 2013)

The Registration System FAQs (from Standards Council website)

The Approvals Suite (from Standards Council website)

Growing the Learning Culture in CLD - the Next Stage (CLD Standards Council, 2015) (Part 1 - Introduction; Part 2 - The Strategy Statement; Part 3 - The Strategy Diagram; Part 4 - The Framework for Action)

Creating a Vibrant Profession

Introduction by Mike Naulty

The issue of professional training in terms of the professionalisation of community education has exercised minds since its inception in the 1970's. Since that time, and perhaps before, with youth and community work training, there has been a debate about whether professionalisation, in this respect, is a good or bad thing. The arguments go something like this. For its supporters it means a set of professional values, principles and standards and an ethical code of practice governing and safeguarding all practitioners. For those against, such a radical process should not be bound by rules and regulations that are fundamentally about the protection of practitioners and therefore maintaining the status quo.

So can such views about the purpose and form of professionalisation be held together or find any common ground?

In attempting to address such a question this chapter takes a look at some of the key reports and events in the development of professional training since the last edition of The Making of an Empowering Profession[36], a journey that it could be argued is taking us from notions of employer-led training in the late 20th Century to practitioner-led transformational learning in the 21st Century.

With all the changes in the sector happening since Communities: Change through learning in 1998[37] there was a need to revisit professional training and a review committee was commissioned by the Scottish Executive in 2000 chaired by Fraser Patrick. The Community Education Training Review (CETR) was informed by research that was carried out by the Scottish Centre for Research in Education. The report Empowered to Practice: The future of Community Learning and Development Training in Scotland was produced in 2003 and laid out the Scottish Executive's response to the CETR recommendations. The CETR emphasised that CLD training should be based on a set of core knowledge, skills and competence based around informal education and social group work, with CLD having a key role in building community capacity. It recommended that consideration should be given to specialist as well as generic training in CLD. It supported the establishment of a national registration scheme, further investment in continuing professional development and more flexible routes into professional practice, including work-based learning as well as University based courses and enhanced certificated training provided by Further Education Colleges. It also recognised that the field within which CLD practitioners worked was widening and becoming more diverse and that there was a growing need for a professional body to encompass these interests beyond what had traditionally been the role of CeVe (CeVe had been established in 1989 to assure the quality of training through the endorsement of courses leading to qualifications in community education).

The Scottish Executive agreed with most of the CETR recommendations including the need for the establishment of a professional body for CLD in Scotland but emphasised the continuation of generic qualifying training. After a delay, a ministerial short-life working group chaired by Ted Millburn was given the task of advising the government on the establishment of "a practitioner-led body responsible for validation, endorsement, accreditation and registration for community learning and development, with enhanced capacity, building upon the work of CeVe".

The group produced the Strengthening Standards: Improving the Quality of Community Learning and Development Service Delivery report (2007), which contained detailed proposals for setting up a professional standards body for CLD. The proposed functions of the body included the establishment of a system for practitioner registration and the creation of "an effective framework for Continuing Professional Development". It was recommended that it "should relate to the broader field of CLD rather than community education as previously understood" and be linked to government while having independent status.

Approval of the report by the Scottish Government led to the establishment of an interim CLD Standards Council in 2007. The interim body worked towards the establishment of the full council which was launched in 2010 with the following responsibilities as delegated by the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning.

- Deliver a professional approvals structure for qualifications, courses and development opportunities for everyone involved in CLD

- Consider and establish a registration system available to practitioners delivering and active in CLD practice

- Develop and establish a model of supported induction, CPD and training opportunities

The CLD Standards Council since its inception in 2010 has been working under the above remit and has: established a voluntary membership and registration system; put in place the first CPD Strategy for CLD in Scotland (see below); worked with the field to review and update the CLD competence framework and to create a Code of Ethics for CLD (see Chapter 7); developed as a member-led organisation and is in discussion at the time of writing with the Scottish Government about its future governance as a body with greater independence from government.

The debate about the purpose of professionalisation continues within the CLD Standards Council today with echoes of the debates outlined in the first paragraph and anchored by the Millburn report's contention that CLD should identify itself as an inclusive profession built on a clear set of values, principles and ethics. A key question has been how to improve access to qualifying training for people with limited formal educational qualifications who have developed CLD skills through their involvement in the community.

Through the 1900's and early 2000's there had been experiments and initiatives in work-based and part-time models of professional qualifying training involving partnerships between work-based training agencies and academic institutions. Situating the Curriculum - Developing an Integrated Approach to Work-based and Part-time Training in CLD was published in 2007 drawing from the work of the Scottish Community Learning and Development Work-Based and Part-time Training Consortium; it advocated the advantages of work-based learning in CLD and the need for the continuing development of such models for initial professional training and continuing professional development.

As outlined in the general introduction, from 2007 there was increased investment from central government in what was described as the "upskilling" of the CLD workforce, and support for development of CPD partnerships across sectoral and geographical boundaries. During the same period, in recognition of the need of an ever diversifying field of practice for relevant and flexible qualifying courses and CPD, the CLD Standards Council produced its CPD strategy A Learning Culture for the CLD Sector in Scotland in 2011. It introduced a framework to help support practitioners and their employers with on-going CPD and i-develop as an electronic platform to support professional e-learning and exchange. This transformative approach to CPD is based around the idea of communities of practice where practitioners engage with each other in exploring and developing practice through the co-production and construction of relevant professional knowledge and skills. It is also an intention of the CLD Standards Council to link CPD to professional re-registration to enable the practitioner to demonstrate a commitment to the development of their professional learning and expertise.

In trying to square the circle of the professionalisation debate the approach to professional training and development that has been developed in CLD (and that continues to evolve) recognises the growing need in today's society for professional accountability to the public within a framework that is underpinned by practitioner autonomy; it sees the basis for this in CLD as a clear ethical code and practice standards that value and support community-based learning and development.

Empowered to Practice

(Scottish Executive, 2003)

The Future of Community Learning and Development Training in Scotland

FOREWORD

Community regeneration, community planning, lifelong learning, adult literacy and numeracy and developing youth policy present changing challenges to practitioners engaged in community learning and development. It is vital that, as with other professions, those working in the community learning and development field and those training to enter it are equipped with the knowledge, confidence and skills to provide the highest quality service to address a diverse range of needs and issues.

The Community Education Training Review Advisory Committee recognised these challenges and concluded that there was a need for a major overhaul of community education training to equip practitioners to address these ever more demanding tasks. The Scottish Executive endorses much of what the Committee recommended. As the Committee stated and as we agree:

The outcome of this Training Review, therefore, should not only be about producing better trained professionals, although that too must be achieved. There is, we believe, the opportunity to restructure the training and support for this area of work in a way that would enable the total workforce to demonstrate and promote inclusion and capacity building.

We are publishing this response alongside the new Working Draft Community Learning and Development Guidance. We emphasise within that Guidance the importance of the 'raising the skills' agenda for Community Learning and Development Partnerships and for the further and higher education and work-based training providers involved in professional training. Responsibility for training at all levels requires a partnership between the Scottish Executive, employers, training providers and practitioners.

The Scottish Executive wishes to see a strong, vibrant and inclusive community learning and development profession. We wish to see practice coherence, but also more effective interventions that recognise the increasingly diverse challenges for practitioners. We wish to see training programmes fully articulated within the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework and jointly designed and monitored by employers, practitioners and training providers.

May I take this opportunity to express my thanks to Fraser Patrick and the members of the Advisory Committee for the important work that they have done. My thanks also to the Community Education Validation and Endorsement committee, PAULO, the National Training Organisation for Community Learning and Development and to all those practitioners and training providers who have worked with us to get this review right. This is the sign of a confident sector capable of performing the essential function of self-review, upon which change can be built.

Community learning and development is high on the Scottish Executive's agenda. These are exciting times for those working in this field and for those thinking about entering this empowering profession.

Des McNulty, MSP,

Depute Minister of Social Justice

February 2003

The Scottish Executive response to the Community Education Training Review.

Introduction

The Community Education Training Review (CETR) was established in 2000 by the Deputy Minister for Education, in response to a recommendation in the 1998 Osler Report, Communities: Change Through Learning. A Ministerial Advisory Committee was appointed under the chairmanship of Fraser Patrick. The Scottish Council for Research in Education (SCRE) was commissioned to work with the Advisory Committee to:

1. Map training needs required for practice at qualifying and pre-qualifying levels.

2. Map current training at these levels.

3. Consult a range of stakeholder interests on changes required.

4. Identify opportunities for multi-disciplinary training.

5. Make recommendations on the future for qualifying and pre-qualifying training.

SCRE reported to the Advisory Committee in March 2001 in a report entitled Working for Democracy: Review of Community Education Training. Following consideration of the SCRE study, the Advisory Committee presented its recommendations to the Scottish Executive in July 2001. In December 2001 Ministers transferred responsibility for professional training in this area to the Scottish Executive Development Department. In April 2002 the Minister for Social Justice agreed to put the SCRE research and the Advisory Committee's recommendations out for consultation with employers, training providers, practitioners and other interests. The consultation process was organised by the Centre for Community Learning and Development at Communities Scotland between June and August 2002 and a report presented to the Scottish Executive in September 2002.

The Consultation process and this report are structured around the key recommendations made by the CETR Advisory Committee. These, together with a summary of the consultation responses are presented here. The Scottish Executive has considered each of the recommendations and the views of the stakeholder interests and its response is outlined below.

The policy and practice context

Over the period since the CETR, there have been substantial changes in the policy and practice context within which practitioners in this field are operating. In spring 2001 the Scottish Executive supported the launch of the Connecting Communities ICT training programme for community learning and development practitioners. In September of that year we announced our strategy with regards to adult literacy and numeracy, highlighting the urgent need for enhanced practice training in this area. In June 2002 we published our policy statement Community Learning and Development: The Way Forward together with the Community Regeneration Statement Better Communities in Scotland: Closing the Gap. Both highlighted the vital contribution that community workers can make towards the revitalisation of disadvantaged communities across Scotland.

In October we published Working Draft Community Planning Guidance to accompany the Local Government in Scotland Bill. This Guidance recognised the central role that community learning and development practitioners must play with regards to enhancing the engagement of communities in the community planning process. In November 2002 the Scottish Executive published its response to the Scottish Parliament's Inquiry into Lifelong Learning, recommending that a higher profile be given to community-based adult learning. During this period we also commissioned a review and mapping of youth work. In January 2003 we published Working Draft Guidance on Community Learning and Development, identifying practice priorities and highlighting the importance of continuing professional development for Community Learning and Development Partnerships.

These initiatives, together with the wider review of National Training Organisations, the establishment of Sector Skills Councils, and the development of the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework present enormous opportunities and challenges to the community learning and development profession.

The need for a strategic response

The CETR Advisory Committee recognised this changing context and in doing so presented a number of important recommendations to the Scottish Executive, and a number of challenges to the profession. These recommendations and the Scottish Executive's response to them form part of a coherent strategy for enhancing the quality and effectiveness of community learning and development practice. By moving forward on a number of fronts we intend to work with the profession to improve practice in a number of ways.

We have already accepted the Committee's recommendation to change the name of this field of practice and in doing so to build upon the best of community education and community development. Over the next twelve months we shall support projects concerned with expanding part-time and work-based training, fieldwork placements, the training of volunteers and other professionals engaged in community learning and development. We shall be supporting measures that enhance a common understanding of community learning and development and its profile at national and local levels; and we shall be establishing a National Development Project on the collection of management information together with associated training and practice support.

We wish to see:

- a vibrant and effective profession able to advocate for the contribution that it is able to make to community planning, community regeneration, lifelong learning and work with young people;

- high standards across the profession through the validation, endorsement and accreditation of training, including continuing professional development;

- wider access into the profession, with an expansion in work-based training opportunities;

- the introduction of a generic degree in community learning and development, to replace the degrees in community education; and

- recognition of HNC and HND level awards as vocational qualifications which, together with the degree and other programmes, are aligned to the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework.

We shall also be working with the profession to examine the issue of the Registration of practitioners.

These changes amount to the most radical shake-up in community education and community development training for many years. Community learning and development practice is now out of the shadows. The potential contribution that it can make has not been as high on the public policy agenda as it now is. This creates equally high expectations. The Scottish Executive recognises that in realising change on the ground there is a critical need to invest in the skills of practitioners at all levels, from volunteers to managers.

We wish to see a profession that is coherent but recognises diversity, able to respond to the needs of individuals and groups of people, young and old. Youth work, community work, community-based adult education and adult literacy work as well as the application of a community learning and development approach to other disciplines, such as health promotion or environmental education require to be of the highest quality if we are to improve people's life chance opportunities. Community learning and development practitioners intervene into people's lives. We therefore all have a responsibility for ensuring that the educational and development support given is the best.

Detailed response to CETR recommendations

CETR Recommendation 1. To change the name of the field of practice from community education to community learning and development.

Consultation response

The recommendation to change the name of this field of practice was not specifically consulted upon in the consultation on the CETR report, as the Scottish Executive had already announced in Community Learning and Development: the Way Forward in June that it had accepted this proposal. This decision has received widespread support.

Scottish Executive response to the CETR recommendation

This was announced in Community Learning and Development: The Way Forward in June 2002.

The term has already been widely used by the Scottish Executive, for example in relation to developing Community Planning, Community Regeneration and Lifelong Learning policies.

Communities Scotland has been remitted to co-ordinate marketing and profile raising across Scotland in association with the members of the Scottish Executive/CoSLA working group. It will also be working closely with the National Development Centres and local service providers.

The Scottish Executive/CoSLA working group is supporting Communities Scotland to profile a shared statement on community learning and development. This has been incorporated in the Working Draft Guidance for Community Learning and Development published in January 2003 and sent to all Community Planning Partnerships and key interests.

CETR Recommendation 2. To adopt the definition for community learning and development proposed by the Advisory Committee.

Consultation response

Though generally positive comment outweighs rejection across all the responses, the balance of opinion was that the definition proposed by the CETR should be revisited. The responses suggested that there should be increased reference to the values base and the purposes of community learning and development. The role of community learning and development in promoting learning should be more strongly reflected, together with more emphasis upon the community development dimension.

Scottish Executive response to CETR recommendation

We agree with the consultation response that there is a need for clearer definition of community learning and development.

We propose the following:

Community learning and development is:

"Informal learning and social development work with individuals and groups in their communities. It seeks to strengthen communities through enhancing people's confidence, knowledge and skills, organisational ability and resources."

We see community learning and development as being based on a commitment to the following:

- Empowerment - increasing the ability of individuals and groups to influence community circumstances;

- Participation - supporting people to take part in decision-making;

- Inclusion, equal opportunity and anti-discrimination, recognising that some people have more restricted opportunities and influence so should be given particular attention;

- Self-determination - supporting the right of people to make their own choices;

- Partnership - recognising that many agencies can contribute to community learning and development and should work together to make the most of the resources available and to be as effective as possible.

The definition will be highlighted in the new Guidance and in other policy statements by the Scottish Executive, by Communities Scotland and the Scottish Executive/CoSLA working group.

CETR Recommendation 3. CeVe competences should remain at the core of community learning and development. There is a need, however, to update the competency framework for qualifying and pre-qualifying training e.g. to add partnership working and ICT.

Consultation response

Respondents generally agreed that CeVe competences should remain core. However, there was a clear majority in favour of adapting them to current circumstances, policy and practice developments. Responses stressed that any revision should ensure coherence with other frameworks. The field should be involved in the revision.

Scottish Executive response to CETR recommendation

The existing competences are still broadly appropriate at degree level, but do require updating. An additional competency element should be added relating to multi-agency partnership working and Community Planning. Other skills relating, e.g. to social capital, ICT, LEAP, How Good is Our Community Learning and Development?, international education and literacy work require to be more explicitly incorporated within existing elements. With the combining of community education and community development, training programmes must ensure that individual and community capacity building competences are evidenced.

Pre-qualifying competencies require more radical change. The pre-qualifying HNC programmes should be renamed and recognised as vocational qualifications in their own right, as well as being a route to a qualification at degree level. We wish to see a clearer articulation between these qualifications and the degree level programme within the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework (SCQF), with credit recognition given to students who have completed HNC/D programmes seeking to continue their training at degree level.

There is a need to ensure that the overall framework supports access and progression and creates stronger links and coherence between competences and national occupational standards. The revised competences at all levels need to take into account the National Occupational Standards developed by PAULO, the National Training Organisation for Community Learning and Development and its successor body.

We agree with the CETR Advisory Committee that employers and practitioners should work more closely with training providers on course design and in course monitoring. We wish to see this partnership approach adopted for all levels of training and for field interests on course design and monitoring to be represented by Community Learning and Development Partnerships.

This will necessitate the revision of the training guidelines. The CeVe guidelines were last revised in 1995 by SCEC staff and a CeVe sub group, and included focus group and consultation meetings with key stakeholder interests such as employers and training providers. Professional interests should be engaged in the revision of the competences, with the aim of publishing the revised competences and guidelines by 2004.

The Scottish Executive is keen to see clear guidance to training providers on schemes for accrediting both APL and APEL, for credit accumulation and the articulation between levels of training. CeVe is already working closely with SCQF to ensure that all levels of training are in accordance with the new framework and the Scottish Executive strongly supports this. The SCQF will also ensure better articulation between the different levels of training.

CETR Recommendation 4. There should be an expansion in work-based and part-time routes for HNC and degree level programmes.

Consultation response

The balance of opinion was clearly in favour of expanding part-time and work-based modes. The consultation identified a range of practical issues that require to be addressed if the proposal is to be implemented. It suggests that having a range of routes is valued and highlights the significance of existing part-time and work-based provision.

Scottish Executive response to the CETR recommendation

Evidence from the NTO and employers indicates that there is a significant supply-side shortage of trained practitioners. The diverse range of employment opportunities for all areas of community learning and development practice necessitates an expansion in the number of students being trained at both levels. We agree that any expansion in overall training places should focus upon part-time and work-based modes.

The Scottish Executive is committed to widening access to professional training to people who would otherwise be unable to participate in full-time university-based programmes. In particular we wish to see wider opportunities for individuals who have been active within their community to access training at HNC/D and degree levels. The universities and such bodies as the Linked Work and Training Trust have developed flexible part-time and work-based modes over many years. We also welcome the work of the YMCA George Williams College in providing an open learning dimension in order to widen access particularly from rural areas. We wish to see HNC/D and degree level training providers working more closely together and with employers, practitioners and community interests in designing and delivering part-time and work-based programmes.

We wish to improve the articulation between levels of training and to enhance the influence of employers upon training programmes. We shall therefore invite employers, and HE institutions, FE colleges and work-based training providers to develop ways to expand opportunities for part-time and work-based training at HNC/D and degree levels. The Scottish Funding Councils for Further and Higher Education have strategic grant programmes to support innovative developments. The two councils will work with HE institutions, FE colleges and work-based training providers to encourage suitable proposals to these programmes in 2003, particularly for support with the costs of collaboratively developing or adapting flexible and fully articulated part-time and work-based courses.

CeVe, together with employers and the body expected to replace PAULO, the NTO for community learning and development, should examine the scale of employer demand and explore with the Scottish Executive, SFEFC and SHEFC the implications for a longer-term development strategy for work-based training.

CETR Recommendation 5. Besides a generic community learning and development degree there should be specialist degrees e.g. in youth work and community work, but underpinned by a common community learning and development core.

Consultation response

The balance of written responses was clearly opposed to specialist degrees. Feedback from the consultation seminars however, indicated significant support for increased emphasis on specialisms in some form, and the written responses were consistent with this. The consultation suggests that there is a need for some clarification of what is meant by specialisation and how it might best be achieved.

Scottish Executive response to the CETR recommendation

We wish to see the retention of a generic degree. Whilst the CETR Advisory Committee proposed retaining a generic as well as introducing more discrete degrees, the underpinning SCRE research did not provide evidence that employers wished to see the development of specialist undergraduate degrees. The consultation also confirmed that employers value retaining common training at degree level, but that more attention must be given within the degree programme to the realities of practice diversity.

Calls for more discrete training by employers and practitioners tend to be at a level below the degree, in particular in relation to adult literacy and numeracy work and for work with young people. This suggests that there is a need to address these employment needs at HNC/D level. With regard to the 'pre-qualifying' HNC programmes, we see a strong case for replacing the general 'Working with Communities' HNC with more focused HNC and HND programmes for professionals working with young people, adult learners, including adult literacy and in community action. Enhancing training at this level is, for example, seen as a key part of the Adult Literacy and Numeracy training strategy to drive up quality of provision across the country.

We also support the view expressed by employers and practitioners in the consultation, that there needs to be more specialised training available through Continuing Professional Development and at post qualifying levels. We wish to see guidance to training providers relating to post qualifying specialist training and the endorsement of post qualifying community learning and development training programmes, including CPD, for both core and other disciplines seeking to adopt this approach. The Scottish Executive would see this building upon the work developed by CeVe in relation to the endorsement of post-qualifying community practice training.

In summary, the Scottish Executive believes that graduate training programmes should remain of a generic nature, i.e. a degree in community learning and development. All graduate students must however, be able to demonstrate transferable skills applicable across the three main areas of practice (adult education, community work and youth work) and in different settings. It is recognised that for students completing a one-year community learning and development postgraduate certificate, it may not be possible to undertake fieldwork placements across all areas of practice. However, it is essential that all those qualifying at graduate level are able to evidence the ability to work with young people and adults, with individuals and groups.

The Scottish Executive strongly supports the related proposal made by the CETR that at all levels, wider opportunities for joint training with other disciplines such as teachers, librarians, college lecturers, health workers and social workers should be introduced to encourage a wider appreciation of collaborative working. We would wish to see a considerable expansion in joint training opportunities at all levels.

There will be a need for CeVe to hold discussions over the coming year with other professional bodies and training providers with regards to extending opportunities for joint training with other disciplines.

CETR Recommendation 6. There is a need to undertake a study on fieldwork placements.

Consultation response

Responses to the consultation confirm the view that there are significant issues that need to be addressed in relation to fieldwork placements. They suggest concerns over the consistency of standards in provision of placements, and a commitment to contribute to addressing these. There was considerable support for a review.

Scottish Executive response to CETR recommendation

The fieldwork placement component of training is vitally important. The SCRE research confirmed that there are significant supply-side problems in securing sufficient fieldwork practice placements, particularly with regard to the voluntary sector, together with a shortage of appropriately trained fieldwork supervisors. The current pattern of 'singleton' supervisors may not be the most cost-effective approach and consideration should be given to establishing shared brokerage units able to work on behalf of all the community learning and development partners within a Community Planning area.

The Scottish Executive will commission a study to identify these issues in more detail and to identify practical options for expanding the supply of fieldwork placements, including identifying any long-term cost implications. The report of this study shall be completed by 2004.

CETR Recommendation 7. There is a need for an independent national body with an enhanced remit and functions building upon the role of CeVe.

Consultation response

The overwhelming view was that a national body is needed, particularly to ensure quality and standards in training, and articulation of courses. There was a strong wish to see the body taking on a more pro-active and developmental role, and that it should be properly resourced and have adequate authority for these purposes. Concrete suggestions as to where the national body should sit are not a strong feature in the responses, other than indications in general terms that it should be independent.

Scottish Executive response to CETR recommendation

The Scottish Executive wishes to see a practitioner-led body responsible for validation, endorsement, accreditation and registration for community learning and development, with enhanced capacity, building upon the work of CeVe.

The Scottish Executive will establish a steering group, broadly reflective of employer, practitioner, training and other professional interests, to consult and make recommendations as to the status, location, remit and governance of the body. It is expected that the national body will be operational by early 2004. In the interim CeVe shall continue to fulfil its current role.

CETR Recommendation 8. There is a need to introduce a probationary period for all newly-qualified staff.

Consultation response

Though strong views were evident on either side, there was no clear consensus for or against the introduction of a probationary period. The value of greater support for new workers was generally accepted, but probation, as a method for delivering this was not.

Scottish Executive response to CETR recommendation

The Scottish Executive is not yet convinced of the need for this. An induction programme and CPD opportunities, provided by employers should support all newly-qualified staff.

CETR Recommendation 9. There is a need to introduce a national registration system for all qualified professional staff.

Consultation response

Support for a registration scheme and its benefits were definitely articulated. A clear majority was evident in the written responses, with the seminars more ambiguous. Respondents wanted to see any development addressing the perception that it might be seen as exclusive. Nonetheless, the consultation indicated a positive desire to explore the potential of registration, and supported the development of concrete proposals.

Scottish Executive response to CETR recommendation

The Scottish Executive supports the introduction of a system of registration. The Scottish Executive will commission a feasibility study to identify the most appropriate registration system, building upon experience elsewhere, including examining options as to whether such a system can become self-financing.

At this time it is not possible to identify the long-term operational costs, including staff, required to administer such a scheme.

CETR Recommendation 10. There is a need to enhance CPD (Continuing Professional Development) opportunities for practitioners and trainers and to put in place a system to give credit to CPD programmes.

Consultation response

A wide range of CPD priorities was identified. The most frequently cited were around aspects of management, partnership working, new policy developments and supervision/fieldwork teaching. This suggests a dual approach in terms of provision being met by local employers, with some issues the subject of national development support. The responses indicated strongly that CPD should be viewed as a priority area and that resource and access issues should be addressed. The responses indicate wish to see CPD programmes credit rated within SCQF.

Scottish Executive response to CETR recommendation

Investing in CPD is essential to the change agenda. We wish to see Community Learning and Development Partnerships devising and providing shared CPD opportunities for staff at all levels, including volunteer activists and to encourage the sharing of CPD investment. We suggest that consideration be given by local Partnerships to the establishment of local joint training committees to address common training issues and that FE/HE and work-based training providers be invited to join these. The Working Draft Guidance on Community Learning and Development proposes that measures to address the skills agenda need to be contained within all Community Learning and Development Strategies.

The Scottish Executive agrees with the CETR that it is equally essential that community learning and development training providers, engaged in the teaching and fieldwork supervision of students, receive regular CPD opportunities. The Scottish Executive is particularly keen to see an extension of secondment arrangements whereby field practitioners are brought into the teaching process and lecturers are encouraged to update on field practice. We would wish to see the national body providing guidance on this to training providers and employers.

We agree that CPD programmes, where at all possible, should be credit rated within the SCQF system. The QAA has indicated its keen-ness to work with CeVe on CPD/post-qualifying provision, with the application of credit rating of various specialist post-qualifying programmes. We would wish to see all endorsed CPD programmes being brought within the SCQF.

CETR Recommendation 11. There is a need for a further study to clarify the extent of training need within the voluntary sector.

Consultation response

There was a general acceptance that training opportunities needed to be open to as wide a range of individuals and organisations as possible, alongside a recognition of the resource implications of this, particularly for voluntary/community groups. There was a significant current of opinion relating to the needs of a range of workers not included in the CETR, in particular volunteer staff. The consultation indicated significant support for further exploration of training issues, particularly as these relate to building access to the profession.

Scottish Executive response to the CETR recommendation

We accept that there is a need for a mapping and training needs analysis with regards to volunteer staff and staff from related disciplines and we shall commission such a study. We do not believe that there is a need for a further study specifically relating to the voluntary sector. However, we are concerned from the findings of the NTO, that a lower proportion of staff within the voluntary sector employed in community-learning and development-type roles, are professionally trained in this work. We would encourage voluntary sector employers to release their unqualified staff to obtain recognised training, through part-time work-based routes.

The Scottish Executive will commission a mapping study and training needs analysis of volunteer staff and staff from related disciplines. Report to be completed by early 2004.

CETR recommendation 12. There is a need for up-to-date information regarding the overall labour market and numbers trained.

Consultation response

This recommendation was not included in the consultation.

Scottish Executive response to the CETR recommendation

CeVe should liaise with employers, training providers and the successor body to PAULO regarding the collection and publication of annual data for the community learning and development labour market and numbers trained.

We agree with the CETR that more robust data requires to be collected regarding the employment destination of students after graduation. CeVe should require all training providers to collect and submit annual information about numbers graduating and their employment destination after graduation.

This information is, in part, collected by the NTO and will transfer to its successor body. To date, PAULO and CeVe have worked closely, with the former responsible for the collection of labour market information and for the setting of occupational standards. We would expect to see a close working relationship between the two bodies.

The Scottish Executive will establish a National Development Project in 2003 on management information in community learning and development. This will aim to develop a coherent system for the collection and analysis of input, output, process and outcome data relating to community learning and development across Scotland.

Strengthening Standards

Improving the Quality of Community Learning and Development Service Delivery

(Report of Short Life Task Group Chaired by Professor Ted Milburn CBE, January 2006)

Contents

- Foreword

- Preface

- Conclusion and Summary of Recommendations

- Policy and Practice Context

- Rationale and Purpose

- Functions

- Governance

- Annex 1 Implementation Issues

- Annex 2 List of Members

- Annex 3 Glossary

Foreword

I am delighted to present this report, giving recommendations of the Short Life Task Group. This report carries the full agreement and support of all members of the Group.

I would like to thank all the members who have enthusiastically contributed to the work of the Short Life Task Group, bringing exceptional experience and breadth of professional judgment to its work.

The Short Life Task Group members were :

Ian Ball, David Bottomley, Sue Bruce, Celia Carson, Derek Crichton, Philomena de Lima, Phil Denning, Anne Grindley, Rona Gunnell MBE, Iain Hair, Pete Hamilton, Maureen Mallon, Stewart Murdoch, Bridget McConnell, Felicity McLelland, Clive Rowlands and Jayne Stuart. The Group was supported by Anne Jackson and Colin Ross of Learning Connections, Communities Scotland.

A full list of the membership of the Short Life Task Group and the current post of each member is given as Annex 2 to the report.

My thanks also to colleagues in CeVe who have maintained their role and the work of the Community Education Validation and Endorsement Committee during this time of transition.

Professor Ted Milburn CBE

January 2005

Preface

The announcement to establish a Short Life Task Group (SLTG), chaired by Professor Ted Milburn CBE was made by the Deputy Minister for Communities, Mary Mulligan, in May 2004. The remit of this SLTG was to give advice to Ministers regarding the establishment of a practitioner-led body responsible for validation[38], endorsement, accreditation and registration for community learning and development, with enhanced capacity, building upon the work of CeVe (Community Education Validation and Endorsement).

(Empowered to Practice, February 2003)

The Short Life Task Group was established in June 2004 and held its first meeting in August 2004. We accepted an ambitious timescale from the Minister and agreed to report by early 2005.

The SLTG recognised the critical task ahead in light of an ever changing landscape, in particular the implications of:

- the community planning agenda and regeneration priorities;

- the replacement of the National Training Organisations (NTOs) by Sector Skills Councils (SSCs) which built on the strengths of the NTO network, and the establishment of a Lifelong Learning Sector Skills Council (LLUK), a body with cross-sectoral responsibilities including the Community Learning and Development (CLD) sector;

- the ongoing consultation regarding a professional body for the FE sector in Scotland; and

- increasing public expectations regarding quality and standards.

The SLTG now sees the opportunity to build on the distinctive tradition in the field of community learning and development established by practitioners, trainers and employers in Scotland. The SLTG considers that this body of experience has already made a contribution greater than its scale and has the potential to offer still more.

CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

The SLTG concluded that the establishment of a professional body for the community learning and development (CLD) sector would meet pressing public policy needs and make an essential contribution to building key assets for Scotland. Our recommendations relate firstly to the rationale and purpose of the proposed new body, secondly to its functions and lastly to its governance.

The SLTG recommends that:

Rationale and Purpose

1. A professional body specifically for the community learning and development sector should be established and the central role of the CLD professional body should be to ensure high standards of practice in the sector. (Page 11)

Functions

2. The CLD professional body should undertake the approval of training courses. This function should contribute to ensuring high standards and support inclusion and progression; and should relate to the broader field of CLD rather than community education as previously understood. (Page 14)

3. The CLD professional body should develop an articulated framework of qualifications, linking with the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework

(SCQF), which provides pathways and progression through learning within the sector. (Page 17)

4. The CLD professional body should work with employers and other key stakeholders in CLD to create an effective framework for Continuing Professional Development (CPD). (Page 19)

5. The CLD professional body should establish an inclusive and effective system of practitioner registration as an essential contribution to ensuring high standards of practice in CLD. (Page 21)

6. The CLD professional body should consider the introduction of a recognised system of supported induction for CLD practitioners, taking into account the need for an appropriate distribution of responsibilities between employers, employees and others, and to make a credible contribution to quality assurance. (Page 25)

Governance

7. The CLD professional body should be governed by a Board whose members would be nominated by stakeholders and appointed by the Minister to ensure that the composition of the Board reflects the range of interests within the CLD field. (Page 27)

8. The CLD professional body should be linked to government through appropriate legal, financial and managerial mechanisms, while having independent status and the power to generate income through the exercise of its functions. (Page 29)

POLICY AND PRACTICE CONTEXT

'Working and Learning Together to Build Stronger Communities' (Scottish Executive Guidance for Community Learning and Development, January 2004) builds on best practice, which has itself responded to a policy agenda that has increasingly highlighted the need for a strong, coherent community learning and development contribution.

The Guidance both insists that community learning and development should be planned and delivered on a partnership basis and underpins community learning and development strategies and plans. Following from 'Communities Change through Learning' (Scottish Office Report, 1998), there was growing recognition of the role community learning and development skills, methods and approaches could play in a widening range of settings and disciplines.

'Communities Change through Learning' emphasised the potential contribution of community learning and development to key policy outcomes. At a wider policy level, engaging communities actively in their own regeneration, broadening access to lifelong learning among traditional non-participants and supporting positive development and participation by young people were all becoming increasingly urgent policy concerns for the Scottish Executive.

The national priorities for education emphasise the development of active citizenship. 'Life through Learning: Learning through Life' - the lifelong learning strategy for Scotland (Scottish Executive, 2003) - identifies community learning and development as a key means of widening access to learning, particularly among the most excluded people and traditional non-participants.

In this context, it has become crucial to ensure dynamic, coherent support for learning and action, in and by communities. This underpinned the Community Education Training Review Advisory Committee's proposal to merge the activities of community education and community development and 'redefine the product' as community learning and development. This proposal was endorsed both in 'Community Learning and Development: The Way Forward' (Scottish Executive, 2002) and in the Scottish Executive's response to the Community Education Training Review, 'Empowered to Practice: The Future of Community Learning and Development Training in Scotland'

(Scottish Executive, 2003).

The importance of all of these policy developments for community learning and development has been brought into sharp relief by the emergence of Community Planning, in particular the statutory requirements on public agencies to engage with communities in the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003 and the close association of community learning and development with community regeneration as set out in the Scottish Executive regeneration statement: ''Better Communities in Scotland: Closing the Gap' (2002).

Statutory guidance on the Local Government in Scotland Act states that: 'Community learning and development can play a central role in supporting the engagement of communities (including young people) in the Community Planning process.'

In placing the building of 'social capital' within communities (their motivation, confidence, knowledge, skills and networks) alongside the provision of quality public services as the key to community regeneration, 'Better Communities in Scotland: Closing the Gap' highlighted the vital role that community learning and development can play in linking personal development with the building of wider community capacity.

In parallel with the influence of regeneration policies on community learning and development as a whole, the emergence of the national literacies strategy ('Adult Literacy and Numeracy in Scotland', Scottish Executive 2001) has given major impetus and focus for adult learning in particular. The focus of the strategy is on empowering individuals and communities to apply literacies competence in the contexts not only of personal and family life but also in work, education and civic engagement. This social practices model, reflected in Scottish Executive ETLLD Circular 1/01 ("Action Plans on Adult Literacy and Numeracy"), highlights the importance of literacies work being developed as an integral part of wider strategies for community learning and development and of the drive to regenerate communities.

'Working and Learning Together to Build Stronger Communities' seeks to bring together all these developments in policy and practice to create a 'long-term framework for the development of community learning and development'.

The national priorities for community learning and development focus on achievement through learning for adults, achievement through learning for young people and achievement through building community capacity. They make clear both the continuity with the agenda set out in Scottish Office Education Department Circular 4/99 and the significantly extended expectations (and opportunities) represented by the shift to 'community learning and development'.

RATIONALE AND PURPOSE

Recommendation 1: A professional body specifically for the community learning and development sector should be established and the central role of the CLD professional body should be to ensure high standards of practice in the sector.

Current Context

The SLTG recognises and welcomes the current demand for skilled and qualified community learning and development workers. The regeneration and community planning agenda places communities at the centre of the planning process, building community engagement opportunities, involving people and communities in decision making processes and building sustainable structures. In this context, the consistent availability of a workforce with community learning and development skills is now necessary for the delivery of policy objectives. This has resulted in unprecedented demands for staff skilled in CLD approaches and an expansion of the range of settings in which community learning and development skills are needed including, for example, health and partnership work. As a consequence, the need for policy makers, employers and communities to be assured that the appropriate skills are reliably available, has been highlighted.

SLTG Conclusions

The SLTG concludes that a highly skilled CLD workforce is needed to meet the new agenda, working closely with others while delivering specific roles. It identifies a need to clarify the place of the sector within the new agenda, raise awareness of the key roles that CLD plays and promote the profession.

The SLTG considered the need to build confidence as well as credibility within and around the sector at the same time as protecting the interests of participants. We concluded that a key gap in current arrangements is the lack of a robust process to determine the "fitness to practise" of those completing CLD qualifications and the "fitness to continue to practise" of those working in the field.

We acknowledged the significant work already undertaken and currently in progress, to ensure that CLD as a profession operates in an inclusive way, that there are widely-known and workable routes for access to and progression within the sector and that skills acquired in a range of contexts can be recognised. However, we concluded that currently there is no body with sufficient authority to ensure that these essential efforts can be effectively carried forward.

The SLTG considers that ensuring high standards within the sector is at the core of the remit it was given. We view this as essential in light of the increasing need for CLD to play a central part in delivering Scottish Executive, community planning, health improvement and local government priorities and the increasing emphasis in public policy on empowering communities and widening access to lifelong learning.

The SLTG considered how these needs and issues could be addressed in the context of the remit it had been given. We concluded unanimously that establishing the professional body for the CLD sector provides the best available means of doing so and indeed that there is a clear and pressing need to establish such a body. The reasons for reaching this conclusion can be summarised as follows:

1. To establish and further develop the contribution of CLD to key public policy objectives and fully realise the further potential contribution.

2. To contribute to building the capacity of communities by supporting inclusive access routes to training and qualifications.

3. To ensure consistent high standards of practice in CLD.

4. To establish clear minimum standards of practice for the CLD workforce and ensure that these can be enforced where necessary.

5. To ensure that training for CLD is effectively regulated.

6. To ensure that regulation of the CLD workforce and training is consistent with arrangements for other public service disciplines.

7. To assure the Scottish Executive, employers and the general public in relation to conduct and practice in the CLD sector and on that basis, build the credibility of the sector.

8. To increase the effectiveness of the CLD sector through all of the above and build its professional self-confidence.

9. To secure the better use and development of available skills by assisting with recruitment and progression.

10. To establish a distinctive type of professional body, promoting both high standards and inclusiveness, with the potential for resulting wider benefit.

FUNCTIONS

Approval of Training Courses

Recommendation 2: The CLD professional body should undertake the approval of training courses. This function should contribute to ensuring high standards and support inclusion and progression; and should relate to the broader field of CLD rather than community education as previously understood.

Current Context

CeVe (Community Education Validation and Endorsement) currently has responsibility for assuring the quality of training in the CLD field through endorsement of relevant training courses. The existing CeVe guidelines, and the practice competences that they incorporate, were developed before 1997 and prior to the development of the current policy agenda. Since the Non-Departmental Public Body (NDPB) Community Learning Scotland was disbanded in 2002, staffing support for CeVe has been temporarily located within Communities Scotland. This raises potential conflict of interest issues and is unsustainable in the longer term in order to protect the independence of function.

SLTG Conclusions

The creation of the CLD professional body would provide an ideal means of carrying out the endorsement or approval function, updating guidelines for training courses and linking these responsibilities with the other functions outlined in this report, to create an integrated and effective approach to ensuring high standards of practice.

The SLTG agrees that approval rather than endorsement is the preferred term. The new body will be committed to raising standards within the sector including raising standards of CPD. A rigorous process for approval of training courses plays a key role in delivering this core purpose. The SLTG recognises developments within the sector at this time which may influence the delivery of this function particularly with regard to the evolving Lifelong Learning Sector Skills Council (LLUK). However it is the strong conviction of the SLTG that the professional body, in understanding the distinctive Scottish context and practice, would have an ongoing role in delivering this function of approval. If approval were to be carried out by another body, effective partnership arrangements will be essential.

Approval of courses should:

- Reflect employer requirements and the expectation of the Scottish Executive in relation to newly qualifying workers.

- Relate to training for practice in the broader field of CLD rather than community education as previously understood; agreement on the competences for this broader field requires to be established. The existing CeVe competences for community practice and development and recent development work on the competences required for community regeneration (Creating a Learning Landscape, Scottish Centre for Regeneration, 2004) have the potential to make a valuable contribution to this debate.

- Address both the need to drive up standards and to support inclusion through enhanced opportunities for access and progression including recognition of prior learning and experience.

Approval should be closely linked with a range of roles for which the new body may be asked to assume responsibility:

- Identifying the attributes expected of those who obtain qualifications (e.g. through benchmark statements of the sort currently in place for teachers and social workers);

- Development of a CLD qualifications framework linked to the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework (SCQF).

Approval, and this wider set of processes, requires to be designed to support progression in an integrated way across different institutions and the range of entry, delivery and progression routes. This will include approval of individual modules and of CPD.

In developing approval mechanisms, the new body will build on positive experience gained through CeVe and identify the scope for innovation.

Pathways to Learning and Qualifications

Recommendation 3: The CLD professional body should develop an articulated framework of qualifications, linking with the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework (SCQF), which provides pathways and progression through learning within the sector.

Current Context

A CeVe-endorsed BA degree in Community Education, or the equivalent post-graduate award, is the qualification required (or at least preferred) by many employers, in particular local authorities, for professional level CLD posts. Degree courses currently include both full-time programmes and a variety of work-based and part-time modes. CeVe also endorses a number of HNC courses at what is currently described as "pre-qualifying" level and courses designed for part-time and sessional staff.

At UK level, National Occupational Standards are in place for Youth Work and Community Development Work and some use has been made in Scotland of SVQs for these parts of the CLD sector. For adult literacy and numeracy in Scotland, new qualifications for practitioners are already being developed within the SCQF.

The SLTG welcomes the significant work currently being carried out to support the wider use and recognition of learning using the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework. Work is being carried out with Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), Further Education Colleges and in relation to community-based learning supported by CLD.

SLTG Conclusions

The SLTG believes that the creation of a coherent qualifications framework is crucial to facilitate access and progression and so make best use of the skills and potential available. CeVe has recognised this issue, but in the SLTG's view, has lacked the clear remit and authority required to progress it. A CLD professional body would fill this gap in a positive and appropriate way.

Credit rating and supporting articulation of learning has the support of the SLTG in recognition of their importance in raising the standards of CLD. There is a strong case for the proposed new body having the role of developing an articulated framework of qualifications linking with SCQF that provides pathways and progression through learning within the sector. There is SLTG support for this role. Similar recognition of qualifications is in place among other professional bodies.

This role would support the establishment of levels of qualification for differing types of CLD posts using the SCQF. Issues around the resource implications of this role would need to be accounted for although we are advised that this would not be resource intensive.

The SLTG's view of the urgent need to improve provision for CPD in the CLD sector is outlined under Recommendation 4. Establishing a viable system of approval for CPD is an essential step towards achieving this. At the same time, the experience of CeVe confirms that the provision of guidelines for the approval of CPD is insufficient in itself to make an effective impact in this area and that it is essential that appropriate inducements and/or sanctions are put in place.

Others, in particular employers, training institutions and practitioners themselves, have important roles and responsibilities for CPD, but in the SLTG's view, they are not in a position to take a lead in the development and improvement process required. The CLD professional body would provide a means of co-ordinating development of provision and quality assurance, and ensuring that CPD is linked effectively to other aspects of the agenda for ensuring high standards of practice.

Continuing Professional Development

Recommendation 4: The CLD professional body should work with employers and other key stakeholders in CLD to create an effective framework for Continuing Professional Development (CPD).

Current Context

The SLTG recognises that the CLD sector is making an important and increasing contribution to key public policy agendas. The SLTG also recognises that investment is required for CPD in light of the radically changed demands on, and increased expectations of, the sector and believes that addressing this issue is a matter of urgency.

The rapidly changing policy agenda and the resultant change in expectations of those working in what is now the CLD field has created, in the SLTG's view, an urgent need to redress an historic shortfall in the provision of CPD. The CLD professional body would be ideally placed to drive forward action in this area, initially by establishing effective quality assurance of CPD opportunities through an approval process.

SLTG Conclusions

The new body, focused on ensuring high standards in the CLD sector, would be ideally placed to support implementation of public policy by providing the impetus for change, expansion and improvement in provision of CPD.

The SLTG recommends that the new body should work with employers and other key stakeholders in CLD to create an effective framework for CPD linked to the SCQF. The existing CeVe guidelines on CPD could form an appropriate starting point for this. The framework should establish clear responsibilities in relation to CPD and means for ensuring that they are carried out.

The SLTG advises that the professional body should include the following considerations in developing the framework:

- Whether there should be a defined entitlement to adequate and appropriate CPD, supported by inspection of employers, taking account of the varying sizes and circumstances of employer organisations and the implications of CPD entitlement.

- Whether there should be requirements on individuals to undertake appropriate CPD as a condition of continuing registration.

- How responsibilities for CPD should be shared between employers and individual practitioners.

- Establishing a broad definition of CPD that allows for the inclusion of both accredited and non-accredited learning and other relevant experience (for example, of student supervision, mentoring of other practitioners, or taking on the role of associate inspector).

- The relevance of generic skills such as project management for CLD practitioners.

- Identification/development of mechanisms such as Personal Learning Plans to plan, record and monitor CPD.

The SLTG noted that ensuring standards for CPD are consistently met requires continuous attention. In addition to consideration of mechanisms such as those referred to above, the SLTG believes that the new body would have an important role in monitoring the effectiveness of the framework for CPD once in place.

Registration of Practitioners

Recommendation 5: The CLD professional body should establish an inclusive and effective system of practitioner registration as an essential contribution to ensuring high standards of practice in CLD.

Current Context

The creation and maintenance of a register of accredited practitioners is an established mechanism, in other fields, for assuring minimum standards. Such a register requires clear criteria for inclusion and processes for removal from the register in the event of a practitioner not meeting defined requirements. It has the added dimension of building the confidence both of the public and of the professional group.

The social care sector has developed a model of registration at a range of levels that the SLTG considers offers some pointers for a viable and appropriate approach in the CLD context. Empowerment and inclusiveness are central to the mission of CLD and the SLTG considers that the professional body for the sector should reflect this in the way that it carries out its functions. To combine raising standards with the CLD professional body's role in registration of practitioners would require the development of a framework of standards and registration at several levels to ensure the range of practitioners currently using CLD skills and methods are included. At the same time, the body would promote recognition of the complexity of the tasks involved and the need for a substantial body of staff qualified to SCQF level 9 (degree level or equivalent) in CLD.

The theme of ensuring high standards has run throughout the SLTG's work. We see it as vital to emphasise the key role required of CLD, the complex set of skills required to deliver this role effectively and the important asset that exists in the form of the existing and latent expertise available across sectors and in a wide range of contexts. The SLTG recognises that within that overall context, a key aspect of quality assurance is to define and assure minimum standards.

Increasingly, other disciplines with which CLD staff work closely have in place systems to define, assess and recognise "fitness to practise"; establishing registers of practitioners is a key mechanism to match this expectation.

SLTG Conclusions

In order to be effective in raising standards, the new body needs to have a role in registration and deregistration of staff. Consideration of sanctions would be required, as well as the consequences of not being registered.

The SLTG concludes that assuring "fitness to practise" is as important for the CLD sector as it is for many other sectors, including social care and education in schools; it therefore unanimously supports the introduction of a system of registration of workers within the sector. It considers that other initiatives to ensure high standards will be undermined if this issue is not addressed and sees the need for an appropriate system of registration for the CLD sector as a core reason for supporting the creation of a new body. It also considers that systems in place for teaching and the social care sector, among others, provide models that can inform the development of a system appropriate for the CLD sector.

The SLTG further concludes that a credible system for assuring continuing "fitness to practise" must provide robust protection against poor practice where it exists (and be seen to do so). It advises that the CLD professional body should consider mechanisms such as a requirement for periodic re-registration (with appropriate criteria, such as having undertaken a prescribed amount of CPD), deregistration and the creation of a deregistration list, where an individual had been removed from the register for example for reasons of unprofessional conduct.

The SLTG recognises that a number of practical issues require to be addressed in establishing mechanisms such as these, including adequate insurance cover and links to Disclosure Scotland.

The SLTG identifies the need for registration of staff in the CLD sector to be developed and implemented in ways that fully reflect the diversity of the sector, and sees this as a priority task of the new body. The system for registration will need to be inclusive of the wide range of people who use CLD skills and approaches, including professionals in a range of disciplines, as well as properly reflecting the skills of those professionally qualified in CLD. The SLTG concludes from this, that different levels and types of registration need to be defined, including both full and associate membership. It also recognises that developing a system for practitioner registration would be a major task for a newly-formed CLD professional body and that it may need to phase implementation. The SLTG recommends that the first priority should be to put in place arrangements to register practitioners qualified in CLD.

In summary, the SLTG concludes with the strong expectation that all publicly funded organisations that employ CLD staff would wish to support registration and that:

1. The development of a viable and appropriate system of registration is a key means of building the CLD sector as an asset for Scotland.

2. The need for such a system is one of a number of very strong arguments for the creation of a new body in this field.

3. Developing and maintaining the system of registration would be a key element in the added value delivered by a new body.

4. An appropriate system of registration would be valuable to government, employers, individual practitioners of CLD in all settings, communities and participants in CLD.

5. An appropriate system of registration for the CLD sector should:

- Assure the Scottish Executive, employers and the general public that defined minimum standards of practice are in place and effectively enforced;

- Address the diversity of the sector;

- Make membership available at various levels;

- Ensure that registration is mandatory at certain levels and/or for certain posts.

The SLTG considered the registration of posts: that is, defining qualifications suitable to a particular post, in ways that include taking account of individual modules and learning progression. The SLTG concludes that this has the potential of being a new and dynamic way of supporting training, which may be supportive of employers' need for clear definition and offer protection against over-regulation.

The SLTG recognised the current issues of staff shortages within the CLD sector, reflecting the fact that many CLD qualified staff are employed by other agencies involved in a wide range of partnership work across Scotland (which in turn confirms the need and demand for CLD skills in a wide variety of contexts). Links between registration and the recognition of CPD were identified as a key issue in this context.

Supported Induction

Recommendation 6: The CLD professional body should consider the introduction of a recognised system of supported induction for CLD practitioners, taking into account the need for an appropriate distribution of responsibilities between employers, employees and others, and to make a credible contribution to quality assurance.

Current Context

The SLTG considered the value of a probationary or supported induction period for staff in the CLD sector. Introduction of a supported induction period including access to appropriate support and CPD would provide employers with a means of ensuring that people qualifying from CLD courses can function effectively in the work situation.

In particular, the SLTG identified the following key issues in relation to supported induction:

- The process is best described as supported induction rather than the more traditional term probation;

- There is a need to ensure that appropriate CPD is available;

- There is a need to ensure the process is rigorous enough to have real impact and credibility;

- Relevant experience gained in contexts other than paid employment in CLD requires to be taken into account;

- Consideration of the most appropriate model for the CLD sector, taking account of:

- different ways of distributing responsibilities (including the role of training institutions and peer practitioners as well as employers);

- different types of relationship between completing initial qualification and full "registration" (consider practice-based routes);

- the potential for "mixed" models offering different options suitable for differing circumstances and interests;

- the cost implications for employers.

SLTG Conclusions

The SLTG concludes that a supported induction period for staff in the CLD sector would have the potential to contribute significantly to ensuring high standards of practice and increasing the credibility of CLD.

In summary, the SLTG supports the introduction of a probationary or supported induction period for staff in the CLD sector in principle, while advising that a number of important issues should be addressed before this is put into practice. The SLTG considers and sees merit in, the concept of a pre-registration supported induction period. It suggests regional consortia might provide a more appropriate means of delivering this than locating responsibility with individual employers. The SLTG recognises that arrangements for a supported induction period would need to work in a way that takes account of work-based models of training and any expansion of these, but considers that this is feasible.

We recognise that significant issues need to be addressed to ensure that a system of supported induction is feasible in practice, equitable for staff and has a positive impact on recruitment.

GOVERNANCE

Governing Body

Recommendation 7: The CLD professional body should be governed by a Board whose members would be nominated by stakeholders and appointed by the Minister to ensure that the composition of the Board reflects the range of interests within the CLD field.

Current Context

Clearly defined arrangements for the governance of the proposed new body are important.

SLTG Conclusions

Having considered various alternatives, the SLTG supports a body governed by a Board, whose membership includes practitioners and other stakeholders, and whose members are accountable for carrying out the body's agreed functions. It recommends that the composition of the Board should reflect the range of interests and strands of practice within the CLD field. The Board should be responsible for regularly engaging, through its members, with the wider interest groups of which they are a part, but Board members should not seek to act as representatives of their particular interest groups. The SLTG also recommends that the process for appointment to the Board should be appropriate to this context. We consider that this may involve stakeholders nominating individuals for Board membership, and Ministers making appointments, so as to ensure a balance of stakeholder interests within the Board, as well as the required range of expertise.

Within that context, the SLTG considers that operating through a panel structure which fulfils the various functions required, including for example approval of courses and practitioner registration, may provide the most appropriate model. It believes that the Board should have collective responsibility for any employees of the professional body and for employing sufficient staff to carry out the professional body's functions.

Status and Links with Government

Recommendation 8: The CLD professional body should be linked to government through appropriate legal, financial and managerial mechanisms, while having independent status and the power to generate income through the exercise of its functions.

Current Context

The SLTG recognises that sustainability is important when considering location of the professional body. It acknowledges that a CLD professional body would require government support to establish both the required authority and financial viability. It would also require a degree of independence from government to ensure an appropriate level of accountability to the sector.

SLTG Conclusions

The SLTG supports an independent body whose link to government would come through the funding mechanisms and terms of reference established for its operation. The SLTG recognises that there may be advantages, in terms of sustainability, in locating the new body within an existing body, but believe there is a significant downside to this, particularly in terms of potentially obscuring the essentially cross-sectoral nature of CLD's role.

The SLTG preference would be for an independent body with the power to generate income from activities necessary to the carrying out of its functions (for example, practitioner registration) together with funding support from government to a Service Level Agreement. The SLTG recommends that the Service Level Agreement should include the commitment to develop a clear relationship with LLUK and others. This would be reviewed in light of the developing relationship with other businesses in the field.

Short Life Task Group

January 2005

Annex 1:

IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES

The SLTG considered a number of issues that may arise in the event of the key recommendations being accepted. We thought that it would not be appropriate to offer formal recommendations in relation to these, but that it might be helpful to share our views.

Establishment and administration of codes of conduct and

standards

To date, there are no recognised codes of conduct and standards for the CLD sector (nor has there been a body with the remit or authority to put these in place). As well as being an important means in themselves of clarifying and raising awareness of the expectations of those working in this field, and so of enhancing confidence and credibility, they are an essential underpinning for practitioner registration and a key part of an overall approach to ensuring high standards. Consideration of relevant National Occupational Standards may inform this work.

Using workforce intelligence to contribute to forward planning

The SLTG is aware of serious difficulties for employers in many parts of Scotland in recruiting staff with the skills required for CLD posts; it is also aware of the lack of adequate workforce intelligence to inform forward planning by training institutions and employers and of the increasing importance of this, given the expectations of CLD to deliver on key policy objectives.

PAULO has had a remit for workforce intelligence for the "community-based learning and development" sector across the UK; this is now passing on to LLUK. The SLTG considers that a CLD professional body may be able to contribute significantly to the much broader remit for gathering workforce intelligence carried by LLUK by working in partnership with them and drawing on specialist knowledge of the CLD sector in Scotland.

More importantly, the SLTG believes that there is a need for a body in Scotland, able to make use of the workforce intelligence gathered on the CLD sector and to work in partnership with others including employers and the Scottish Funding Councils to influence the supply of provision of courses.

Arrangements for mutual inter-professional recognition

CLD skills, methods and approaches are employed, to a greater or lesser extent, by practitioners qualified in a range of other disciplines. Equally, some of the competences attained by qualified CLD practitioners replicate those of professionals in other fields. Given the particular importance of community engagement skills for the community planning, community regeneration and health improvement agendas, the SLTG considers that establishing agreements and workable systems for inter-professional recognition is an important means of developing both the competences and the integrated working required to take these agendas forward.

Arrangements for mutual recognition of CLD and equivalent qualifications across the UK

Similarly the SLTG considers that the CLD professional body would liaise with a range of other disciplines to establish agreements and workable systems for inter-professional recognition across the UK.

Promoting development of policy and practice in CLD training

In promoting development of policy and practice in CLD training, and in other respects, the role of the new body will evolve, on the basis of clearly identified aims and objectives, from a feasible starting point towards the capacity to address these more comprehensively. To achieve this, it will need to work closely with and have the active support of LLUK.

In this context, it is recognised that the adoption of the full range of roles outlined would be ambitious initially. The SLTG's first priority has been to address, through its recommendations, the need to put in place a body that can sustain an effective role in raising standards. Some of the wider functions may be best shared with other bodies. An appropriate mix of core roles to be taken on by the proposed body itself, potential partners, and arrangements for joint work where necessary, will require to be identified. The SLTG considers that it would be essential for the CLD professional body to work closely with LLUK.

Future Review

The SLTG are aware that many factors have influence within the CLD sector and recommends that the role and functions of the professional body are fully reviewed after a period of five years from its establishment to evaluate progress and to consider the ongoing need for, and purpose of, such a body.

Preparing The Ground: The Interim Phase

The SLTG recommends that if Ministers agree to proceed with establishing the CLD professional body, consideration should be given to the transitional and preparatory arrangements required; these might include establishing an interim board, and/or appointing a chairperson for the body with authority to negotiate on funding and other issues.

Annex 2:

FULL LIST OF SHORT LIFE TASK GROUP MEMBERS

Post held in January 2005 at conclusion of the work of the SLTG

Name

Retired, formerly Professor of Community Education and Director of the Centre for Youth Work Studies in the Department of Community Education, University of Strathclyde.

Professor Ted Milburn CBE

Vice Dean, Faculty of Education and Social Work, University of Dundee

Ian Ball

Assistant Head of Scottish Office, Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education

Dr David Bottomley

Chief Executive, East Dunbartonshire Council

Sue Bruce

Learning Team Manager, SCVO

Celia Carson

Area Manager, Stewartry, Dumfries and Galloway Council

Derek Crichton

UHI PolicyWeb Development Officer/Researcher, UHI Millennium Institute

Philomena de Lima

HM Inspector, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education

Phil Denning

Deputy Director Strategy, Scottish Funding Councils for Further and Higher Education

Anne Grindley

Retired, formerly Adult Literacy Officer, Dumfries and Galloway Council

Rona Gunnell MBE

Assistant Director of Planning, NHS Lanarkshire

Iain Hair

Community Learning and Development Manager, Aberdeen City Council

Pete Hamilton

Head of Development, YouthLink Scotland, also Chair of CeVe Committee

Maureen Mallon

Head of Communities Department, Dundee City Council

Stewart Murdoch

Director of Cultural and Leisure Services, Glasgow City Council

Bridget McConnell

Head of Community Learning and Development, Stirling Council

Felicity McLelland

Head of Educational and Professional Studies, University of Strathclyde

Clive Rowlands

Director, Learning Link Scotland

Jayne Stuart

Annex 3:

GLOSSARY

Approval

We recommend that this term should replace the term "endorsement", but that it should be seen to mean the same process as that described in the explanation for endorsement stated below. We feel that the word "approval" conveys a much more positive professional accolade for degree courses and other programmes which are considered by the new Body to have reached this standard. If adopted, future courses and programmes reaching this standard would be 'approved courses or programmes'.

Endorsement

The process, undertaken by a group representing professional standards and interests, which involves examining, agreeing (or rejecting) detailed professional degree or other programme proposals to determine whether they meet appropriate professional, learning, teaching, placement and quality assurance standards. Only courses that are considered acceptable by such a professional panel are considered 'endorsed courses or programmes'.

This is a function which CeVe Scotland has successfully performed since its inception. Quite often University validation meetings have been conducted jointly with CeVe professional scrutiny panels - to mutual benefit. Only when degree course proposals have been successfully 'validated' and 'endorsed' are they considered to be appropriate professional qualifications for Community Learning and Development (formerly Community Education) practitioners.

Validation

The process, undertaken by Universities or other training and education agencies, which involves examining, agreeing (or rejecting), detailed degree or other programme proposals to determine whether they meet appropriate academic, learning, teaching, and quality assurance standards. Only courses that are considered acceptable by such a University or agency panel are considered 'validated courses or programmes'.

A Learning Culture for the CLD Sector in Scotland

(CLD Standards Council, 2011)

The CLD Standards Council CPD Strategy Consultation: Report on key findings

We stated in the draft strategy document in July 2010 that the final format of the CPD Strategy for CLD would be influenced by the comments we received from the field during the consultation period.

The feedback was very positive; every respondent supported the need for a Strategy and endorsed our work in taking the statement forward, underpinned by the Values, Competences and Code of Ethics for CLD.

Over 200 people from organisations across Scotland contributed to the consultation; our thanks to all of you for helping to make the Strategy a stronger, sharper, more focused document with the same key message: we need and deserve the establishment of a strong learning culture across the CLD sector.

Gillian Lithgow

Chair, CPD Committee

CLD Standards Council

What did you tell us and what have we done as a result of this message?

Introduction

Increasingly CLD practitioners work in diverse roles and settings. Practitioners specialise in youth work, adult learning and community capacity building. Practitioners work in contexts where their expertise has not been fully exploited before: in social enterprise, the creative realm, regeneration, heritage, natural environment, health and in formal education settings.

We recognise and celebrate this diversity in provision. In order to support it, and in consultation with practitioners, leaders and employers across Scotland, the Standards Council has written this Strategy for CPD in CLD.

This Strategy informs the design, building and ongoing development of our Framework which all practitioners and employers will be able to use to enhance the effectiveness of their own learning and the quality and impact of the learning programmes they deliver. It has been informed by the views of more than 200 practitioners across Scotland. It is your Strategy; we hope you will use it with confidence and success.

Rory Macleod

Director

CLD Standards Council for Scotland

"TRUE EDUCATION IS SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE DO FOR THEMSELVES WITH THE HELP OF OTHERS, NOT SOMETHING THAT IS DONE TO THEM BY EXPERTS"

The Standards Council for Community Learning and Development in Scotland is the body responsible for the registration of CLD practitioners, the approval of training courses, and the continuing professional development of the sector workforce.

Our vision is one of supporting the continuing improvement of community learning and development practice to provide quality services for communities and individuals across Scotland.

Nurturing a Learning Culture: Roles and responsibilities for all

The Standards Council

We will nurture a culture of learning in our sector in order that individual engagement will contribute to the development of the whole profession; we will celebrate learning, relish challenge and reflect critically on our practice.

Our vision for all CLD practitioners is that their participation in continuous professional development activities will be a central and established part of their practice. Through this they will demonstrate and enhance their commitment to a culture of learning:

Employers

- Ensure that their organisation becomes a learning community for the entire workforce

- Develop and implement a CPD policy

- Provide continuous leadership and support for CPD opportunities

- Strengthen and extend local partnerships

- Encourage sharing of and learning from good practice

- Where learning is celebrated, recognised and encouraged

- Where learning is reflected on and shared

- Where challenge is relished and embraced

- Where critical reflection is embedded in practice

- Where individuals can explore learning related to their role throughout their careers.

This culture is underpinned by the values and competences of CLD and commitment to our Code of Ethics.

Practitioners

- Ensure they maintain and develop their competence through reflective practice and CPD

- Integrate directly with personal development plans

- Take responsibility for their own learning

Nurturing a Learning Culture: the context

The CPD Strategy and Framework for CLD in Scotland proposes a commitment to fostering a positive climate for continuous learning, where individuals can be involved in a continuous process of improvement and development: a learning culture.

What is a learning culture?

A learning culture is an environment in which people are committed to their own growth and development as professionals and apply their learning in reflective practice. It involves accepting a set of attributes, values and practices which support a continuous process of learning for an organisation and its members. The people involved in it should have a sense of what it feels like to be part of it, what it sounds like when discussing it and how it looks when seeing it in action. It is a key feature of a learning organisation.

The Learning Journey

Within the learning culture, practitioners will embrace CPD as part of a Learning Journey. Each stage of the journey will start with supported induction. Following induction, practitioners can develop learning plans to identify the best possible route to achieve their learning goals. Practitioners will be involved in a continuous cycle of learning: critically reflecting on their learning and practice; reviewing learning plans; evaluating achievements, and actively looking for further development activities to maintain and improve their capability.

Inside a Learning Culture: what is CPD?

CPD is a combination of approaches, ideas and techniques that help individuals manage their own learning and growth. Within a learning culture it can include any event, formal or informal, that increases knowledge, experience and understanding, improves performance and contributes to lifelong learning.

The choice and combination of methods will be influenced by:

- The time available for learning from the employer

- The support available for learning from the employer

- The resources required for learning

- The learning needs identified by an individual

- Individual learning styles

- Organisation and team learning priorities, driven by strategic planning

The Framework

The CLD Standards Council Framework for CPD will:

- Be on an electronic platform

- Be developed in sections around three areas:

The sections will form areas including:

- The competences

- Employers' role

- Principles and values

- Learning journeys

- Motivating and leading others

- Required and regulatory training

- Practitioners in new and changed positions and roles

- Communities of practice

- Quality and continuous improvements

These sections will interlink. The learning materials in the sections will be developed in a number of media; the guiding principle is that they will be creative and engaging, and will include context, content and resources.

The Framework will encourage and support creative and innovative learning and development for CLD practitioners, based on the skills and competences they need to meet the needs of communities, individuals and employers.

It will ensure that all learning is valued, recognised and transferable, and help to encourage shared learning at different levels while supporting effective quality assurance. This will benefit individual practitioners, employers and the

CLD sector as a whole.

The Framework will present challenges for individuals and employers. This will require:

- All parties involved to consider current and developing organisational cultures

- Recognition that the resource required to underpin this has many dimensions

- Reflection on the principles and practice underpinning effective CPD

Working within the Framework

Employers should:

- Enable participation in CPD in as straightforward a way as possible

- Create optimum opportunities for feedback, discussion, reflection and future planning

- Ensure that practitioners' learning is of a high standard and is reviewed regularly

- Identify opportunities for joint practitioner development activities

Employers will then benefit from having:

- Maximised the strengths and potential of individuals

- Grown the skills and knowledge that the organisation needs

- Deployed these skills more effectively

- Achieved and sustained high quality services

Individuals should:

- Recognise and build on their current capabilities

- Embrace opportunities and be active in developing cultural change

- Engage in continuous learning

- Implement learning in practice

Individuals will then benefit from having:

- Increased their effectiveness at work

- Increased their confidence and self-esteem

- Demonstrated links to standards, a professional qualifications framework, and other professions

- Developed new relationships with colleagues and partners

- Developed new areas of capability

- Obtained the latest information and knowledge

Across the CLD profession we should:

- Ensure a consistent, competent and value driven approach

- Identify opportunities for collaborative and partnership learning

- Make sure opportunities for all are readily available, supported and time commitment is not compromised

- Encourage a creative and effective approach to mixed and blended learning

- Embrace the use of technology to support and enhance learner engagement and increase access to programmes

We will then benefit from having:

- An enhanced ability to respond to change

- Practitioners with up-to-date and relevant capabilities

- Improved recruitment, retention and transferability within the sector

- Linked employer based training systems directly to future CPD needs

Implementation of the Framework

Adoption of this Strategy and Framework requires action nationally and locally by employers and practitioners.

The Standards Council

- Promote the Strategy and Framework to all partners

- Respond to national developments in policy and practice

- Keep partners informed of national initiatives

- Encourage the sharing of good practice

Employers and Partnerships

- Ensure learning is integral to working practices and not an 'add-on'

- Share professional development practice across areas through CLD and Community Planning Partnerships

- Identify potential funding solutions to support CPD at national and local levels

Practitioners

- Commit to active engagement with CPD to continuously improve their practice

- Support others to improve by sharing learning and good practice

- Reflect on and record learning, ensuring personal learning plans are up-to-date

CPD Providers

- Provide guidance for practitioners in relation to the definition and availability of CPD opportunities

- Work in partnership with Higher and Further Education colleagues at both national and local levels

Sector Skills Councils

- Responsible for the professional development of staff working in the UK lifelong learning sector

- Ensure workforce trends and demands are complementary

HMIE (to June 2011)

- Support and challenge employers and practitioners in the context of Continuous Professional Development

- Support employers and practitioners to ensure meaningful self-evaluation

LTS Communities Team (to June 2011)

- Responsible for implementing Scottish Government community learning and development policy

- Work with practitioners to support and develop practice

SEQIA (from July 2011)[39]

- Ensure that quality, standards and outcomes for learners are continually driven upwards to deliver educational excellence

- Inspire practitioners and managers to meet new challenges and to be comfortable about doing so

Impact of the Framework

Our Strategy and Framework will influence national and local planning and performance. It will also influence our sense of identity and others' perception of the field. A clear understanding of the value of CPD will be available to the individual, employer and learner. Qualitative and quantitative analysis of its impact will be critical in informing future planning.

Practitioners will have a raised profile with partner colleagues and, through developed confidence, work alongside their community based partners in addressing increasingly complex issues.

Implementation of this Framework will create:

1. A national framework of training opportunities and models, available to all CLD practitioners in Scotland regardless of role and responsibility.

2. A developed infrastructure within all partnerships by 2012 to ensure training and support of practitioners and leaders is at the heart of their business.

3. A clearly stated career, skills and development pathway that all practitioners can access.

4. A suite of training courses, of mixed model and delivery, which are recognised and endorsed by the field work and practitioner cohort.

5. A transparent model presenting the links between national policy, quality of professional practice and national quality improvement models, and exploit their capacities to the full.

6. A recognised model of ongoing evaluation based on peer assessment and reflection with the purpose of ongoing improvement and professional accountability.

Acknowledgements

Our thanks go to the members of our CPD Committee, who have committed a great deal of time and energy to writing, redrafting and promoting the consultation on the Strategy: Gillian Lithgow, Aileen Ackland, Ann Swinney, Deirdre Elrick, Dominique Carlisle-Kitz, Elenor Macdonald, Janis McIntyre, Joan McVicar, Mary Robb, Mike Naulty and Niamh Condren.

We are also grateful for the input of the following key individuals without whom our task would have been far more onerous: Peter Taylor, Fiona Craig, Howard Sercombe, Carolyn Stenhouse, Tanveer Parnez, Garry Cameron, Kirsty Smith, Richard Hardie, Pat Brechin, Mary Rhind, Sheena Watson, Alasdair Offin, Lyn Tett, Neil McIntosh, Peter Lanigan, Cath Hamilton and Duncan Simpson.

We would also like to thank the following organisations, and individuals within them, for their responses to the consultation.

Local Authorities

Aberdeenshire Council

City of Edinburgh Council

Clackmannanshire Council

Dundee City Council

East Renfrewshire Council

Falkirk Council

Fife Council

Highland Council

North Lanarkshire Council

Perth and Kinross Council

Renfrewshire Council

South Lanarkshire Council

Learning Providers

Community Education Training Network (CETN) University of Aberdeen

University of Dundee

University of Edinburgh

LWTT

Scotland's Colleges

National Agencies

BEMIS

Girlguiding Scotland

HMIE

LGBT Youth Scotland

LLUK

LTS

SCDC

SCQF

SDS

Scottish Government

SQA

YouthLink Scotland

References

AUA

(2009)

Continuous Professional Development Framework for practitioners working in Professional Services in Higher Education Association of University Administrators

CLD Standards Council for Scotland

(2009)

The Competences for Community Learning and Development

Institute of Continuous Professional Development

(2006)

Research Project Regulating Competencies: Is CPD Working?

CIPD

(1998)

Kandola, R. and Fullerton, J. Diversity in Action: Managing the Mosaic

Scottish Executive

(2004)

Working and learning together to build stronger communities Scottish Executive, Edinburgh

Scottish Office

(1998)

Communities: Change Through Learning Report of a Working Group on the Future of Community Education (Stationary Office)

Skills for Care

(2006)

Continuous Professional Development strategy for the social care workforce

Institute of Business Consulting

(2009)

CPD Framework for community business advisors

NAEGA

(2007)

Adult Guidance CPD Strategy

Construction Industry Council

(2007)

CPD - Best practice guidance

Highland Council

(2004)

Framework for CPD

City of Edinburgh Council

(2005)

CPD Strategy

South Gloucester Council

(2008)

CPD Strategy

Scottish Government

(2008)

The Early Years Framework

Children's Workforce Development Council

(2006)

CPD Framework

(2007)

Framework for Continuous Learning

in Social Services (Scotland)

Policy Context

Scottish Government

(2004)

Working and Learning Together to Build Stronger Communities, Scottish Government Guidance for Community Learning and Development

Scottish Government and COSLA

(2008)

Building on Working and Learning Together to Build Stronger Communities: A joint statement on community learning and development (CLD), including adult literacy and numeracy

Scottish Government

(2009)

Scottish Community Empowerment Action Plan

Scottish Executive

(2005)

National Standards for Community Engagement

Community Learning and Development Managers Scotland (CLDMS)

(2010)

Let's Prove It: Providing Evidence on the Local and National Outcomes of Community Learning and Development Activities

Scottish Government

(2008)

Achieving Our Potential: A Framework to tackle poverty and income inequality in Scotland

Scottish Government

(2008)

Equally Well: Report of the Ministerial Task Force on Health Inequalities

Scottish Government

(2007)

The Early Years Framework

Scottish Government

(2009)

Skills for Scotland: A Lifelong Skills Strategy

Scottish Government

(2010)

Adult Literacies in Scotland

Scottish Government

(2005)

An Adult Literacy and Numeracy Curriculum Framework for Scotland

Scottish Executive

(2007)

The Adult ESOL Strategy for Scotland

Scottish Government

(2010)

Offender Learning: Options for Improvement

Scottish Government

(2009)

Valuing Young People

Scottish Government

(2008)

Getting It Right for Every Child

Scottish Executive

(2007)

Moving Forward: A Strategy for Improving Young People's Chances through Youth Work

Scottish Executive

(2006)

More Choices, More Chances

Scottish Government

(2010)

16+ Learning Choices

Scottish Government

(2004)

A Curriculum for Excellence

Community Learning And Development: Values, Principles and Effective Practice

Community Learning and Development is learning and social development work with individuals and groups in their communities using a range of formal and informal methods. A common defining feature is that programmes and activities are developed in dialogue with communities and participants (Scottish Executive, 2004)

[CLD develops] the capacity of communities to improve their quality of life. Central to this is their ability to participate in democratic processes

(Scottish Office, 1998)[40]

The values and principles of Community Learning and Development are:

Self-determination

Respecting the individual and valuing the right of people to make their own choices.

Inclusion

Valuing equality of both opportunity and outcome, and challenging discriminatory practice.

Empowerment

Increasing the ability of individuals and groups to influence issues that affect them and their communities through individual and/or collective action.

Working collaboratively

Maximising collaborative working relationships with the many agencies which contribute to CLD and/or which CLD contributes to, including collaborative work with participants, learners and communities.

Promotion of learning as a lifelong activity

Ensuring that individuals are aware of a range of learning opportunities and are able to access relevant options at any stage of their life

(CLD Standards Council for Scotland, 2009)

Effective CLD practitioners

Effective CLD practitioners will ensure that their work supports social change and social justice and is based on the values of CLD. Their approach is collaborative, anti-discriminatory and equalities-focused and they work with diverse individuals, communities of place or interest and organisations to achieve change. They can influence or lead people, understanding when this is or is not appropriate. Central to their practice is challenging discrimination and its consequences and working in partnership with individuals and communities to shape learning and development activities that enhance quality of life and sphere of influence. They have good interpersonal and listening skills and their practice demonstrates that they value and respect the knowledge, experience and aspirations of those involved. They will initiate, develop and maintain relationships with local people and groups and work with people using:

- Non-formal contact;

- Informal support; and

- Informal and formal learning and development opportunities

CLD practitioners will also have self-management skills that are appropriate to the level at which they are practising. While these are not detailed in the competences, they are addressed through the SCQF framework[41] and the National Occupational Standards[42].

A Code Of Ethics For Community Learning and Development

Community Learning and Development (CLD) is a field of professional practice constituted by the adult education, community development and youth work professions. While their practices and the constituencies they serve may differ, they have in common a commitment to their constituents as their primary clients, and to the power of informal education to transform situations, structures, communities and individuals.

Education is a prerequisite for democracy and citizenship. CLD seeks to extend the reach of effective democracy, particularly by actively engaging those who are excluded from participation in key social processes that shape their lives, and to widen the scope of democracy to enable full participation in the common wealth. The following principles are informed by this core position.

1. Primary client

Our primary client (our 'constituent') is the community, the young person, or the adult learner with whom we engage.

2. Social context

Our work is not limited to facilitating change within individuals, but extends to their social context and environment. It recognises the impact of ecological and structural forces on people.

3. Equity

Our work promotes equality of opportunity and outcome. Our practice is equitable and inclusive.

4. Empowerment

We seek to enhance constituents' capacity for positive action by:

- Enabling them to clarify and pursue their chosen priorities

- Building skills of decision-making, engagement and co-operation

- Making power relations open and clear

- Supporting constituents in holding those with power accountable

- Facilitating disengagement from the professional relationship.

Our starting point is that constituents are capable of assessing and acting on their interests.

5. Duty of Care

We will avoid exposing our constituents to the likelihood of harm or injury.

6. Corruption

We will not seek to advance ourselves, our organisations or others, personally, politically or professionally, at the expense of our constituents.

7. Transparency

Engagement with the young person, adult learner or community, and the resulting relationship, will be open and truthful. Potential conflicts of interest will be openly declared.

8. Confidentiality

Information provided by constituents will not be used against them, nor will it be shared with others who may use it against them. Constituents should be made aware of the limits to confidentiality. Until this happens, the presumption of confidentiality should apply. Wherever possible they should be consulted before disclosure.

9. Cooperation

We will actively seek to cooperate with others in order to secure the best possible outcomes for our constituents.

10. Professional Development

We will work reflectively, identifying and using the information, resources, skills, knowledge and practices needed to improve our capacity to meet our obligations to constituents.

11. Self-awareness

We should be conscious of our own values and interests, and approach cultural and other difference respectfully. While the need to challenge may arise, we must try first to understand.

12. Boundaries

The CLD relationship is a professional relationship, intentionally limited to protect the constituent and the purpose of our work. These limits should be clarified, established and maintained. The relationship with an individual constituent is based on trust and is not available for sexual engagement

13. Self-care

CLD practice should be consistent with preserving the health of CLD workers.

Chapter 3: Rethinking Literacies

Contents

References

Introduction - Rethinking Literacies

Adult Literacy and Numeracy in Scotland (Extracts)

(Scottish Executive, 2001)

Adult Literacy and Numeracy Wheel

(Extract from Adult Literacy and Numeracy Curriculum Framework for Scotland, Scottish Executive, 2005)

Evaluation of the Scottish Adult Literacy and Numeracy Strategy, Scottish Executive (summary)

Lyn Tett and Vivien Edwards, University of Edinburgh, Stuart Hall, Kathy Maclachlan, Graham Thorpe and Linda Garside, University of Glasgow (2006)

References

Core texts:

Adult Literacy and Numeracy in Scotland (Scottish Executive, 2001)

The Adult Literacy and Numeracy Curriculum Wheel - pages 29-33 from An Adult Literacy and Numeracy Curriculum Framework for Scotland, 2005, see related content below

Evaluation of the Scottish Adult Literacy and Numeracy Strategy, Scottish Executive (summary) (Scottish Executive, 2006)

Related Content

An Adult Literacy and Numeracy Curriculum Framework for Scotland (Learning Connections/Communities Scotland, 2005)

The Adult ESOL Strategy for Scotland (Scottish Executive 2007)

Mapping Youth Literacies Practice (Scottish Government, 2008)

Scottish Survey Adult Literacies 2009: Report of Findings (Scottish Government, 2010)

Annual report on AL&N in Scotland, 2009-10 (LTS, 2010)

Adult Literacies in Scotland 2020 (Scottish Government, 2010)

Brief Case Studies: Craigmillar Books for Babies; Pilton Equalities Project; Glasgow Women's Library; Glasgow Simon Community (Learning Link, 2011)

Ecologies of Professional Development: Understanding the Teaching Qualification: Adult Literacies in Context - Final Report Summary (University of Strathclyde, 2012)

Welcoming Our Learners: Scotland's ESOL Strategy 2015-2020 (Scottish Government, Education Scotland, 2015)

Rethinking Literacies

Introduction by Christine Barber

In 2001, the Scottish Executive published the Adult Literacy and Numeracy in Scotland report (ALNIS). This report was informed by key pieces of research and it launched a major national initiative in adult literacy and numeracy learning and teaching in Scotland. The report defined adult literacy and numeracy (ALN) as, 'the ability to read, write and use numeracy, to handle information, to express ideas and opinions, to make decisions and solve problems, as family members, workers, citizens and lifelong learners.'

The ALNIS report revealed that previous efforts to raise ALN levels in Scotland had waned. Evidence highlighted that within the following groupings: people who live in disadvantaged areas; workers in low skill jobs; people on low incomes; and people with health problems and disabilities, there was a high proportion of people with low levels of literacy and numeracy. To address this situation, the report emphasised that improving ALN levels was extremely important to the Scottish Executive policies that promote social justice, health, economic development and lifelong learning.

In striving for success, the ALNIS report advocated for countrywide action at all levels of society to promote recognition of the importance of ALN, the setting of a goal to exceed world class levels of ALN, a focus on priority groups and the establishment of clear lines of accountability for leadership, delivery and monitoring. Significant funding of £24m was allocated in the first three years of this crucial initiative and further funding was committed for after this period to maintain momentum. To progress this initiative, the report identified twenty one key recommendations, such as: the improvement of the quality of programmes through a new curriculum framework; the development of a national training strategy; and the allocation of £18.5m through local authorities to Community Learning Strategy partnerships to complement existing capacity and support around 80,000 learners over the initial three year period.

In response to the recommendation in the ALNIS report that 'the quality of programmes should be improved through a new curriculum framework', the Adult Literacy and Numeracy Curriculum Framework for Scotland was launched in 2005. This framework built upon Literacies in the Community (2000): Resources for Practitioners and Managers[43] which set out the good practice framework for Scotland and provided a guide to tutoring and guidance, and staff development and training.

The social practice approach to learning was identified as being fundamental to this new framework and to support the delivery of the Curriculum Framework, the 'Curriculum Wheel' was developed. The wheel is a visual, interactive tool which helps learners and tutors to plan what they are going to learn, supports learners work out their own individual learning plan and goals, and provides the opportunity to look back at the learning that has taken place. The curriculum is represented as concentric circles and is based on three principles: promoting self-determination among learners; developing an understanding of literacy and numeracy with particular emphasis on critical awareness; and recognising and respecting difference and diversity. At the centre of the wheel, learners are surrounded by their different contexts for learning: private life, family life, community life and working life. These contexts reflect the importance of an individual's real life and everyday practices in the learning process, and this is fundamental to the Scottish approach to ALN.

In 2006, research was undertaken to evaluate the Scottish Executive's strategy for Adult Literacy and Numeracy for Scotland published in 2001 in the ALNIS report. The findings from this research were published in the Evaluation of the Scottish Adult Literacy and Numeracy Strategy, 2006. The research revealed that learners were very positive about the quality of learning and teaching they received and tutors were equally positive about the impact of the ALN strategy. Increased self-confidence was the most dominant outcome of engagement in ALN learning identified by learners and this had led to further opportunities in their personal, family, public, education and working lives.

These findings demonstrate the impact that participation in ALN has on wider social and economic activity and highlights the importance of providing good quality teaching. To address concerns raised and build upon achievements, it was recommended that: publicity should be enhanced to encourage more learners to participate; training for tutors on guidance and support should be provided; more resources should be made available; ALN Partnerships should provide a wider range of learning opportunities; and greater access to quality staff development should be established.

By 2008, £65m of government funding had been made available through the 32 local authorities to the Adult Learning Partnerships to help adults improve their ALN skills. This funding supported the implementation of the recommendations put forward in the Evaluation of the Scottish Adult Literacy and Numeracy Strategy, 2006. A further publication, the Annual Report on Adult Literacy and Numeracy in Scotland 2009/10 highlighted that over 200,000 new learners had been engaged in literacies provision since 2001 with the delivery of adult literacy and numeracy spread across a wide range of sectors, including local government, the Third Sector and Scotland's Colleges. It was acknowledged that there had been significant impact across a range of agendas, such as offender literacies, young people and employability, workplace literacies and supporting families.

In 2010 in response to major changes, such as public services having to adapt to reduced funding and the relationship between national and local government being fundamentally changed since the introduction of the Concordat in 2007, the Scottish Government decided it was time to consolidate the progress made in adult literacies and consider how further progress could be made, albeit with fewer resources. The way in which this is to be taken forward is outlined in Adult Literacies in Scotland 2020: strategic guidance which was published in 2011.

Although this guidance principally relates to ALN policies, many of its aspirations are in line with the principles of Curriculum for Excellence and the broad community learning and development field. Local partnerships, sectors and organisations are encouraged to create their own adult literacies action plans based on this new guidance and to share their commitments with local and national partners. Furthermore, this guidance upholds the view that the social practice approach adopted in literacies is about more than contextualising learning to make it more relevant; it is about learners developing capabilities in making decisions, solving problems and expressing ideas and critical opinions about the world. This perspective challenges the assumption that there is a common understanding of the social practice model within Scotland and that the ideal has been attained. Indeed, it seeks a continuing rethinking of literacies practices in Scotland.

Adult Literacy and Numeracy in Scotland

(Scottish Executive, 2001)

1. Executive summary and key recommendations

1.1 This report

- explains why the raising of adult literacy and numeracy levels is acutely important to the wide variety of Scottish Executive policies that promote social justice, health, economic development and lifelong learning

- considers the scale and nature of the problem:

- the majority of the population are satisfied with their skills for the uses they encounter

- up to 800,000 adults appear to have very low skills

- 500,000 assess their own skills as poor or moderate

- the importance of literacy and numeracy as underpinning skills is invisible to employers

- many unemployed people do not know if they have the literacy and numeracy skills for their choice of job

- The evidence suggests a high proportion of those with low levels of literacy and numeracy are to be found among:

- people who live in disadvantaged areas

- workers in low skill jobs

- people on low incomes

- people with health problems and disabilities

- identifies three types of individuals and acknowledges that the success of the strategy will depend on its match with the economic, social and demographic characteristics of those in need:

Expressed need - people who are actually dissatisfied with their skills

Latent need - people who recognise that their skills are low but still say that they are satisfied with them

Invisible need - people who appear to rate their skills as stronger than they actually are

- explains why previous efforts to raise literacy and numeracy in Scotland withered

- suggests countrywide action at all levels of society to promote recognition of the importance of literacy and numeracy

- sets a goal to exceed world class levels of literacy and numeracy

- assists around 80,000 people over the next 3 years

- more than doubles annual capacity within 3 years

- develops an enabling framework for a world class literacy and numeracy service

- targets priority groups:

- people with limited initial education, particularly young adults

- unemployed people and workers facing redundancy

- people with English as a second or additional language

- sets out clear lines of accountability for leadership, delivery and monitoring

- identifies four key principles:

1. clear lines of accountability

2. learner-centred programmes

3. professionalism

4. maximising the potential of Information and Communications Technology (ICT)

- outlines four critical success factors:

1. clear lines of accountability

2. learner-centred programmes

3. professionalism

4. maximising the potential of Information and Communications Technology (ICT

- sets out a new strategy that aims for consistency:

- in approaches to teaching and learning, management and organisation of delivery in all sectors and

- a rigorous and shared approach to quality improvement.

Four goals are set:

1. National leadership and effective local action with:

- a national strategy overseen by Ministers and co-ordinated within the Scottish Executive

- a new 'development engine'

- a lead role for Community Learning Strategies.

2. A quality learning experience with:

- a major effort to engage a broad range of people in workplaces and communities as 'spotters', 'referrers' and 'supporters'

- a commitment to individual learning plans and specialised guidance and assessment

- a new adult literacy and numeracy curriculum framework

- the development of Progress File and the core skills framework to recognise and accredit progress

- strong emphasis on the role of ICT

- a commitment to develop provision that is relevant to learners' lives.

3. A system that learns with:

- the application of the 'Literacies in the Community: Good Practice Framework' to all provision

- a national training programme to raise expertise

- continuous research and development of the strategy

- a Research Advisory Group.

4. Promoting awareness through:

- pathfinder projects to test new ways of delivering the strategy

- exploring the relationship with health and justice

- maintaining and developing the skills of learners.

1.2 Funding implications

The funding implications are:

1. £24m in the first 3 years to:

- provide over 33,000 new learning opportunities

- more than double annual capacity to reach around 34,000 learners each year by 2004

- fund the 'development engine' and eight pathfinder projects

- fund a national training strategy for specialist adult literacy and numeracy practitioners and provide national training standards for all staff and volunteers whose roles relate to tuition in adult literacy and numeracy.

2. The need to continue funding after the first 3 years to maintain momentum with this crucial initiative.

1.3 Key recomendations

The full list of recommendations is:

Recommendation 1: that the national strategy should be actively overseen by Ministers and co-ordinated and monitored within the Scottish Executive.

Recommendation 2: that the location of the 'development engine' to drive the creation of quality adult literacy and numeracy provision should be identified by International Literacy Day (8th September) 2001

Recommendation 3: that the Scottish Executive should develop guidance on literacy and numeracy for other national organisations that have a stake in the development of adult literacy and numeracy.

Recommendation 4: that accountability for local development, funding, monitoring and targets across three sectors (community and the voluntary sector, further education and the workplace) be given to local authorities as co-ordinators of Community Learning Strategies.

Recommendation 5: that all services and courses should be provided free to learners.

Recommendation 6: that awareness training and screening processes should be developed to improve the identification of need within communities, workplaces and post school education.

Recommendation 7: that common approaches should be developed to specialised guidance and assessment and producing individual learning plans.

Recommendation 8: that the quality of programmes should be improved through a new curriculum framework, a national on-line databank and resource system and by establishing four pathfinder projects on courses and programmes.

Recommendation 9: that the 'development engine' should lead the development of e-learning in support of literacy and numeracy.

Recommendation 10: that the measurement of progress should be based around learner goals and distance travelled, building on the core skills framework and Progress File.

Recommendation 11: that all education and training providers should nominate an accessible key person who will co-ordinate the guidance and support required to recruit and sustain learners.

Recommendation 12: that specialist information and advice should be provided to support inclusive and effective provision for all learners.

Recommendation 13: that local authorities, colleges, voluntary organisations and workplace providers should all integrate the quality framework in 'Literacies in the Community: Resources for Practitioners and Managers' within their existing arrangements for reviewing progress and quality.

Recommendation 14: that a national training strategy should provide national training standards for all staff and volunteers whose roles relate to literacy and numeracy tuition and a new qualification for specialist literacy and numeracy practitioners.

Recommendation 15: that staff and volunteers in organisations providing literacy and numeracy tuition should meet the national standards by 2005.

Recommendation 16: that the national strategy, as it develops, be informed by and responsive to research and consultation with learners.

Recommendation 17: that four pathfinder projects should be established to raise awareness and stimulate demand for literacy and numeracy.

Recommendation 18: that the Scottish Executive and other major public and private sector employers should take the lead in helping individuals retain and develop their skills.

Recommendation 19: that capacity should be more than doubled within three years, with the funding provided through local authorities, ensuring the expansion of capacity across all sectors and the targeting of priority groups.

Recommendation 20: that £18.5m should be allocated through local authorities to Community Learning Strategy partnerships to complement existing capacity and assist around 80,000 learners over the next 3 years.

Recommendation 21: that priority is given in the allocation of funding to the establishment of a strong national development engine, a national training strategy and 8 pathfinder projects.

3. Understanding the Challenges

3.1 Why literacy and numeracy are important

What constitutes an adequate standard of literacy and numeracy has not remained static throughout history. Literacy and numeracy are skills whose sufficiency may only be judged within a specific social, cultural, economic or political context. Our own definition, which received strong support in the consultation process, tries to take account of this:

The ability to read, write and use numeracy, to handle information, to express ideas and opinions, to make decisions and solve problems, as family members, workers, citizens and lifelong learners.

Daily life increasingly requires us all to understand how to use these complex skills and knowledge. Our definition is rooted in the context of people's lives - what they need to know and be able to do, as family members, workers, citizens and lifelong learners. Helping children with their schoolwork, following doctors' instructions and carrying out many other tasks in life demand well-developed and regularly updated literacy and numeracy skills. The digital age brings further challenges, in new ways of learning and new modes of communication such as electronic mail, websites and interactive television.

Ministers have articulated a vision of a modern vibrant Scotland, all of whose citizens are equipped to fulfil their potential. Improving literacy and numeracy will be crucial to that process, so that everyone has the skills to lead fulfilling lives and play a full part in family and community life. Raising literacy and numeracy levels will help promote a wide range of Government policies and priorities such as social justice, health, lifelong learning and economic development. In an increasingly globalised economy, Scotland's future prosperity and competitiveness depends on building up the skills of her existing workforce and improving the employability of those seeking work. But improving literacy skills can also provide the first steps to learning other languages, promoting understanding in a multi-cultural society, and accessing a whole range of life opportunities. An inclusive society is also a literate society.

'I left school at 16 when I became pregnant with my son who is five in July. He goes to school after the summer and I am now in a position to find a job. I am really excited by the progress I have made. I now feel able to carry out the computer training I need to go for a secretarial position. It has also given me the confidence to help my son with his homework when he starts school in August.'

Sharon (Buddies for Learning Project)

'ABE has increased my confidence so much I'm doing a flexi course at college in information technology.'

Stella age 37 (Fife Council ABE)

'I like the relaxed atmosphere at the group and I'm much more confident now, especially at work when I have to write notes.'

Ian age 34 (Fife Council ABE)

3.2 What evidence is there to inform policy?

Assembling the available evidence on adult literacy and numeracy into a clear picture is not easy. Scottish-based research is virtually non-existent. Nevertheless, one finding is that a complete absence of reading or writing ability is not a major issue, but that low or insufficient literacy and numeracy abilities are more widespread than previously thought.

A significant piece of research that has influenced policy in many countries is 'The International Adult Literacy Survey' (IALS). It concludes that 23% of adults in Scotland may have low skills and another 30% may find their skills inadequate to meet the demands of the 'knowledge society' and the 'information age'. In comparison with other countries, Scotland and Great Britain are well down the league of OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries participating in IALS, with a greater proportion of their population at the lowest of the five levels of performance.

The IALS tests for assessing an individual level of skill have been the subject of some criticism but the survey does give data on an area where there has been little research in Scotland. In the time available to us we could not have undertaken a new Scottish survey to measure literacy and numeracy skills. Designing and carrying out such a survey could have taken up to two years and cost around £2million, money which might be more effectively spent on increasing learning opportunities. Therefore four research projects were commissioned to complement the picture provided by IALS:

- further analysis of the Scottish IALS (1996) data (Office for National Statistics, forthcoming)

- The Workforce Survey - a household survey of the workforce (MORI, forthcoming)

- The Employers Survey - Scottish employers' views of literacy and numeracy in the workplace (British Market Research Bureau, forthcoming)

- a literature review (Lord J., forthcoming).

The evidence available suggests that around 800,000 adults in Scotland have very low literacy and numeracy skills. Analysis of the Scottish cohort of IALS identifies three factors as strongly associated with low literacy and numeracy skills:

- having left education at 16 or earlier

- being on a low income

- being in a manual social class group.

(In Britain as a whole having English as a second or additional language and being born outside the UK emerge as factors but further research would be required to understand their influence in Scotland.)

Other characteristics include:

- living in an economically disadvantaged area

- being over the age of 55

- having a health problem or disability affecting learning, speech, sight or hearing

- gender - women performed less well than men on numeracy tasks.

The detailed analysis of the Scottish IALS data identifies findings that are important for designing appropriate responses and merit further investigation:

- significant numbers of those performing at the lowest level rate their own skills as poor or moderate (almost 60% of those at Level 1 rate their mathematics skills low and over 40% their writing skills).

- although the great majority (93%) of the population are generally satisfied with their skills, 1 in 4 of those who rate their reading or writing skills low say they are dissatisfied.

- of the three skills (reading, writing and mathematics), more of those performing at Level 2 say their mathematics skills limit job opportunities. Among those performing at Level 1, as many as 1 in 5 say their reading skills limit job opportunities.

- those with low skills rate them differently in relation to work. 17% of those at Level 2 rate their writing skills as poor or moderate, yet 48% assess them as poor or moderate for work. 58% of those at Level 1 rate their mathematics skills as poor or moderate but 44% rate them as poor or moderate for work.

- although women perform less well than men on numeracy tasks (55% of those performing at the lowest levels were women) women rate their mathematics skills in a similar way to men.

- although men and women perform similarly on the prose reading tasks, more men rate their reading and writing skills poorly than women (24% of men and 11% of women rate their writing as poor or moderate).

- those with low skills are less likely to use a computer or a library and those who read and write frequently are more likely to be satisfied with their skills.

These findings highlight that people with low skills are not a homogeneous group. Different outreach strategies and learning options will require to be designed for different target groups.

The Workforce Survey (MORI, 2000) points to potentially significant differences in the ways people use their skills at work. The pattern can be seen as a positive spiral, where those with good educational attainment are in more skilled jobs, making greater use of their literacy and numeracy skills. Whilst few jobs have no literacy or numeracy demands, there is a negative spiral where those with low educational attainment are in low skilled jobs, making much less use of literacy and numeracy:

- many of those in low skill jobs have limited opportunities to use their literacy and numeracy skills at work

- those with no qualifications were less likely to have taken part in education and training opportunities

- those out of work are more likely to rate their skills as poor or moderate than those in work (although the evidence in the Scottish IALS data does not identify being unemployed as a particular characteristic of those with poor skills)

- over two-fifths of those out of work are unclear about the literacy and numeracy skills required for the job of their choice.

There is further evidence of the levels of perceived need from the Employer Survey. Literacy and numeracy skills do not appear at the forefront of employers minds in recruitment or when considering the skills of their workforce. Employers identify job specific, communication and IT skills as key issues. However:

- nearly a third of employers report that increasing demands have been made on employees' literacy and numeracy skills over the last 5 years

- nearly a third expect increasing demands to be made on employees' literacy and numeracy skills over the next 5 years

- a fifth believe poor or moderate literacy and numeracy skills have been a barrier to productivity

- half of employers say staff are given enough opportunities to develop their literacy and numeracy skills

- there is greater employer dissatisfaction with the skills of their own employees when compared with employees' perceptions of their skills in the Workforce Survey.

Tackling literacy and numeracy in the workforce both improves the employability of the individual and raises productivity and earning levels. It is not possible to measure precisely the connection between learning and economic growth. However a study by the Centre for Economics in Education (McIntosh and Vignoles, 2000) suggests positive labour market outcomes for those above the lowest level of literacy and numeracy skills. Based on earlier research using tasks at a level broadly corresponding to the International Adult Literacy Survey's Level 2, the study found adults succeeding as follows:

- a 6-7% increase in earnings compared with those below Level 2 for numeracy

- a 1-11% increase in earnings compared with those below Level 2 for literacy

- a 2-3% increase in employment compared with those below Level 2 for numeracy

- a 0-10% increase in employment compared with those below Level 2 for literacy.

International evidence suggests several reasons why an adult may experience a literacy or numeracy problem. Not everyone sees themselves as having failed at school. Schools lay the foundations but they are unable to encompass or anticipate all future uses of literacy and numeracy and the effects of increasing demands on adults' skills. Some people experience problems because they did not acquire the initial literacy and numeracy skills at school to build upon in adult life. Others will have problems because:

- they left school with literacy and numeracy skills, but have lost them because of a lack of opportunity to use and develop their skills

- their skills degenerate when they become dependent on others

- a specific change makes new demands on their skills e.g. a new job or promotion, leaving care, parenthood, retirement or simply the pace of organisational, social or technological change.

Because our remit was to consider adult literacy and numeracy, we have not considered literacy and numeracy issues within schools. Improving school leavers' levels of literacy and numeracy will be vital to the success of our strategy however and we welcome the recent announcement on the national priority for literacy and numeracy in schools.

3.3 What is our capacity to respond?

3.3.1 Audit of Provision

The Audit of Provision shows that further education colleges, local authorities and voluntary organisations accommodate approximately 15,000 learners each year (other than those delivering literacy and numeracy programmes as an element of national training programmes such as Skillseekers, The New Deal and Training for Work). The Audit demonstrates the wide variation in delivery models:

- further education colleges provide for around 6,000 learners, mainly in broader courses within which there is an element of literacy and numeracy tuition - for example Return to Learn.

- local authorities provide for around 6,500 learners, the majority receiving dedicated literacy and numeracy tuition.

- voluntary organisations provide for around 2,500 learners mainly in broader courses within which there is an element of literacy and numeracy tuition but rely heavily on other providers for this teaching. Voluntary organisations are significant in providing personal support, for example in helping people to write letters.

The Audit of Provision showed some degree of confusion between core skills and literacy and numeracy skills.At present confusion is caused by the use of terms such as basic skills, core skills, key skills, personal development and employability to refer to literacy and numeracy (often when bidding for funding) when these terms refer to a broader range of skills.Terms such as support and tuition, or guidance and assessment, are not always used consistently. This has made it difficult to be absolutely clear about who is doing what.

3.3.2 Support for the national development of literacy and numeracy

Efforts to raise literacy and numeracy levels within the post-school education and training system have been handicapped historically by the lack of priority attached to the issue, declining resources and the gradual decline in central co-ordination and support. As already noted we are currently providing learning opportunities for about 2% of the 800,000 adults with very low skills.

There appears to be a lack of diversity of learning options in most areas, a lack of any learning options in some areas and uncertain quality. The consultation responses offer a number of explanations:

- a lack of dedicated funding

- a lack of consensus regarding standards of teacher competence

- insufficient opportunities for focused training, staff development and support for teachers of adult literacy and numeracy or volunteers

- an absence of guidance on what materials are helpful and where to find them

- no curricular framework to guide practitioners, or common approaches to recognising achievement

- no clear line of accountability for the development and implementation of a national strategy

'... and though many examples of good collaborative practice were cited in the responses, there was a strong feeling that they were patchy, frequently excluding of relevant agencies, and too often embroiled in issues of power and/or funding.'

Adult Literacy 2000 National Consultation Exercise

3.4 Policy issues

3.4.1 The scale of need and a limited capacity to respond

Literacy and numeracy skills are critical for adults to achieve the goals they set themselves at work, at home, in the community and as learners. The personal consequences of low literacy and numeracy skills can be serious. The national consequences for a modern, multicultural, competitive Scotland, and efforts to achieve social justice, are far reaching.

Further work is required to identify the literacy, numeracy and oracy needs of adults whose first language is not English and the needs of fluent Gaelic speakers who have not developed their literacy skills in that language. In addition the need for specialist provision for learners with disabilities and specific learning difficulties (including dyslexia) needs further development.

Scotland lacks a clear focus of responsibility for the development and implementation of a national strategy for literacy and numeracy.Action is needed to improve the nature, extent, quality and range of services offered to literacy and numeracy learners. In addition we need a dramatic increase in the status of literacy and numeracy provision from its current status as stigmatised, remedial and the 'poor relation' to one where it is recognised alongside other types of learning and one whose learners are afforded a higher status. Providers and practitioners lack the advice, support and training to develop the quality of the learning opportunities necessary to eradicate the problem. The problem is twofold. Quality of existing provision is patchy, although there are examples of excellent practice in Scotland, but the overriding failure to date has been the inability of the system to provide the capacity for a substantial increase in the number of learners. Specifically we need to understand:

- what strategies are most successful in attracting learners

- what works in raising literacy and numeracy levels

- what are the most appropriate teaching and learning methods

- how we recognise and accredit individual progress

The scale of need must be considered against a general background of low participation in lifelong learning. The personal, cultural and structural barriers to increasing participation in lifelong learning will be critical in any literacy and numeracy strategy.

The strategy must support the Scottish Executive's vision of a 'Smart, Successful, Scotland' and an inclusive and socially just society. In particular the strategy must fit with wider efforts to stimulate demand for learning from individuals and groups currently under-represented within post-16 education and training, including the following:

- Community Learning Strategies and Plans

- learndirect scotland

- Careers Scotland proposals

- Future Skills Scotland

- expansion in further and higher education and changes to student support

- national training programmes

- Individual Learning Accounts

- community capacity building

- Social Inclusion Partnerships (SIP)

- New Community Schools

- National Training Organisations

- the Trade Union Learning Fund

- the Beattie recommendations

Nurturing a national commitment to lifelong learning is essential to attempts to raise literacy and numeracy levels. Partnerships will be vital between public, private and voluntary sector organisations, going beyond those who are education and training providers, e.g. prisons, health agencies and social work. Literacy and numeracy programmes must be targeted according to the social, economic and demographic characteristics of the adult population with low literacy and numeracy skills. An important consideration is how the necessary services and opportunities are to be provided in rural areas.

'A common theme was the need to raise awareness of the problem among a wider range of professionals, not only those with direct contact with potential or existing learners. Examples of key individuals well placed to identify literacy and numeracy needs included union representatives, health care professionals and social workers.'

Adult Literacy 2000 National Consultation Exercise

A key principle is that action should focus on the priority groups indicated by the evidence:

- people with limited initial education, particularly young adults

- unemployed people and workers facing redundancy

- people with English as a second or additional language

- people who live in disadvantaged areas

- workers in low skill jobs

- people on low incomes

- people with health problems and disabilities

'... for groups such as disabled people, other language groups, lone parents, young people and those with health problems, provision would have to be carefully considered to maximise participation among otherwise excluded groups.'

Adult Literacy 2000 National Consultation Exercise

3.4.2 A key principle - commitment to a lifelong learning approach

Two hard truths emerge from national and international evidence: learning programmes for adults with low literacy and numeracy do not easily attract those in need and many learners drop out before making real progress

One approach to the problem can be described as the 'deficit approach' where the individual is encouraged to take a test that will demonstrate a failure to meet a set standard. Countries that have adopted a deficit approach focus on getting adults to accept that their skills are poor and then require their participation in programmes until they achieve a minimum standard. On a practical level, a deficit approach is at odds with perceptions of the great majority of those with low skills who are satisfied that their skills are adequate - and would see no reason to take a test. It also skews programme providers' efforts towards those closest to the minimum standard rather than encouraging providers to reach out to and motivate all adults with significant needs. More fundamentally, a deficit approach is limited by its reliance on improving only the skills specified in the minimum standard. Context and the wider purpose can be lost.

In contrast, a 'lifelong learning approach' focuses more attention on the interplay between demands and opportunities that trigger and maintain voluntary participation, especially among those in greatest need. It is less concerned with determining the specific threshold for joining learning programmes than with achieving collaboration and synergy of effort across sectors and policy areas so that all adults with learning needs are systematically matched with the resources available. Rather than focusing on a minimum standard, it is concerned more with establishing what the learner's goals are.This can be more demanding for both the individual and the policy maker. The aim is to assess learners' ability to apply their learning to real contexts and to measure the economic, personal and social gains that they make, including their willingness to continue to learn in the future. This makes significant demands on providers' accountability and professionalism. Although this approach is challenging, experience elsewhere shows that it has greater likelihood of achieving long-term success and therefore makes a greater return on investment.

'Marketing strategies have to make provision attractive enough to interest people who do not necessarily value learning and be presented in appropriate ways to target those most in need. The key messages in any marketing strategy should strenuously avoid association with a stigmatised provision. It should convince adults that it's about learning not ability.'

Adult Literacy 2000 National Consultation Exercis

Family literacy is an excellent example of effective lifelong learning. Parents learn how to help their children to develop their skills, while extending their own abilities. Lifelong learning initiatives such as this are vital to grounding literacy and numeracy programmes in the life situations of adults and communities. Learning opportunities should be available to adults at times and situations in their lives when it is important to them to expand their skills and literacy practices.

3.4.3 Awareness raising

Individuals

An important issue to consider in addressing low levels of literacy and numeracy is whether people recognise that they have poor literacy and numeracy skills, and whether they see this as a problem.

The evidence suggests those with low skills fall into three groups:

Expressed need - people who are actually dissatisfied with their low skills

Latent need - people who recognise that their skills are low but still say they are satisfied with them

Invisible Need - people who appear to rate their skills as stronger than they actually are

People with low literacy skills often adapt their lives to avoid situations where they need to exceed their skill level and therefore remain satisfied with it.

In addition when they do need to carry out tasks at a higher level, they may ask others for help. It is also likely that people with low skills encounter few situations that expose any pressing need for higher skills and so remain unclear about how good or bad their skills are.

Reaching and involving those with low literacy and numeracy skills presents an enormous challenge. We must develop creative ways of reaching those who see no hope of or need to extend their present skills, who feel alienated by their previous experience of learning, or fear declaring their need for help.

Employers

Employers do not readily identify literacy and numeracy as a key employee issue. However they do identify communication, thinking, team working and IT skills as top priorities and see weaknesses in all these areas. As good literacy and numeracy skills underpin effective performance in these areas, their role in explaining poor performance may often be invisible and other personal or behavioural attributes may be blamed. The research evidence (Felstead et al, 2000) demonstrates that the increasing sophistication of work practices, such as the introduction of quality circles, appraisal systems, team-working, Investors in People and advances in technology, demand greater skills. The Scottish Executive's strategy to promote progressive organisations, outlined in 'A Smart Successful Scotland: Ambitions for the Enterprise Networks', must recognise these stimuli to improving literacy and numeracy and must incorporate measures to ensure that those with low skills are not left behind.

Communities

There is a high correlation between living in a disadvantaged area and having poorly developed literacy and numeracy skills. For people living in these communities and for people in low skill jobs, being active in community groups and engaging in voluntary work can provide the opportunity to use their literacy and numeracy skills to the full while highlighting the need to improve them. It is clear that SIPs (area and thematic) are a priority for targeting and that the allocation of funding for programmes should be weighted in their favour. The Scottish Executive's strategy for social justice should also encourage wider action to sustain and develop literacy and numeracy skills.

3.4.4 It's about more than courses and programmes

A balance must be struck between formal and informal learning opportunities. Attending literacy and numeracy tuition is only one way of acquiring literacy and numeracy skills.Adults learn and help each other with literacy and numeracy in the workplace, home and their community and the strategy must take advantage of these opportunities. Courses and programmes will help people improve and make use of literacy and numeracy skills. However unless we provide improved opportunities and support to maintain and develop these skills, new learners, and those using their skills only rarely (e.g. in low skill jobs), may lose them.This is particularly important for young adults with limited educational achievement as they begin to transfer skills learned in school into adult life.

3.4.5 Understanding how adults learn

Some of the general barriers to increasing participation in lifelong learning include:

- people's preference to make other use of their free time

- pressures on time at home and work

- inconvenient location of learning opportunities

- financial barriers

- conflict with domestic and caring responsibilities

- lack of information and absence of opportunity

- a belief amongst many that learning has little to offer them

- unhappy memories of school

But this simple catalogue of familiar barriers to learning only takes us so far.

There is a growing body of research about how adults learn (Claxton, 2000).Adults do not learn in the same way as children. Adults bring to learning the ability to analyse and reflect on learning as it applies to their experience of the world. Adults' ability to integrate new skills and knowledge with what they can do already and their need to transfer learning to different contexts should be treated as a strength to draw out and build on. This means paying attention to multiple intelligences, preferred learning styles, memory strategies and also developing awareness of different methods, so learners can broaden out from reliance on one method in isolation. Some prefer self study; some want direct teaching; others learn best on-line at times to suit them; others want to mix distance learning with a series of tutorials.

Adults also learn by making links with previous learning and experience. They transfer knowledge and skills and they need opportunities for reflection and review as well as discussion with tutors and peers. There is also evidence to show that they need continual support on an individual basis to sustain them in their learning and to build confidence. Finally, not only do adults require this interactive model of learning that includes guidance and support but they need opportunities built into the learning experience which allows for the trialling and testing of their newly acquired skills.

4. The Solutions

Overcoming the legacy of neglect and achieving the necessary leap in national literacy and numeracy levels will require a radical strategy, with increased priority, significant new investment in capacity building and more effective partnership activity between all sectors. Improvements in national skill levels cannot be achieved quickly or easily.

The long-term goal of the strategy will be to exceed the literacy and numeracy levels of Scotland's main competitors within the global economy. Our definition of literacy and numeracy (section 3.1) is challenging. We see no point in setting minimal standards which would be readily achievable but in the longer term would prove inadequate for the world we face.

This report identifies four key principles:

- a lifelong learning approach (section 3.4.2)

- free to learners (section 4.2.1)

- targeting priority groups (section 3.4.1)

- grounding change in research and learner consultation (section 4.3.3)

This section outlines:

- four goals:

national leadership and effective local action

a quality learning experience

a system that learns

promoting awareness

A series of recommendations is made under each goal.

At the end of the section we set out:

- four critical factors for an enduringly successful strategy:

clear lines of accountability

learner-centred programmes

professionalism

maximising the potential of ICT

4.1 National leadership and effective local action

4.1.1 A long term strategy with clear leadership and national development

Experience in other parts of the UK and internationally, including in Ireland, Australia, the United States and Canada demonstrates the importance of both a high level of commitment from Central Government to literacy and numeracy and a strong, pro-active 'development engine'.

The national roles and responsibilities undertaken include:

- national training programmes for practitioners, volunteers and intermediaries (those who help with 'spotting' and 'referring')

- providing advice on policy and strategy, including assistance with 'literacy proofing' of wider policies

- developing curriculum, teaching and learning methods and quality

- commissioning and/or conducting research, including practitioner research

- developing access, physical and on-line, to resources, research and good practice

- networking practitioners

- targeting awareness raising campaigns

- supporting local participation in national initiatives.

Examples include: The National Literacy Secretariat (NLS) in Canada; The National Institute for Literacy (NIFL) in the USA;

The National Adult Literacy Agency (NALA) in Ireland; and the Basic Skills Agency (BSA) in England and Wales.

Recommendation 1: that the national strategy should be actively overseen by Ministers and co-ordinated and monitored within the Scottish Executive.

Building the capacity to provide quality literacy and numeracy provision from such a low base will take 3 to 5 years. Making a significant impact on Scotland's literacy and numeracy levels will require a sustained effort, over a longer period, even with the substantial new resources announced for the next 3 years. Issues of funding are addressed in section 5 of the report.

In view of the importance of quickly implementing the recommendations in this report and the implications for many other Scottish Executive policies and initiatives, it is essential that the national strategy is co-ordinated and monitored by the Scottish Executive. The Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Department (ELLD) should secure appropriate professional advice to enable it to carry out the following functions:

- agreeing national goals and targets

- identifying appropriate resources and the pattern of disbursement, including the priorities for pathfinder projects

- agreeing an action plan to implement our recommendations

- providing new guidance on Community Learning Strategies, consistent with the broader role outlined in recommendation 3

- assessing the literacy and numeracy components of Community Learning Strategies and providing and monitoring funding allocated

- agreeing with the providers of professional education the content of training as it relates to literacy and numeracy

- providing guidance to the Enterprise Networks, Scottish Further Education Funding Council, Community Learning Scotland and the Scottish University for Industry on their role and contribution to achieving the national goals and targets

- ensuring that Scottish Executive departments reflect the priority accorded by Ministers to literacy and numeracy in their own planning, employment and training practices. This could involve cross-departmental working groups and/or short term secondments between departments. Areas for action include health and prisons.

- reviewing and adjusting the national strategy ensuring fit and synergy between reserved and devolved approaches.

Recommendation 2: that the location of the 'development engine' to drive the creation of quality adult literacy and numeracy provision should be identified by International Literacy Day (8th September) 2001

Those who responded to the consultation overwhelmingly identified the lack of a focused 'development engine' as a major barrier to the quick and effective development of literacy and numeracy provision. The literacy and numeracy vision outlined in this report does not suggest a single clear home and we have considered allocating the tasks and responsibility across a number of organisations. Whilst partnership working is vital we believe that there would be a considerable loss of drive and coherence if accountability for the key functions outlined below were not vested in a single organisation. Currently a Ministerial review of Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) is ongoing and we therefore ask that Ministers consider the most appropriate location for the 'development engine' within that review. We have recommended below the features and functions of the 'development engine' and of the national organisations with a contribution to make in achieving the national goals and targets. Interim arrangements to maintain the momentum of action we have started should be put in place.

The 'development engine' must offer national coverage and transcend sectoral differences. Its goal is to drive the creation of quality adult literacy and numeracy provision in partnership with the Community Learning Strategy partners and national organisations.

The main responsibilities will be:

- the development and implementation of a national training and development programme for all categories of staff and volunteers, which articulates with the professional education of literacy and numeracy specialists

- the development of curriculum and innovative approaches

- the commissioning, management and monitoring of pathfinder projects.This should include a continuing dialogue with the stakeholders involved.

- the development of performance measures and quality improvement processes

- enabling practitioners to network and exchange good practice

- the creation of a national on-line databank that provides researchers, practitioners and volunteers with a single point of access for available resources, training and development, research and networking

- supporting, and engaging directly in, consultation with learners

- the development of e-learning options and other knowledge and tools in response to the needs of the field

- a national research programme including action research by practitioners

- raising public awareness of literacy and numeracy issues

- co-ordinating an annual progress report on literacy and numeracy in Scotland

- co-ordinating a national event on International Literacy Day annually.

'The idea of a national body, not merely for the overseeing of standards, but for the co-ordination and development of all aspects of adult literacies work in Scotland was frequently suggested in the responses. They suggested that it could combine not only promotional, developmental, and quality control remits, but that it could also serve to embed an adult literacies perspective into a range of other political agendas.'

Adult Literacy 2000 National Consultation Exercise

4.1.2 Stakeholders

Recommendation 3: that the Scottish Executive should develop guidance on literacy and numeracy for other national organisations that have a stake in the development of adult literacy and numeracy.

This guidance will cover the following national organisations:

- The Enterprise Networks in support of the vision in 'A Smart Successful Scotland'

- The Scottish Further Education Funding Council (SFEFC)

- Community Learning Scotland (CLS)

- The Scottish University for Industry

- National Training Organisations

Guidance should be developed covering

- collaboration with the 'development engine'

- active participation in Community Learning Strategies.

4.1.3 Local action

Recommendation 4: that accountability for local development, funding, monitoring and targets across three sectors (community and the voluntary sector, further education and the workplace) be given to local authorities as co-ordinators of Community Learning Strategies.

Translating the new funding into learning opportunities will require considerable local co-ordination and co-operation to avoid wasteful competition and misunderstandings between sectors. To avoid unnecessary duplication of effort and an additional planning burden we recommend that local action be developed through Community Learning Strategies. The Scottish Executive, in Circular 4/99 has made it a priority for local authorities to focus on literacy and numeracy in their role as co-ordinators of Community Learning Strategies. New guidance on Community Learning Strategies will be required from the Scottish Executive to ensure coherent development at a local level.This guidance must also take account of the role of national organisations such as trade unions, Workbase, The Workers' Educational Association and the Prince's Trust.

The Community Learning Strategy should clearly:

- benchmark current provision against the 'Literacies in the Community: Good Practice Framework' and include an action plan to improve quality

- outline how the diversity of available learning options and pathways between options will be co-ordinated and developed

- identify how participation by priority groups will be increased

- identify the distribution of funds, targets and accountability between the three sectors identified - community and voluntary sector, further education and the workplace.

- identify how mainstream literacy and numeracy provision will be developed and supported

'Any new policy, it is suggested, should be co-ordinated through the Community Learning Strategy of each local authority as this provides an opportunity to dovetail with key lifelong learning targets in Community Learning Plans. The overall message was that there must be a collective effort that integrates services and provision and is representative of the range of organisations with a legitimate interest in this area.

There appears to be overwhelming support for the utilisation of Community Learning Plans as the principal vehicle for the implementation of national strategy. This, it was suggested, would allow locally adapted solutions that are unconstrained from a nationally prescribed model. Further, that it would build on work that is already in progress and encourage established local partnerships to develop.'

Adult Literacy 2000 National Consultation Exercise

Case Study

North Lanarkshire Community Education Service is co-ordinating the development of a community learning plan focused on adult literacies and core skills. Organisations working within the partnership include the local authority community education service and other local authority services, four further education colleges, Scottish Enterprise Lanarkshire, Motherwell Social Inclusion Partnership, Lanarkshire Adult Guidance Network, the local careers service, LEAD Scotland and a range of other voluntary organisations. Representatives of approximately 25 groups attend planning meetings.The partners have jointly applied for European Union funding to establish a literacies and core skills project. In addition a marketing strategy is being developed which will give priority to those most at risk of social exclusion.

4.2 A quality learning experience

4.2.1 Free to learners

Recommendation 5: that all services and courses should be provided free to learners.

This section covers the elements that must be available to build a system responsive to those with literacy and numeracy needs. We recommend that all the services in this section including general and course screening, specialised guidance and assessment, individual learning plans, courses and programmes, ongoing guidance and support be provided free to learners. All the learning opportunities must be listed on the learndirect scotland database.

Few skills are more fundamental than the ability to read, write and do maths. We recommend making provision free to learners to underline the importance of developing these skills in order to help people into work and into better paid, more skilled jobs and to achieve a socially inclusive Scotland. On a practical level, there is a strong correlation between weak skills and low income so charges would skew the profile of those participating and prevent learners from choosing the options most appropriate to their needs. More significantly, fees would weigh heavily as a disincentive alongside the many barriers to participating in learning that those with literacy and numeracy difficulties face. Research shows that, unlike adults with a positive prior experience of education, they do not expect to enjoy or benefit from learning. They anticipate that adult learning will, perhaps like their own experience of school, be a negative or even humiliating experience. They expect to have to juggle their course with care responsibilities, long working hours and poor public transport even though they have limited expectations of success. It is only after joining programmes that learners become more positive about learning and the benefits they can gain (Bailey and Coleman, 1998). Removing costs as an obstacle enables providers to be pro active in engaging and responding to the priority groups and to achieve the widest possible access.

Free learning should not be poorly resourced learning. We believe providers must capitalise on the opportunities provided by new communication technologies. These provide an attractive reason for adults to want to improve and extend literacy skills; new ways to learn that will be particularly important for rural and disabled learners; and new ways for learners to maintain and develop their skills when they have successfully completed the programme (section 4.2.5).

'I enjoy coming here. You are not made to feel stupid because you don't understand as an adult. I feel I have learned a lot. I enjoyed the full stops, capitals and commas. That was a big thing. It meant a lot. I now write letters to the school with ease.'

Jeanette (Buddies for Learning Project)

'ABE is nothing like school; you get to work at your own speed and you don't get into trouble if you forget to do something. I have more confidence in myself now.'

Marie age 31 (Fife Council ABE)

4.2.2 Improved screening

Recommendation 6: that awareness training and screening processes should be developed to improve the identification of need within communities, workplaces and post school education.

1. General screening

Many people with low skills do not recognise these as limited and, even if they do, they are not clear how formal learning could benefit them. Informal advice, support and referral should be readily available in workplaces, communities and from education and training providers. There is already some good practice in Scotland where there is partnership and networking across sectors to draw in and support learners, such as the Adult Guidance Networks already supported by the Scottish Executive. Such good practice needs to be extended and strengthened. There is a need for innovative thinking in opening up new opportunities for specialised guidance, advice and screening which builds on models of effective partnership and which is based on a multi-agency approach. There is also a need to ensure that both informal and non-formal programmes articulate and create pathways to formal and accredited learning. The 'development engine' should take a lead in developing awareness training and 'indicator' type screening tools for use in workplaces and communities.

Groups to involve include:

- community workers

- criminal justice workers, prison officers

- legal profession

- health workers

- social workers

- trade union representatives

- Employment Service and New Deal personal advisers

- Careers Scotland advisers

- National Training Organisations

- home school link workers

- learndirect scotland advisers and learning centre co-ordinators

- Investors in People advisers

- employers

A broad range of people should be provided with training to help them to spot those who need assistance and then to know where to refer them for specialised assessment and guidance. It is also important to expand the range of individuals and groups who should be able to answer the question 'where can I get help?'

Consideration should be given in the national training strategy to how building awareness of literacy and numeracy into continuing professional development training can best be achieved.

2. Course screening

Adults with literacy and numeracy needs entering further and higher education and national training programmes need to be offered appropriate help at the earliest possible stage. Screening against the literacy and numeracy requirements of courses should be available to those who ask for help and those in the priority groups identified earlier (section 3.4.1). Education and training providers will need to be proactive in devising screening materials and strategies for supporting the growing numbers of new learners from priority groups as efforts to widen access to further and higher education succeed.The 'development engine' should produce guidance on the design of screening tools to support education providers in screening learners against the literacy and numeracy requirements of their courses.

4.2.3 The learning gateway

To enter the learning process we can conceptualise the individual passing through a gateway that evaluates his needs and the level of resources to be directed for his advantage. This learning gateway involves a two-stage process - specialised guidance or assessment, then the drawing up of individual learning plans.

Recommendation 7: that common approaches should be developed to specialised guidance and assessment and producing individual learning plans.

1. Specialised guidance and assessment

Specialised guidance and assessment should be available free of charge to any adult whether referred or asking for help themselves.The process should:

- provide an assessment of needs and identification of appropriate learning goals

- present potential learners with options and impartial advice

- establish a starting point against which to review learner's progress.

Initial assessment should be sensitive and comprehensive. It should reliably identify individual learners' abilities and particular strengths and weaknesses in relation to relevant contexts. Assessment tools are required that avoid the diagnostic limitations of standardised initial tests and provide practitioners working in different sectors with a common language to describe learners' starting points. On the basis of the assessment, specialised guidance should provide potential learners with a realistic idea of what they can set out to achieve given their needs, aspirations and circumstances and the options open to them. Both assessment and guidance should consider numeracy along with literacy. Specialised initial guidance and assessment should be offered as a package, not as separate events, and must be of a consistent standard for all potential learners.The 'development engine' should lead the development of common approaches.

We believe that materials and strategies in current use to provide specialist guidance, screening and assessment are not appropriate for learners who have had unhappy learning experiences in the past and who are tentative in their attitudes to learning, for example New Deal clients. The screening materials themselves do not provide accurate information about levels of competence in literacy or numeracy for adults in the context of the Scottish education and training system. Nor can they adequately quantify any future difficulties of potential learners within formal programmes.

There is also currently a lack of understanding and expertise in the design of strategies to elicit this information. Much of the screening and assessment activity consists of a paper and pencil approach, rather than being part of a wider face-to-face interaction which focuses on the total situation, context and needs of individual learners and which requires learner evaluation as part of the process.

While we recognises that thinking in these areas has developed, there is much to be done to:

- create on-line materials which develop literacy and numeracy

- create materials which develop new technological and business related skills as well as building on existing literacy and numeracy skills

- develop screening and assessment materials which take account of the way adults learn and apply their knowledge and which are relevant to their individual contexts

- develop appropriate strategies through training to assess the needs of learners who are lacking in confidence or whose experience before has been negative.

2. Individual learning plans

Individual learning plans should become the standard means of recognising needs and goals and developing learning pathways. There is currently no requirement for providers to produce individual learning plans or use any mutually recognised core content. This prevents learners from taking responsibility for their own learning and limits their ability to move on from courses and between programmes. It means that those who are unable to join a course immediately after assessment or who defer learning to a later stage (due to unforeseen circumstances), in effect re-enter the learning system from scratch. In addition to the benefits for learners, analysis of learning plans will greatly improve providers' ability to tailor courses and programmes to recognised needs and to co-ordinate their efforts with others in their area.

The development work needed should include looking at how ICT can be used to make learning plans accessible, informative and easy to update for learners, practitioners and providers. The 'development engine' should develop a framework for learning plans to ensure consistency across and within sectors.

'For almost all of the respondents appropriate learning was equated with:

- learner-centredness

- being aware of the learner's needs and circumstances

- using materials and delivery techniques appropriate to those needs.'

Adult Literacy 2000 National Consultation Exercise

4.2.4 Improved courses and programmes

Recommendation 8: that the quality of programmes should be improved through a new curriculum framework, a national on-line databank and resource system and by establishing four pathfinder projects on courses and programmes.

Adults with literacy and numeracy needs do not comprise a homogeneous group. There is a difference in the way that adults and children learn and so approaches to teaching and learning, as well as an adult curriculum, must take account of these various needs and differences.

Adults from different cultures, backgrounds and sets of circumstances need and want literacy and numeracy skills for different reasons. It is important to provide a wide learning gateway which will both attract and raise public awareness and which meets all the needs both cultural and individual. Such a framework should link directly to the core skills framework and other formal learning in order to open up the pathway to education, training and employment.

Our aim is that every adult joining programmes will be offered a curriculum that closely matches his or her needs and goals, recognising and respecting difference and diversity. This requires a different approach to the curriculum than that used in formal education. Learners should not be required to fit their needs and priorities into a 'one size fits all' curriculum based on a prescriptive 'ladder' of skills. Equally, practitioners should not be expected to design a curriculum for learners in a vacuum or in an 'ad hoc' way. A non-formal curriculum is required that is both learner-centred and structured to focus explicitly on the uses of literacy and numeracy that adults encounter in real life and the actual skills they require to meet these.To assist practitioners, a curriculum framework needs to be developed setting out the knowledge and skills required by adults to use literacy and numeracy effectively in the four key contexts of private/family life, working life, public/community life and education or training. This framework will guide those working in different sectors, providing a common language and theory for the design and delivery of a variety of courses and programmes. Taken together with improvements in specialised assessment and guidance, the framework should begin to put right the low priority given to numeracy in programmes. The framework should be informed by the 'Literacies in the Community: Good Practice Framework'.

Matching the resources for delivery to well-designed, learner-centred curricula will require considerable improvements in access to learning and teaching materials for practitioners and learners. There has been a huge expansion in learning tools, both paper and IT based, for adult literacy and numeracy in recent years. It would be inefficient for every provider to maintain a comprehensive resource centre and we therefore recommend the 'development engine' set up a national on-line databank and a system for enabling practitioners, volunteers and intermediaries to preview and borrow resources.The databank would provide a single point of access for available resources, training and development, research and networking.

In addition, the 'development engine' should establish four pathfinder projects to identify innovative ways of working with learners from priority groups to inform programme design and delivery. The voluntary sector has important roles both in reaching potential learners through its extensive community networks and in responding to groups and needs within the community which otherwise would not be met. The sector has a proven record of pioneering work in adult learning, an obvious example being the role of the university settlements which led to the 'On the Move' national literacy campaign in 1975.We envisage a role for the voluntary sector consistent with their record as innovators and so recommend that at least two of these pathfinders should be focused on the voluntary sector.

4.2.5 The potential of e-learning

Recommendation 9: that the 'development engine' should lead the development of e-learning in support of literacy and numeracy.

National developments such as the Scottish University for Industry (SUfI), the National Grid for Learning (NGfL) and The People's Network illustrate the Scottish Executive's commitment to using digital technology in the creation and distribution of learning.

The Digital Scotland Task Force was set up in 1999 to advise Scottish Ministers on actions necessary to ensure that Scotland achieves lasting economic and social advantage from digital technologies. This has provided a clear agenda arising from the implications of globalisation through technology resulting in e-business opportunities, e-inclusion and e-learning.

E-learning refers to a wide range of applications and processes including computer-based learning, web-based learning, virtual classrooms and digital collaboration. Learning can be customised to meet the needs of individuals in terms of a time, place and pace, and individual learning journeys can be built on popular interest subjects such as cooking, cars, sport, or mass entertainment such as 'Eastenders' or 'Brookside'.

Digital learning is still in the early stages and cannot yet be regarded as a means of social inclusion for those who are hard to reach. However the Digital Scotland Task Force report emphasised the potential of e-learning as a means of widening access, expanding the base line workforce and raising the skills levels within the labour market. E-business creates the need for a new set of technical, business and client skills with major implications for providers at all stages in school and post-secondary education.

The potential of e-learning as self-supported and mediated learning within adult literacy and numeracy is largely untapped. While literacy skills in themselves provide access to education and training through Internet access, the potential of technology itself as a means of developing literacy skills, and maintaining them, is also an area which requires further exploration.

Although there have been developments within SUfI, the University of the Highlands and Islands (UHI), the Colleges' Open Learning Exchange Group (COLEG) and the Real Partnership in Glasgow as well as other further and higher education consortia to:

- produce e-learning packages for literacy and numeracy

- provide on-line initial guidance and assessment in literacy and numeracy

Further development of these processes of entry to learning is required.

We recommend that the 'development engine' should co-ordinate and lead the development of e-learning in support of literacy and numeracy and the acquisition of technological and vocationally related skills acquired through literacy.

The 'development engine' should:

- consider the appropriateness of materials developed elsewhere for Scottish circumstances

- commission experts to develop initial screening and assessment materials which are appropriate

- develop fuller understanding of the best approaches to screening and assessment of the full range of learners.

The national training team has already begun to examine e-learning products. It will be important to ensure that all e-learning meets with existing national as well as international quality standards and the work of the e-skills NTO.

In addition, the national training strategy should include tutoring in an on-line environment as well as building on the NGfL pilot 'Connecting Communities' which provides training to community workers through technology.

Learning centres in communities and workplaces should act as catalysts in opening up exciting opportunities for local partnerships to create real exchanges as part of the learning experience.

4.2.6 Recognising real progress

Recommendation 10: that the measurement of progress should be based around learner goals and distance travelled, building on the core skills framework and Progress File.

Many people see literacy and numeracy as a very sensitive issue. It has to be treated as such. Any attempt to enforce formal accreditation for skills that are normally acquired during compulsory schooling is likely to stigmatise and deter individuals from participating. Not all learners therefore will want formal accreditation even though it is the responsibility of adult educators to both provide and encourage such accreditation. Nevertheless it is important to find a way of rewarding those that pass through the learning gateway and strive for improvement in their skills. We undertook a cross-sectoral, action research project to examine the usefulness of progress profiling approaches and the core skills framework in recognising and accrediting the progress of literacy and numeracy learners. The project was commissioned in collaboration with the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA).

The principle of broad-based qualifications to create a more flexible workforce has been in existence for some time and has been a consistent theme in the requirements of government and employers. Consequently, since the early nineties, many advanced and non-advanced programmes contain core units in Communication, Numeracy and Information Technology for example. Furthermore, changes to the post-sixteen curriculum arising from Higher Still have led to the automatic certification of embedded core skills through the achievement of Standard Grade and National Qualifications awards. Core skills are therefore increasingly, either embedded or discrete components of the formal curriculum in Scotland from Standard Grade onwards.They are part of the design of new Higher National programmes as well as Scottish Vocational Qualifications and Modern Apprenticeships; they are moreover, steadily being built into many degree and higher education courses leading to professional qualifications.

The SQA core skills framework developed as part of the Higher Still initiative, has five core skills: Communication, Numeracy, Information technology, Working with Others and Problem Solving. They can be certificated at Access 2 and 3, Intermediate 1 and 2 and Higher.

The Scottish Qualifications Certificate which records learner attainment, automatically provides information about the level of core skills resulting from the achievement of any National Qualification and provides a core skills profile for every individual.

'... definitions of success should therefore recognise progress at all levels, should be personal to the individual and should measure the learning distance travelled, which implies a recognition of very different starting points and rates of progress.'

Adult Literacy 2000 National Consultation Exercise

Case Study

Gail always wanted to do something about her literacy but was put off by embarrassment. Gail's tutor was not only sympathetic but skilled, and put together a programme based on Gail's needs to write out shopping lists, short notes and do some personal writing. Her confidence in her ability to learn is growing, and when her daughters are older Gail would like to try for some qualifications.

The research project concluded:

- that practitioners in all three sectors of post-secondary education were committed to recognising learner progress in one form or another and that there was a need to recognise achievement based on distance travelled as well as the attainment of formal qualifications

- that the core skills framework provided a solid basis for recording individual attainment in literacy and numeracy and a range of resources supported this for practitioners preparing students for the attainment of awards

- progress profiling was time consuming, and still relatively untested. However, through encouraging dialogue and the review of targets between tutor and learners, it was a suitable basis on which to construct a system of recognising the achievement of personal goals.

Evidence from the project also showed that there are a number of different models of progress profiling being used and that there is a widespread willingness to explore further the potential of progress profiling.

Finally, the project found that the overwhelming view of practitioners was that both approaches could be used alongside each other, but that progress profiling required further development. Further work is required to develop guidance on using the core skills framework and progress profiling for literacy and numeracy learners. The detail of our recommendation is contained in the research report. (Davies et al, forthcoming)

4.2.7 Ongoing guidance and support

Recommendation 11: that all education and training providers should nominate an accessible key person who will co-ordinate the guidance and support required to recruit and sustain learners.

A growing body of research shows that there are complex reasons why some adults do not participate in post-school education and training or are likely to discontinue their involvement prematurely. Institutions need to consider the personal, institutional and practical difficulties encountered by these prospective learners, and to put in place support mechanisms to address these difficulties.

To sustain attendance, it is vital that well-publicised opportunities to access information, advice, counselling and support are available, as each learner requires. Providers should ensure that specialist advice on careers, finance and other personal issues is provided within the institution or through a local guidance network, in order to address the issues that are negatively affecting the learner. It is important that each learner has access to a nominated member of staff who can co-ordinate the guidance and support required to enable him/her to successfully achieve his/her learning outcomes. Providers should consider supporting learners by pairing them with a voluntary mentor from the local community who has successfully overcome the sort of problems being experienced by learners from the same peer group. We commend Progress File as an effective tool for documenting the guidance received by the learner and also for the learner to quantify and evaluate the quality of the support received. It is essential that providers develop a welcoming and supportive attitude to their literacy and numeracy learners and to the community at large, to attract and retain learners who may be inhibited by the institution and indeed by the notion of learning itself.

4.2.8 Specialist information and advice

Recommendation 12: that specialist information and advice should be provided to support inclusive and effective provision for all learners.

The overall adult learner focused approach to programme design and delivery should provide a strong basis for effective inclusion of learners with disabilities, specific learning difficulties (including dyslexia) and speakers of English as an additional or second language. Providers should avoid labelling these groups of learners and limiting the options open to them through creative use of learning group size, appropriate materials and learning tools, specialist and additional staffing, inter agency collaboration and cross sector provision. Initial and continuous professional development should enable practitioners to recognise and respond to specific needs but their knowledge and skills should also be backed up by easy access to specialist information and expertise via formalised networks at a local and national level. We recommend that specialist information and advice is provided to support inclusive and effective provision for learners with disabilities, specific learning difficulties (including dyslexia) and speakers of English as a second or additional language.

Case Study

Margaret and Douglas are both visually impaired. Douglas decided to improve his English skills, because he was becoming increasingly involved with voluntary groups, taking on PR and secretarial functions. Margaret decided to do the same although she was unsure about her ability to cope. They both needed support from Learning Support staff, because of their visual impairment, but Margaret also required some help with her basic skills, such as spelling and structuring her writing.

As Margaret says, 'I never thought I would be able to complete the class; I really just went along to keep Douglas company. But the staff were very helpful. They got me to write about things I knew, so that I could get comfortable and build up my confidence. I began to feel as if I could do it.'

Both Margaret and Douglas achieved Communication levels 3 and 4 and wanted to carry on learning. Margaret said, 'Before I started studying, I didn't have much to say for myself - all my interest was the house and my family. Now I feel I've got much more to offer.'

4.3 A system that learns

4.3.1 Quality improvements

Recommendation 13: that local authorities, colleges, voluntary organisations and workplace providers should all integrate the quality framework in 'Literacies in the Community: Resources for Practitioners and Managers' within their existing arrangements for reviewing progress and quality.

'Literacies in the Community: Resources for Practitioners and Managers' provides a cross-sectoral set of standards in:

- teaching and learning

- management and co-ordination

- policy and planning

- staffing and deployment of resources

- specialised and general guidance and support

which can be applied in local authority provision, the voluntary sector, FE colleges and training organisations. The Framework should be used both in embedding a culture of self-evaluation and reflective practice within organisations. The evaluation process for both managers and teachers should be informed principally through consultation with learners on the teaching and support they have received and clear evidence of the progress learners have made.

We recommend that all education and training providers be subject to the same quality assurance processes, based on the good practice framework in 'Literacies in the Community: Resources for Practitioners and Managers'. The 'development engine' should lead the development of performance indicators and have overall responsibility for co-ordinating quality assurance of provision including processes that apply to national training programmes.

It will be necessary to build on the good practice framework to devise performance indicators that evidence the progress learners are making. Progress should be measured in relation to the benefits they are gaining from their learning, in relation to growth in confidence, behaviours and attitudes, as well as applied skill in and outwith the classroom. For example, further work will be necessary to evidence:

- new knowledge and skills that are acquired as an adult learner

- new knowledge and skills acquired as a literacy learner

- gains in learner confidence and self-esteem

- changes in the ways the learner uses literacy or numeracy

- changes in the learner to indicate he/she is becoming a lifelong learner.

A key indicator will be the level of completion, currently averaging 70% in the further education sector overall. We aim that by 2003, 70% of learners will achieve their individual learning plan goals and that another 20% will make some progress. In addition it will be important to monitor the reasons, positive and negative, why learners do not complete their individual learning plans. Some learners pause for legitimate personal reasons and may re-engage at a later stage. Others may leave for employment opportunities and may continue with workplace learning or return at a later stage. However, there are those who leave their programmes and who have no wish to return. Contributing factors may well be a lack of sustained guidance and support, dissatisfaction with the programme because it does not meet their aspirations or a style of teaching that makes learning inaccessible to them. The 'development engine' should collate this feedback and ensure that relevant lessons are learned.

The existing quality frameworks and procedures for the inspection of the local authority contribution to community learning, and reviews of colleges of further education and voluntary providers of literacy and numeracy, should be developed to take full account of the 'Literacies in the Community: Good Practice Framework'. In this way all providers would be subject to appropriate and equivalent quality assurance and improvement processes. A rigorous system of quality assurance should be promoted by making available a set of performance and progress indicators applicable to all sectors.

The Scottish Executive should ensure that progress by local partnerships is carefully reviewed annually, and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education (HMIE) should include a specific focus on literacy and numeracy in its on-going programme of inspections and reviews of relevant providers. A comprehensive review of progress by local partnerships and nationally against overall targets should be carried out after 3 years to inform on-going development of the strategy and future funding decisions.

4.3.2 Raising expertise through improved training and development

Recommendation 14: that a national training strategy should provide national training standards for all staff and volunteers whose roles relate to literacy and numeracy tuition and a new qualification for specialist literacy and numeracy practitioners.

Recommendation 15: that staff and volunteers in organisations providing literacy and numeracy tuition should meet the national standards by 2005.

Volunteers or paid classroom assistants have an important role to play in offering learners appropriate individual attention and support. Both volunteers and paid classroom assistants can be deployed in a range of situations: supported study centres, short courses, learning groups etc. Volunteers and paid classroom assistants should be recognised as playing a key role in assisting with learning while not replacing the need for specialist practitioners. Long term 1:1 learning using volunteers in isolation from others needs to be avoided where possible. Where 1:1 learning is necessary in rural areas, a specialist practitioner should put together the 1:1 learner's learning plan and then closely supervise and resource the 1:1 pair as a special form of supported distance learning.

'I decided to volunteer because I really enjoyed reading and thought I would enjoy introducing others to books and reading. The training was relaxed, useful and full of good ideas about things to do with the learner. The support from the tutors was excellent and continues to be ongoing when working with your learner. Before my first meeting with my learner I felt very nervous and apprehensive but the atmosphere becomes more relaxed the more you meet with your learner and is enjoyable and rewarding to both the learner and the volunteer.'

Susan (Volunteer with the Buddies for Learning Project)

There is a need however to improve the training and developmental opportunities available to volunteers and specialist practitioners alike. Developmental opportunities for staff engaged in supporting, delivering and managing literacy and numeracy programmes vary widely in content, approach and effectiveness both within and across sectors. A minority of providers have effective, ongoing training and development systems for all staff with roles relating to tuition. Others provide very limited opportunities, mainly in initial training for volunteer tutors, with a few offering some SQA or City and Guilds accreditation at this initial level. Some providers offer no training or staff development in adult literacy or numeracy at all.With the exception of a minority of providers, with a programme of mainly in-house, in-service training, there are few opportunities for paid professional staff to develop and update their practice.

Development of a professional qualification in teaching adult literacy and numeracy and accredited options for staff involved in supporting, developing and managing programmes is required to create a high quality professional level of service delivery across all sectors.

'The issue of a standard accreditation pathway for staff working in the area of literacy and numeracy was raised on many occasions and there was a call for greater consistency of staff development and the need to raise the profile of the profession.'

Adult Literacy 2000 National Consultation Exercise

As training and staff development are central to national and local development, we established a short-term project to conduct a training needs analysis across the spectrum of providers and for all categories of staff that have roles relating to the delivery of tuition. In addition, the project is delivering immediate training opportunities to practitioners in all sectors across the country including piloting on-line training, developing pilot training units and making recommendations about how these should be delivered and accredited.

The project is unique in that it is the first national training needs analysis to have been carried out in this area of education, covering providers in all sectors. The project will provide the basis for the national training strategy to be developed and implemented by the 'development engine'.

Specifically the national training strategy should create and promote:

- a teaching qualification for specialist adult literacy and numeracy practitioners at certificate, degree and postgraduate level. This will map with the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework and include options at all three levels which articulate with the Teaching Qualification in Further Education and professional training in Community Education, as well as offering continuing professional development options for staff in other related sectors

- national training standards for all staff and volunteers whose roles relate to tuition in adult literacy and numeracy: tuition, guidance including pre-course, initial screening and assessment, on course and exit guidance, programme management and development work

- opportunities for the development of e-learning alongside taught courses and workplace based training, to facilitate and maximise access to training for practitioners in different settings and in all parts of the country.

Discussions should be initiated with the appropriate Higher Education institutions about the development of an accredited professional qualification at all three levels. The bodies responsible for the professional training of further education lecturers and community education workers and NTOs for staff in related sectors should be consulted on the inclusion of adult literacy and numeracy units as part of, or in addition to, their training courses.

Education and training providers must be actively encouraged to ensure that staff are trained to the appropriate national training standard for the roles they are performing relating to tuition.

4.3.3 Grounding change in research and learner consultation

Recommendation 16: that the national strategy, as it develops, be informed by and responsive to research and consultation with learners.

As the national strategy develops, we will need comprehensive information on 'what works' in Scotland and to what extent the answers are different for different groups of learners.Although we can learn from other countries, we need to understand the experience of Scottish learners and gather findings where evidence is particularly thin. (For example, there is very little reliable, national research on the factors contributing to learner progress. A new study in England and Wales (Brooks et al, 2001 Progress in Adult Literacy) indicates these factors include staff development and training, the use of paid or volunteer assistants alongside teachers and the duration and intensity of programmes.) Rather than one off, stand-alone projects, we need an ongoing programme of research and consultation with learners to:

- identify gaps in our knowledge

- develop new and useful concepts

- develop research methods

- take into account the reality of adults' lives

- identify weaknesses or contradictions in policy and strategy.

The 'development engine' should manage the programme and invite the Research Advisory Group set up by the Adult Literacy Team to advise on this work. Specifically research is required in the following areas:

- the factors that have the greatest influence on attracting learners and successful initial contact

- the factors that have the greatest influence on improving literacy and numeracy levels (e.g. programme design, teaching and learning methods, approaches to recognising and accrediting individual progress etc.)

- the impact on learners' lives of different types of literacy and numeracy programmes

- adult uses of literacy and numeracy in different contexts and the changing demands on skills

- the types of individuals and groups experiencing greatest disadvantage as a result of low literacy and numeracy

- the factors influencing people's ability to maintain, develop and transfer their skills to new contexts over their lifetime.

The research programme should provide opportunities for practitioners as well as professional researchers.

In view of the importance of learner consultation, the Team commissioned a project which provides useful insights into learners' experiences and a basis for further work (Merrifield, forthcoming).

4.4 Promoting awareness

The strategy focuses on doubling the number of learning places and understanding what works in raising literacy and numeracy levels. However, other action outside the learning system needs to underpin these efforts. Public, private and voluntary sector organisations, employers and trade unions, all need to play a part in a broader aim of shifting cultural, social and economic attitudes to literacy and numeracy. Acknowledging the importance of getting, keeping and developing these skills on a lifelong basis should become the norm. Actions to achieve this include:

- raising awareness and removing stigma (section 4.4.1)

- providing opportunities to use skills to the full (section 4.4.2)

4.4.1 Raising awareness and removing stigma

Recommendation 17: that four pathfinder projects should be established to raise awareness and stimulate demand for literacy and numeracy.

There are many good examples of awareness raising efforts in the UK and internationally. Rather than heavyweight marketing the countries reviewed have developed a broad spectrum of promotion and awareness building. Not all of this has been publicly funded, with strong civic responsibility and corporate sponsorship being a feature in the USA and Canada. In the first year we suggest pathfinder projects in the areas of health, prisons, the legal system and workplace. Examples of initiatives include:

- activities coinciding with International Literacy Day (8th September) and Number Day (5th December)

- specific campaigns such as ABC Canada's Campaign 'When you struggle to read and write you can't describe it'. In the USA the National Institute for Literacy has been running an extensive targeted national public awareness campaign 'Literacy: It's A Whole New World'. Currently it is encouraging young people in 15 cities to volunteer in local literacy programmes. Earlier phases targeted the general public, policy makers, business and industry leaders.

- use of TV drama, 'Brookside' in the UK and 'Penny's Odyssey' in Canada

- high profile stars from the music, film and sports industries to attract the interest of specific sections of the population

- encouraging the joy of reading e.g. in Ireland popular writers such as Roddy Doyle and Patricia Scanlon have written special versions of their books for new and 'returning' adult readers

- reading and writing circles.

Literacy is more than an educational issue and must not be addressed in isolation from other policy areas. There is much to be learned from other countries in terms of the innovation and priority accorded outwith the education and training system to literacy and numeracy as an issue.

Pathfinder projects will test out approaches outwith the education and training system making links with social justice issues. Due regard must be given in agreeing pathfinders to the sustainability of approaches and the ease with which these approaches can be scaled up to cover Scotland. The legal and health systems present significant opportunities to reach those needing help as the following two case studies demonstrate.

Case Study

The legal system can be intimidating to adults who cannot use written legal materials. In Canada, Lawyers for Literacy, an initiative of the Canadian Bar Association (British Columbia Branch www.cle.bc.ca) has produced 'Communicating Clearly: How Client Literacy Affects Your Law Practice and What You Can Do About It'. Further guidance is available through:

- Lawyers for Literacy Awareness Kit

- Literacy Audit

- a logo identifying the practice as 'Literacy Aware'

- staff training.

Case Study

Poor readers are at risk of poor health for a number of reasons:

- health information is given and received in complex written formats

- poor readers are more reluctant to question care and are less likely to understand what health professionals say

- they will be unable to read safety instructions and may be overlooked for retraining

- the poverty and associated stresses of poor readers lead to higher morbidity and mortality

- lower education is associated with poorer nutrition, smoking, inactivity and higher stress

- homelessness.

The Canadian Public Health Association (CPHA) is committed to maintaining and improving personal and community health according to the public health principles of prevention, promotion, protection and effective public policy'. CPHA's National Literacy and Health Programme promotes awareness among health professionals of the links between literacy and health.The programme focuses on health information in plain language, and clear verbal communication between health professionals and the clients that they serve (Directory of Plain Language Health Information)

4.4.2 Providing opportunities to use skills to the full

Recommendation 18: that the Scottish Executive and other major public and private sector employers should take the lead in helping individuals retain and develop their skills.

The Scottish Executive as a major Scottish employer, along with other major public and private sector employers, should take the lead in providing opportunities for their own employees to use their literacy and numeracy skills to the full.

Community and voluntary organisations should also look creatively at how their work can give people the chance to use and develop their skills. In many cases, all that may be required is to provide an interesting purpose for using reading, writing or numeracy, and some basic resources. Examples include setting up book clubs or writing circles, putting free newspapers and writing materials in community cafes, giving people the chance to volunteer in a kids' homework club or helping a community group keep its accounts. As a result of such opportunities, some people will want to 'brush up' their skills through informal learning, perhaps with the help of friends, relatives or colleagues. Already there are books, videos and software that can be used but often they are not easy to find and not available to borrow. The huge growth of local learning centres in workplaces, libraries and community venues has the potential to make this kind of informal activity much more widespread. In the next few years the, as yet untapped, potential of the revolution in e-learning will start to blur the boundary between informal learning and more formal courses and programmes.

The 'development engine' should ensure that good practice and 'what works' in this area is disseminated, and provide information and advice.

4.5 Four critical success factors

Many of these recommendations work together with others to create the basis for an integrated learning system. Four factors will be critical to success:

- clear lines of accountability - it is intended that clear lines of accountability be established at the implementation stage between the Scottish Executive, the 'development engine' and Community Learning Strategies through local authorities

- learner-centred programmes - it is expected that developments in screening, assessment, learning planning, guidance, progress profiling and accreditation will form a coherent package securing genuinely learner-centred programmes

- professionalism - the professionalism of providers is to be increased by action on several levels: training and professional development,

- maximising the potential of ICT - ICT has the potential to speed the pace and extend the scope of change. Our recommendations for an online databank for providers and e-learning developments are specific ways to tap this potential by linking practitioners with learners.

5. Targets and Funding

Recommendation 19: that capacity should be more than doubled within three years, with the funding provided through local authorities, ensuring the expansion of capacity across all sectors and the targeting of priority groups.

5.1 Targets

If we are to address the needs of the 23% or 800,000 adults in Scotland with very limited literacy and numeracy abilities we must significantly increase the number of literacy and numeracy learners from the low numbers currently receiving help. Our research suggested that at present about 15,000 receive some form of structured learning each year from colleges, local authorities or the voluntary sector, although even that may be an over-estimate.

A huge expansion in learning provision is required, but it must be gradual because:

- the quality of provision needs to be approved and assured at the same time

- as expanding capacity to ensure we attract and retain learners

- it is not practical to seek to engage too many learners too quickly, especially when 90% express themselves as satisfied with their skills for the uses they encounter.

In Table 1 below we set a target for more than doubling capacity within 3 years to the point where we engage with almost 34,000 learners or 4.25% of our target population each year. Several other countries lay on provision to meet 5% of overall need, but we have had to take account of the very low base from which Scotland must build. Although the targets will be challenging in the early years, our calculations take account of the time and costs of gearing up to the new challenge. Our calculations on targets and funding assume that the average learner requires 80 hours of tuition; some learners of course will require much more than that and some much less.

Table 1: Learners supported by national strategy

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

Total Number supported over next 3 years

Learners currently supported by Local Authorities, Colleges and the Voluntary sector

15,000

15,000

15,000

45,000

New learners helped with new funding

4,800

9,700

18,700

33,200

Total number of learners

19,800

24,700

33,700

78,200

The main targets will be:

- more than doubling annual capacity within 3 years to help almost 34,000 people each year by 2004

- helping almost 80,000 people in total over the next 3 years (with some further additional places in national training programmes, New Deal and Employment Zone)

But other targets are required to improve the quality of provision and drive forward progress in a range of related activities:

- submission of all literacy and numeracy action plans within the context of Community Learning Strategies by December 2001

- initiation of four pathfinder projects by December 2001 and the remaining four by April 2002 to inform the on-going development of the strategy

- development of a new adult curriculum framework by March 2002

- design and pilot training for 'spotters', 'referrers' and 'supporters' by April 2002

- establishment of an on-line database by April 2002

- development of e-learning options by June 2002

- development of a fully accredited national training programme for practitioners by 2003

- 70% of learners achieve their individual learning plan goals by 2003, with an additional 20% making some progress.

Progress should be reviewed at the end of the third year of the strategy to assess if changes should be made to the strategy, funding and targets, particularly if further expansion in capacity is required.

Our goal is that at the end of the first three years of the strategy, Scotland exceeds world class levels of provision.

The cost of providing these additional learning opportunities is discussed below and set out in Table 2.

5.2 Funding

Recommendation 20: that £18.5m should be allocated through local authorities to Community Learning Strategy partnerships to complement existing capacity and assist around 80,000 learners over the next 3 years.

Ministers announced in September 2000 that £16.5m would be allocated to FE colleges for the new initiative on adult literacy and numeracy. While colleges undoubtedly have a crucial role to play in the new drive, we believe it would be more effective if the funding was channelled through local authorities to the partners involved in Community Learning Strategies where it could be used to stimulate a wider range of learning opportunities in the community and workplace.The Enterprise networks would be expected to engage fully in the development of local learning opportunities, particularly in the workplace setting, and should therefore also have access to the new funding, along with local authorities, FE colleges, the voluntary sector and other providers. Funding should be linked to outcome agreements (with match funding secured wherever possible) which ensure the new funding does not simply replace existing funding commitments from partner organisations.

We have assumed 70% of the £18.5m going on direct help for learners with 30%on additional local co-ordination and outreach work to stimulate demand directly with the community and through the voluntary sector. Our calculations are based on £1m being required to help 2565 people for 80 hours in an average group size of 9 people, and takes account of the time needed for planning, guidance, assessment and administration.

Recommendation 21: that priority is given in the allocation of funding to the establishment of a strong national development engine, a national training strategy and 8 pathfinder projects.

A national development engine or unit has a crucial role in developing and supporting a system that learns and must be properly funded to be effective. On-going research, the establishment of a national database, development of new learning materials and on-line delivery options, the promotion of innovation in outreach and learning methods as well as a measure of support for local action will require an annual budget of not less than £1.5m. A developmental engine will take time to set up and become fully operational, and start-up costs of £0.2m are envisaged, therefore, in the first year.

We indicated in section 4 the importance of eight developmental pathfinder projects (four in recommendation 8 and four in recommendation 17) primarily to examine innovative ways of engaging with key target groups. These will need start up funding of £0.2m this year and funding of £0.4m thereafter to be effective.

National training strategy - increasing the number of trained practitioners has also been highlighted as a crucial task needing adequate funding and we recommend £1.4m over the next three years.

Table 2: Cost of new programme

2001-02

£m

2002-03

£m

2003-04

£m

Total cost over next 3 years

£m

Cost of additional new learners in local authority, voluntary sector and workplace

2.7

5.4

10.4

18.5

National development engine/unit

0.2

1.5

1.5

3.2

8 Pathfinder projects

0.2

0.4

0.4

1.0

Training programme

0.4

0.5

0.5

1.4

Total cost

3.5

7.8

12.8

24.1

The Adult Literacy and Numeracy Wheel

(Extracts from Adult Literacy and Numeracy Curriculum Framework for Scotland, Scottish Executive, 2005)

The Wheel

We have chosen a wheel to represent the ALN Curriculum because we want the curriculum to revolve around the learner.

The curriculum is represented as concentric circles on a wheel to act as a visual reminder for tutors and learners of what is available to be taught and learned in ALN and the principles that should inform them.

In the centre of the wheel is the learner surrounded by his or her different contexts for learning: private life, family life, community life and working life (circle 1). These contexts reflect the importance of the learner's real life and everyday practices that are central to the Scottish approach to adult literacy and numeracy. They provide the motivation for learning. Teaching and learning resources will be drawn from these contexts and learners will assess their progress in terms of the changes they have made in them.

It is expected that learner and tutor will wish to develop the complex capabilities of adult literacy and numeracy. Working in ALN will always involve a mix of the practice of reading, writing and numeracy skills, the discussion and acquisition of knowledge about literacy and numeracy and the development of critical understanding (circle 2). Critical understanding involves awareness of the power relations between the writer and reader, knowing how they can be used to manipulate us and ways we can use them effectively. It also reminds us that we should always be aware of what our purposes are for using literacy and numeracy and who our audience is going to be. Further information about skills, knowledge and understanding of literacy and numeracy can be found in Part 2, section 1.3.

The ALNIS report recommended that the measurement of progress should be based around learner goals and distance travelled, building on the Core Skills Framework. This is why these skills reflect the SQA Core Skills of Communication and Numeracy (circle 3). Detail about what is expected in each Core Skill can be found in the relevant SQA unit descriptor; the complex capabilities of ALN are discussed further below. The fourth circle reflects the remaining SQA Core Skills. It highlights the social and educational activities which facilitate and support literacy and numeracy learning and reflect their 'real-life' use. In the 21st century the new literacies of ICT are given enhanced prominence.

The outer circle of the wheel reminds us of the principles which underpin the curriculum framework. Promoting self-determination reminds tutors that they are working towards the independence of the learner. This is done by keeping the learner and the learner's goals central to the learning process, by negotiating goals and by encouraging learners to make choices about what they work on and how their work will be assessed.

Lifelong learning within this circle encourages tutor and learner to value their learning as part of a lifelong and lifewide process. This will include encouraging progress to learning in other areas, formal and informal, and possibly to consider gaining accreditation for their literacy and numeracy work or to work towards some other qualification.

The wheel emphasises that no one element is studied in isolation. It may be helpful to imagine each circle turning like the discs on a combination lock to line up a rich and appropriate learning experience for each learner.

HOW DO WE USE THE WHEEL?

Using the example of a hypothetical literacy and numeracy learner who has recently become a member of a management committee, the diagrams below explore some of the knowledge, skills and understanding which are potentially needed in that role. A fuller breakdown is contained in Appendix 1.

The Communication and Numeracy Core Skills have been analysed in detail under the headings:

- Write to convey information, ideas and feelings

- Read with understanding

- Speak so others can understand Listen/observe effectively

- Apply numerical skills to solve problems

- Understand and apply numerical skills

- Interpret numerical information Communicate numerical information

Information in circles in the diagrams represents numeracy and communication broken down under the above headings. Rectangles represent the other SQA Core Skills in the fourth circle of the wheel.

The tutor can use the wheel as a memory jogger in the process of considering what is available to be taught to that learner. If we look at the example of reading minutes, the wheel will remind the tutor that the learner and her uses of literacy are at the heart of the literacy and numeracy curriculum, and that the process of negotiation, planning, evaluation and assessment is central to the process of learning. It could also remind the tutor to analyse minute reading in terms of skills, knowledge and understanding; to ensure that approaches are used which will increase critical awareness; that the learner will need to reflect on the minutes and evaluate their accuracy and may need to use negotiating skills in suggesting amendments; that she may want to use email to communicate with the secretary of the management committee, or use the Internet to find out more about issues raised in the minutes. This in turn could lead to consideration of approaches to reading information on the Internet, and comparing them with approaches used in reading minutes.

The wheel therefore enables the tutor to think laterally - to broaden what is available to be learned from making sense of what is being said in the minutes, to being able to reflect critically on the content and take action accordingly, and to apply reading strategies to other contexts and to reflect and extend the learner's real-life uses of literacy.

An example of the numeracy that such a learner might want to work on could be interpreting numerical information -making sense of the project's budget. Again the tutor would identify the skills, knowledge and understanding that would be required. By looking at the wheel she might also consider: using ICT to get information about budgeting in the context of voluntary organisations; learning through researching this information; using critical approaches to interpret the information presented and listening actively. Additionally the learner might want to be able to explain or justify the budget in conversation with users of the organisation, so working on organising ideas and speaking might be incorporated into the plan.

Evaluation of the Scottish Adult Literacy and Numeracy Strategy for the Scottish Executive (summary)

Lyn Tett and Vivien Edwards, University of Edinburgh, Stuart Hall, Kathy Maclachlan, Graham Thorpe and Linda Garside, University of Glasgow (2006)

Effective literacy and numeracy skills, knowledge and understanding equip people to fulfil their potential and are fundamental to improving Scotland's economy, health and well-being. This research analyses the impact of participation in adult literacy and numeracy (ALN) provision on learners and tutors from nine areas of Scotland. It details: the barriers and pathways into learning; learners' and tutors' perceptions of the quality of learning and support they received; the outcomes and impact of the ALN strategy on individual learners; the implications for wider social and economic activities.

Main Findings

- The clearest pathway into provision that existing learners identified was better local and national publicity that is directed at changing the negative public image of ALN and reducing the stigma attached to being an ALN learner.

- Learners' perceptions of the quality of learning and teaching they received were very positive with an over 90% satisfaction rate in respect of the learning environment, the quality of the tuition, and the social environment.

- Tutors were equally positive about the impact of the ALN strategy on whom, how and what they taught but were concerned about provision for guidance and support and the lack of staff development for part-time and volunteer tutors.

- The quality of guidance and support received by learners was weak at entry to and during the learning process particularly in respect of learners' lack of awareness of their Individual Learning Plan (ILP).

- Increased self-confidence was the most dominant outcome of engagement in ALN learning reported on by the respondents and this acted as a key to opening up opportunities in learners' personal, family, public, education and working lives.

- Engaging in learning enhances social capital through increasing social and economic activity leading to wider benefits for the individual, their community and society.

Background

A key recommendation of the Scottish Executive's strategy for adult literacy and numeracy (ALN) strategy for Scotland published in 2001 in Adult Literacy and Numeracy in Scotland (ALNIS), was that the quality of ALN services should be improved across the country. It also recommended a learner-centred approach to the provision of ALN. In the light of these two recommendations a key way of judging the quality of provision was by ascertaining the views of participating learners.

Research Aims

The overall aim of the research was to evaluate the Scottish Adult Literacy and Numeracy (ALN) Strategy. The two objectives were:

- To provide an assessment of the quality of the programmes that learners had participated in.

- To contribute to an understanding of the impact that participating in programmes had on individuals' lives and any wider social benefits.

Methodology

Face-to-face interviews using a questionnaire were conducted with 613 learners in their place of tuition. Interviews took place between September 2003 and April 2004. A mixture of closed and open questions were used to enable the views of learners to be captured. Open questions were analysed for 200 of the learner sample in order to explore in-depth processes and events that influenced changes in learners' lives. After an interval of around one year, learners were re-contacted and re-interviewed. These interviews took place between September 2004 and April 2005. Three hundred and ninety three learners were interviewed a second time representing 64% of the original sample. The focus of this interview was mainly on changes since the first interview but an additional question elicited an overall reflection on learners' ALN experience. The impact of participation in ALN was assessed through an analysis of learners' perceptions of the provision they participated in and its impact on their lives. Assessment of the provision's quality was based on the 'Literacies in the Community: Resources for Practitioners and Managers' (2000) evaluation benchmarks.

The sample of seventy-eight tutors was selected from different centres from those in which the learners' sample was based but in the same ALN Partnership areas. This avoided the replies from learners being influenced by the participation of their tutors. Telephone interviews took place between April and September 2004. The questionnaire was based on the same benchmarks as those used for the learners, in order to assess the quality of tuition provided against the framework. It also provided the opportunity for tutors to reflect on: the learning programme itself, planning, resources, staffing and management within the organisation, their own professional development, partnership working, and the impact of the strategy on themselves, their organisation and learners alike.

Pathways and Barriers

Research shows (e.g. OECD, 2000) that adults with low literacy and numeracy skills do not necessarily seek tuition so the research asked what had motivated learners to start their programme. Most learners desired self-improvement and the development of their ALN skills so that they could engage in a range of activities. The next stage in engaging in provision was enrolling on a programme. Most learners were encouraged to do this by a variety of people and events. The highest proportion was encouraged to start by unofficial people (family, friends, work-mates or casual acquaintances). This was followed by self-encouragement and then by people holding some position (doctors, social workers, job centre, youth club, employer). They received information on the programme from people at the centre that they enrolled at and the majority had no difficulty in starting their programme. Learners found the people that dealt with them were very helpful, felt that they were made welcome and important and found the information they were given useful. The factors that would make joining programmes easier broadly clustered into better publicity and the process of joining the course. Publicity, learners suggested, should change public perceptions about the image of ALN learning in order to make it more positive. Learners were veryy appreciative of the 'Big Plus' media campaign particularly as it had used 'real' learners talking about their own difficulties. When joining the course learners emphasised the importance of the first point of contact being knowledgeable, friendly, welcoming and not patronising. Pre-course guidance was perceived as important and those learners that had met tutors and other students before they started their course found it very helpful.

Learning and Teaching

Learners were asked to give their views on what they had been learning, how it had been taught and what they thought of the staff. Overall responses were very positive with more than 90% satisfaction on the majority of indicators in both rounds of interviews. These included: the learning environment including the timing and location of the course, the cost, the facilities (crèche, transport, café, rooms) and the learning resources that were available. The factors that contributed to a good experience of teaching and learning including what was learnt and the way it was learnt, the tutor, the pace of the learning and the number of hours of tuition available each week. Finally, the social nature of the learning including the other students and the social opportunities to meet other people was highly regarded. There were statistically significant decreases in some aspects of their experience between the first and second rounds of interviews that were experienced differentially by particular groups of learners. Learners attending FE provision were less likely to enjoy their course, female learners were less likely to find staff encouraging, older learners were more dissatisfied with their tutors and younger ones were more likely to report that they did not get enough feedback. These slight increases in negativity may be due to learners raising their expectations of learning, teaching and the curriculum over time. On the other hand, the quality of guidance and support was weak at entry to and during the learning process particularly in respect of learners' awareness of the Individual Learning Plan (ILP). The ILP sets out in detail the learning outcomes, the learning necessary to achieve them and the sequence that learners and tutors should follow towards their achievement.

Tutors' perceptions of the ALN strategy were that it had impacted positively in increasing: the number and range of learners participating in ALN; tutors' approaches to teaching and learning; funding and resources; the local and national profile of ALN. Improvements could be made in: fostering links with, and encouraging transfer to, other learning opportunities; guidance and support; exit pathways; communication with learners by management; access to good quality and appropriate staff development and support for part-time staff and volunteers.

Outcomes and Impact

There is extensive research that demonstrates the link between low literacy and numeracy skills and low socio- economic status. Given these negative indicators any positive changes for learners will contribute towards enabling them to fulfil their potential. The dominant outcome that impacted on individual learners was increased self-confidence. Respondents reported that increased self confidence was experienced as a growth in abilities, feeling better about one-self generally and in relation to others. Increased self-confidence acted as a key to opening up a wide range of other changes resulting from the confidence to learn, the confidence in learning, and the confidence in life that develops through learning. This growth in self-confidence as a result of an increased ability to learn, led learners to seek better jobs or gain wage increases. A high proportion of respondents showed how positive experiences of learning built up confidence to apply for new jobs or progress in their existing job. Fewer respondents were unemployed as learning gave them the confidence to take more control of their lives and enhanced perceptions of their future employment prospects and earnings. Those who had failed in school gained confidence, particularly from successful learning that they had not previously experienced. Learners felt empowered to take advantage of opportunities, were more relaxed with strangers, said what they thought and took on more active roles in their communities. Esteem developed through learning also appeared to have positive effects upon psychological health. Learners were more able to look outwards through having a future to aspire towards. This potentially meant that they were better able to cope with ill-health and other types of adversity.

Wider social benefits and economic activity

Engaging in learning enhances social capital and this increases economic and social activity leading to wider benefits for the individual, their community and society. The effect of education in raising people's sights is experienced more widely as a positive influence on the cultural norms that encourage others to do the same. Learning is dynamic because benefits gained in one domain, such as education, impact on other domains, such as family and community. Many people detailed the variety of ways in which their participation in ALN had helped them to do a better job as a parent, and had improved relationships generally within their families. The benefits included more confidence in their own ability as a parent; an improved capacity to communicate within the family; greater understanding or patience; more practical skills, for example in being able to use a computer. These positive changes in attitudes to education and family life are likely to result in benefits for the wider family and community as well as the individual concerned. These findings illustrate the impact that participation in ALN has on wider social and economic activity and show the importance of providing good quality teaching to enable ALN learners to progress and sustain their learning.

Recommendations

These are based on the key areas of teaching and learning that require improvement based on the ALN quality framework benchmarks.

- More and better publicity that will make the image of ALN more positive would encourage more learners to participate. This publicity should build on the success of the 'Big Plus' campaign.

- More resources, which would enable programmes to be more flexible in terms of their timing, location and content.

- Better guidance and support for learners: tutors need to have more training on using the ILP with learners.

- Better exit guidance from tutors and more opportunities for moving learners on to other provision: Tutors need more training in providing guidance and ALN Partnerships need to provide a greater range of learning opportunities.

- Greater access to good quality and appropriate staff development and support for part-time staff and volunteer tutors

Chapter 4: From Engagement to Empowerment

Contents

References

Introduction - From Engagement to Empowerment

National Standards for Community Engagement

(Communities Scotland/Scottish Executive, 2005)

Are We Being Served? The Glasgow Disability Alliance toolkit to implement the National Standards for Community Engagement

Top Tips Guide to involving Disabled People (Glasgow Disability Alliance, 2005)

Joint Commitment to Community Empowerment

(CoSLA/Scottish Government letter, 2008)

References

Core texts

National Standards for Community Engagement (Scottish Executive, 2005)

Are We Being Served? The Glasgow Disability Alliance toolkit to implement the National Standards for Community Engagement, 2005

Joint Commitment to Community Empowerment (CoSLA/Scottish Government letter, 2008)

Related Content

Local Government in Scotland Act, 2003

Community Planning Statutory Guidance, Scottish Executive (2004)

Community Planning Advice Note 5: Effective Community Engagement Scottish Executive (2005)

Engaging children and young people in community planning: Community Planning Advice Note, Scottish Executive (2006)

Better Community Engagement - a framework for learning (SCDC for Scottish Executive/Learning Connections, 2007)

Evaluation of the impact of the National Standards for Community Engagement, (Clear Plan for Scottish Government, 2008)

CommUnity: The Scottish Community Empowerment Action Plan (CoSLA/Scottish Government, 2009)

From Engagement to Empowerment

Introduction by Stuart Hashagen

Debate about 'engagement' entered mainstream thinking in the early 2000s, and by 2010 was becoming superseded by 'empowerment' as the dominant narrative at policy level. Both concepts were largely introduced by government, and the role of Community Development/CLD has largely been in clarifying the understanding of the terms and how the related policies can be embedded in practice.

The literature of public participation had included the notion of engagement for many years. The widely known 'ladder of citizen participation' as amended by Wilcox[44] identified five stances: information, consultation, deciding together, acting together and 'supporting independent community interests' as the characteristics of possible relationships between public bodies and communities. Engagement is not specifically mentioned, but can be understood as relating to participation where there is meaningful interaction between citizens and government, in other words where they are 'deciding together' or 'acting together'.

The idea of 'engagement' entered policy and practice more specifically in the early 2000s. The Local Government in Scotland Act 2003 established community planning, in which the planning of public services was to include consultation and co-operation with 'community bodies', whose role was to 'promote or improve' the interests of communities. Community Planning partnerships were therefore tasked with engaging community bodies as part of the process of planning and implementation.

By 2003 the programme of Social Inclusion Partnerships (SIPs) had come to an end. The Scottish Community Development Centre (SCDC) had led a consortium to provide training and support to the SIPs in the areas of understanding inclusion, community participation, and partnership work. During this programme, titled Working Together, Learning Together, many community participants complained that they were not properly involved or engaged, that they were not encouraged or heard, and that the process was often oppressive and excluding of local voices.

On learning of these issues, the then Minister for Social Justice commissioned the National Standards for Community Engagement as a set of ground rules for the relationship between public bodies and communities in Community Planning and other community-facing partnerships. A programme of training and support was offered, and subsequently VOiCE (Visioning Outcomes in Community Engagement) was developed as a resource to plan and evaluate community engagement work in compliance with the Standards.

From the perspective of community development and CLD, there was a debate over whether community engagement is part of community development, whether it is the same thing under a different name, or something else entirely. When delivering training to CPPs following the launch of the Standards, SCDC argued that community engagement was one 'pillar' of community development, with community capacity building as the other. Indeed, within the Standards there was a recommendation that 'independent' community development support should be made available to communities to support their participation in engagement activity.

Engagement has continued to be a factor in public policy, and the Christie Commission report and its emphasis on prevention brought arguments that community engagement should be a key component of public service reform back to the fore. In the wake of the passing of the Community Empowerment Act, the Scottish Government commissioned a review of the National Standards with the aim of updating them for use in a changed context.

The Community Empowerment Act passed by the Scottish Parliament in 2015 included provisions for increased rights for communities to acquire land, buildings and other material assets for community-led use. It also provided for communities to initiate action by community planning partnerships with a new right to 'request participation in an outcomes improvement process'. This unwieldy formulation does appear to provide greater influence for community voices provided that communities are aware of these rights and have the confidence and competence to exercise them. There is a fear that such confidence and competence may be limited to the better-organised and articulate communities, and that the more disadvantaged could lose out.

Does the shift in language from engagement to empowerment suggest a significant shift in policy, and if so, how should CLD respond? The term 'engagement' was always contested, and could be taken as meaning basic contact or information-giving as well as broad ideas such as the level of democratic participation. The National Standards offered a more specific definition that required public agencies and communities to work collaboratively on matters identified by the community:

'Developing and sustaining a working relationship between one or more public body and one or more community group, to help them both to understand and act on the needs or issues that the community experiences'

The notion of empowerment has a similarly broad range of interpretations. A key idea underpinning community education, social work and community development is "empowerment" as the product of knowledge and understanding, opportunity and choice, and ability to exercise greater control over one's life circumstances and challenges. In community development empowerment is usually taken to include collective learning, inclusion of the excluded, building organisations and mechanisms to work for change, and to achieve change through action, engagement or campaigning. However in the Act, 'empowerment' is a more limited concept, primarily to do with rights to acquire land or other assets by community organisations, and to enhance the rights of community organisations to trigger engagement with public agencies on community needs and concerns.

For the community worker and community group, the question of how to engage with engagement or with empowerment as articulated in the Bill, is essentially tactical. Most communities organise around opportunities or needs, and aim to improve resources or challenge public services. In some circumstances it will be appropriate for the community to seek to engage with public services to explore how resources could be more effectively deployed, and possibly to co-design or co-produce services. This is particularly the case where the community agenda is in line with the public service agenda as expressed in the Single Outcome Agreement. On other issues or in different places communities may well opt to 'go it alone', for example by establishing a community development trust or similar vehicle to improve services, economic prospects and the quality of community life. And communities still have the option of lobbying, protesting and campaigning, not least where their interests are at odds with the interests of the prevailing Community Planning Partnership or government policy.

In many ways the debate about the language of engagement or empowerment, and the provisions of legislation do not significantly affect the nature of good community work, which is to: bring people together around shared interests; help build skills and confidence; incorporate the values of inclusion and equality, and encourage learning and change. Changing language and changing legislation is part of the context in which this task operates and must be taken into account. Policy commitments to engagement and empowerment can provide an opportunity to advocate the importance and necessity of working with communities so that they can take advantage of the legislation, but do not significantly affect the nature of work on the ground.

At a more strategic level there is an important role for CLD to seek to engage with community planning and other public service channels to offer advice and resources to the process of engaging and empowering communities, as well as working with communities as described above. In many ways community development and CLD can potentially be seen as a bridge between community ambitions and public service reform. Local authorities published the first round of the CLD plans now required by the relevant regulations in 2015, with a significant level of recognition of the Community Empowerment Act as a key driver. We await with interest the extent to which the development and implementation of these plans will rise to the challenges ahead.

National Standards for Community Engagement

(Communities Scotland/Scottish Executive, 2005)

MINISTERIAL FOREWORD

The Scottish Executive is committed to people in Scotland having a greater say in how local services are planned and delivered. Only by genuinely engaging with local people can we develop services which meet local needs and aspirations. In particular the effective engagement of local people is critical to the regeneration of our most disadvantaged communities by local partnerships. It is only by listening to the experiences and ideas of the people who live in these communities that we can find solutions which will make a lasting difference.

These National Standards for Community Engagement will help to develop and support better working relationships between communities and agencies delivering public services.

The standards are measurable performance statements which can be used by everyone involved in community engagement to improve the quality and process of the engagement. They set out key principles, behaviours and practical measures that underpin effective engagement. They will be of real benefit to community planning partnerships in involving communities to achieve real and sustained results.

We all need to listen to communities and involve them in making a positive contribution to what really matters. These National Standards for Community Engagement are a good practice tool which will help to provide a framework to help people influence the planning and delivery of services in their local areas.

We are committed to real and genuine engagement and commend these standards to you.

Malcolm Chisholm

Minister for Communities

Tom McCabe

Minister for Finance and Public Services Reform

COSLA FOREWORD

The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA) welcomes the National Standards for Community Engagement and the work of the Scottish Community Development Centre, Communities Scotland, and our members and partners who been actively involved in the pilots. Local government has supported this project since its inception and has found the process useful in developing and refining this approach. We believe the standards should be implemented by all parts of the public sector where they are seeking to engage communities. We see the standards as a fundamental part of community planning and a means of bringing in the voice of those engaged in the most disadvantaged communities.

The principles underpinning the standards help create a common set of ground rules that should be applied to 'both sides' of the engagement process. Honouring the standards should help build on the respect that already exists between community organisations and their local councils. Additionally, the principles and framework of the standards will form an important component in the way local participation of community organisations is developed more generally in the governance of Scotland.

COSLA commends the standards to its members and as more councils and partners start to implement them, we hope to see their widespread use in all parts of the public sector.

Councillor Corrie McChord

Spokesperson on modern governance, COSLA

ABOUT THE STANDARDS

The National Standards for Community Engagement have been developed with the involvement of over 500 people from communities and agencies throughout Scotland. They are a practical tool to help improve the experience of all participants involved in community engagement to achieve the highest quality of process and results.

The standards can be used in both formal and informal community engagement. During the development of the standards for more formal settings such as community planning partnerships, community engagement was defined as:

Developing and sustaining a working relationship between one or more public body and one or more community group, to help them both to understand and act on the needs or issues that the community experiences

These formal arrangements for community engagement are very important, however, it should be noted that the standards are also applicable to less formal ways of engaging people and can be used to enable large numbers to participate.

In testing the standards a number of useful learning points were identified. These included:

- seeking agreement to use the standards from all those involved in the process;

- nominating a key person to lead on the use of the standards; and

- prioritising the standards to reflect the purpose of the engagement and experience of community partners and agencies.

More details of the learning points and other guidance can found in the users' guide which accompanies the standards. Details can be found at the back of this publication.

PRINCIPLES

The standards are based on following principles:

- Fairness, equality and inclusion must underpin all aspects of community engagement, and should be reflected in both community engagement policies and the way that everyone involved participates.

- Community engagement should have clear and agreed purposes, and methods that achieve these purposes.

- Improving the quality of community engagement requires commitment to learning from experience.

- Skill must be exercised in order to build communities, to ensure practise of equalities principles, to share ownership of the agenda, and to enable all viewpoints to be reflected.

- As all parties to community engagement possess knowledge based on study, experience, observation and reflection, effective engagement processes will share and use that knowledge.

- All participants should be given the opportunity to build on their knowledge and skills.

- Accurate, timely information is crucial for effective engagement.

In summary, these principles highlight the importance of equality and recognising the diversity of people and communities; a clear sense of purpose; effective methods for achieving change; building on the skills and knowledge of all those involved; commitment to learning for continuous improvement.

"Standards for community engagement will help provide guidance to public bodies about how to ensure real engagement with realistic timescales."

Fariha Thomas, Amina - Muslim Women's Resource Centre

NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

1. INVOLVEMENT: we will identify and involve the people and organisations who have an interest in the focus of the engagement

2. SUPPORT: we will identify and overcome any barriers to involvement

3. PLANNING: we will gather evidence of the needs and available resources and use this evidence to agree the purpose, scope and timescale of the engagement and the actions to be taken

4. METHODS: we will agree and use methods of engagement that are fit for purpose

5. WORKING TOGETHER: We will agree and use clear procedures that enable the participants to work with one another effectively and efficiently

6. SHARING INFORMATION: we will ensure that necessary information is communicated between the participants

7. WORKING WITH OTHERS: we will work effectively with others with an interest in the engagement

8. IMPROVEMENT: we will develop actively the skills, knowledge and confidence of all the participants

9. FEEDBACK: we will feed back the results of the engagement to the wider community and agencies affected

10. MONITORING AND EVALUATION: we will monitor and evaluate whether the engagement achieves its purposes and meets the national standards for community engagement

INDICATORS

An indicator is a characteristic about which evidence can be collected in order to assess performance.

The indicators for the standards on the following pages set out characteristics that will demonstrate high quality community engagement.

They can be used to plan, monitor and evaluate community engagement as a whole or particular stages and aspects of it.

The indicators are for all participants to use to ensure best practice and hold one another to account.

Evidence relating to the indicators can be collected in straightforward ways.

Regular assessment of performance against the indicators enables all participants to be involved in achieving continuous improvement.

"The standards for community engagement will be a useful framework for increasing participation in the planning, delivery and the regulation of services by people who use care services and their carers."

David Wiseman, Care Commission

THE INVOLVEMENT STANDARD

We will identify and involve the people and organisations who have an interest in the focus of the engagement

INDICATORS FOR THE INVOLVEMENT STANDARD

1. All groups of people whose interests are affected by the issues that the engagement will address are represented

2. Agencies and community groups actively promote the involvement of people who experience barriers to participation

3. Agencies and community groups actively promote the involvement of people from groups that are affected but not yet organised to participate

4. The people who are involved, whether from agencies or community groups:

- want to be involved

- have knowledge of the issues

- have skills, or a commitment to developing skills, to play their role

- show commitment to taking part in discussions, decisions and actions

- attend consistently

- have the authority of those they represent to take decisions and actions

- have legitimacy in the eyes of those they represent

- maintain a continuing dialogue with those that they represent

"The establishment of national standards for community engagement creates a common starting point for us all. The standards provide a framework which will ensure the engagement is meaningful and effective."

Barbara Philiben, North Lanarkshire Council

THE SUPPORT STANDARD

We will identify and overcome any barriers to involvement

INDICATORS OF THE SUPPORT STANDARD

1. The participants identify what support each representative needs in order to participate

2. There are no practical barriers to participants in community engagement. Where needed, they have:

- suitable transport

- care of dependants

- general assistance

- personal assistants

- access to premises

- communication aids (such as loop systems, interpreting, advocacy)

- meetings organised at appropriate times

- co-operation of employers

3. There are no financial barriers to participants in community engagement including:

- out of pocket expenses

- loss of earnings

- suitable transport

- care of dependents

- personal assistants

- communication aids (such as loop systems, interpreting, advocates)

- timing of meetings

4. Community and agency representatives have access to the equipment they need (for example computers, a telephone, photocopying)

5. Impartial professional community development support is available for groups involved in community engagement

6. Specialist professional advice is available to groups involved in community engagement

THE PLANNING STANDARD

We will gather evidence of the needs and available resources and use this evidence to agree the purpose, scope and timescale of the engagement and the actions to be taken

INDICATORS OF THE PLANNING STANDARD

1. All participants are involved from the start in:

- identifying and defining the issues that the engagement should address, and the options for how to tackle them

- choosing the methods of engagement that will be used (see Methods standard)

2. Participants express views openly and honestly

3. Participants agree on the amount of time to be allocated to the process of agreeing the purpose(s) of the engagement

4. The purpose of the engagement is identified and stated, there is evidence that it is needed, and the purpose is agreed by all participants and communicated to the wider community and agencies that may be affected

5. Public policies that affect the engagement are explained to the satisfaction of participants and the wider community

6. Participants identify existing and potential resources which are available to the engagement process and which may help achieve its purpose(s) (for example, money, people, equipment)

7. Intended results, that are specific, measurable and realistic, are agreed and recorded

8. The participants assess the constraints, challenges and opportunities that will be involved in implementing the plan

9. The participants agree the timescales for the achievement of the purpose(s)

10. The participants agree and clarify their respective roles and responsibilities in achieving the purpose(s)

11. Plans are reviewed and adjusted in the light of evaluation of performance (see Monitoring and evaluation standard)

THE METHODS STANDARD

We will agree and use methods of engagement that are fit for purpose

INDICATORS FOR THE METHODS STANDARD

1. The range of methods used is:

- acceptable to the participants

- suitable for all their needs and their circumstances

- appropriate for the purposes of the engagement

2. Methods used identify, involve and support excluded groups

3. Methods are chosen to enable diverse views to be expressed, and to help resolve any conflicts of interest

4. Methods are fully explained and applied with the understanding and agreement of all participants

5. Methods are evaluated and adapted in response to feedback

"The standards for community engagement represent a mechanism which can provide an enhanced understanding of partnership work, where all groups are enabled and empowered to have a voice equally."

Tanveer Parnez, BEMIS

THE WORKING TOGETHER STANDARD

We will agree and use clear procedures that enable the participants to work with one another effectively and efficiently

INDICATORS FOR THE WORKING TOGETHER STANDARD

The participants:

1. Behave openly and honestly - there are no hidden agendas, but participants also respect confidentiality

2. Behave towards one another in a positive, respectful and non-discriminatory manner

3. Recognise participants' time is valuable and that they may have other commitments

4. Recognise existing agency and community obligations, including statutory requirements

5. Encourage openness and the ability for everyone to take part by:

- communicating with one another using plain language

- ensuring that all participants are given equal opportunity to engage and have their knowledge and views taken into account when taking decisions

- seeking, listening to and reflecting on the views of different individuals and organisations, taking account of minority views

- removing barriers to participation

6. Take decisions on the basis of agreed procedures and shared knowledge

7. Identify and discuss opportunities and strategies for achieving change, ensuring that:

- key points are summarised, agreed and progressed

- conflicts are recognised and addressed

8. Manage change effectively by:

- focusing on agreed purpose

- clarifying roles and who is responsible for agreed actions

- delegating actions to those best equipped to carry them out

- ensuring participants are clear about the decisions that need to be made

- ensuring that, where necessary, all parties have time to consult with those they represent

- co-ordinating skills

- enhancing skills where necessary

- agreeing schedules

- assessing risks

- addressing conflicts

- monitoring and evaluating progress

- learning from one another

- seeking continuous improvement in how things are done

9. Use resources efficiently, effectively and fairly

10. Support the process with administrative arrangements that enable it to work

"The standards encapsulate what common sense, normal courtesy and good practice dictate in our conduct of our business with communities. They provide a sound basis for getting the best from our engagement with the people of the Highlands and Islands."

Sandy Cummings, Highlands & Islands Enterprise

THE SHARING INFORMATION STANDARD

We will ensure that necessary information is communicated between the participants

INDICATORS FOR THE SHARING INFORMATION STANDARD

1. Information relevant to the engagement is shared between all participants

2. Information is accessible, clear, understandable and relevant, with key points summarised

3. Information is made available in appropriate formats for participants

4. Information is made available in time to enable people to fully take part and consult others

5. All participants identify and explain when they are bound by confidentiality and why access to such information is restricted

6. Within the limits of confidentiality, all participants have equal access to all information that is relevant to the engagement

THE WORKING WITH OTHERS STANDARD

We will work effectively with others with an interest in the engagement

INDICATORS FOR THE WORKING WITH OTHERS STANDARD

The participants in the engagement:

1. Identify other structures, organisations and activities that are relevant to their work

2. Establish and maintain effective links with such other structures, activities and organisations

3. Learn about these structures, activities and organisations, to avoid duplication of their work and complement it wherever possible

4. Learn from others and seek improvement in practice

5. Encourage effective community engagement as normal practice

"Given the voluntary sector's role in enabling the most excluded and hardest to reach communities to influence the planning and delivery of services, the standards offer a welcome framework and guidance to further clarify and promote this role."

Calum Guthrie, Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations (SCVO)

THE IMPROVEMENT STANDARD

We will develop actively the skills, knowledge and confidence of all the participants

INDICATORS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT STANDARD

1. All those involved in the engagement process are committed to making the most of the understanding and competence of both community and agency participants

2. All participants have access to support and to opportunities for training or reflection on their experiences, to enable them and others to take part in an effective, fair and inclusive way

3. Each party identifies its own learning and development needs and together the participants regularly review their capacity to play their roles

4. Where needs are identified, the potential of participants is developed and promoted

5. The competence and understanding of the engagement system as a whole is regularly evaluated by the participants as it develops

6. Resources, including independent professional support, are available to make the most of the competence and understanding of individual participants and the engagement system as a whole

7. There is adequate time for competence and understanding to be developed

8. Methods used to improve competence and understanding reflect diverse needs and are fit for purpose

9. Participants share their skills, experience and knowledge with community and agency colleagues

"The standards will make it easier for me as a community representative as they legitimise my place at the table."

Dawn Galashan, Great Northern Partnership

THE FEEDBACK STANDARD

We will feed back the results of the engagement to the wider community and agencies affected

INDICATORS FOR THE FEEDBACK STANDARD

1. Organisers of community engagement regularly feed back, to all those affected, the options that have been considered and the decisions and actions that have been agreed. This is done within an agreed time, to an agreed format and from an identified source

- relevant information is provided in understandable languages

- relevant information is provided in appropriate languages

- a suitable range of media and communication channels is used constructively

2. Feedback on the outcomes and impact of these decisions and actions is provided regularly to communities and organisations within an agreed time, to an agreed format and from an identified source

3. Explanations about why decisions and actions have been taken are shared along with details of any future activity

4. The characteristics of the audience are identified to ensure that:

5. Information includes details about opportunities for involvement in community engagement and encourages positive contributions from groups and individuals in the community

6. Information promotes positive images of all population groups in the community and avoids stereotypes

THE MONITORING AND EVALUATION STANDARD

We will monitor and evaluate whether the engagement achieves its purposes and meets the national standards for community engagement

INDICATORS FOR THE MONITORING AND EVALUATION STANDARD

1. The engagement process and its effects are continually evaluated to measure progress, develop skills and refine practices

2. Progress is evaluated against the intended results and other changes identified by the participants (see Planning standard indicator 7)

3. The participants agree what information needs to be collected, how, when and by whom, to understand the situation both at the start of the engagement and as it progresses

4. Appropriate participants collect and record this information

5. The information is presented accurately and in a way that is easy to use

6. The participants agree on the lessons to be drawn from the evidence of the results and the changes that occurred

7. The participants act on the lessons learned

8. Progress is celebrated

9. The results of the evaluation are fed back to the participants and the wider community

10. Evidence of good practice is recorded and shared with other agencies and communities

"Although these guidelines have been prepared with the wider community in mind, the business community is an important element of the community planning process and much of the guidance in this document will apply equally well to engagement with businesses."

Jack Perry, Scottish Enterprise

Are We Being Served? The Glasgow Disability Alliance toolkit to implement the National Standards for Community Engagement

Top Tips Guide to involving Disabled People

(Glasgow Disability Alliance, 2005)

Acknowledgements

"We need GDA to develop best practice to make it easier for organisations to operate and serve us better."

GDA Member

GDA has written the Top Tips Toolkit as a product of the experiences, thoughts, suggestions and inspirations of disabled people who are members and learners of GDA. The Toolkit is a fusion of these, together with the comments, views and suggestions of individual colleagues and organisations who fed into the process and helped us to progress our ideas. These have helped us to develop the Toolkit to illustrate the key points we wanted to make including negative experiences, good practice examples and the Top Tips Checklists.

We would like to acknowledge the materials we used including the National Standards for Community Engagement and supporting documents. We are also indebted to the information and resources drawn on for the Good Practice Examples which highlight that there are models of good practice and performance in relation to engaging with disabled people.

We would like to thank the agencies and learning providers who have given us feedback on the drafts and helped us to develop our knowledge and thinking; in particular, Momentum Scotland, Equality Forward, Glasgow Metropolitan College, Glasgow College of Nautical Studies, John Wheatley College, Wellbeing Initiative, Workers Educational Association and Glasgow City Council.

We also wish to thank the funders who have contributed to the Toolkit including Big Lottery, ESF and Communities Scotland.

Our special thanks go to Carole of Ewart Communications for help facilitating focus groups, providing expertise on human rights and feedback on the various stages of drafts. Above all, we thank the disabled people who have taken time, yet again, to give us the benefit of their experience and expertise.

Foreword

GDA is a membership led organisation which has grown with the support of disabled people, groups and communities across Glasgow and with generous funders in the UK and from Europe.

GDA has agreed its aims in response to unmet need but also the vision of our members who want to have their human rights respected and promises of equality to be delivered. GDA aims to:

- Engage disabled people in lifelong learning and work with learning providers and institutions towards becoming more flexible, accessible and disability equality focused.

- Represent views, wishes and opinions of grassroots disabled people and provide disability expertise.

- Increase opportunities for involvement and participation of disabled people e.g. policy making and service design and delivery.

- Provide support to member organisations and individuals so that they input effectively and have greater influence.

- Encourage and maximise networking between disabled people, their organisations and policy makers.

- Provide information in accessible formats e.g. Braille.

- Provide programmes of capacity building and support for individuals and disability-led groups and organisations within Glasgow.

Our members have a range of skills, hold opinions on a range of matters and seek to make a positive contribution to the communities in which they live. Over the last two years there has been an increase in the opportunities to participate in consultations, serve on local committees and sit on Boards of local strategic partnerships. A constant concern is the culture of some organisations and attitudes of some staff in relation to engaging disabled people.

Thus, we have come up with Top Tips to help organisations and agencies to implement the Standards for Community Engagement: in this Practical Guide we will describe negative experiences, share good practice and suggest Top Tips to enable organisations to effectively engage their disabled service users and customers, in turn developing more responsive and better targeted services. This practical Toolkit is a positive contribution from GDA to drive up standards in community engagement and promote best practice for and with disabled people.

Angela Mullen GDA Convenor

1. Introduction

Glasgow Disability Alliance is a membership-led organisation of disabled people and groups in Glasgow. Currently we have over 280 members including 24 groups and organisations led by disabled people. Established in 2001, its mission is to act as the collective, representative voice of disabled people, promoting equality, rights and social justice. Glasgow Disability Alliance (GDA) promotes the involvement of disabled people as a right and believes their contribution improves public service planning, design, development and review. If engagement is meaningful, disabled people can:

- Help set realistic targets for services.

- Represent issues of disabled services users on key planning groups.

- Participate in training of staff.

GDA supports the adoption of the National Standards for Community Engagement (The Standards) but recognises that much needs to be done to explain how the Standards can be used to include disabled people. Since 2006, GDA has been funded to deliver a Learning Project. This has engaged disabled people in learning, built the capacity of disabled people in Glasgow and worked with learning providers towards ensuring that learning is more disability equality focused. In recognition that disabled people require joined up access across a whole range of services in order to access learning, GDA has worked with many other agencies.

GDA has used the National Standards to plan a variety of methods and approaches to engage disabled people. This includes reaching over 500 people through roadshows, networks and events and engaging with 150 disabled learners from August 2006- December 2007. We are therefore able to draw on this experience to inform this Toolkit.

The Standards are complementary to the increasing importance of Human Rights compliance in Scotland. 2007 is a significant year with the establishment of the Equality and Human Rights Commission in Glasgow and the setting up of the Scottish Commission for Human Rights. Human rights are a powerful tool in tackling attitudes, culture, laws and practices which equally discriminate. The Human Rights Act 1998 was introduced as part of the Government's drive to improve the delivery of public services.GDA shares the Government's vision that the world which we live in should be a place where:

"there is respect for and protection of each individual's human rights, there is respect for the dignity and worth of each individual and there is mutual respect between groups based on understanding and valuing of diversity and on shared respect for equality and human rights,"

(Section 3 of the Equality Act 2006).

GDA appreciates that change does not happen overnight: however, the future is bright, partly because human rights and public sector responsibilities are now under the spotlight. Change is inevitable but we need to learn how to change and agree what needs to be changed. GDA has decided it can help by sharing what we know with organisations that want to involve disabled people and use the National Standards for Community Engagement to do this.

Drawing on both negative and positive experiences of disabled people across Glasgow, and some of the good practice which we know is out there, we have pulled together this Toolkit to encourage applying the Standards when engaging with disabled people and groups.

Read on to learn more and make a difference whether you are on the front line, a policy maker, manager or at Board level! We all have a responsibility to contribute to making society better and more inclusive for all.

Tressa Burke

Director of GDA

2. What Are the National Standards?

The National Standards are described as a practical tool to help improve the experience of all participants involved in community engagement to achieve the highest quality of process and results,

"We all need to listen to communities and involve them in making a positive contribution to what really matters. These National Standards for Community Engagement are a good practice tool which will help to provide a framework to help people influence the planning and delivery of services in their local areas. We are committed to real and genuine engagement …and a means of bringing in the voice of those engaged in the most disadvantaged communities"

(Ministerial Foreword to National Standards).

GDA is aware that the Standards have been used widely in the contexts of regeneration, local authority services, health services, education and learning and within a range of structures such as community planning partnerships. Increasingly the Standards are a tool to audit public authorities engagement with the public which GDA welcomes. Members of GDA believe that properly applied, the Standards are a significant tool for enabling all groups in society to work positively with a range of stakeholders.

However, it is felt by GDA members, that currently, the Standards are not fulfilling their potential in relation to disabled people and that needs to change. Neither are they known well by all sectors, although there are benefits in using these as a framework against which to plan and evaluate involvement. The Standards do not exist in a vacuum and are only as effective as those using them. Furthermore, the Standards are not responsible for institutional barriers which have built up over time but they can be used towards a process of dismantling these barriers for disabled people.

GDA feels strongly that further support and information is required to enable agencies, to genuinely engage disabled people so that services can be developed which meet their needs and aspirations. This Toolkit gives our members a voice,

"We need GDA to keep the pressure on as the gap between policy and practice is wide: the policies are definitely better but the practice is too often poor."

(GDA Member, Interim Evaluation 2007).

3. Why write Top Tips for involving disabled people?

GDA has developed the 'Top Tips' for involving disabled people in service planning, decision making and all areas of community engagement in Glasgow. It is both our experience and understanding from our members that agencies require additional support and resources to engage disabled people in service planning and development and this has been evidenced from various sources including:

- GDA's Interim Evaluation, "All participants had a range of experiences with other organisations which were overwhelmingly poor. A basic and constant obstacle is turning policy on equality into practice. Participants were clear that the high level of disability in Glasgow coupled with the hurdles still to be overcome, evidences the need for targeted support for disabled people to help them experience equality," (GDA Interim Evaluation, August 2007).

- Case Studies which have been collated, detailing personal journeys and existing barriers facing GDA Members and learners

- Consultation events and focus groups outlining the barriers to accessing services e.g. NHS Consultation, Glasgow City Council Consultation in relation to Disability Equality Scheme and barriers to services, Learners Consultation.

- Various pieces of external research e.g. the Scottish Parliament's Equal Opportunities Committee "…the Committee is concerned about the evidence that it has heard that many disabled people are not aware of their rights and that many service providers are not aware of their responsibilities in making provision for disabled people."[45]

The Committee has also confirmed the problem of central policies not filtering down to the agencies dealing with ordinary people and "considers that the Scottish Executive equality strategy is a vital document. However, the Committee remains extremely concerned that not all departments or agencies pay due cognisance to it in the work that they do."[46] The Committee also highlighted the importance for all public sector staff, to promote equalities as part of their job descriptions and that this should form part of their performance competencies.

GDA recognises that there are a number of national developments which seek to ensure that society no longer disables its citizens but remains concerned that, despite legislation and policies such as the Disability Discrimination Act and Disability Equality Duty and regardless of Guidance e.g. the National Standards for Community Engagement, disabled people and their communities are still removed from planning services and local decision making.

Due to negative experiences, and often just the lack of opportunities for involvement, members of GDA have called for a "reality update" to offer some 'Tips' to key decision makers in the private, voluntary and public sectors. Central to these 'Tips' is the fact that small adjustments as well as significant legislative and policy changes, can make a positive impact on the lives of disabled people. Overwhelmingly, it is felt that attitudes are at the heart of driving forward positive changes for disabled people.

What are the Top Tips?

The Top Tips are practical suggestions in the form of experiences, good practice examples and checklists to assist agencies to involve disabled people in service planning and decision making. This will share our experiences and understanding of what disabled people have told us. In turn it is hoped that this will inform more practical approaches to support the effective involvement of disabled people in services which ultimately respond to their needs.

GDA wants to help agencies to use the National Standards better with disabled people and promote the involvement of disabled people to have more control over their experience of services. If this is done in a meaningful way, disabled people can:

- Provide information about services to new and potential service users.

- Set targets for services.

- Represent issues for themselves and other services users on key planning groups.

What are the Benefits of Involving Disabled People?

GDA acknowledges that there are competing reasons for involving disabled people in service planning and development and has found that key benefits include:

- Identifying barriers, enabling changes which promote inclusion.

- Targeting resources effectively (the responsibility of managers and planners).

- Improving confidence and satisfaction levels of disabled service users (responding to demands from disabled people embraces the rights and empowerment agendas).

- More inclusive approaches are likely to result in improvements in staff satisfaction and morale.

What is the Legislative Base for Engagement?

The following is a summary of key legislation. Further detail is provided at Appendix 2.

- Since 4th December 2006 the Disability Equality Duty (DED) has applied to the public sector. This legal duty means that public bodies need to actively look at ways of ensuring that disabled people are treated equally. At the heart of the Disability Equality Duty is the requirement to involve disabled people in producing the Disability Equality Scheme and Action Plan.

- Section 7 of the National Health Service Reform (Scotland) Act 2004 places a duty on bodies such as Health Boards to encourage public involvement and Section 9 places a duty to promote health improvement which can include consulting with the public.

- Section 15 (1) of the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003 requires local Authorities to engage with community bodies in the Community Planning Process.

- Section 7 (3) (b) of the Scottish Commission for Human Rights Act 2006 allows the Commission to consult on its draft strategic plan which covers a four year period.

- There is currently a Discrimination Law Review which is being undertaken by the UK Department for Communities and Local Government at a UK level. This aims to develop a simpler, fairer legal framework on antidiscrimination.

Who will benefit from the Top Tips Toolkit?

Ultimately disabled people will benefit by being more involved in service planning, development, implementation and reviews! In the immediate future, this Guide will help organisations in the public, voluntary and private sectors deliver the National Standards for Community Engagement.

By listening to the experiences and ideas of disabled people who live in Glasgow, GDA can offer solutions which will make a lasting impact on how, in turn, agencies listen to disabled citizens of Glasgow.

How will you benefit from this Toolkit?

This Toolkit will inform more practical approaches to support the effective involvement of disabled people in services which ultimately respond to their needs. It will serve as a resource to tap into and a checklist of good practice. You will also have access to and contact details of GDA.

Short term outcomes will include awareness being raised of the Standards e.g. on consulting with colleges during the process of developing this Toolkit, it became apparent that the Standards are not widely known at fairly senior levels, demonstrating that these have not been "rolled out" across all sectors.

We therefore hope that the Top Tips raise awareness, confidence, understanding, ability to use Standards and provide a checklist of good practice which can be used as a framework for planning and evaluating your work.

Longer term outcomes will hopefully include disabled people having more opportunities to be involved, being enabled to use the opportunities effectively and meaningfully through support and capacity building and ultimately benefiting from improved services which meet needs and enhance quality of life.

The Top Tips will help you to identify barriers to involvement in your own organisation and encourage disabled people and employees to use their expertise to dismantle barriers and set priorities to improve disability equality.

What Methods did we use to involve Disabled People in the Toolkit?

GDA involved disabled people in the planning and development of the Toolkit. The actual idea for the Top Tips came from disabled learners who participate in GDA's Learners Reference Group. Initial ideas were developed and then checked out with both the Group and GDA's Board.

Further involvement of GDA members was carried out with another 2 Focus Groups of disabled people. Comments from Evaluation Forms and Focus Groups were also used along with feedback from GDA's Learning Providers Reference Group which comprises a number of colleges and community based learning providers.

Findings of Consultations conducted by GDA have also been taken into account to broaden the range of experiences and views which have formed the Toolkit. These include 2 Learners Consultations (November 2005, September 2006), Consultation response to Glasgow City Council's Disability Equality Scheme and Action Plan (2006 and 2007) and Consultation for Glasgow's Community Learning and Development Plan (August 2007).

Lunch was provided at all focus groups and working groups and sessions, lasted approximately three hours. All access needs were met including transport, personal assistance, information e.g. CDs and Braille.

4. How to Use this Toolkit to Help You

By using direct experiences of disabled people (in direct quotes) and good practice examples, it is hoped that people will enjoy reading the Top Tips as well as find the Toolkit informative and useful. Sections are laid as follows:

- Stating the Standard.

- Drawing on people's actual experiences of engagement.

- Sharing Good Practice.

- Top Tips Checklist with recommended actions for agencies to use when delivering each Standard.

Some of the tips will, in reality, apply to several of the Standards. The Toolkit can be used in its own right but would be enhanced if used alongside the Standards. It is intended to be used as a resource for developing good practice in relation to involving disabled people and can be used to "dip in and out" to focus on particular standards, depending on circumstances.

The Top Ten Tips are based on the recent practical experiences of our members and our analysis of what changes are needed. The Tips seek to add value to the range of guidance already available on the websites of the Scottish Community Development Centre and Communities Scotland. These also provide Support Programmes, Support Materials and additional resources.

Alongside the Standards, the Top Tips can be combined with a human rights approach to improve the involvement of disabled people in service planning and development, "Involvement has benefits in 2 ways. Disabled people can begin to understand some of the bureaucratic processes which are at play -not that these are an excuse but they are a fact! Also, workers gain valuable insights into the barriers which face disabled people and can start to address these more effectively and therefore promote better human rights," (Officer from Glasgow City Council).

5. Human Rights and Public Sector Responsibilities

Human Rights belong to us all, all of the time. Respecting human rights in the delivery of public services is not an optional extra but a set of core values and fundamental to public sector reform. Human rights extend to economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights. In this way, there is a direct relationship with the Standards and the Top Tips since disabled people have rights to involvement.

Human Rights need to be respected when delivering the National Standards for Community Engagement. The principles which underline the Standards mirror core human rights principles: Equality, Fairness, Respect, Dignity and Autonomy. The culture and systems of your organisation to effectively deliver The Standards will equally apply to compliance with existing Human Rights legal obligations.

The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) provides domestic redress if the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) are breached. The ECHR contains the right to freedom of expression, to respect for your private and family life and to be protected from degrading treatment. The ECHR is underpinned by the belief in the inherent dignity of individuals and that rights should be treated with respect.

Section 6 of the HRA obliges all public authorities such as Health Boards, Local Authorities and organisations such as Communities Scotland to act in a way which is compatible with the ECHR. The Act was a positive attempt by the Government to make human rights more accessible to ordinary people. One driver for compliance is that domestic courts can make compensation awards. In Scotland, we have additional human rights protection because the Scotland Act, which set up our devolved government, specifically obliges Scottish Ministers[47] (section 57) and the Scottish Parliament (section 29) to comply with the ECHR. So, people can go to court about human rights under that Act too![48]

The Government believes that Human Rights is another tool to deliver improved and more responsive public services and has established,

"a framework for policy formulation which leads to better outcomes, and ensures that the needs of all members of the UK's increasingly diverse population are appropriately considered both by those formulating the policy and by those putting it into effect."

The Government also asserts that human rights are powerful in establishing an agreed value base for society and setting standards in public services.[49] Private bodies can also be covered by the HRA if they are delivering certain types of public services or if they are contracted by a public authority to deliver services.

So what is our current level of understanding of human rights and Scotland and have we woken up to their potential? A MORI Scotland poll for the Justice 1 Committee of the Scottish Parliament in 2005[50], revealed that when people were asked to give "some impression as to what "Human Rights in Scotland" means to them", the most common associations are with equality.

From 2007, Scotland benefits from two distinct independent human rights bodies:

1. the Scottish Commission for Human Rights which will promote understanding of devolved human rights issues

2. the Equality and Human Rights Commission which has broader powers on reserved human rights matters.

In deciding what action to take, the Scottish Commission must have regard to the "human rights of those groups in society whose human rights are not, in the Commission's opinion, otherwise being sufficiently promoted."

From an ethical point of view, human rights are fundamental to overcoming disabling barriers. From a pragmatic perspective, human rights are central to other policy drivers which ensure that society no longer disables its citizens. A human rights approach should ensure positive processes and outcomes for disabled people including treating people with dignity and respect.

6. Top Tips Guide

Standard 1: Involvement

We will identify and involve the people and organisations who have an interest in the focus of the engagement.

"I've found out about lots of things that are going on through my involvement with GDA - I wouldn't have known otherwise. I didn't know anything about Community Planning, the CHCPs or learning. Disabled people have the same rights to involvement as other citizens but we seem to be more cut off"

(GDA Member).

GDA members report that often, they are siloed into the category of having a limited interest in issues which relate only to disabled people. It is stated overwhelmingly, that disabled people have a range of interests which are far broader than just health services although this obviously has a place. Disabled people are interested in what's going on in their communities including formal structures for involvement, community activity and organisations, access to learning, issues around justice and policing and even what is going on at the Scottish Parliament.

Sharing Good Practice: Glasgow City Council

Consultation for Disability Equality Scheme & Action Plan

In 2006, Glasgow City Council Corporate Equalities Department approached GDA and asked us to gather views of disabled people about council services. This was to influence the development of their Disability Equality Scheme and Action Plan and make sure that these services meet the needs of disabled citizens.

GCC recognised the experience and expertise of a user led voice of disabled people and wanted to involve disabled people in the process from the start. Resources were made available to involve the broadest range of disabled people possible and to reduce barriers to participation.

This enabled disabled people the chance to have their say about services and to identify their priorities for improving these. GDA asked disabled people how they wanted to be involved in policymaking and planning for service delivery and fed back views and priorities to GCC. Focus Groups were convened with all access requirements met and GCC were also keen to ensure that their own Employees were involved. A minimal fee was paid in appreciation of the resources and expertise which people gave. One year on, GCC approached GDA again to review the ongoing Plan and discussions have taken place about ongoing involvement in the development of future schemes and plans.

TOP TIPS CHECKLIST FOR INVOLVEMENT

Principles

- Recognise the rights of disabled people to full citizenship with the same range of human rights, needs and aspirations as other people.

- Work on the principle "nothing about me without me".

- Remember that disabled people have busy lives and make your opportunities for involvement well-defined, focused and meaningful.

Practical steps for successful involvement

- Reach out to disabled people from a wide variety of sources including: disabled groups and organisations, unions, organisations providing services to disabled people, mainstream community groups e.g. tenants associations, community councils.

- Remember that there are also hard to reach disabled people who are isolated and unable to participate in activities due to barriers. Consider social care services, health services, libraries, post offices as a potential means of getting information to them.

- Consider the full diversity and different experiences of disabled people e.g. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender, Black and Minority Ethnic, Older People, Younger Disabled People. Acknowledge the negative effect of multiple barriers.

- Use organisations led by disabled people which have strong connections to the grassroots and understand the issues. Be confident that these are not "Gatekeepers" and that their approach is far reaching and inclusive.

- Keep a "contact book" of organisations, leaders, research and evidence to ensure that you have a wide range of information including published stats and research.

- Map levels of meaningful involvement by disabled people in your service. Consider opportunities for further involvement by those whose voice is not represented. Use networks and "expert" organisations led by disabled people.

- Remember that all organisations will have disabled employees whether disclosed or undisclosed. Identify barriers for disabled employees in your own organisation.

- Disability and Equality "Champions" are often key drivers in bringing about positive changes. Take a personal and direct approach to promoting the rights and encouraging involvement of disabled people.

Standard 2: Support

We will identify and overcome any barriers to involvement.

Why do we need Top Tips for Support?

"We arrived and they had a lip reader and a person doing sign language but what we really needed was help with transport and personal support so we could fully participate,"

GDA Member's reflections of experience with other agencies).

GDA members have highlighted that there are often practical and financial barriers to their participation e.g. lack of transport, the need for personal assistance such as getting in and out of heavy doors to a venue, lack of accessible communication e.g. loop systems and timings of meetings. It has also been reported that workers and officers needs are met, e.g. access to information "Because I don't get it in advance or in an accessible format, I can't properly take part in discussions and decisions and I can't keep up."

Sharing Good Practice: Glasgow Learning Providers

Pacific Institute and Gorbals Community Forum - have facilitated 5 "STEPS to Excellence & Personal Success" courses. As a result of this partnership, course materials have become more accessible for disabled people and methods of delivery have been shaped to the needs of participants. 47 disabled people have completed these 4 day courses which have been instrumental in building confidence and goal setting.

Momentum Scotland - contacts every learner prior to start of the course to find out individual access needs. This enables preparation of resources and planning for methods to be used in advance. Assistive technology is used to ensure participation and all access needs are met.

Glasgow Metropolitan College - have delivered a Healthy Eating Course. Needs of learners were responded to and transport was provided. There was an uptake of Disability Equality Training from staff to improve policies and practice in relation to working with disabled learners.

Glasgow Nautical College & WEA - have delivered an 8 week Numeracy course. Again, needs of learners were taken on board and transport was provided. Adjustments have been made to the timings, methods and materials used for teaching to enable full inclusion.

Community Learning & Development - have delivered a 3 week Confidence Building course. The Tutor described the process as an opportunity to think about different ways of doing things. CLD paid for transport for participants and have become aware of the benefits of having an Access Budget to enable full inclusion.

TOP TIPS CHECKLIST FOR SUPPORT

Principles

- Recognise the true costs of involving disabled people and acknowledge the time and expertise that disabled people and their organisations contribute.

- Recognise the value of involving independent support organisations of disabled people to provide community development support.

Practical steps for effective support

- Reduce barriers through provision of transport, loop system, personal assistants, accessible information including Braille, large print and plain language, British Sign Language interpretation, Lipspeakers, electronic typists, communication aids, advocacy.

- Maximise access by considering suitable toilets, parking, door width, room size, lifts, seating arrangements, etc.

- Find out access and support needs for each individual, develop systems to capture information to avoid repeatedly asking people the same questions.

- Make up a standard checklist of the support needs of people.

- Review support needs as part of monitoring and evaluation.

- Accessibility-proof all activities to be proactive and inclusive rather than reacting to people's support needs "on the day".

- Identify Disability Equality Champions who can develop specialist skills in working with different equalities groups of disabled people e.g. LGBT disabled people, those from BME communities etc.

- Make sure that expenses are paid quickly to demonstrate that you are serious about involvement and will keep your promise to provide support.

- Promote a positive culture change within your organisation by mainstreaming human rights across all services and activities. Recognise that dealing with any group of people requires attention to all of their particular needs and interests. Arranging for vegan food should be part of the same process as arranging for transport!

- Be more flexible with budgets and consider a "reasonable adjustment" budget or "access" budget which can cover the cost of essential supports such as personal assistants or taxis.

- Reimburse time and expense of disabled people and organisations providing expertise either through direct cash payment or gift vouchers.

Standard 3: Planning

We will gather evidence of the needs and available resources and use this evidence to agree the purpose, scope and timescale of the engagement and the actions to be taken.

Why do we need Top Tips for Planning?

"I thought the point was that the public body decided if the engagement was OK as no one asked me. They seem to come up with these things from some policy…sometimes it turns out to be useful but sometimes it bears no relation to the experience of disabled people,"

(GDA Member).

GDA Members have reported that they are rarely ever asked about the purpose or need for the engagement. It is usually decided in advance and it has been stated that "Often it has been decided, then someone thinks "We better get the views of some disabled folk!" Usually this is near the end of the process and at a point where you can't really influence. If they like what you say, they tell everyone they consulted disabled people. If they don't, then they say it was only a few folk and not representative!"

Sharing Good Practice: Community Learning and Development, Culture & Sport Glasgow

CLD wanted to involve disabled people in planning for the Consultation about the Glasgow Community Learning and Development Strategy 2007-2010. GDA were invited to become involved at the planning stage of this consultation process and worked with partners to produce a statement on Community Capacity Building for the Consultation exercise. GDA were also encouraged to contribute to guidance about how to collect information about disabled people and other equalities groups. Ultimately, CLD enabled GDA to be involved in planning and developing wider participation in the consultation by disabled people, including GDA members and GDA itself.

Glasgow Equalities Partnership

GEP involved GDA in the planning and delivery of a consultation strategy to come up with a way forward for the new "Glasgow Equalities Hub". GEP and GDA agreed the purpose and scope of the involvement, the amount of time to be spent involving disabled people, set measurable targets for this process, committed resources to support involvement and participation e.g. transport, personal assistance, BSL interpreter etc, and agreed respective roles and responsibilities in relation to the engagement . Critically, GEP kept the promises made,

"I was a bit nervous coming along to this event as you know what it's like...you tell them your needs and then when you get there, you're not catered for. But this was a great event and everything which I asked for was done. You felt like they were really taking you seriously and listening,"

(GDA Member).

TOP TIPS CHECKLIST FOR PLANNING

Principles

- Plan engagement to ensure objectives are met.

- Encourage open and honest expression of views.

- Recognise and acknowledge the skills and assets which disabled people bring to the planning process.

Practical steps for effective planning

- Ask disabled people and their organisations to help identify the issues that your agency should engage about, or at least "check-out" the value of the issues that you come up with.

- Ask disabled people to come up with the best kinds of methods for this engagement as they may know up to date methods and "what works".

- Gather evidence of needs and resources to plan activities.

- Ensure that disabled people are involved from the start of the engagement.

- Ensure that disabled people are involved in partnership working.

- Plan enough time to involve disabled people and groups.

- Be realistic about the resources needed to make involvement inclusive and plan ahead to ensure that additional resources are available for the engagement.

- Implement the agreed, published policy of your organisation from the outset - look at the Disability Equality Duty and its application to your organisation.

- Ensure that there is a common understanding about the extent and purpose of the engagement exercise.

- Be open about any limitations at the outset as this will affect the outcome of engagement including Feedback and Monitoring and Evaluation. A limited engagement which is inclusive and set with clear objectives is more credible in terms of process as well as outcomes. Make clear the limits of involvement.

- Set targets: small and attainable goals match initial expectations and disabled people will be more satisfied with a series of small, positive steps than overcoming large promises resulting in failures.

- Plan for and establish a continuing process of involvement- successful participation requires an ongoing dialogue.

- Keep your promises and deliver your undertakings.

Standard 4: Methods

We will agree and use methods of engagement that are fit for purpose.

Why do we need Top Tips for Methods?

"You can be excluded simply because they choose methods which don't work for you e.g. they organised an event early in the morning and that is no good for me because it takes me a while to get up and out. Or they tell you to give your response online and then you find that the questionnaire isn't accessible or compatible with your software. They probably don't mean to leave you out but they just haven't thought of it!"

(GDA Member, reflecting on experiences of agencies).

Sometimes, just a little more thought and small adjustments could result in more effective, meaningful involvement with better outcomes.

Sharing Good Practice: Equality Forward

"Exploring disability disclosure amongst college and university staff in Scotland," November 2007

Equality Forward has just completed a powerful piece of research which has explored the experiences and perceptions of staff in colleges and universities in Scotland about disability disclosure. This research is important as it is the first of its kind to focus on staff rather than disabled students and the study lets the voices of disabled staff in colleges and universities in Scotland be heard, alongside those of non-disabled staff.

The research method was significant in the success of the project. The method had to enable staff to talk about attitudinal, environmental and social barriers to disclosure, reach college and university staff in appropriate ways, and seek the trust of college and university hierarchies in the process. An online survey and personal interviews were considered to be most effective. The anonymised, accessible online survey for college and university staff was developed with support from staff at University of Glasgow. Overwhelmingly, 691 responses were made, which totals almost 1% of all college and university staff in Scotland. Just under 22% of responses were from disabled staff. This demonstrates a high level of confidence in the anonymity of the survey and suggests that this method was "fit for purpose".

It is hoped that findings will provide greater understanding of the processes for college and university staff when considering whether or not to disclose disability. It is also anticipated that this research will provide information for colleges and universities which may guide policies and procedures in respect of the recruitment and retention of disabled staff.

This example is directly drawn from the Summary Report named above and will be available on the website from 10th December 2007 at www.equalityforwardscotland.ac.uk.

TOP TIPS CHECKLIST FOR METHODS

Principles

- Demonstrate that you are listening to and hearing people!

- Value people's personal testimonies of their experiences of service delivery as qualitative evidence of what needs to change.

Practical steps for inclusive methods

- Ask disabled people about the methods which work for them.

- Use difference methods and approaches to gain a wide variety of views and involvement. Methods should offer a continuum of diverse and innovative activities from simply giving information, to consultation, to active and genuine involvement which empowers disabled people, helps them to create a vision for their future and be involved in the decision making to make this happen.

- Always use more than one method so that people have a choice and make sure these are "fit for purpose".

- Use methods that will reach and respond to hard to reach groups, e.g. people unable to get out of their house or in residential care.

- Use methods that promote discussion and reduce dominance of a few.

- Promote learning and awareness raising by bringing different groups together e.g. older and younger generations. The dynamic created by the groups will generate broader discussion and the process should be more enjoyable for people too.

- Arrange meetings in response to varied needs for: timing, location, content and style. One size does not fit all.

- Be flexible in response to different needs and concentration levels e.g. allow for breaks, enable people to make a point when they think of it rather than at the right moment on the agenda e.g. "red card" systems.

- Check out in advance what support people need. Provide support so that people can participate effectively, e.g. pre-meetings.

- Arrange meetings and events as locally as possible and be prepared to go where people normally meet instead of asking them to come to you.

- Remember new methods developed and used and store for the next project so that the methods are mainstreamed rather than treated as exceptional.

Standard 5: Working Together

We will agree and use clear procedures that enable the participants to work with one another effectively and efficiently.

Why do we need Top Tips for Working Together?

"You turn up at meetings and it appears that the various organisations have made decisions in advance so the meeting acts as a rubber stamp. My presence appears to be required to give credibility to the process. I may eventually agree with some of the decisions but the process is unfair... the pace is often too fast with people using abbreviations which I do not understand and anticipating that I will have read all the materials they have, even though I am a volunteer,"

(GDA Member's reflections of experience with other agencies).

GDA Members report that "disability" has undergone a public relations makeover with actually little real change at the point of contact.

Sharing Good Practice: Leonard Cheshire Citizenship Academy

Leonard Cheshire Disability (LCD) received a grant from the Electoral Commission to work with disabled people throughout Scotland on the Citizenship Academy Project. This aims to empower disabled people to be actively involved in their local communities, with an emphasis on learning about Scottish democratic processes. LCD sought to involve disabled people and their organisations in the planning, development and delivery of this course and established a Project Board. GDA have been involved in this process.

An open, honest and positive approach has been taken from the outset. Board members are encouraged to be involved, access needs are met and communication has been in plain language. Decisions have been shared and agreed and participants have learned from each other through a process of change and development i.e. course planning, development and implementation. This has involved ideas and decisions about resource allocation e.g. GDA and LCD have delivered a Citizenship Course to disabled people in Glasgow.

LCD has recognized and acknowledged the valuable time which Board members contribute and this respectful approach is transferred to the way the course is delivered. The course has been accessible through provision of transport, personal assistants, accessible training materials, plain language and symbols. There has been a genuine effort to strive for continuous improvement in the way the course is developed and delivered and this is influenced by both disabled people on the Board and the learners themselves e g. some aspects of the course for example timing, delivery and choice of topics have been in response to the students and have developed with their input and evaluation. As a result of the course in Glasgow, disabled participants have increased the confidence and skills needed to voice their opinions, reinforce their rights and influence decision making processes.

TOP TIPS CHECKLIST FOR WORKING TOGETHER

Principles

- All participants need to feel confident that their participation is valued.

- People often need support to work together efficiently.

- Recognise that disabled people's time is valuable.

Practical steps for working together

- Acknowledge hidden power and agendas. Be open and honest.

- Listen to each other and get to know each other.

- Build relationships but also welcome new members.

- Create confidence by visibly demonstrating a positive attitude to disabled people e.g. use language that disabled people and wider equalities groups are comfortable with.

- Treat disabled people with dignity and respect and create a culture where all participants can challenge discriminatory behaviour.

- Emphasise and build skills and knowledge around rights and responsibilities - this may involve information and training.

- Involve all participants in setting standards for behaviour e.g. writing "ground rules" for working together.

- Ensure that the procedures to be followed are clear and realistic.

- Adopt a positive approach: encourage views of all participants, remove barriers to participation, use approaches which identify opportunities for achieving change.

- Use plain language and symbols if necessary e.g. Bonnington symbols.

- Ensure that all participants understand and are involved in decisions.

- Recognise that disabled people and groups have particular experiences of broken promises, e.g. because of lack of resources. If a commitment is made, follow it through.

- Learn from one another and strive for continuous improvement of the process. This may require enhancing skills and knowledge.

- Encourage tolerance as every one of us is different.

- Ensure that views are recorded and influence the debate and/or decision. Demonstrate the benefit of working together. Be prepared to capture outcomes which were not anticipated e.g. the desire to meet again to discuss other issues.

Standard 6: Sharing Information

We will ensure that necessary information is communicated between the participants.

Why do we need Top Tips for Sharing Information?

"You can be sitting at a meeting with a pile of papers that have arrived the day before, despite what it says in the constitution, and you have not had time to prioritise or read them. Generally, it can be difficult to know what is going on locally in your area so you tend to speak to different people to get an idea of what is happening rather than knowing for sure what is planned",

(GDA Member's reflections of experience with other agencies).

GDA Members have significant poor experiences in relation to information. If information increases knowledge and knowledge is power, then this only serves to further disempower those who are already marginalized in society. Without information we cannot make choices, give our consent, know how our services could be improved, know how agencies work or how we can have a say in them.

Sharing Good Practice: Inclusion Scotland

"Inclusion Scotland is an organisation OF disabled people, for disabled people across Scotland. It is extremely important that communications with our members are first class and fully accessible. Funded by the Scottish Executive's Equality Unit, our IT & Communication Project uses a number of approaches to share information i.e. Website, Newsletters and E-Bulletin.

Inclusion Scotland's website is updated daily with the latest news regarding disability, equalities and the voluntary sector. Newsletters are produced each month, Links to other relevant organisations are available, an "events" diary of conferences, training, and related meetings from all over Scotland is also available to disabled people. Members or visitors can input their views and give us feedback so that information flows 2 ways. Our website consists of features to make it accessible and we are currently exploring an 'Easy-Read' version of the website. We distribute an E-Bulletin reaching 1100 people weekly.

For those without access to the web, we have a printed newsletter, sent monthly to members. This contains much of the information which we share on the website. Supplements are produced and recent examples include 'Parliamentary Questions'

The newsletter is typed in Font Arial in 14 Point to add to the site's accessibility. We can also supply information in other formats on request and keep a note of access needs so that we can plan for future sharing of information. To visit the website log onto: www.inclusionscotland.org", (Thanks to Donna McSwiggan, Information Officer, IS for this excerpt).

TOP TIPS CHECKLIST FOR SHARING INFORMATION

Principles

- Information is a 2 way process: agencies should share accessible quality information about services and gather information from disabled people to inform service planning.

- People want to be and appear to be confident when participating in public engagement. Being able to access the relevant information is essential to build confidence and understanding of the issues.

Practical steps for sharing information

- Ask disabled people about their information and communication needs and provide for these.

- Produce and disseminate clear and accessible information which is relevant to the purpose.

- Use font 14 as a minimum size font.

- Use different formats e.g. provide written information to address memory problems; tapes, CDs and Braille are useful for those with visual impairments, learning difficulties, cognitive processing or literacy issues; other languages may be required.

- Uses the Scottish Accessible Information Forum to keep up with standards www.saifscotland.org.uk

- Record peoples' preferred formats and use these on an on-going basis so they don't have to ask twice.

- Use easy to understand, attractively presented, plain language

- Ensure enough time to translate, interpret, analyse and process information: distribute information well in advance so that people can read and understand the materials.

- Communicate information face to face as well as on paper. Remember that this may require sign language interpretation, lipspeaker and electronic typist.

- The Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 sends out a clear message that unless information requires to be withheld for a particular purpose, then it should be disclosed. By making available as much information as possible, public authorities will enable people to be better informed. Ensuring a steady flow of information will enable broader engagement on a long term basis.

- Explain which information is restricted because of confidentiality. Being open about this will promote trust and good relations.

- Use a range of accessible communications methods e.g. newsletters, email briefings, websites, annual reports & meetings.

Standard 7: Working With Others

We will work effectively with others with an interest in the engagement.

Why do we need Top Tips for Working With Others?

"I only found out about it because I'm pushy and pressed it. I talked to other disabled people-including GDA- and they hadn't heard about it. They've made no real attempt to involve disabled people or disabled-led organisations who have the expertise to be involved. They want to do it on the cheap - there are limits to how much you can contribute when you don't get the papers in an accessible format,"

(GDA Member talking about a local structure for involvement).

GDA Members have reported a lack of being involved in initiatives and developments which directly affect them and their communities. It is therefore important that organisations learn from disabled people and their groups and seek to ensure that engaging disabled people happens as a matter of course. This is essential if agencies are to learn about services and resources for disabled people and this enhanced understanding will improve practice.

Sharing Good Practice: Learning Providers Reference Group

When initially establishing its Learning Project, GDA were keen to reach out to other organisations with an interest in providing learning to disabled people. The Learning Providers Reference Group was set up and a number of organisations were enthusiastic about joining the Group and working with others. These included Glasgow College of Nautical Studies, Momentum Scotland, Wellbeing Initiative, Glasgow Metropolitan College, Equality Forward, Central College, Community Learning & Development, WEA, Cardonald College, John Wheatley College, Govanhill HA, Stow College, LGBT Centre and Langside College.

All members of the LPRG have committed time and resources to reach out and build knowledge of what else is happening. Good relationships have developed and this has resulted in informed responses and joint activities to engage disabled learners. This has also resulted in training for staff around disability equality.

The Group continues to meet, share best practice, develop opportunities for partnership and plan ways to involve disabled people in learning,

"Through the LPRG, we have seen the voluntary sector and colleges work together to develop ways to improve learning opportunities for the many disabled people who still remain distanced from mainstream learning,"

Development Officer, Equality Forward.

TOP TIPS CHECKLIST FOR WORKING WITH OTHERS

Principles

- Learn about organisations, activities and structures which are relevant to your engagement.

- Recognise that involvement of disabled people's organisations will be at a cost to them i.e. time and resource e.g. staffing.

- Ensure that you involve disabled people and not just the wider disability networks of organisations that provide services to disabled people. These are valid and should be included but not at the expense of disabled peoples" voices.

Practical steps for working with others

- Ask disabled people about their knowledge of others who should be involved.

- Investigate context of your work to identify other relevant work and who is doing it!

- There may be a gap between what you think and what individuals and members of the disabled people's communities think. A further challenge is then to build a collective voice and if that is not possible, to manage publicising the different views which have been articulated.

- Continue to develop effective partnerships which are relevant to delivering the work. Maintain these links.

- Encourage involvement and service provision to disabled people as routine practice and not something which is exceptional.

- Work with disabled people and their organisations to develop a stronger, collective voice for influencing changes.

- Compliment work of partner organisations and avoid duplication.

- The process is just as important as the outcome. You need to show some respect for the process and that means hearing and understanding different points of view.

- Language needs to be appropriate to the audience and people need to ensure there is time for effective discussion.

- Acknowledge vested interests up front don't assume that these solely apply to the voluntary sector!

- Maintain connections with intermediaries e.g. Scottish Centre for regeneration, GCVS, community planning officers.

Standard 8: Improvement

We will actively develop the skills, knowledge and confidence of all the participants.

Why do we need Top Tips for Improvement?

"Taking part in these things is not easy. The workers have all been doing it for years and make it look so easy. I need training in assertiveness and speaking out. I need to be confident to take part,"

(GDA Member).

"Don't assume it's only disabled people who need training and support. I've learned so much today about disabled peoples' rights and now see things in a completely different way. That's going to help me in my work with disabled people. We are all learning at the same time in different ways,"

(Participant in Disability Equality Training).

All participants have learning needs. Skills and expertise should be acknowledged and resources must be available to develop the abilities and capacity of all involved.

Sharing Good Practice: Coaching for Change

'Coaching for Change' was a GDA Pilot course which aimed to put disabled people at the heart of the decision making process on what, where and how they participate in lifelong learning. In this way learning is rights based, self determined and person centred, enabling the individual to develop skills knowledge and therefore motivation and confidence to get involved in solutions to barriers they face. This took account of ideas for dismantling barriers created by society and focused on the personal development of the individual as a learner, encouraging each participant to take action to effect change.

Ten disabled learners, with a wide range of impairments, attended a preliminary workshop run by Kate at GDA's Learning Festival in June 2007. Following this participants committed to a series of 6 sessions over 3 months (leading up to enrolment and start of autumn lifelong learning courses) on setting learning goals, which involved them committing to future actions for themselves, to use personal support networks in identifying barriers and coming up with solutions to access or sustain a learning activity.

Findings include: disabled people taking control of their lives, becoming more independent, being less isolated and progressing into voluntary work, training and paid work; reporting an increase in confidence, increase in participation in lifelong learning of their choice; stepping out of comfort zones into new and sometimes challenging situations; increase in assertiveness to tackle structural barriers as disabled learners; self advocacy skills such as speaking out; taking personal responsibility, making choices and decisions. Particular themes emerged around how to ask questions, where to find support organisations which are independent.

TOP TIPS CHECKLIST FOR IMPROVEMENT

Principles

- A culture of learning is beneficial to all involved and results in higher levels of performance.

- Agencies often need their learning and capacity to work with disabled people enhanced. It's not just disabled people who need help with skills and knowledge!

- Learning from practice is fundamental to improvement.

Practical steps for improvement

- Be proactive and offer people support to build their skills, knowledge and confidence. Evaluate this ongoing.

- Take responsibility for identifying your own learning needs to carry out your role and functions. Evaluate this ongoing.

- Make sure that there is enough time for the 2 Tips above!

- Make available or make arguments for resources to improve learning, skills and capacity.

- Continue to work with both disabled people and partner organisations to raise awareness of disability and related issues.

- Encourage sharing of skills and knowledge through capacity building for disabled people and agencies, actively developing the skills, knowledge and confidence of participation.

- Provide Disability Equality Training to all agency staff as this is at the heart of cultural and behavioural change.

- Use qualified trainers who have personal experience of disability issues, reflecting the diversity of disabled people.

- Take part in joint training for staff and disabled people bringing people together, challenging stereotypes and building relations.

- Be familiar with duties and responsibilities under the legislation, guidance and policy drivers e.g. the Disability Equality Duty, Human Rights Act, National Standards for Community Engagement.

- Suggest targeted outreach recruitment initiatives to encourage applications from talented disabled people to improve agency performance.

- Focus on what people can do rather than on what they cannot. Organise a series of engagements so that people can utilise their new skills and be more assured in using them.

- Discuss the need for both personal development for the engagement as well as longer term and collective learning to improve capacity overall.

Standard 9: Feedback

We will feed back the results of the engagement to the wider community and agencies affected.

Why do we need Top Tips for Feedback?

"They promise to send you the Report in an accessible format but I don't know if it is because of the format I need or because they have not done the Report that nothing happens. So it is a one off event and you don't know if you are recorded accurately or what the outcome is,"

(GDA Member's reflections of experience with other agencies).

Amongst the disabled people who DO have involvement in consultation events and processes for involvement, there is a weariness and frustration about the fact that they often never hear anything about the impact or outcome of giving their time and views.

Sharing Good Practice: Service User & Carer Involvement Group

The Service User and Carer Involvement Group is a Glasgow wide group including wide representation from user and carer networks. It's initial purpose was to ensure that service users and carers are effectively involved in the planning and development of health and social care services across Glasgow. SUCIG now Works with CHCPs to assist them in implementing user and carer involvement in the planning and development of services.

Over the last 2 years, the Group has worked towards developing open processes with service users and carers and regular good practice includes: Arranging and paying for transport for group members with mobility difficulties to attend meetings and sub-group meetings; Funding service users and carers to attend conferences, seminars and other events relevant to the groups remit; Arranging for the availability of equipment/ technology to make meetings more accessible for service users and carers; Sharing information in accessible formats to participants; Following up the contribution made by participants i.e. sharing outcomes of input and related actions; Sharing communication with and between departments relating to issues raised within the groups and feeding back to the group about results.

This Group has provided Guidance on user and carer involvement and has also become involved in feeding into staff training. Planned work includes developing tools and methods for measuring service user and carer satisfaction with services to assist CHCPs in monitoring their performance. Chairing of the group rotates round senior level staff within the 5 Glasgow CHCPs.

TOP TIPS CHECKLIST FOR FEEDBACK

Principles

- If you neglect to feedback to participants, they will feel ignored and that their contribution is pointless. Feedback what has changed as a result of their input as this acknowledges expertise and validates the efforts of disabled people.

- People need to feel confident that their participation is valued and that they will receive feedback about the impact this had made.

Practical steps for feedback

- Agree with disabled people the timescales, methods, and source of feedback to be given.

- Feedback to wider communities of disabled people affected, not just participants.

- Feedback to disabled people over time - not just one-offs.

- Tell people both the positive and negative experiences. Share that information when you say you will and in a way which is accessible.

- Use plain language to feedback.

- Use a range of different methods to feedback.

- Feed back to all those who have participated in activities, informing people of decisions and reasons known.

- Provide feedback in different formats according to people's needs

- Capture the experience of all participants in feedback, not just the views of those responsible for organising involvement opportunities.

- Use feedback to show the Standards in use and how engagement has made a difference to disabled people and their groups.

- Use formal feedback to those who took part but informal methods as well, e.g. "U Say/We Say" type feedback in newsletters and on websites.

- Ensure feedback is provided quickly, in a format which is OK with the disabled person and allow the opportunity for any corrections to your record.

- Feedback explanations of why certain actions will happen and others cannot.

- Feedback plans for future actions.

Standard 10: Monitoring and Evaluation

We will monitor and evaluate whether the engagement achieves its purposes and meets the national Standards for community engagement.

Why do we need Top Tips for Monitoring and Evaluation?

"I didn't know what was being evaluated until the end. I wish that we'd been involved in deciding what should be done since this is what they worked towards. This should have been looked at over the piece and not just at the end!"

(GDA Member).

Disabled people should be involved in the planning, monitoring and evaluation of services. This should be from the start of the process. Disabled people should be involved in setting targets as a response to need. In relation to monitoring and evaluation, it would be crucial to set targets for involvement, outlining clear areas of work and ensuring mechanisms to review progress on a fairly regular basis.

Sharing Good Practice: Disabled people's Involvement in GDA

From the very start of the Learning Project, the voices of disabled people and learners or potential learners have been heard. This has included: involving disabled people in the planning of the Project, setting up a Learning Reference Group to advise on direction and activities and on our Board which is entirely led by disabled people. Disabled people have been clear about barriers, support needs and aspirations for learning including : Exclusion and discrimination e.g. bad attitudes, low expectations about potential; Lack of access to transport, information, personal assistance or support.; Lack of flexibility in learning e.g. choice, support, accessible materials, equipment, teaching styles and assessment methods; Financial problems - lack of funding to meet learning support needs, costs of courses, benefits trap; Personal experiences leading to low confidence and self-esteem.

Activities and targets have been built around these issues leading to many achievements and successes over the past year and a half. Disabled people are involved in monitoring the outputs and wider outcomes of the Learning Project e.g. Evaluation Forms, Focus Groups and externally facilitated Evaluations.

"This truly is a project with disabled people at its heart. We have identified the need, purpose and funding, set the targets, agreed the monitoring information to be captured, monitored, reviewed, action planned and evaluated this ongoing. These things are all inextricably connected in a dynamic and ongoing process which forms part of daily activities. So much more has been achieved than was planned and this has also been captured to demonstrate our added value. One of the most important things is that this is presented in a very clear, accessible way to the Board,"

(GDA Convenor).

TOP TIPS CHECKLIST FOR MONITORING & EVALUATION

Principles

- Recognise that monitoring and evaluation are firmly connected to planning.

- Learn lessons from evaluations and integrate these into future planning.

- Evaluation is a continuous and dynamic process and is connected to all of the Standards for Community Engagement.

Practical steps for monitoring and evaluation

- Create a culture of feedback and communication from disabled people. Make it easy for disabled people to raise concerns they may have, not just during an evaluation process.

- Adopt a checklist approach so that your organisation follows a standard procedure which allows you to compare practice across the organisation.

- Ensure that the views of all participants are obtained, that lessons are learned and models of best practice promoted.

- Examine process as well as outcomes.

- Develop systems and processes to capture, monitor and analyse agreed information.

- Evaluate progress against targets set.

- Record good practice and share with others. This tactic is also used to continually improve practices and ensure that standards are maintained.

- Use the LEAP framework for planning and evaluation and capture and record information which is used for this purpose.

- Remember to use budget analysis to monitor, evaluate and evidence implementation of the Standards e.g. Access Costs.

- Recognise that results from community engagement and involvement in service planning and development may take even longer than usual. Undertake short-term as well as longer term evaluations.

- Build evaluation in from the start of a process of community engagement and involvement and keep reviewing practice.

- Use Evaluation Reports for feedback purposes.

- Make links to auditing processes such as "How Good Is Our Community Learning and Development II" and the Audit of Community Planning and Best Value.

7. National Standards: Culture or Compliance?

GDA promotes awareness of the connection between human rights, equality and citizenship rights for disabled people and aims to work with providers to ensure that a holistic approach can be taken to service design and delivery. The Standards are not compulsory or prescriptive as they are a voluntary code. This has created delivery problems. For example in a report of the "Culture or Compliance" series of four regional conferences reviewing progress in implementing the National Standards for Community Engagement, it is stated that:

"…commentators also point to the wholesale adoption of the Standards, for example, by community planning partnerships in community engagement strategies, whose promise is not met in the realities of their practice." GDA recognises and members support a firmer framework for auditing public compliance, or otherwise, with the Standards.

8. How our members can engage with you.

"Some organisations will not make any progress until they come up with solutions rather than coming up with problems."

GDA Member

GDA is a membership led organisation. Our people and groups want the public and private sector to do better and are very happy to share their thoughts and expertise.

If you are developing a policy, designing a building, arranging lighting, scoping physical access arrangements, producing information and allocating a budget to promote equality and human rights, then why not consult those who have a wealth of experience in the field. Specific GDA member groups-such as Glasgow Access Panel, Glasgow Centre for Inclusive Living, Possil and Milton Forum on Disability and over 20 other groups operate in the city. These, and individual members of GDA can, by prior arrangement, help you to deliver what you want.

GDA Members are happy to be cited by you as having been consulted but expect their recommendations to be heard and understood. To discuss your ideas in more detail or to set up an appointment, call GDA on,

0141 556 7103.

Appendix 1: Organisational Checklist

Question

Answers

Actions

How does your organisation engage with disabled people to find out their views?

How does your organisation reduce barriers to participation/services for disabled people e.g. physical access, transport, etc?

Does your organisation involve disabled people in planning services?

Do you think that your organisation uses accessible methods to engage with disabled people e.g. to get opinions about services?

Does your organisation "work together" with disabled service users? Who has the power?

Does your organisation provide information to disabled service users in accessible formats? Is all information shared equally?

Do you know if your organisation engages with groups or networks of disabled people who have an interest in its work?

Has your organisation ever given you access to Disability Equality Training?

If you are responsible for engaging disabled people in your job, have they had access to support and training?

Again, if you engage disabled people as part of your job, do you give them feedback about the impact of their contributions?

Do disabled people have any role in planning, monitoring or evaluation of your organisation?

Do you know how many disabled employees your organisation employs?

Are you familiar with your Disability Equality Scheme and Action Plan?

Did you know about the Disability Equality Duty?

Is your organisation supportive of disabled employees i.e. do you think people would feel safe to disclose disability?

Were you aware of the National Standards for Community Engagement within your organisation?

Do you think these have been used to engage disabled people in your organisation?

Do you think that your organisation has a human rights culture i.e. is everyone treated with dignity and respect?

Does your organisation have data on the experience of disabled people in relation to key servicesas well as employment?For example, satisfaction rates of disabled customers or disabled employees?

Can you think of ways that disabled people (both service users and disabled employees) could be involved more meaningfully at any level e.g. service delivery, strategic planning and development etc

What systems do you have in place to enable continuous improvement of services and your direct practice?

Appendix 2: Legislative and Policy Framework - what you need to know[51]

There is an abundance of legislation which sets out a framework for delivering equality, community empowerment, improving access to learning and services and promoting health and well-being. Understanding existing legal duties and peoples' rights, can encourage best practice. Here are just some of the laws which are relevant to the delivery of The Standards. This is not an exhaustive list.

- Public Sector Disability Equality Duty

The DDA 2005 introduced the public sector Disability Equality Duty from December 2006. Under the Duty, public bodies are required to carry out their functions with "due regard" to the need to: eliminate discrimination against and harassment of disabled people; promote greater equality for disabled people; promote positive attitudes to disabled people; and encourage disabled people to participate in public life.

- Scotland Act 1998

Legislation at the Scottish Parliament is only competent if it complies with a range of conditions including meeting the terms of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). "Equal Opportunities" is a reserved matter, although the exception includes "the encouragement (other than by prohibition or regulation) of equal opportunities, and in particular of the observance of the equal opportunity requirements" which is defined as "the requirements of the law for the time being relating to equal opportunities" - Schedule 5 Part 11. Hence the Equal Opportunities Committee of the Scottish Parliament is a mandatory Committee.

- Equality Act 2006

The Act establishes a single equality authority, the GB Equality and Human Rights Commission, operational from October 2007. It assumed the responsibilities of the existing statutory Equal Opportunities Commission, the Disability Rights Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality. The Commission also has a wider brief for other strands of diversity and equalities such as promoting human rights in relation to reserved human rights issues.

- The Human Rights Act 1998

This Act provides rights to disabled people, though in fairly limited circumstances. Perhaps some of the more important are the following:

- The right to life

- The right to private and family life

- The prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment

- The right to non-discrimination (though this is only triggered where another right exists).

- Scottish Commission for Human Rights Act 2006

The SCHR has a general duty to promote human rights and, in particular, to encourage best practice in relation to devolved human rights issues. Human Rights include the ECHR and "other human rights contained in any international convention, treaty or other international instrument ratified by the United Kingdom." The Duty means "promote awareness and understanding of, and respect for, those rights." In deciding what action to take the Commission must have regard to the "human rights of those groups in society whose human rights are not, in the Commission's opinion, otherwise being sufficiently promoted."

- Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002

Gives any person the right to make a request for information to a public authority (section 1) such as a local authority, the NHS, educational institutions including universities and colleges and Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority. You can appeal to the Scottish Information Commissioner if the request is ignored or the information refused e.g. because the public authority claims they have the right to withhold the information.

- Local Government in Scotland Act 2003 & related Guidance

Puts Community Planning on a statutory basis and requires the participation of key agencies such as health, local authorities and Scottish Enterprise. Places a duty of local authorities to promote well-being within their communities.

- Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2004

Includes local authority function to deliver services designed to promote well-being and social development and that travel assistance is provided to ensure participation in services, (section 3).

- Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 2005

Sets up the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council which is obliged to exercise its functions in a manner which encourages equal opportunities.

Appendix 3: Useful Contacts

Commission for Equality and Human Rights: www.cehr.org.uk

Communities Scotland

COSLA: Convention of Scottish Local Authorities: http://www.cosla.gov.uk/

Glasgow Association for Mental Health: http://www.gamh.org.uk/

Glasgow Council for the Voluntary Sector: http://www.gcvs.org.uk/

Glasgow Community Planning Partnership

Scottish Executive: http://www.gov.scot

Scottish Executive equalities mainstreaming website: www.gov.scot/mainstreaming/?pageid=403

Scottish Association for Mental Health (SAMH): www.samh.org.uk

Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations: www.scvo.org.uk

Scottish Council on Deafness: www.scod.org.uk

Scottish Disability Equality Forum: www.sdef.org.uk

Scottish Trade Unions Congress: www.stuc.org.uk

Scottish Accessible Information Forum: www.saifscotland.org.uk

Other organisations OF and FOR disabled people include:

Glasgow Access Panel: http://www.glasgowaccesspanel.org.uk/

Led by disabled people, the aim is to improve the accessibility of services, facilities and buildings across Glasgow for all disabled people.

GCIL: http://www.gcil.org.uk/

Glasgow Centre for Inclusive Living (GCIL) is a user-controlled organisation providing a wide range of services for disabled people including: information, advice and assistance for people managing their own support arrangements using direct payments; training for personal assistants, accessible housing advice, employment opportunities.

Glasgow Disability Alliance: http://www.gdaonline.co.uk/

GDA is a membership-led organisation of disabled people and groups in Glasgow. Its mission is to act as a collective, representative voice of disabled people, promoting equality, rights and social justice. GDA uses community development methods and approaches to carry out its work.

Inclusion Scotland: www.inclusionscotland.org

Inclusion Scotland (IS) is a Scotland wide consortium of organisations of disabled people and groups. Through a process of structured development the aims are to draw attention to the physical, social, economic, cultural and attitudinal barriers that affect everyday lives of disabled people.

Job Centre Plus

Information about the Job Centre's services for disabled people, including the Access to Work Scheme, Introduction to Work and the two ticks scheme.

Lead Scotland: http://www.lead.org.uk/

Lead Scotland, Linking Education and Disability, is a voluntary organisation set up to support disabled young people and adults and carers to access post-school education.

Momentum

Momentum works in partnership to enable disabled people to achieve their goals.

SKILL: National Bureau for disabled students

Information, advice and resources for disabled students in post-16 education.

Wellbeing Initiative

Training organisation specialising in the delivery of Administration SVQ's at level 1 and 2 to disabled people.

Update

UPDATE is Scotland's National Disability Information Service, providing a comprehensive membership package of disability information, resources and other supporting services to enable any type of organisation to provide reliable, relevant and up-to-date disability information to their clients.

Joint Commitment to Community Empowerment

(CoSLA/Scottish Government letter, 2008)

Colleagues

We are delighted that for the first time in Scotland, central and local government are making an explicit joint commitment to helping local people to play their full part in making Scotland flourish.

For the Scottish Government and COSLA empowering communities is not jargon, it is a key element of what we are both about. This is an agenda we share with colleagues from across the public, voluntary and community sectors.

A key element of our joint commitment is to be clear about what community empowerment is and why it matters.

We see community empowerment as a process where people work together to make change happen in their communities by having more power and influence over what matters to them. We also each believe in the central representative role of councillors in invigorating local democracy, and we see the process of community empowerment as a key way of complementing this.

In getting to this point we have listened to a wide range of people and we have responded to what we heard. So we are seeking to provide strategic leadership. We are not launching new short term initiatives and we will celebrate the vibrant work that is already being done across the country.

To support this high level commitment, we will also develop an Action Plan in partnership with the community and voluntary sectors over the coming months. Based on feedback we have received to date the broad outline of that plan will cover:

- Highlighting examples of community empowerment;

- Providing direct capacity building investment to community groups;

- Investing in an integrated programme to develop skills, learning and networking in relation to community empowerment and engagement;

- Developing support to help communities own assets;

- Investing in improved support for community capacity building;

- Working with Audit Scotland to agree how to assess progress on empowerment.

Today's joint commitment is a starting point for a long term journey, and we look forward to continuing to work together and with communities as it develops.

COUNCILLOR HARRY MCGUIGAN

COSLA Spokesperson for Community

Well-being and Safety

STEWART MAXWELL MSP

Minister for Communities and Sport

Chapter 5: Youth Work: Still Holding Value?

Contents

References

Introduction - Youth Work: Still Holding Value?

Statement on the Nature and Purpose of Youth Work Scottish Executive, 2007

(Scottish Executive, 2007)

Moving Forward: A Strategy for Improving Young People's Chances Through Youth Work

(Scottish Executive, 2007)

Are we really moving forward? Evaluating the Impact of the national youth work strategy

(From Standing at the Crossroads - What future for Youth Work? Concept, 2013)

Our ambitions for improving the life chances of young people in Scotland - National Youth Work Strategy 2014-2019

(Scottish Government, 2014)

Scottish Youth Work: same, but different

(Howard Sercombe, Jim Sweeney, Ted Milburn, Marcus Liddell, Rory McLeod, Phil Denning, Glasgow 2014)

References

Core texts

Statement on the Nature and Purpose of Youth Work (YouthLink Scotland, 2005, 2009)

Moving Forward - a Strategy for Improving Young People's Chances through Youth Work, Scottish Executive, 2007

Are we really moving forward? Evaluating the Impact of the national youth work strategy (in Youth work at the Crossroads, Concept)

Our ambitions for improving the life chances of young people in Scotland - National Youth Work Strategy 2014-2019 (2014)

Scottish Youth Work: same, but different (Sercombe, Sweeney, Milburn, Liddell, MacLeod, Denning, Glasgow 2014)

See also Chapter 11 for Standing at the Crossroads - what future for Youth Work? (Ian Fyfe and Stuart Moir in Youth work at the Crossroads, Concept, 2013)

Related Content

Step it Up - Charting Young People's Progress (University of Strathclyde, The Princes Trust, Scottish Executive, 2003)

More Choices, More Chances: A Strategy to Reduce the Proportion of Young People not in Education, Employment or Training in Scotland (Scottish Executive, 2006)

Delivering Outcomes in Community Learning and Development: Current issues for outcome-focussed practice in youth work (summary report for Scottish Government by YouthLink Scotland, Learning Link Scotland, Scottish Community Development Centre, 2008)

Building the Curriculum 3 (Scottish Government, HMIE, Scottish Qualifications Authority, Learning and Teaching Scotland, 2008)

Youth Work National Occupational Standards, 2012

Bridging the Gap: Improving Outcomes for Scotland's Young People through School and Youth Work Partnerships (Learning and Teaching Scotland, YouthLink Scotland, Scottish Government, 2009)

LGBT Charter of Rights (LGBT Youth Scotland, 2013)

Youth Work at the Crossroads (Concept, 2013)

Universal Youth Work: a critical review of the literature (summary/full report) (Edinburgh Youth Work Consortium and University of Edinburgh, 2015)

Youth Work: Still Holding Value?

Introduction by Dr. Ian Fyfe

The past decade has been one of reflection, review and transformation across the broad youth work sector. The changing context has been guided by core policy themes and documents that have ultimately realigned the role and purpose of youth work practice. This has been shaped by two discrete and complimentary policy streams; first, the emergent discourse focused on the contemporary lives and lifestyles of young Scots, and second the policy terrain concerned with youth work practice and broader youth services.

A recent headline in The Herald (2015) reported; 'Youth work acclaimed for getting young people into work'[52]. Such news is affirmation of the long-standing impact of youth work in supporting young Scots through the challenging transitional journey into employment and ultimately independent adulthood. However, it is also a timely reminder of current priorities for practice particularly an emphasis on employability as a key driver for the intervention of youth services more generally. In the aftermath of the worldwide economic crisis of the late 2000s the role and purpose of youth work has been tasked primarily with a remit to promote and achieve positive destinations for young people.

Regardless of the changing political configuration of the Scottish Parliament since the late 1990s the policy discourse surrounding young Scots over time has become firmly focused on academic achievement and subsequent post-school transitions. A key driver for this nascent agenda was the increasing number of young people perceived to be failing to advance successfully through the transitional post-school pathways to adulthood. The landmark publication of the document More Choices, More Chances (Scottish Executive 2006) heralded the latest categorisation of those young people perceived to have 'fallen through the cracks' in terms of the traditionally observed trajectories towards adulthood. This publication gave much-needed exposure to those young people identified as Not in Education, Employment or Training (NEET). Political attention turned towards addressing the NEET category opening up access to resources and bringing a renewed purpose for the knowledge and skills of youth work practitioners. Working with the most socially excluded and vulnerable young people is arguably what youth work has done, and done well, for decades. So what is the downside? Well, the policy focus on NEET also brought forward a more specific agenda for youth services in the form of employability supported by a ubiquitous language concerned with post-school destinations. The practice terrain for youth work had shifted.

Contrastingly, the backdrop to this changing emphasis in purpose and practice points to something perhaps more sinister. Across the 32 Scottish local authorities new 'league tables' appeared that recorded comparable statistics on destinations achieved for Scottish school leavers (Skills Development Scotland 2014). Youth work practitioners were increasingly moving to work one-to-one with individual young people to help them navigate their way out of the NEET category and into more determined positive destinations. It is without doubt that developing trustworthy and lasting relationships with young people has been a perennial feature of effective youth work practice. However, the increasing concentration on employability brought new meaning to the relationship forged between the adult youth worker and young person with a growing emphasis on building skills for employment and more formal contractual practice arrangements through initiatives such as Activity Agreements (Scottish Government 2012) [53].

Similar changes were implemented in the early 2000s across England and Wales through The Connexions Service which was also characterised by a more individualised focus for practice. The youth work domain as a result became professionally disjointed and increasingly subjected to creeping bureaucratisation, with an emphasis on accreditation and concern for delivery and measurement of outcome-driven targets (Smith 2003)[54]. This has become a widespread concern for the youth work sector (Fyfe & Moir 2013). A recently published literature review on Universal Youth Work looking back critically over the past decade concluded that 'the outcomes agenda inevitably goes hand-in-hand with demands to demonstrate value for money' (EYWC 2015, p.4)

The common changes implemented across the UK over recent years reflect a broader European phenomenon whereby:

The potential disconnection between the purpose and mission of youth work and the expectations of outcomes is a growing issue. There is a concern that youth work is increasingly expected to deliver what had previously been carried out by other policy sectors.….on the other hand this indicates that there is a growing awareness of the possible contribution of youth work.

(European Commission 2014, p.7)[55]

Within this contradictory policy realm, the potential contribution of youth work in Scotland has without doubt become patently evident over the past decade. In the European context Scotland is one of only a handful of nation states that has a discrete youth work policy strategy. The document Moving Forward - a Strategy for Improving Young People's Chances through Youth Work was published in 2007 (Scottish Executive 2007) and recently an updated strategy (Scottish Government 2014) set the priorities for youth work in Scotland until 2019.

Moreover, youth work has become a consistent feature across the broader policy streams directed at the lives and lifestyles of young people in Scotland. The long-standing purpose of youth work practice as an arena for informal learning and personal and social development was further cemented by a renewed focus on schooling with the development and launch of the Curriculum for Excellence (CfE) (Scottish Government 2008). The centrality of the respective capacities of CfE namely; successful learners, responsible citizens, confident individuals and effective contributors brought renewed attention to the potential that youth work can offer in enhancing the wide-ranging educational achievement of young people. A new partnership between youth work and schooling has been forged as a result (Learning & Teaching Scotland 2009) Also, the past few years have witnessed youth work feature prominently in policy documents such as Valuing young people (Scottish Government 2009)[56] and Getting it right for every child (Scottish Government 2010)[57] further validating the important role it has to play in the wider integration and coordination of services for those young people on the margins of Scottish society.

Despite the valued credit that these developments have brought to the sector, looking back over the past decade there remains cause for concern and some obvious challenges ahead. There appears to be a potential weakening of youth work moving from recognition of a distinctive professional discipline informed by well-established traditions, towards a simplistic notion of a way of working with young people. What perhaps is most at stake within this burgeoning policy landscape is ensuring endurance of the distinctive role and value of youth work. Central to this endeavour is the now omnipresent Statement on the Nature and of Purpose of Youth Work published by Youthlink Scotland (2009). This succinct statement captures the very essence of modern-day youth work in Scotland with a considered nod to the historically embedded principles of practice. The essential features can be briefly paraphrased as young people choosing to participate, building young work from the needs of young people and nurturing an informal learning partnership between the young person and adult practitioner. These familiar pillars of practice seem more important than ever as foundational markers of contemporary practice. Not only do they help sustain consistency of purpose for youth work they provide a platform from which to continue to develop relevant services designed to purposively meet the expressed needs of young people.

The continued role, purpose and identity of youth work practice relies on ongoing training and development of the workforce from part-time volunteers to full-time professionals. The youth work sector, whilst working with dwindling resources is expanding to encompass a wide-ranging array of partners and stakeholders. For many youth services the employability agenda looks set to continue to dominate. This is despite a recorded downturn in youth unemployment in Scotland to the lowest level in over 7 years (Scottish Government 2015)[58]and an overall incremental improvement since 2004 in the percentage of young school leavers in Scotland achieving positive destinations (Skills Development Scotland 2014)[59]. This clearly brings into question the continued focus on employability. It also bolsters the potential role that youth work can play in supporting young people to define and determine the future direction of travel to ensure the value of youth work is acknowledged beyond merely monetary terms.

Sources

Edinburgh Youth Work Consortium and University of Edinburgh (2015) - Universal Youth Work: A Critical Review of the Literature. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh. http://www.morayhouse.me/public/Universal-Youth-Work-Summary-2015.pdf. Accessed 25th May 2015.

European Commission (2014) - Working with young people: the value of youth work in the European Union. Brussels: European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/youth/library/study/youth-work-report_en.pdf Accessed 20th May 2015.

Fyfe, I. & Moir, S. (2013) - Concept Youth Work Reader - Standing at the Crossroads: What future for Youth Work? http://concept.lib.ed.ac.uk/index.php/Concept/article/view/213/210 Accessed 2nd May 2015.

Learning and Teaching Scotland (2009) - Bridging the Gap: Improving Outcomes for Scotland's Young People through School and Youth Work Partnerships. Edinburgh: Youthlink Scotland/Learning & Teaching Scotland.

Scottish Executive (2006) - More Choices, More Chances: A Strategy to Reduce the Proportion of Young People not in Education, Employment or Training in Scotland. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.

Scottish Executive (2007) - Moving Forward: a Strategy for Improving Young People's Chances through Youth Work. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.

Scottish Government (2008) - Curriculum for excellence building the curriculum 3 a framework for learning and teaching. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.

Scottish Government (2009) - Valuing Young People: Principles and connections to support young people achieve their potential. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.

Scottish Government (2010) - A Guide to Implementing Getting it right for every child: Messages from pathfinders and learning partners. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.

Scottish Government (2012) - Opportunities for All Supporting all young people to participate in post-16 learning, training or work. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.

Scottish Government (2014) - Our ambitions for improving the life chances of young people in Scotland - National Youth Work Strategy 2014-2019.

Scottish Government (2015) - Labour Market Briefing - May 2015.

Skills Development Scotland (2014) School Leaver Destinations Initial Follow up 2013/14. Accessed 20th May 2015.

Smith, M. K. (2003) - From youth work to youth development: The new government framework for English youth services, Youth and Policy No. 79, pp. 46-59.

The Herald (2015)

Youthlink Scotland (2009) - Statement on the Nature and Purpose of Youth Work. Edinburgh: YouthLink Scotland

Statement on the Nature and Purpose of Youth Work

(Scottish Executive, 2007)

Key Documents

1. Step it Up… The Report of the National Development Project entitled "Defining the Purpose of Youth Work and Measuring Performance". University of Strathclyde and The Prince's Trust Scotland (May 2003)

2. National Occupational Standards for Youth Work. PAULO NTO (Jan 2002)

3. Do young people still need Youth Work?Bernard Davies from "Conceptualising Youth Work: Back to the Future" Ed. Murphy and Shaw (1999)

4. Working and Learning Together (2003). Scottish Executive

5. Moving Forward: A Strategy for Improving Young People's Chances Through Youth Work (2007). Scottish Executive

6. Working and Learning Together (2008). Cosla and Scottish Government

7. Professional & National Occupational Standards for Youth Work (2008). Lifelong Learning UK.

8. CLD Competencies (2009) The Standards Council for Community Leaning and Development.

9. Valuing Young People (2009). Scottish Government

10. Subject Benchmark Statement: Youth and Community Work (2009). The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.

11. Bridging the Gap (2009). YouthLink Scotland, Learning and Teaching Scotland and Scottish Government.

For further information go to:

http://www.youthlinkscotland.org

Background

Prior to the publication of Moving Forward: A Strategy for Improving Young People's Chances Through Youth Work (2007), the Policy Forum produced a working definition of youth work. Following extensive consultation with YouthLink Scotland's Members Network, the Voluntary Organisations Chief Officers' Group (VOCOG) and Community Learning and Development Managers Scotland (CLDMS) the statement was adjusted and the final version was agree at a joint meeting of the three networks and the Policy Forum on 24 March 2005.

YouthLink Scotland's Statement on the nature and purpose of youth work received widespread support across the youth work sector. It was informed by a number of key documents and has subsequently influenced policy and workforce development in the sector. Some of these appear in the key documents section of the document.

The main part of the document has not been altered but the key documents section and background were updated in July 2009 when it was reprinted.

Youth Work has three essential and definitive features:

Young people choose to participate

The young person takes part voluntarily. She/he chooses to be involved, not least because they want to relax, meet friends and have fun. The young person decides whether to engage or to walk away.

The work must build from where young people are

Youth Work operates on young people's own personal and recreational territory - within both their geographic and interest communities. The young person's life experience is respected and forms the basis for shaping the agenda in negotiation with peers and youth workers.

Youth Work recognises the young person and the youth worker as partners in a learning process

The young person is recognised as an active partner who can, and should, have opportunities and resources to shape their lives. The relationship and dialogue between the young person and youth worker is central to the learning process.

Context

Youth work plays a key role in delivering the principles outlined in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, particularly Article 12, the right of the young person to voice their opinion, have their views listened to and be taken seriously. By engaging young people in social activism, youth work builds citizenship, respect for human rights and a sense of mutual responsibility.

Introduction

Youth work is an educational practice contributing to young people's learning and development.

Youth work engages with young people within their communities; it acknowledges the wider networks of peers, community and culture; it supports the young person to realise their potential and to address life's challenges critically and creatively; it takes account of all strands of diversity.

Youth work takes place in a variety of settings including community venues, uniformed groups, schools, youth cafés and on the street, whilst using numerous approaches such as outdoor pursuits, drama workshops, health initiatives, peer education and single issue and single gender work to engage with young people.

The effectiveness of youth work methods has led to an increasing number of organisations developing youth work approaches, for example those working in youth justice and health improvement programmes. This demonstrates the range of ways youth work can be applied, enabling young people who might otherwise be alienated from support to get the services they need. The youth work sector welcomes these developments and seeks to co-operate with those who contribute to young people's social and personal development.

However, there remains a fundamental need for community based youth work which has been eroded as a service in recent years, at a time when young people are under greater pressure than ever, especially the most disadvantaged.

Purpose of Youth Work

The purpose of youth work was well defined in Step it Up, following extensive discussion and consultation with the youth work sector, and is as follows:

- Build self-esteem and self-confidence.

- Develop the ability to manage personal and social relationships.

- Create learning and develop new skills.

- Encourage positive group atmospheres.

- Build the capacity of young people to consider risk, make reasoned decisions and take control.

- Develop a 'world view' which widens horizons and invites social commitment.

Age Range

The decisive pre-requisite for a young person's participation in youth work remains their youth. Youthwork's focus is on the 11-25 year age group with particular emphasis on 11-18 year olds. It acknowledges the need to connect effectively with early intervention programmes and provision which focuses on children under 11 years.

Conclusion

The characteristics and purpose detailed in this leaflet define youth work. Youth work is an empowering process. Youth work is thus one of the very few practices whose remit provides for young people to exercise genuine power - to take decisions, follow them through and take responsibility for their consequences. Youth work seeks to tip the balance of power in young people's favour.

Moving Forward: A Strategy for Improving Young People's Chances Through Youth Work (Extracts)

(Scottish Executive, 2007)

FOREWORD

LAST YEAR MANY OF YOU RESPONDED TO OUR CONSULTATION PAPER YOUTH WORK - OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL. IN IT WE ASKED FOR YOUR VIEWS AND IDEAS ON HOW WE CAN WORK TOGETHER TO CREATE GROWTH AND SUCCESS IN THE YOUTH WORK SECTOR IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE MORE POSITIVE OUTCOMESFOR YOUNG PEOPLE IN SCOTLAND.

The response was excellent, particularly from young people, and we have been working to take on board your concerns and aspirations for youth work in Scotland in developing this strategy.

We value the nature and role of youth work and recognise fully the contribution it makes to young people individually and to developing strong communities, where young people play an active and positive role. We intend, through this strategy, to give youth work in Scotland the best possible opportunity to play an increasingly visible, substantial and effective role in achieving long term benefits for young people.

This strategy aims to support long-term growth in the sector with more opportunities for young people, volunteers and youth workers, better facilities and more effective, targeted support at a national level. Some of the measures outlined therefore represent long-term changes in how we work - for example, our commitment to recognising the role youth work can play across the Scottish Executive in shaping and delivering broader policy aims. These aims include getting more young people into education, training or employment, tackling sectarianism and supporting young people dealing with issues relating to drugs or alcohol.

The strategy also includes a range of shorter-term measures to put in place new support structures and boost the capacity of the sector to take forward the longer-term vision. The strategy thereforeheralds a "Year of Action" on youth work, for which we provide additional investment - a package of support worth over £8m - to improve facilities and training, to develop volunteering and for projects developed by local partnerships.

Youth work is about improving young people's life chances and experiences. All the funding we put into youth work, whether supporting voluntary organisations or through local authority provision, is designed to improve outcomes for young people and their communities. Underpinning the strategy is a commitment to equality and inclusion, achieving best value for available resources, working in partnership and encouraging more young people to have their say locally and nationally to influence decisions which affect them and their community.

We have taken on board what you told us during the consultation and we hope you recognise your own priorities reflected in the strategy. We look forward to working with you to achieve these outcomes and to ensure that the value of youth work is recognised and sustained in delivering for all our young people.

Hugh Henry, Minister for Education and Young People

Rhona Brankin, Minister for Communities

Robert Brown, Deputy Minister for Education and Young People

Des McNulty, Deputy Minister for Communities

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

YOUTH WORK CAN ENHANCE THE LIFE OF ANY YOUNG PERSON. IT CAN CONTRIBUTE POSITIVELY TO YOUNG PEOPLE'S PERSONAL GROWTH AND TO THE GROWTH OF THE COMMUNITIES THEY LIVE IN.

In recognising the value of youth work we undertook a consultation to hear the views of young people and those that help deliver these opportunities. This provided your views as to how we can build on and support the already considerable strength of the youth work sector in Scotland. An excellent response was received on the consultation paper on youth work with over 3,091 responses and over 2,500 of these were from young people.

Our long term vision for youth work has two main elements:

- all young people in Scotland able to benefit from youth work opportunities which

make a real difference to their lives; and

- a youth work sector equipped and empowered to achieve ongoing positive outcomes for young people now and in the future.

To achieve this we need to think both short and long term. Below is a summary of some of the main actions we are proposing through the National Youth Work Strategy.

Short term:

To kick-start the delivery of the strategy we are proposing a year of action on youth work.

We will provide £0.5m in 2007-2008 for a Voluntary Organisations Support Fund to support national voluntary organisations to provide better training and strengthen their capacity.

We will continue to support more young people volunteering through Project Scotland, and in other appropriate ways.

We will work with voluntary organisations to ensure clear information and understanding in the Protection of Vulnerable Groups Bill.

We will provide a Youth Opportunities Fund of £2.5m for 2007-2008 for bids to run local events, projects and volunteer campaigns.

We will offer a £5m Youth Work Facilities Improvement Fund for 2007-2008.

We will fund with Learning and Teaching Scotland a co-ordinator post to work with schools and the youth work sector improving and increasing links across the sectors and improving ultimate benefits for young people.

We will continue to support the value of peer education of providing support to young people by young people through continuing to fund the Peer Education Network until 2010.

We will ask YouthLink to pilot local and themed networks to give youth work providers more opportunity to share good practice and train together.

We will ensure that the new Standards Council for Community Learning and Development recognises and responds to the unique role of youth workers and volunteers.

We will work with Higher Education Institutions to ensure the key elements of the strategy are reflected in degree provision.

We will engage with young people in helping to shape and take forward the Action Plan outlined in the Youth Work Strategy.

Long term:

We will promote the role and contribution of youth work in developing wider policies affecting young people.

We will encourage more young people to take advantage of the increased opportunities available.

We will support youth work organisations at a national level through working alongside the sector, providing longer-term funding and offering support for quality improvement through HMIe.

We will support organisations to improve their training, understanding and support of minority groups.

We will work with voluntary organisations to develop an Action Plan for Volunteering.

We will work with organisations to improve delivery and evaluation of services.

We will work with Young Scot to ensure young people have access to the information they require in the format most accessible to them.

We will help employers to understand and value the skills young people gain through youth work.

1. INTRODUCTION

OUR VISION FOR YOUTH WORK AND YEAR OF ACTION

'THE CHALLENGE IS ON TO CREATE A YOUTH WORK STRATEGY FIT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY WHICH GIVES YOUTH WORK THE RECOGNITION AND VALUE IT DESERVES'

Voluntary Organisation Response

1.1 Youth work has a significant role to play in delivering our broad vision for Scotland's young people - that they are nurtured, safe, active, healthy, achieving, included, respected and responsible. Youth work opportunities can also support young people to live their lives as confident individuals, effective contributors, successful learners and responsible citizens.

1.2 We believe that all young people can be like this. But we also recognise that young people are individuals with different needs, abilities and learning preferences. Youth work opportunities can enhance the life of any young person but, for some, youth work will have a more important or even critical role in enabling them to see and fulfil their true potential.

1.3 Youth work has a major part to play in providing life-enhancing experiences for children and young people - and the learning and development opportunities it offers must be seen and valued as an integral part of what society provides for young people across the board - children's services, school education, post-school education and training.

1.4 We recognise the value of youth work in contributing positively to young people's personal growth and to the growth of the communities they live in. We recognise the value of both:

- open access youth work activities, open to any young person who wishes to attend, offered by local authorities and voluntary organisations; and

- specialised targeted provision designed to meet the needs of young people who are particularly vulnerable or who have specific needs.

1.5 A vibrant youth work sector needs both. As well as enhancing the lives of young people from all backgrounds, universal youth work opportunities can have an early intervention and prevention role. It can engage in positive activities young people who might otherwise become involved in anti-social behaviour, alcohol or drug misuse, or who would leave school with few qualifications and skills, perhaps not progressing into education, employment or training (entering the 'NEET' group). Universal youth work opportunities can also offer vulnerable young people a non-stigmatising route into finding more specialist support where they might not be ready to go directly, e.g. to a project for young people with specific problems e.g. mental health issues.

1.6 Our aim is to build on the already considerable strength of the youth work sector to ensure provision for young people that is forward-looking, well-resourced and supported effectively - and that focuses all its efforts on delivering the best possible outcomes for young people in Scotland. We intend to support growth in the youth work sector through a variety of means - more opportunities and influence for young people, more youth workers and volunteers, commitment to ongoing training and development of youth workers and volunteers, better targeted resources, more access to good facilities and better support for the sector both nationally and locally.

1.7 Our long term vision for youth work has two main elements:

- for young people in Scotland able to benefit from youth work opportunities which make a real difference to their lives; and

- a youth work sector equipped and empowered to achieve ongoing positive outcomes for young people now and in the future.

To achieve this we need to think both short and long term. We have welcomed and listened to what you told us in the consultation. We have used what you told us to develop the outcomes we need to deliver to achieve the vision. And we have set out a range of actions to support the youth work sector in meeting the needs of young people today. Some of these involve early action to boost the sector in the coming year. With others, particularly where we need to build the capacity and expertise of youth work, we are proposing longer term commitments.

The Consultation, the Strategy and Beyond

1.8 The Youth Work Strategy consultation ran from 1 August to 1 November. 15,000 copies of the consultation paper were sent out with an online version also available. 15,000 copies of the full questionnaire were issued with 19,000 copies of the shorter questionnaire specifically for young people.

1.9 We issued the consultation paper widely, including to all schools and voluntary organisations working with young people. We also supported the following organisations to support specific consultation activities with key groups of people:

- YouthLink - the youth work sector generally, both voluntary organisations and local authority community learning and development teams;

- The Scottish Youth Parliament - large numbers of young people through their MSYP network;

- Young Scot - large numbers of young people online, using their eRoadshow and Youth Information Points;

- Youth Scotland - volunteers involved in youth work;

- YMCA - young people living in rural areas;

- BEMIS - black and minority ethnic young people;

- Save the Children - young people from gypsy and traveller communities;

- LGBT Youth Scotland - lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender young people;

- Scottish Throughcare and Aftercare Forum - young people who are, or have been looked after;

- ENABLE Scotland - young people with disabilities; and

- The Big Step - young asylum seekers.

3,091 responses were received and analysed. Of these over 2,500 were from young people. The consultation responses have given us an invaluable snapshot of views from young people and the people who work to provide youth opportunities for them. The consultation report is available at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/People/Young-People/YouthWork/Consultation.

1.10 The key message that comes across in all the responses is a real sense of the value of youth work, belief in its potential to make a difference to young people's lives and a commitment to building on the real strengths we have in youth work in Scotland to give young people more and better opportunities and to make sure that the organisations have the support necessary to deliver the best possible outcomes for young people in the future.

The Strategy

1.11 This strategy sets out our vision for youth work based on delivering positive outcomes for young people. This must be the high level aim of all that we do and we must do what is necessary to achieve it. This may mean changes in how we, in government, and in the youth work sector, work and approach the challenges we face. We must accept that the young people we work with are interested in what is relevant in the 21st century and we must adopt the same mindset. Challenges for all of us include modernising our thinking and our working practices to be meaningful to young people, making sure we evaluate and measure where appropriate and that we know the outcomes we want to achieve.

1.12 In setting out how we will take forward the strategy our focus is on outcomes and on commitment to specific actions which will lead to both quick wins and steady progress. Getting to where we want to be will take time and progress will be cumulative.

A Year of Action on Youth Work

1.13 To kick-start the delivery of the strategy however, we are proposing a Year of Action on youth work. We will work with the sector to put in place some key supportive measures and target some additional funding at areas of key importance. It will be a year where together we make changes and commitments to boost the standing of youth work in Scotland, enhance its role and build on all its current strengths. A year where we work with national organisations, the voluntary sector and those delivering community learning and development services in local authorities. A year when we build capacity in the sector and make sure volunteers have the support and training they need. Together we must make sure that young people have access to the opportunities which make most difference to their own development. And which allow young people to flourish in their own communities, able to influence the nature and design of local services and strategies which affect them.

1.14 Some of the actions proposed are for the Scottish Executive. Others will be achieved through working with partner organisations. Some are short term and others are intended to be more long term to ensure the youth work sector is ready and able to make a lasting impact on the lives and future of young people for many years to come.

A Report back on Progress

1.15 We know that young people in particular are concerned that the views and ideas hey offer during consultations may not lead to action and that they don't receive enough feedback. We will therefore report back in the autumn of 2008 on the outcomes we set out in this strategy and on progress we've made in taking forward the support needed to achieve them.

1.16 We recognise that some commitments are to begin discussions or to get the ball rolling on important strategic issues such as a specific career structure for youth workers and support for volunteers. We need to put more thought, engagement and specialist discussion into these areas with partners and experts in the field so it would not be appropriate to make long term decisions at this stage. But after a year we would expect to be able to set out longer term direction and proposals on these important areas.

1.17 After the election, the new administration will consider the Spending Review plans which are due in September 2007. This should cover the full new parliamentary session to 2011. At that stage, we plan to set out youth work spending commitments in the context of wider Executive strategic priorities.

2. THE VALUE, FOCUS AND FUTURE OF YOUTH WORK

2.1 The consultation asked some important questions about the role and nature of youth work, questions which have attracted differing views and debate over many years as youth work has developed as a means of informal learning. Debate which will continue as youth work continues to evolve and reflect the changing needs and preferences of young people as well as current trends. What the consultation results show are the views of young people, youth workers and organisations at this point in time. Ten or twenty years ago the answers might have been very different. And there will be more changes in years to come.

2.2 Perhaps the first point we all need to recognise is that youth work must continue to evolve to reflect the lives and needs of young people, their communities, and national and global society. Youth work must continue to look forward with focus and with ambition for its role. Modernising and changing, it will be right at the forefront of delivering the best possible outcomes for every young person in Scotland.

2.3 We remain clear that the purposes of youth work are those set out in Working and learning together: to build stronger communities Scottish Executive (2004). These are to promote achievement by young people through facilitating their personal, social and educational development and enabling them to gain a voice, influence and place in society. The outcomes we seek from youth work are the same as we seek from schools, that is, that young people become successful learners, confident individuals, effective contributors and responsible citizens, and that they make a successful transition to life after school, taking advantage of and sustaining opportunities in education, employment or training.

2.4 For some young people youth work enhances lives which are already full. But for others, youth work can be the main means of personal development in their lives, helping them connect with other services they may need. Youth work must be fun but it needs to be more than that. It is also a unique means of engaging young people and using activities they enjoy to channel their development and move forward in their lives. Youth work organisations already employ sporting, cultural and arts activities which appeal to young people and use them to enhance their informal learning opportunities. Many organisations already have good links with sporting, cultural and arts organisations and we are keen to encourage this at national and local level. In line with Scottish Executive policy proposals for cultural entitlements, local authorities will be consulting with local people about the cultural services they want, and will develop cultural entitlements in response. This will provide an opportunity for young people to have their say in the kind of cultural activity they want to see and be involved with. International contacts, exchanges and involvement in volunteer projects abroad also excite the commitment of young people, and increase their motivation, self-confidence and life-skills.

2.5 Youth work must take its place alongside other professions in delivering in a joined-up way for young people. It must look outward and forward at how it can contribute to young people's integrated development - and to playing its part in wider national policy development, whether on health policies, careers, or supporting young people to move on to education, employment or training after leaving school. Youth work can have a major role in growing local communities by supporting young people's active participation and positive influence. It can be particularly important in building intergenerational links between older and younger people, as highlighted in the Scottish Executive's Strategy for a Scotland with an Ageing Population. It can also have a role in addressing future national skill needs, particularly in relation to the softer people-based skills which employers today particularly value.

Availability of opportunities

2.6 Increasing numbers of young people are getting involved in youth work. Learning Connections' survey in November 2006 showed that almost 90,000 young people took part in local authority-run youth work provision in a typical week, an increase of 5000 from November 2005. Many more take part in a wide range of youth work activities run by voluntary organisations across the country. Young people involved in the four uniformed organisations alone number over 118,000 in Scotland today.

2.7 A key question facing funders and policy makers is whether resources should be used to provide opportunities open to all young people or concentrated more on specialist youth work provision for disadvantaged and vulnerable young people.

2.8 Predictably views expressed during consultation were mixed. A majority of adult responses (52%) believed that basic youth work provision should be available for all young people equally, while a sizable minority (26%) thought it important to target young people who are excluded, vulnerable or disadvantaged. 28% felt that the type of provision would depend on circumstances with 14% calling for a balance between targeted and general provision.

2.9 With resources inevitably limited, choices will need to be made. We recognise that a balanced approach is necessary. We want all young people to be able to benefit from high quality youth work. But we also recognise that youth work can sometimes uniquely reach young people who are disadvantaged, excluded or who have particular problems.

2.10 We cannot afford to extend general provision by removing what may be a lifeline for young people who have fewer life-enhancing opportunities. But what we can do is to support the sector in getting the best possible value from the resources they do have. Local authorities and voluntary organisations must be able to focus on delivering the best outcomes for young people, whether through youth work open to all or through specialist programmes designed to boost the development of more vulnerable young people.

2.11 Some responses called for a minimum entitlement for young people to access youth work provision. Attempting to do this would require primary legislation and would be difficult to achieve in a way which ensured every young person had access to the provision that was right for them. We do believe that all young people should be able to benefit from youth work but intend to pursue this aim within a non-legislative framework. Our focus must be firmly on achieving greater opportunities, influence and outcomes for individual young people with resulting benefits for their communities and society in general.

Voluntary Participation

2.12 A significant majority of both adults and young people responding believed that a young person should always be free to decide whether to take part in youth work activities. Responses from adults and organisations were particularly strong in support of voluntary participation as a defining factor of youth work. Respondents felt that young people should be encouraged more to take part, with more promotion of benefits and youth work opportunities.

2.13 A significant proportion of adults and, notably, young people did feel that compulsory participation in youth work opportunities might sometimes be appropriate. The circumstances mentioned included drink or drugs rehabilitation, community service or health and safety - all areas where participation would be for the young person's benefit as well as that of society.

2.14 On balance, we take the view that the voluntary aspect of youth work - the fact that the young person has decided to take part and chosen to continue - is an important self-development aspect of youth work. But we would also support the use of youth work approaches where appropriate for young people addressing serious problems. There is an underlying message in the consultation that other professionals could learn much from youth workers on how to engage with young people positively and help them take responsibility for themselves on their own terms.

2.15 We recognise that we need to work better across the Executive to promote the role and benefits of youth work and youth work methods. And how they can contribute to the successful delivery of wide-ranging policies and broad-based positive outcomes for young people.

The Outcome we want:

For the value, unique nature, and contribution of youth work to be recognised and reflected in a broad policy context, contributing to achieving wide-ranging positive outcomes for young people.

The Action we propose:

- The Scottish Executive will ensure a better understanding of youth work and young people and the potential contribution of youth work across ministerial portfolios and departments and in delivering cross-cutting objectives. We will work with other policy makers and agencies to promote the role and methods of youth work and ensure that representatives of the youth work sector are involved in developing policies affecting young people where youth work has a potential role to play.

- We will ask local authorities to take a similar approach, ensuring that decision-makers not directly involved in delivering youth work are still aware of its role and benefits, not least in community planning activities and in provision of children's services, school education and wider services to help young people make successful transitions to adulthood and post-school education, training and employment. The benefits of universal youth work provision are recognised in the substantial allocation for community learning and development and we expect local authorities to reflect this in their own allocation of resources, including their funding of voluntary organisations.

The Outcome we want:

For more young people to be aware of and take advantage of the availability of more youth work activities and to benefit from increased opportunities available.

The Action we propose:

We will ask Young Scot to make sure that the Youth Opportunities Database (YODA) being developed for young people, and covered in more depth in section 7, provides:

- excellent local information for young people on youth work opportunities and groups in their local areas;

- case studies giving young people themselves the opportunity to understand the benefits available to them and their peer group; and

- user-friendly information for young people, who are at risk or have particular problems or needs, on opportunities in their own area.

Priorities for youth work in the 21st century

2.16 The consultation highlighted a range of priority areas for youth work in the future. These related both to outcomes and benefits for young people taking part and to support for the sector in delivering the best possible youth work opportunities. The action proposed in this strategy is intended to address these areas in ways which contribute to expanding the youth work sector in Scotland.

2.17 For young people, priorities were:

- Developing qualities such as self-respect, self-reliance, self-confidence, responsibility and a good work ethic in young people - young people taking their place and making a difference in the world today and in the future;

- Developing life skills, particularly communication and social skills;

- Being listened to and being able to influence provision of youth work opportunities and other services and policies which affect them; and

- Ensuring the inclusion of all young people regardless of background, race, religion, gender, disability or sexual orientation.

2.18 In relation to support for the youth work sector in delivering for young people, the key priorities were judged to be:

- The provision of safe, modern, local facilities for young people;

- Funding for youth work provision - of particular concern to voluntary organisations; and

- Recruiting and retaining youth workers and volunteers and providing high quality training and support.

2.19 The following sections of the strategy cover these key concerns and set out how we intend to support the improvements necessary to deliver better outcomes. We consider how best to strengthen the youth work sector:

- at national level, through improved funding arrangements, through YouthLink Scotland as the national agency for youth work, through capacity building in the voluntary sector and through more cross-professional working;

- at local level, through local youth work networks, by improving facilities, and in planning broader services for young people, particularly by seeking more emphasis on outcomes delivered through youth work in Local Authority Outcome Agreements, linking to Regeneration Outcome Agreements (ROAs) where appropriate;

- by supporting youth workers and volunteers, particularly in relation to training,

recruitment and recognition; and

- by listening to, and responding to, what young people want from youth work, on a general and personal level, whether that is participation and influence nationally and locally through the Scottish Youth Parliament or in the planning and development of local services. Also by ensuring the right kind of support and recognition from employers and others for the skills and qualifications young people achieve through youth work and informal learning.

For full text, see references at the beginning of Chapter 5

Are we really moving forward?

Evaluating the Impact of the national youth work strategy.

Mike Bell

(From Standing at the Crossroads - What future for Youth Work? Concept, 2013)

In March 2007, the serving Labour Executive in the Scottish Parliament published a national youth work strategy entitled 'Moving Forward: a strategy for improving young people's chances through youth work'. The strategy outlined the Executives blueprint for youth work provision over a three-year period and was informed by over 3000 responses to a consultation exercise that preceded its publication. The framework received further support in 2007 when the newly elected SNP Government adopted it wholesale.

The strategy's launch came with significant resources, with £11m made available to youth work providers across the country to date.As a practitioner co-ordinating youth work provision in South East Edinburgh, I, like other colleagues, welcomed and benefited from this much needed funding boost. At the time, the youth and community work sector throughout the country was becoming aware of looming budget cuts to our traditional funding streams. Against this backdrop, colleagues were understandably relieved by the cash that came with the national strategy - too many of us faced the prospect of going out of business fast.

In hindsight however, perhaps we should all have been a bit more curious about the detail of the publication and its potential impact upon the youth work sector throughout Scotland: it is to this end, a critical evaluation, that the rest of this paper is devoted. I will argue that there are tensions deriving from the way in which youth work is framed and conceptualised within the strategy document that could have a negative impact upon the sector in future years.

The case is made that the new youth work strategy is used to promote the view that the primary benefit of youth work is as a means of engaging young people with the prevailing policy priorities of national government: youth work is not seen as a profession that is valuable in its own right or on its own terms, but as a model of practice - a means ofengagement - that can be of value to other professional groupings i.e. Careers Officers, School Teachers, Health Workers and Social Workers. I will argue that this view of youth work is at odds with the heritage and traditions upon which the sector typically draws, where youth work is seen as a means of promoting the values of association, empowerment and dialogue.

Moving Forward: a national youth work strategy

At 72 pages long, the national youth work strategy is broad‐ranging and far reaching. Though it is light on detail in terms of the issues affecting young people, it does have a lot to say about the priorities that the service should address, as well as how the profession should be structured, resourced and regulated.

In terms of priorities, the focus starts off very general and uncontroversial. We are told on page 1 that the long-term vision for youth work is twofold:

1. "all young people in Scotland are able to benefit from youth work opportunities which make a real difference to their lives"; and

2. "a youth work sector equipped and empowered to achieve ongoing positive outcomes for young people now and in the future"

We are also given a taste of how important youth work practice has become to government, when it is noted on page four that…

"Youth work has a significant role to play in delivering our broad vision for Scotland's young people…"

"Youth work has a major part to play in providing life-enhancing experiences for children and young people - and the learning and development opportunities it offers must be seen and valued as an integral part of what society provides for young people"

Subsequently, we are informed on page 12 about the purposes that youth work should serve, which is to…

"…promote achievement by young people through facilitating their personal, social and educational development and enabling them to gain a voice, influence and place in society."

However, gradually the text is used to assert more of a specific agenda, when it is noted on page 14 that…

"Youth work must be fun but it needs to be more than that. It is also a unique means of engaging young people…"

Gathering momentum, it is noted in the next paragraph that…

"Youth work must take its place alongside other professions in delivering in a joined up way for young people. It must look outward and forward at how it can contribute to young people's development, whether on health policies, careers, or supporting young people to move onto education, employment or training … Youth work can have a major role in growing local communities … It can be particularly important in building intergenerational links … It can also have a role in addressing national skill needs."

Similarly, when noting the first specific outcome for youth work provision, it is explained on page 18…

The Outcome we want:

For the value, unique nature, and contribution of youth work to be recognised and reflected in a broad policy context, contributing to achieving wide-ranging positive outcomes for young people.

The Action we propose:

The Scottish Executive will ensure a better understanding of youth work and young people and the potential contribution of youth work across ministerial portfolios and departments and in delivering cross-cutting objectives. We will work with other policy makers and agencies to promote the role and methods of youth work and ensure that representatives of the youth work sector are involved in developing policies affecting young people where youth work has a potential role to play.

We will ask local authorities to take a similar approach, ensuring that decision makers not directly involved in delivering youth work are still aware of its role and benefits, not least in community planning activities and in provision of children's services, school education and wider services to help young people make successful transitions to adulthood and post‐school education, training and employment.

Clearly there is an agenda being developed here: there are a number of assumptions and prescriptions within this text that could have quite a significant impact upon youth work provision in years to come, some of which are noted below…

1. Youth work is seen as a 'role', a 'method'

2. The primary benefit of youth work and the primary role that youth work should play is 'as a means of engaging young people'

3. Youth Work has a role to play in the policy making process across ministerial portfolios and departments

The significance of each of these points is addressed in turn.

Youth Work as a role or method

Youth work has a long and nuanced history (Gilchrist, Jeffs & Spence 2003; Gilchrist, Jeffs & Spence 2006), but the work has been informed by distinctive values: as noted in the introduction to this text, this includes ideas such as, association, empowerment and dialogue. Though these concepts cannot be reduced to simple definitions, there are some basic features that characterize all three. In terms of youth work practice, these values are about the creation of safe and constructive social environments, where young people can come together collectively, enter into conversation and dialogue and learn about themselves, their community and society more generally (Batsleer 2008 & Sapin, 2009).

At a broader level, such ideas draw upon philosophical concepts such as, interdependence, equality and democracy. Such values have an obvious political nature to them, with young people viewed as citizens with rights, most notably the right to freedom of thought and expression and the right to live a life free from the shackles of poverty, oppression and discrimination. At this broader level, youth workers spend time supporting young people through educational processes which encourage them to assert their ideas and opinions to adults in positions of power and authority: they also advocate directly on behalf of young people through attendance and participation in relevant networks and forums.

The point to make then is that youth work is more than a role or a method, it is a professional practice which is irrevocably bound up by commitments to a distinctive philosophical value base. At times these kinds of commitments have led the sector to work hand-in-hand with governments and other welfare professions, at other times it has allowed youth workers to stand at a healthy distance, in opposition, to policy development and practice initiatives. The danger in viewing youth work simply as a role or a method is that it is stripped of this kind of history and purpose. Youth work becomes a technical function of government: a method by which to engage young people with policy priorities regardless of their relevance or value. In short, youth work becomes more controllable.

Youth Work as a means of engagement

The term 'youth engagement' appears to be used in two ways in the strategy: (1) as a model of service provision (2) as a method of involving young people in the creation of policy. This section is used to discuss and explore the former, with the latter being taken up in the next section.

Beyond the examples noted above, there is not a huge deal of effort put into describing or outlining how youth engagement operates as a model of service provision within the strategy document; however, there is a growing body of literature which has been written to critique these kinds of developments in England & Wales, where 'youth engagement', or 'youth development' as it is termed south of the border, has a longer history. These historical developments are instructive in helping us to understand why this model has become so important.

In England & Wales, youth work has undergone wholesale change: in 1999 the government published the Learning to Succeed White Paper, which they used to announce plans to set up a new multi-agency national youth service with the main aim of supporting detached and vulnerable young people to re-engage with learning and employment. The service, which later came to be named Connexions, was, in the main, designed to engage with young people who were seen as at 'risk' and who themselves were 'risky': perusing associated literature, it would appear that there is a number of life style indicators which would likely bring a young person to the attention of the Connexions agency, including, truancy, unemployment, drug and alcohol use/abuse, homelessness, care leavers and teenage pregnancy (Hogarth, L & Smith, D.I 2004).

Connexions has been operational since 2001 and there are three main aspects to its model of service provision, but the most pertinent to the considerations of this paper is the development of a new key worker service designed to support those who have been identified as being at 'risk' from disengaging completely and to help those who already have to re-engage (Hogarth, L & Smith, D.I 2004). Personal advisors operate to a three tier engagement model: (1) the provision of general advice and support to all young people at key life moments (2) the provision of in-depth support for those at risk of not participatingin education and employment (3) the provision of integrated and specialist support to those with complex and multiple needs (DfEE, 2000, p37). At the level of practice, Personal Advisor's perform a number of roles, including, mentor, counsellor and advice worker.

Though the Scottish Government's strategy does not come anywhere remotely near to setting up a Scottish version of Connexions, there are significant indicators within the publication that some aspects of the approach are seen as valuable and worth adopting. For example, youth work is to be targeted at the personal development of the most risky individuals, with a view toward returning them to world of employment and learning…

it [youth work] can engage in positive activities young people who might otherwise become involved in anti-social behaviour, alcohol or drug misuse'

(p6)

For some youth work enhances lives that are already full. But for others, youth work can be the main means of personal development in their lives

(p14)

We remain clear that the purposes of youth work are … to promote achievement by young people through facilitating their personal, social and educational development. … The outcomes we seek from youth work are … that young people become successful learners, confident individuals, effective contributors and responsible citizens and that they make a successful transition to life after school, taking advantage of and sustaining opportunities in education, employment or training

(p12)

Whilst there have been apparent parity of perspective between politician's and policy makers more generally both north and south of the border, not everyone is convinced about this approach. Indeed, there have been a number of strong questions raised and critiques made in regard to the development of the Connexions agency: in the main, these centreupon the view that it is completely at odds with the aspects of traditional youth work practice previously described. For example, there is no commitment to the principle or practice of association and the progressive kinds of learning and enquiry that such environments can foster: the Connexions service is purely about working with individuals and focusing their attention on life style choices and behavoural issues (Smith, 1999; Jeffs & Smith, 2002). Similarly, it is argued that there is very little commitment to empowerment: the Connexions service, it is argued, is primarily and solely about getting young people to re-engage with the world of work and learning and to fit in more generally: in this sense it is focused upon responsibilising young people, about making them explore the life style habits and choices which allegedly exclude them from the world of work - as opposed to supporting them to articulate their rights (ibid).

The particular focus upon young peoples behaviour and motivation as the source of their exclusion from the labour market is similarly at odds with a range of research that questions just how culpable young people really are for their predicament. For example, Furlong & Cartmel (1997) argue that youth unemployment is largely due to the collapse of the industrial labour market during the 1980s and its subsequent restructuring around notions of highly skilled, flexible and specialized employment opportunities, which left many young people struggling to make any kind of healthy or sustainable transition to adulthood. Similarly, Mizen (1999) argues that these issues have been compounded by 30 years of austere welfare policies that have been designed to aggressively restrict young peoples access to welfare provision.

The net effect of these developments, it is argued, is that rather than following the comparatively routine and stable pathways to adulthood that their parents and relatives were able to access (unionized, secure, skilled jobs; access to well resourced public services) and which supported them to live relatively independently, young people today follow more temporary, flexible and insecure transition pathways (Furlong & Cartmel, 1997): young people either live at home for a much longer period than their parents would have or they experience homelessness. They also experience significant and sustained periods ofunemployment; similarly they cannot afford to access recreation and leisure opportunities and they also face significant health risks (ibid).

Clearly then, there are significant issues at stake here: whilst I wouldn't go as far as Tony Jeffs & Mark Smith and argue that youth workers have no business taking forward youth engagement work. I think there are far too many vulnerable and alienated young people whose needs are so immediate that intensive one to one support is entirely appropriate. I do think that the model promoted through the Connexions agency and which may be replicated in Scotland to some degree, starts from the wrong place and is directed toward the wrong ends. Accordingly, I do think we need to think very carefully before we embark upon any form of engagement work: the following observations are my own attempt to gain some clarity on the issue…

- Youth Engagement work needs to start from the recognition that vulnerable and excluded young people are not disengaged because of their own lifestyle choices and behaviours, instead, they are the unwitting victims of thirty years of significant and wholesale economic and welfare restructuring, over which they have no control or influence.

- Where a youth engagement methodology is taken up, it should not be seen from the perspective of pressuring young people to be more responsible, instead it should be seen as about encouraging them to assert their rights. This demands a committed form of practice and one that takes the worker beyond the neutral role of information and advice giver, to a place where the worker is prepared to perform the roles of ally and advocate, supporting young people to know what their rights are and how to access them. This involves taking sides and speaking with and, with their permission, for young people as they come up against the more authoritative aspects of state welfare provision.

- Youth Engagement work should never, ever be about shoe horning young people into low skilled, low paid flexible employment opportunities and trainingprogrammes; instead, it should be about supporting them to access a range of general and specialist welfare services which will support them to live a more sustainable and independent life of their own choosing and on their own terms.

- Youth work must not be dominated by a youth engagement approach. In keeping with the heritage of the profession, youth workers need the time, space and necessary resources to encourage and foster learning in its broadest possible sense. Similarly, we need the space to support young people to critically enquire about the world they have inherited and how this is being shaped by policy and politics. This is particularly pertinent for young people who are detached and excluded, who have virtually no, if any, foothold in society. Whilst youth engagement work in its proper sense can achieve much in terms of supporting young people to address the symptoms of poverty and deprivation, it can do very little to help them address the causes.

Youth Engagement as Policy Development

As noted in the previous section, the term Youth Engagement is also associated with supporting young people to be involved in the policy making process. There are a number of points to make in this regard.

First, the number of policy areas which youth work professionals are expected to deliver upon has been inflated to the point of absurdity: health, careers, more choices - more chances, growing local communities, building intergenerational links, addressing national skill needs (p14): in all seriousness, there would need to be a ten fold increase in funding opportunities for the sector to engage in this kind of agenda.

Second, assessing the language used, it is hard to escape the feeling that we are being brought in at the tail end of the policy making process, with a responsibility for delivering young people into a pre conceived agenda: we are expected to make a contribution across ministerial portfolios; we are expected to get involved in delivering cross cutting objectives. A more convincing approach, and one that would sit more comfortably with the heritageand traditions of youth work practice, would have been for youth workers to be given the task of engaging young people at the start of the policy making process, to support them to articulate the issues that are important to them and the kinds of services they need access to.

Finally, the main mechanism for involving young people in the policy making process which is mentioned in the strategy document is the Scottish Youth Parliament (SYP). With all due respect to the efforts of young people and staff who work very hard to promote the work of the SYP, particularly in promoting the relevancy of the political process to young people, it has always been dogged by questions about how representative it is of the broad youth populace within Scotland: a fact which is confirmed by research published in 2005 by Youth Link Scotland, who surveyed 3178 young people throughout Scotland on a range of issues: their findings noted that 60% of 11-16 year olds felt that the Scottish Youth Parliament makes no difference at all to their lives, and this view was shared by 84% of 17-25 year olds (Machin, 2005).

This issue noted above is even recognized within the strategy document itself, when it is observed that…

Consultation responses, particularly from young people, showed a disappointingly low level of awareness of the Scottish Youth Parliament in representing the views of young people in Scotland

(p59)

Similarly, the Scottish Youth Parliament has no powers whatsoever to influence policy; whilst politicians can and do consult with young people involved in the organization, they are under no obligation to alter policy in response to such opinion.

Taking all of these issues into account, it is hard to conclude anything other than the vision of youth work that is conceived within the strategy document is about the regulation of the political process as opposed to its extension.

Mike Bell

Mike has been working in the Youth & Community Work sector for 12 years. Mike has extensive experience of working with young people experiencing crisis and vulnerability and has good knowledge of a range of practice based approaches, but in particular educational group work, one to one case work and streetbased outreach. Mike graduated from Edinburgh University in 2004 with an Honors Degree in Community Education and from the Open University in 2010 with a Masters Degree in Social Policy & Youth Justice.

References:

Batsleer J (2008) 'Informal Learning in Youth Work'. Sage: London

Department for Education & Employment (1999)'Learning to Succeed: a new framework for post 16 learning'. London: The Stationery Office.

Department for Education and Employment (2000) 'Connexions. The best start in life for every young person'. London: The Stationery Office .

Furlong, A. and Cartmel, F. (1997) 'Young People and Social Change: Individualisation and Risk in Late Modernity'. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Gilchrist, R, Jeffs T & Spence J (2003) 'Architects of Change: studies in the History of Community & Youth Work'. National Youth Agency: Leicester.

Gilchrist, R, Jeffs T & Spence J (2006) 'Drawing on the Past: Studies in the History of Community & Youth Work'. National Youth Agency: Leicester.

Hogarth, L. & Smith, D.I. (2004) 'Understanding the Impact of Connexions on Young People at Risk' London: Department for Education and Skills.

Jeffs, T. & Smith, M.K. (2002) 'Individualization and youth work', Youth and Policy 76 pp. 39-‐65.

Machin, D (2005) 'Being Young in Scotland 2005', Youth Link Scotland: Edinburgh.

P. Mizen (1999), 'Ethics in An Age of Austerity: "Work-‐Welfare" and the Regulation of Youth', S. Banks (ed.), Ethical Issues in Youth Work, London, Routledge.

Sapin, K (2009) 'Essential Skills for Youth Work Practice'. Sage: London.

Scottish Executive (2007) 'Moving Forward: a strategy for improving young people's chances through youth work'. Scottish Executive, Edinburgh.

Smith, M.K. (2000,2007) 'The Connexions Service in England'

Our ambitions for improving the life chances of young people in Scotland: National Youth Work Strategy 2014-2019

(Scottish Government, 2014)

Ministerial foreword

We want Scotland to be the best place in the world for children and young people to grow up. We want a Scotland where the rights of children and young people are not just recognised, but rooted deep in our society and in our public and voluntary services. And we want a nation that treasures the whole wellbeing of children and young people.

Right now, we have a unique opportunity to ensure our services are fit for 21st-century Scotland and take full advantage of our resources and talent to maximise potential and to build a fairer society. A strong, responsive and imaginative youth work sector that supports and empowers young people is vital in our drive to improve their wellbeing and life chances.

The Christie Commission reported on the future delivery of Scotland's public services in a challenging world. It highlighted how services must better meet the needs of the people and the communities they serve. In welcoming its recommendations, we set out a vision of reform through early intervention and preventative spending, greater integration and partnership at a local level, workforce development and a sharper, more transparent focus on performance.

We intend that our ambitions for Scotland are reflected across the range of Community Learning and Development activity. To this end, this Strategy will soon be partnered by an Adult Learning Statement of Ambition.

As the Programme for Government outlines, we want all young people to have the skills for lifelong learning and work. Every day, thousands of youth workers and dedicated volunteers across Scotland are helping our young people to be the successful, confident, effective and responsible individuals that our nation needs.

We know that youth work changes lives for the better. We remain committed to supporting and working collaboratively with national youth work organisations to give young people the skills that they need - and indeed deserve - to succeed in life.

This Strategy, developed jointly by the Scottish Government, Education Scotland and YouthLink Scotland aims to set out our ambitions for improving outcomes for young people through youth work. It has been developed in the context of the Strategic Guidance for Community Learning and Development, and it aims to ensure that we harness and build on our partnerships and what we know works in delivering vibrant and effective youth work practice.

It recognises the contribution that youth work makes towards the National Outcomes and the wide range of activities and policies that impact on young people's lives; it also recognises that both universal and more targeted specific work have equal validity and importance and it intends to take us towards 2018 - the themed Year of Young People.

Soon we will have a referendum on our nation's future in which young people aged 16 and above will be able to vote. Youth work and youth citizenship organisations play an important part in helping to ensure that all young people get the opportunity to engage in the democratic process and with our comprehensive blueprint for an independent country - Scotland's Future.

It's an exciting time for Scotland. Let's work together to support and empower our young people to make positive choices. To put them in charge of what they want to do and learn, and give them every opportunity to contribute to their communities, our wider society and beyond.

Let's use this Youth Work Strategy to harness the value of youth work practice, build on what we know works and strengthen partnerships so that we can keep delivering vibrant, fun and effective youth work provision that helps young people become confident individuals who are ready to succeed.

Aileen Campbell MSP

Minister for Children and Young People

April 2014

Introduction

The Scottish Government, Education Scotland and YouthLink Scotland are working collaboratively and with others to create a more equal and tolerant society where generations work together for the common good and the development of individuals and communities.

Our young people have a major role to play in this. The introduction of the Strategic Guidance for Community Planning Partners: Community Learning and Development published in June 2012 and the Requirements for Community Learning and Development (Scotland) Regulations 2013 which came into force in September 2013, provide a platform for work with young people to be recognised as a key and distinctive component of our present and future agenda for young people.

YouthLink Scotland's Statement on the nature and purpose of youth work received widespread support. It was informed by a number of key documents and influenced policy and workforce development in the sector. It outlined three features that underpin youth work: young people choose to participate; the work builds from where young people are and the young person and youth worker are partners in the learning process. The sector uses many different methods, for example the arts and cultural activities, outdoor learning, physical, activity and single topics to engage effectively with young people and is present in many different situations and learning environments. Its uniqueness and value is in the way youth workers engage with young people through building trusting and supportive relationships, also through using social group work and mentoring skills to negotiate with young people. Diverse activities help young people gain confidence, develop important skills for life and achieve success but also to have fun, and engage with others as they progress through adolescence to adulthood. Workers develop trust and confidence in the young people in a non-judgemental and informal setting.

This partnership approach was demonstrated in Distance Travelled (Youthlink Scotland, 2011) which showed the increased engagement of the sector in policy development and service delivery. Since then significant partnerships have developed with other professionals who work with young people around the implementation of Curriculum for Excellence, More Choices More Chances and Getting it Right for Every Child, (MCMC) placing young people at the heart of all we do.

As we move forward, we know youth work organisations and the youth work sector is continuously engaging with young people and other professionals in innovative collaborative ventures with schools, colleges and key services around employability, sports, culture, health justice and many more.

Youth work contributes positively to a wide range of government policies and has a significant impact in improving the life chances of young people.

In this Strategy, Education Scotland, YouthLink Scotland and the Scottish Government together, are focusing on building on these strengths and experiences to place the needs of young people at the centre of the work.

The key purpose of community learning and development is empowering people, individually and collectively, to make positive changes in their lives and in their communities, through learning.

By working in partnership with young people we know we are creating a learning process which contributes to improving their life chances, through learning, personal development and active citizenship. Ultimately, we are building stronger, more resilient and inclusive communities.

Alex Linkston CBE,

Chair of YouthLink Scotland - The National Agency for Youth Work

Dr Bill Maxwell,

Chief Executive, Education Scotland

Introduction: Distance Travelled

The National Youth Work Strategy: Moving Forward was first published in March 2007. This kick-started a series of actions highlighted with responsibilities shared between the Scottish Government, YouthLink Scotland, Young Scot, Youth Scotland, Fast Forward and the Scottish Youth Parliament.

Key statements in moving forward included:

- The acknowledgment of both universal and targeted services being important

- The engagement of young people in planning and organising activities and services was encouraged and supported as best practice

- The role of YouthLink Scotland as the National Agency was confirmed

- The importance for youth work of the Third Sector in delivering outcomes

- The role of volunteers as critical to success was recognised

- The need for support and development of the entire workforce was acknowledged

- The need to acknowledge achievement through youth work was confirmed and resources were made available to progress the awards network and link with schools and LTS Scotland, SQA and SCQF

- The importance of self-evaluation was recognised

Key achievements:

- Significant revenue and capital funds, starting with £10.5 million during the Year of Action was distributed by YouthLink Scotland on behalf of the Scottish Government, including the Support Fund for National Voluntary Youth Work Organisations, which was re-established

- This funding led to new and additional investment in the sector, such as CashBack for Communities

- A Volunteer Action Plan and Awards Network was led by Youth Scotland

- Fast Forward developed the Peer Mentoring Network

- Young Scot established WOW (What's on Where) as a 'local' activities information page

- HMI, YouthLink Scotland and partners ran a series of regional workshops on self-evaluation

- YouthLink Scotland, the Scottish Government, and Learning and Teaching Scotland, developed the Bridging the Gap initiative which encouraged and increased youth work and schools partnership working

- Curriculum for Excellence has supported and enhanced these opportunities for further partnership working

- Youth Work is now increasingly recognised as a vital component in a wide range of national policy areas such as justice, health, employability and education

In 2011, at the National Youth Work Summit, the sector expressed a desire to see a new or refreshed strategy for Youth Work, following significant policy developments such as Curriculum for Excellence and 16+ Learning Choices.

'Our ambitions for improving the life chances of young people in Scotland' will form the basis of Youth Work in Scotland over the next five years.

Jim Sweeney,

Chief Executive,

YouthLink Scotland

1. Our ambitions for young people in Scotland

All young people, in every part of Scotland, should have access to high quality and effective youth work practice. This is what we believe and this is what we aspire to. We can only achieve, this by working together with young people, Community Planning Partnerships, relevant organisations and other partners. We know we already have a great foundation to build upon. Changing the way public services are delivered is key to ensuring that young people continue to achieve the best possible outcomes.

Youth work principles and values are integral to developing these services and ambitions but only by placing the young person at the centre and listening to them can we begin to do so. The development, learning and experiences that young people gain in youth work situations are long lasting and can have a positive impact which is lifelong. We know that engaging with young people must be an empowering process. It must offer young people developmental opportunities as well as the ability to lead, take responsibility, make decisions, and make a real and lasting contribution - both economically and socially - to Scotland's present and future.

To achieve this we will:

1. Ensure Scotland is the best place to be young and grow up in

2. Put young people at the heartof policy

3. Recognise the value of youth work

4. Build workforce capacity

5. Ensure we measure our impact

2. Conditions for success towards achieving our ambitions

We are committed to improving outcomes for all young people and to eradicating the inequity which currently exists.

We can only achieve our ambitions successfully through working collectively for this common purpose. Working together with Community Planning Partnerships and youth work organisations, we will monitor and evaluate the provision of youth work in local plans for the delivery of community learning and development (CLD). This will help ensure that all young people, in every part of Scotland, have access to high quality and effective youth work practice.

This Strategy is about the potential and possibilities of what young people can expect through our collective efforts.

2018 is to be Scotland's Year of Young People. This will bring with it many opportunities, to shine a light on the amazing contribution that young people make to communities across Scotland every day.

Policy Context

The Scottish Government policies outlined next, whilst not exhaustive, are key areas that those working with young people in any setting should be aware of and take into consideration when planning and delivering work to achieve better outcomes for

young people.

These policies reflect the principles of the Christie Commission where, through early and effective intervention, we prevent situations arising which adversely affect young people's lives. We must collaborate at a local level to have better integrated services for young people and to ensure that those who work with young people have good opportunities for training and development.

We know significant progress has been made in the youth work sector, but we must not be complacent. We need to be ambitious. More work needs to be carried out to raise awareness in all schools and colleges of the benefits that working with youth work providers brings not only to the curriculum but to the young people it serves.

The Scottish Government values the significant contribution that youth work makes towards its focus on the UNCRC, prevention, early intervention and improving outcomes for children and young people. Maximising life chances for young people is part of this bigger picture and this is what this Strategy is about.

In June 2012, Strategic Guidance for Community Planning Partners: Community Learning and Development[60] was published which stated that CLD's specific focus should be: "improved life chances for people of all ages through learning, personal development and active citizenship; stronger, more resilient, supportive, influential and inclusive communities".

New Regulations The Requirements for Community Learning and Development (Scotland) Regulations 2013 mean that in each local authority area a three-year plan has to be developed that outlines how CLD will be delivered. Local authorities have to consult with partners in drawing up these plans, evidencing the assessment of need, including those of young people. Where needs cannot be met, local authorities will be required to outline why they cannot be met. The first of these plans will be ready by April 2015.

GIRFEC

GIRFEC - Getting it Right for Every Child - sets out a consistent way for people to work with all children and young people.

This helps practitioners to focus on what makes a positive difference for children and young people - and how they can act to deliver these improvements. Getting it Right for Every Child is threaded through all existing policy, practice, strategy and legislation affecting children, young people and their families. Whilst government is not legislating universally for 18 plus, it is our ambition that good practice established for pre-18s would be extended into young adult service provision.

Early Years Collaborative

Working with young people includes working with children and young parents. The objective of the Early Years Collaborative (EYC) is to accelerate the conversion of the high level principles set out in GIRFEC and the Early Years Framework into practical action. Thus narrowing the gap between what we know works and what we do.

The Early Years Framework aims to break negative cycles of inequality through early and effective intervention. Together with the Scottish Government's other social policy frameworks: Equally Well, which focuses on addressing health inequalities, and Achieving Our Potential, which aims to tackle poverty. Those working with young people are well placed to make early interventions to break these cycles of inequality.

Curriculum for Excellence

Community Learning and Development and the youth work sector have a significant role to play in Curriculum for Excellence (CfE). They are important delivery partners, offering young people valuable opportunities for learning and personal development, both in and out of school. Curriculum for Excellence Briefing 10: The role of Community Learning and Development and partnership working.

Strengthening partnerships between school staff and youth work practitioners remains a priority for Curriculum for Excellence programme, particularly within the planning and delivery of the senior phase. The onset of the senior phase, the launch of the senior phase benchmarking tool, together with the outdoor learning agenda and 16 plus Activity Agreements, present new opportunities and challenges for schools and colleges in their interfaces with youth work.

The senior phase of CfE can only be delivered through effective partnership working. It is becoming more common for young people to learn through a range of providers. As a result, it is particularly important that partners work well together to plan and deliver the curriculum.

There are many good examples where schools and youth work are working collaboratively to plan and deliver personalised learning opportunities for young people as part of the curriculum, and we must continue to build on this. It is important that youth work activities undertaken outwith the school day are also recognised and valued as part of Curriculum for Excellence. This includes sharing young people's considerable achievements with schools.

Teachers, youth workers and others who work with young people both inside and outside school are central to young people achieving the four capacities. These are to be successful learners who both attain and achieve, responsible citizens who participate in, and effectively contribute to, their society, confident and assured young people who know that they have skills, values and a contribution to make to Scotland.

Health and Wellbeing

The above provides a summary of key Scottish Government policies that aim to support young people's health and wellbeing and reduce health inequalities.

Community Empowerment

Promotes young people's involvement in decision making locally and nationally and builds skills to enable young people to make their views known and to understand the impact of policy and legislative developments.

Opportunities for All

Opportunities for All brings together a range of existing national and local policies and strategies. It provides a single focus to improve young people's participation in post-16 learning or training, and ultimately employment, through appropriate interventions and support until at least their 20th birthday. This builds on, and adds, impetus to existing entitlements and commitments to support youth employment through the senior phase of Curriculum for Excellence. It includes the development of skills for learning, life and work, robust post-16 transition planning and the targeted support offered through More Choices, More Chances and Activity Agreements.

It is an explicit commitment to offer a place in learning or training to every 16-19 year old who is not currently in employment, education or training. It requires the post-16 learning system to re-engage young people who are not currently in education, employment or training, appropriately with learning or training between their 16th and 20th birthdays. It also enables support to be offered to young people more effectively beyond that age. Youth workers, teachers and others who work with young people have a key role to contribute to this agenda.

Commission for Developing Scotland's Young Workforce

The overarching ambition is to enable Scotland's young people to move into sustainable employment. To do this, young people need to make the best transition from a broad general education into a senior phase which has a comprehensive range of opportunities which will improve their employment prospects. Youth Work plays a significant role, developing in young people skills recognised as important by employers, as well as providing support and early intervention strategies to those at risk of disengaging from education.

Time to Shine - Youth Arts Strategy

Time to Shine supports all Scotland's children and young people to flourish and achieve in, and through, the arts and creativity.

Scottish Government's Youth Sport Strategy

Giving Children and Young People a Sporting Chance - A Draft Strategy for Scotland was written in December 2013 for consultation and the final strategy will be published in Spring 2014. This draft Strategy focuses on what children and young people have said will ignite and excite them to get involved, and stay involved, in sport. It actively encourages them to influence and shape the future of sport in Scotland.

The Scottish Government's National Performance Framework sets out the strategic objectives for all public services, including those delivering community learning and development (CLD).

Learning for Sustainability

Youth organisations are key partners in taking forward learning for sustainability which encompasses outdoor learning, sustainable development education and global citizenship. Learning for sustainability aims to build the values, attitudes, knowledge, skills and confidence needed to develop practices and take decisions which are compatible with a sustainable and equitable society.

International Work with Young People

International work with young people builds understanding of global citizenship through opportunities to visit and volunteer in other countries and learn about different cultures and share these experiences with others.

3. Investing in our workforce to improve outcomes for young people

Young people in Scotland have an entitlement to be supported by skilled, competent, youth work practitioners who take account of their whole wellbeing. This includes paid staff and volunteers.

We value highly the contribution of the professional youth work workforce. The work of national and local youth organisations, together with Education Scotland and the CLD Standards Council, is critical to building a sustainable culture of training, support and continuous professional development to meet the needs of the 21st century.

We will work to ascertain the scope of the workforce to build capacity and the provision of relevant quality training and development consistent with the values, principles and ethical practices required to work with young people in a challenging climate.

Supporting and valuing volunteers

Much of the youth work delivery in Scotland relies on the time and skills of volunteers. Without volunteers, youth work provision in Scotland, irrespective of whether delivered through local authority provision or third sector, would be severely limited. Volunteering also offers personal development and leadership opportunities for young people and adults that builds core skills, in some cases supporting their transitions into further learning and employment. Volunteering benefits the individual and community and helps develop greater social cohesion. Volunteers need to be recruited, trained, supported, retained and celebrated.

We will continue to work collaboratively with our partners to promote and celebrate the vital contribution that volunteers make to youth work in Scotland. This will include ensuring that we are able to provide guidance and resources to support new and existing voluntary youth work groups, partnerships and volunteers to ensure high quality standards are met and maintained.

Recognising young people's contribution

Many young people are themselves volunteers in the youth work sector, supporting their peers and contributing to their communities and beyond; volunteering to further enhance their engagement, leadership and creative skills.

Many young people are young parents and carers. Many young people have additional learning needs. We ask that partners continue to promote, celebrate and support all young people through the many transitions and challenges they face.

We know that in Scotland there are 220,000 children living in poverty (Source: Save the Children Fund). Poverty affects future life chances, with children in low income households more likely to have poorer health, lower educational attainment and reduced life expectancy. Working together we can create a virtuous cycle of improvement to break the cycle of inequality and improve life chances for young people. We are committed to break this cycle and ensure that all young people have opportunities which will improve their life chances.

The different strategies for learning, and myriad of learning environments offered by the youth work sector, gives opportunities to all, while engaging particularly well with those young people who have, for whatever reason, disengaged from more formal education and training. The track record of the sector in re-engaging the most hard-to-reach young people is strong and is a key component in the delivery of present Scottish Government aspirations and strategies. The youth work sector plays a substantial role in maintaining and developing young people affected by unemployment, mental and physical health issues, and lack of family support.

Improvement through self-evaluation

Improvement is about building the capacity of the workforce to carry out effective self-evaluation. Self-evaluation is forward looking; it is about change and improvement, whether gradual or transformational, and is based on professional reflection, challenge and support.

Self-evaluation processes use the triangulation of evidence-based information and data, people's views and direct observation of practice to inform outcomes and measure impact on young people. In order to plan improvement effectively we need to know how well we are doing.

Education Scotland will ensure that the approaches and tools we promote for the purposes of self-evaluation are reviewed regularly and updated to ensure they are fit for purpose.

Education Scotland and YouthLink Scotland will work with national youth work organisations and youth work providers to build capacity, embed self-evaluation and improve the measurement of outcomes and impact for all young people. Through evaluative activity, including inspection, we will identify best practice and share widely across the system.

4. Conclusion and implementation

The National Youth Work Strategy - Our ambitions for improving the life chances of young people in Scotland - will be implemented effectively, with clear agreed responsibilities for taking forward each of the ambitions with strong commitment from national and local partners.

YouthLink Scotland and Education Scotland facilitated a series of discussions which took place across the country following publication of the draft National Youth Work Strategy in December 2013. Discussions involved around 300 key stakeholders, including young people, with the aim of continuing the dialogue on the draft Strategy and listening to people's views about its proposed implementation. The initial feedback summarised in Appendix 1 indicated the need for a strong commitment by organisations, nationally and locally, involved in youth work in both the voluntary and statutory sectors, to collaborate in realising these ambitions.

Below are the ambitions and outcomes of the Strategy, along with some of the key actions for implementation, including feedback from the National Discussion.

(a) Ensure Scotland is the best place to be young and grow up in

By working collaboratively to inspire young people, and to ensure that Scotland is the best place to be young, continues to be at the forefront globally of innovative work with young people. Youth work will have a vital role in improving the life chances of young people.

Outcomes:

- young people are well informed and encouraged to make positive choices and contribute to civic society

- youth work opportunities will be all accessible, equitable and inclusive for all young people

- the value and impact of sustainable investment in youth work is recognised by charitable trusts, public sector funders and business

Key actions:

- The Scottish Government will work with national youth work agencies and organisations to ensure that young people are engaged in policy and legislative developments and decisions

- Education Scotland will support the CLD sector to focus on preparing all young people for employment as a core element of Curriculum for Excellence

- YouthLink Scotland with Young Scot and SYP will explore the potential for young people to have more effective participation and influence in decision making

- YouthLink Scotland with Young Scot and SYP will encourage the participation of excluded and under-represented young people

- YouthLink Scotland will seek to attract investment into the sector and develop a range of funding opportunities including support for national infrastructure organisations

b) Put young people at the heart of policy

In keeping with Article 12 of the UNCRC[61], we support and promote the active participation and engagement of young people in the planning, delivery and management of services, strengthened through Getting it Right for Every Child (GIRFEC) and relevant legislation[62]. This will ensure that the best interests of young people underpin policies, practice and services.

Outcomes:

- young people, and their contributions are respected and valued, and their views are listened to with regard to issues that affect them

- youth work is firmly embedded at the heart of policies that are central to making Scotland the best place to be young and grow up in

- youth work continues to make a positive contribution to young people's health and wellbeing

- young people should be directly involved in local and national decision making, designing, co-producing and delivering services

Key actions:

- The Scottish Government will promote the value and impact of youth work across a wide range of policy areas

- Education Scotland will ensure that its activities in relation to the CLD Guidance and Regulations have a clear focus on implementing the National Youth Work Strategy

- YouthLink Scotland will work with the Scottish Government to ensure that youth work has a clear role in Scottish Government policies and their implementation strategies

- YouthLink Scotland will work across government on issues relating to education, justice, health, sport, culture, equality and employability

- Education Scotland and YouthLink Scotland will promote youth work in the context of GIRFEC, Curriculum for Excellence and Opportunities for all

- YouthLink Scotland will engage with key partners, e.g. COSLA, NHS Health Scotland and Police Scotland to develop partnership working and understanding of the role and impact of youth work

(c) Recognise the value of youth work

By continuing to recognise, promote and celebrate the value of both universal and targeted youth work in improving young people's life chances, we will learn from each other's expertise and experience and value not only our achievements but young people's achievements too.

Outcomes:

- youth work, through the CLD Guidance and CLD Regulations, is firmly embedded within the broader field of Community Learning and Development within Community Planning arrangements

- the youth work sector, voluntary and statutory, and its workforce in its entirety, is clear that their contribution is both valued and understood

- youth work will be firmly embedded within Curriculum for Excellence and its contribution understood and acknowledged at all levels

Key actions:

- YouthLink Scotland, with Education Scotland, will develop a national communications strategy to highlight the role and value of youth work

- YouthLink Scotland will explore the potential for commissioning research to demonstrate the role and value of youth work

- Education Scotland will promote the high standards of practice underpinning youth work

- Education Scotland will establish a joined-up approach to promoting the value of youth work in schools

- Education Scotland will implement actions from Curriculum for Excellence implementation plan related to the sector

(d) Build workforce capacity

By building on the strength of those working within the sector to develop their capacity, we will ensure that youth workers and all those who work with young people, in a paid and voluntary capacity, have access to high quality workforce and volunteer development to enable them to lead the field in youth work practices.

Outcomes:

- Scotland will have well-motivated, well-trained, and supported practitioners in order to achieve our ambition

- the contribution of volunteers is recognised and valued and volunteers properly supported and encouraged

- youth work organisations are supported to enhance the capacity and effectiveness of their members

Key actions:

- Education Scotland, YouthLink Scotland and the CLD Standards Council for Scotland will ensure that the youth work workforce needs are fully articulated and represented

- The CLD Standards Council for Scotland will work with the sector to promote membership and registration

- The CLD Standards Council for Scotland with Education Scotland will promote the national CLD CPD strategy and i-Develop framework

- Education Scotland will work with YouthLink Scotland and partners to provide sustainable learning opportunities for the sector

- The CLD Standards Council for Scotland will work with YouthLink Scotland and partners to develop support and training for volunteers, linked to the CPD Strategy for CLD

- The CLD Standards Council for Scotland will explore options for developing and establishing national standards for youth work, with YouthLink Scotland and partners

- YouthLink Scotland will develop and deliver CPD opportunities with partners relating to emerging areas of practice such as social media

(e) Ensure we measure our impact

By measuring success, monitoring and evaluating, in partnership with young people, the impact and delivery of these actions. We will ensure improvement through robust and rigorous self-evaluation and assessment of impact in youth work practice. We will enable more opportunities for youth workers and other professionals to engage in joint evaluation of young people's progress and achievements. We will promote this both locally and globally.

Outcomes:

- youth work organisations self-evaluate practice and demonstrate the impact on outcomes for young people

- youth work organisations and partners have opportunities to engage in joint-evaluation of young people's achievements

- young people are supported to record and articulate their own learning through youth work practice

Key actions:

- Education Scotland will provide guidance and support to the sector in self-evaluation to demonstrate impact

- YouthLink Scotland will work with the sector to demonstrate outcomes, through quality self-evaluation

- Education Scotland, YouthLink Scotland and partners will establish a robust evidence base to demonstrate the impact of youth work

There is much to be done to fulfil this ambition and implement the outcomes. We look forward to working in partnership with the common aim of helping young people in their transitions from childhood to adolescence and from there to adulthood.

Youth work has a critical role in that process.

"THE DUKE OF EDINBURGH'S AWARD IS EXCELLENT AND GIVES YOUNG PEOPLE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DEVELOP THEIR LEADERSHIP, COMMUNICATION AND PROBLEM-SOLVING SKILLS AND HAS A LASTING IMPACT ON THEIR LIFE CHANCES."

ANN LOUGHREY, SCOTTISH POWER

Scottish Youth Work: same, but different

(Howard Sercombe, Jim Sweeney, Ted Milburn, Marcus Liddell, Rory McLeod, Phil Denning, Glasgow 2014)

Introduction

This chapter is written at an interesting point in our history. A hundred days from today, the Scottish people will vote in a referendum on Scottish independence from the United Kingdom. For people who have always seen a British commonality, a fundamental unity of traditions, of language, of culture and politics, of economy and history, the referendum and the aspirations of its proposers don't make a lot of sense. For others, a Scottish distinctiveness and an assertion of autonomy in the face of the English gravitational mass needs recognising and defending.

The history of youth work is not so different from this. Scottish youth work shares its origins with English developments, and innovations in London or Glasgow or Edinburgh or Manchester have flowed fluidly, even telegraphically, back and forth. While the energy of youth workers has been as vibrant in Scotland as in England, the weight of the Youth Service in England, the foundations of the Albemarle Report in creating a youth work discourse and the force of the National College in propagating it have meant that the voice of youth work in Scotland has generally shared the English understanding of youth work practice.

But Scotland is different: more different than can sometimes be seen from the outside. The political centre of gravity is in a different place in Scotland. Scotland sits to the left as well as to the north, with an affinity for democratic socialist approaches to social policy rather than American free market ideals: perhaps a function of a society that has developed out of the clans, rather than an aristocratic hierarchy. In youth policy, there is a stronger sense of young people being 'ours', rather than some hostile 'other'. Notwithstanding its historical place as the crucible of the theory and practice of industrial capitalism, the most pressing urgency in Scottish social policy is inequality: even if that is rendered somewhat ineffectual by successive Scottish Governments' more or less unequivocal commitment to capitalism. This has had an effect on the establishment of youth work also.

As with England, youth work in Scotland emerged in the ferment of the industrial revolution and in the great industrial cities of the Empire: or at least, youth work as we know it. No doubt there have been structures, traditions and persons to induct young people into adulthood from long before the nineteenth century, but that is beyond our scope for this chapter. Even in dealing with modern youth work and modern youth, it is impossible to cover the breadth of this experience here. Our intention is to focus on that which is distinctive about the Scottish experience and expression of youth work, and its distinctive contribution to the youth work tradition. Primarily, at least with regard to the period since 1960, it is written from the perspective of practitioners who lived and worked in Scotland during that time, rather than from study of the archives.

The emergence of youth work in the 19th century

The Industrial Revolution had a massive effect on the fabric of Scottish society, as elsewhere in Europe. The textile industry created an insatiable hunger for raw materials: wool, in the first instance, and for labour. The former led to the wholesale and brutal expulsion of traditional agricultural communities from their land and their replacement with sheep. The Highland Clearances, as they were known, led to a mass migration either to the New World, or to the burgeoning industrial cities of the Central Belt and the north east. Ancient connections with land were severed and cauterized. Ancient and complex webs of relationship and interaction, within which young people would have found their social place and their journey to adulthood were destroyed. Young people, along with their parents and younger siblings, found themselves in the maw of the industrial mill, with the old institutions destroyed but the new not yet in place. This impacted differently on different social classes: but few escaped.

Government's response to this was limited. Indeed, Government itself, in the nineteenth century, was limited in terms of social intervention. The key institution for responding to social problems in the nineteenth century was the Religious Society. The Societies, usually independent of established church structures, represented a kind of entrepreneurial, innovative process in which typically charismatic individuals (often from the new capitalist classes) founded charitable organisations to address the very evident humanitarian needs of industrial society: and to proselytise the poor. Glaswegian David Naismith (1799-1839) was among these. Starting his first 'Youth's Society' at the age of 15 to support the work of church missions, he went on to found a large number of Societies, including the Glasgow Young Men's Society for Religious Improvement in 1824, and two years later, the Glasgow City Mission (Nicholls 1999). The Young Men's Society was a parallel evolutionary development to the YMCA, founded later in London in 1844, and morphed independently of the London enterprise into the Glasgow YMCA, which eventually affiliated with the YMCA Conference in 1905. This kind of youth organisation, often under the leadership of active and successful young people, sought to address gaps and vulnerabilities (such as affordable accommodation and congenial social space) created in the mass movement to the city. It represents one strand of youth work's DNA.

On a (slightly) more secular note, educational activists such as Arthur Sweatman were arguing for extending the vision of the Ragged Schools and the educational Workers' Clubs to make special provision for young people. In an 1863 speech to the Social Science Association in Edinburgh, Sweatman argued that the condition of young people in Scotland called for specific educational intervention, outside school and in the leisure space, in order to offer young people the possibility of social improvement (Booton 1985). Sweatman cites a range of institutes in England which had followed this model, indicating that some provision within a club atmosphere was already emerging.

A third strand lies in the uniformed movements, the first of which also emerged in Glasgow in the late nineteenth century. William Alexander Smith (1854-1914), concerned at the irrelevance of church based programmes for the young, established the first Boys Brigade in 1883(Springhall, Fraser and Hoare 1983). Directed in the first instance towards boys in poorer neighbourhoods and aimed at saving them from the pernicious environments in which they lived, the regimental style and adventure-oriented approach was taken up by the Scouting Movement in the first decades of the twentieth century, which went on to become perhaps the most successful youth work movement of all time. While both the Scouting Movement and the Boys Brigade denied para-military intent, there is no question that the Crimean and Boer wars, and the increasing military demands of Empire were part of the backdrop. This intensified in the first half of the twentieth century.

Youth Work and the Wars

Twice in the last century, major world wars in 1914 and 1939 erupted into the lives of families and communities in Scotland: and into the lives of young people. As well as the enlistment of masses of young Scottish men, or their fathers, uncles and brothers, and the involvement of sisters and mothers in 'war work', both wars required the establishment (and enforcement) of restrictions on residence and movement; personal, household and community safety measures; closure and change of use of public buildings, rationing of food, clothing, fuel and certain household goods; and restrictions on places of entertainment or leisure. The effects of these measures were differentially experienced by young people depending upon whether they lived in more densely populated urban and industrial areas or in rural and countryside settings - but they had impact.

it was not surprising that governments were concerned about the consequences of the wars upon all citizens - but notably children and young people. A common concern in both 1914 and 1939 was the rise of juvenile delinquency, interestingly also a concern in 1961 when national conscription of men was ended. The social and economic atmosphere was of course different in 1914, and there were no statutory facilities for social, leisure and recreational activities for young people at that time. A key issue which emerged at the outset of World War One was a concern for the good health and physical development of young people in Britain. Large numbers of young and older men volunteered for active service at the outbreak of war. In medical examination, many were found to be underdeveloped for their age, physically unfit or unwell - so much so that it became a major area of concern for the Prime Minister, parliament and army generals.

It was for this reason that attempts were made by the government to persuade voluntary organisations to provide facilities and activities for young people and to do what they could for their social and physical welfare (Patrick 2006: 18). Before long these concerns found their way into the aims and purposes of key voluntary organisations working in the youth work sphere throughout the period of the 20's, 30's and 40's and they now feature (in somewhat modified language) in the aims and objectives of statutory youth work agencies also. Traditional voluntary youth organisations such as the YMCA, Scouts, Guides, Boys Brigade and Girls Brigade had since their inception in the latter half of the nineteenth century, and in differing ways, incorporated these intentions into their aims. The 3 sided YMCA red triangle logo is still recalled by many as the shorthand reminder that the YMCA programme is intended to develop "Body, Mind and Spirit".

Significant and ultimately far reaching moves in the development of youth work provision emerged in late 1939 with the issue of Government Circular 1486 "In the Service of Youth", and further in Circular 1516 "The Challenge of Youth" which urged the need for restructuring of youth work and a voluntary/statutory partnership. In these reports the Westminster Government acknowledges that the issues relating to young people in their leisure time required an approach which aligned youth work with schooling and other forms of educational provision. This did not mean that youth work would either then, or in the future, receive proportionate levels of funding to other educational services, but it did open the doors to a voluntary/statutory partnership, the creation of local government Youth Committees which focused on youth issues, and the notion that young people's views should be sought on local committees. These reports were also forerunners for the introduction of a capital grants scheme, modest local authority funding for some youth work developments and the financial support of some forms of training for voluntary and part time youth workers.

Albemarle: the impact on Scotland, and Scotland's response

Circulars 1486 and 1516 established the regulatory basis for youth work across the UK. However, provision for youth work remained patchy. In the postwar period, the picture for youth work across the country was by all accounts characterised by untrained volunteers working with limited resources in dilapidated buildings, and generally far short of the aspiration that the youth service would be an equal party with schools in the education enterprise. At the same time, the demographic surge in the youth population associated with the baby boom, the concern with juvenile delinquency and the attendant cultural anxiety around the emergence of a distinctive youth culture (including rock and roll, Teddy boys and mods and rockers) all led to a consensus that something needed to be done about the 'Service to Youth'.

The Albemarle Committee was established in 1958 to inquire into the state of the Youth Service in England and Wales. As such, it had no direct mandate for Scotland. However, the Report of the Committee, and the initiatives that flowed from it were foundational also in shaping the practice in Scotland.

Sociologist and historian Michel Foucault argues that typically, discourses (the constellations of language and concept within which practices are formed) have a natural history in which at a certain point in time, the disparate strands of a practice are pulled together, often by a single author, into a coherent frame: the discourse (Foucaulot 1986). This frame becomes the context then within which all recognisable practice is performed. So Charles Darwin founds the discourse of evolutionary biology. Adam Smith founds economics.

Albemarle founds the modern discourse of youth work, at least for Britain. The key tensions, purposes, and frameworks are drawn together in this document: youth work's contemporary self-understanding is grounded there. The Report is by no means beyond criticism, but it is revealing that any historical analysis of youth work in the UK (including this one) will go back to the Report as a founding document. The specific ways that Albemarle penetrated the consciousness of Scottish youth workers has yet to be documented. But some things are clear.

First, the Report places youth work squarely before the Parliament at Westminster, and in terms that win the Parliament's enthusiastic affirmation. In that it defines youth work in terms that youth workers recognise, and these definitions are also affirmed by the powerful, it puts youth work objectively in a new position.

Second, there are a range of reforms and investments that have a profound effect on youth work in Scotland. The Youth Service in Scotland never achieved the kind of established status that it did in England, especially after the investment following Albemarle. But Scottish youth work did share in the relative bounty, and the premises on which that investment was founded took hold as strongly in Scotland. Especially, the clarion call for the training of youth workers in the Report flowed directly into the establishment of youth work training parallel to teacher training at Moray House in Edinburgh in 1961, and Jordanhill College in Glasgow in 1964. Qualified staff to teach in these programmes were generally not available locally, and usually had to be imported from England. Through them the English/Albemarle discourse about the nature of youth work all become orthodox north of the border also.

Third, the Albemarle vision for the Youth Service flows directly into Scotland's own foundational document, Adult Education: the Challenge of Change, otherwise known as the Alexander Report (Scottish Education Department 1975). Alexander constitutes a key discontinuity between the practice in England and Scotland, and pulls youth work into a different set of relationships, resolving some tensions and creating others.

The Alexander Report and the Community Education Service

As the title indicates, the Alexander Report is not principally about youth work. The practice of Adult Education, which had a long and distinguished tradition in Scotland, was languishing in the mid-1970s. Universal secondary education and the technical colleges had largely taken over the adult education movement's historical role in educating working class communities, and the profession was increasingly restricted to offering recreational courses for the leisured middle class. However, concerns remained about persistent literacy problems, especially in poorer communities; about the educational gap between people who had grown up in the first half of the century and the postwar generation; and about the risks of radicalisation posed by an uneducated industrial working class (Mackie, Sercombe and Ryan 2013).

The problem was that adult educators seemed to have little capacity to reach that kind of constituency. But youth workers did. In a marriage between adult education and youth work, Alexander could see the critical mass, the street smarts and engagement methodologies of youth work matched with the redoubtable intellectual traditions of adult education into a new force for social change. For good measure, the Report included the emerging practice of Community Development in a proposal for a new Service, the Community Education Service, picking up the best of the Youth Service south of the border but wider and richer and more collaborative.

The impact of Alexander was mixed. At the level of government policy, in the practice of local authorities, and in training provision in universities and colleges, Community Education and the partnership of youth work, adult education and community development became dominant as discourse. In the non-government sector, youth work organisations continued to define their work as youth work, and individuals continued to identify as youth workers, adult educators or community developers, though there was also a lot of movement between roles. Generally, the 'three strands' retained an independent existence as well as a collective one. Peak coordinating organisations for adult education, youth work and community development continued to coexist with organisations for community education (renamed Community Learning and Development (CLD) in 2004).

The Community Education configuration had some advantages. It arguably produced a culture more amenable to collaboration, and a professional culture more open to methodological diversity. While the Albemarle tradition has been powerfully constructive in England, it has also been to some extent restrictive, especially when it comes to one-on-one work, casework or work in which attendance is less than voluntary in some way. This has prompted doubts about youth work in schools, for example, and led to the wholesale youth work rejection of the Connexions programme. While youth work in England is still diverse, there is a sense that the open club in a working-class community remains the paradigm for youth work methodology.

The broader configuration has also placed the practice more centrally in the Scottish Government's field of vision. While funding for the sector has never matched government rhetoric, Community Education/CLD has maintained an unchallenged claim to be the key agent for intervention at the community level on questions of poverty, inequality and social exclusion. Authorities in Scotland have never been particularly generous, but they have not, as has sometimes been the case in England, been ambivalent or dismissive about youth work.

The cost has been a certain diffusion of purpose. Youth workers at least in the statutory sector can be (and have been) reassigned to adult education or regeneration projects that don't have anything much to do with young people. Practices can be (and have been) forcibly genericised. The more diffuse focus in comparison with the solid weight of the Youth Service in England has meant that Scottish youth work has not matched the intellectual output represented by writers such as Mark Smith, Tony Jeffs, Bernard Davies, Kerry Young, Jean Spence, Sarah Banks and others.

Policy can also be subject to competing interests. The client of the Alexander Report was adult education, with youth work as the vehicle. The policy shift driving the name change from Community Education to Community Learning and Development in 2004 was effectively a policy coup d'etat on the part of community developers, with serious consequences for the deprofessionalisation of youth workers and an attempt to subjugate the non-government sector under community planning regimes. The cost of mainstream (and cross-party) government support has been that youth work has also been more compliant in being folded into the objectives of the state. On balance, however, the Community Education/CLD configuration has offered some protection to youth work, compared with England.

The Thatcher Years

The different political centre of gravity in Scotland always creates problems when there is a government of the right in Westminster. At minimum, Scotland is effectively disenfranchised. At best, noblesse oblige means that Scotland is at least treated fairly: at worst, cynically, with disregard, or even brutality. There is certainly an opinion in Scotland that the Westminster government under Margaret Thatcher (1979 to 1990) fell under the latter category.

Local government reform in Scotland in 1975 had forged a landscape in which there were 9 large Regional Councils, 53 District Councils and 3 Island Councils replacing a myriad of smaller Councils whose responsibilities were related much more closely to County, Burgh or City boundaries. Many of the new regional councils were very large (Strathclyde, Lothian, Dundee, Stirling and Highland Regions for example) and therefore the local tax base from which a proportion of council expenditure would be drawn was high, compared with previous, smaller administrations. Strathclyde Region served a constituency which was half the population of Scotland, and it was one of the largest local authorities in Europe.

This change was critical for youth work and community education, now under regional council jurisdiction. At a local level, for youth workers and other community education colleagues, there was a richer mix of inter-professional support and a new and growing opportunity to work with colleagues from Social Work, Police, Schools and Careers Service. Joint in-service training and staff development became a regular feature of professional lives, which allowed youth workers and others to share their perspectives on work with young people and to hear about and observe the techniques and approaches used by those in other services.

Many, if not most Regional Councils set up very influential and powerful officer/council member interdisciplinary working parties which examined topics related to young people, where contesting views helped to create proposals to take to the Regional Council for action. Working groups of this kind often included young people and voluntary organisation representation. Some of the very best interdisciplinary policy and practice initiatives in youth work emerged from joint officer/member groups in Lothian, Tayside, Highland, Strathclyde, Clackmannan, Stirling and elsewhere, offering an opportunity for leading councillors could learn more of the 'real world' experiences of the youth work scene, young people's lives, and appreciate the challenges which public services faced when working in the community.

Despite periodic central government cutbacks, funding was proportionately better than that which had existed during the lifetime of previous smaller burgh and city councils. For example, in 1987 the community education budget for statutory services in Strathclyde Region was £33m (or £81m current equivalent). There was permissive legislation to allow voluntary youth organisations to apply to regional councils for annual revenue grants to assist with the running of their programmes and activities, and for capital grants relating to building programmes. Whilst there were always more applications than regional grants committees could satisfy, these grants were welcomed by voluntary organisations as an essential lifeline in a difficult financial climate. In Strathclyde Region 1987 the annual revenue grants disbursed to voluntary organisations was over £2m (£5m current equivalent). Scottish services were also successful in attracting Commonwealth and European funds.

The blueprint, political justification and legislation for the establishment of regional councils in Scotland had been the work of the previous Labour government and it was apparent early in Mrs Thatcher's administration that the large, powerful, Labour-dominated regional councils in Scotland were a problem. They were often stridently oppositional, undermining policy pushes from Westminster, constituting a powerful and well-resourced organisational base for support for the Opposition in Westminster and resistance to her Government's policies, constantly throwing up new demands for social infrastructure. The Government was determined to break the power of Regional Councils, and in 1996 Regional Councils were dissolved and 32 smaller regional councils created.

The Thatcher administration was committed to monetarist economics, to the strict control of the money supply and to reducing government's economic footprint. There were wholesale reductions in public spending and social services such as education and housing. Government support for heavy industry, including steel, shipbuilding and heavy manufacture was withdrawn, with no provision for alternative economic development, no soft landing. High levels of unemployment followed, with particularly intense problems in the labour catchments affected by deindustrialisation. Very large numbers of young people could not find work. Community education services in local authorities, including youth work, together with youth careers services, youth unemployment schemes, and urban aid projects all suffered cuts in revenue, expenditure and a reduction of service provision. Unsurprisingly, these policies generated a large public outcry and led to the growth of grassroots community protests and the extension of grassroots community work.

Excursus: International youth work and the European relationship

Scotland has always had a strong international outlook. Historically, the nation has looked to Europe as much as to England: indeed, has occasionally been allied with France against England rather than the other way around. Movements of trade and people between Scotland and Scandinavia have always been fluid, and territory has changed hands between Scotland and Norway relatively recently. Strong trade links with the Baltic and Low countries and a large early influx from those countries and from Italy at various stages in the last century meant there was an awareness of a world beyond the immediate environment. The socialist tradition which stretches back to the 20's via the Spanish Civil War and the Labour movement has added to the international dimension. Beyond Europe, the Scottish diaspora has also created myriad links across the Commonwealth and the Americas.

The twinning movement post war saw individual towns, schools and youth groups forge long standing links with communities throughout Europe. By 1990 Scotland had 26 towns twinned with the same number in Germany. The Scottish Community Education Council and its predecessor made strong pre-EU links with Europe and other countries via the British Council and Commonwealth Youth Exchange Council. Its linked youth travel agency spawned a massive increase in international youth club trips particularly around skiing. This was linked to developments at Aviemore and Glenshee which put a previously elite pastime within the reach of working class people.

The Scottish Community Education Council (and its successor Community Learning Scotland) were pivotal in setting up both Eurodesk, which was operated under licence by YouthLink Scotland on behalf of the UK Government till 2008, and Young Scot Scotland's own Youth Information and Citizenship charity, which celebrated its 30th birthday in 2011. It in turn helped form The European Youth Card Association (EYCA) which now covers almost every country in the EU. Both organisations continue to invest in international work despite recent funding setbacks, convinced of its worth and value in helping young people form a world view.

New Labour

The Conservative government was succeeded in 1997 by the 'New Labour' government of Tony Blair, which held office until its defeat in 2010. Heralded by many youth workers after many years of conservative rule, Blair's government took a particular interest in the non-government sector. Discarding traditional Labour commitments to socialism, and especially the socialisation of the means of production, New Labour embraced the logic of capitalism and especially the effectiveness of the market in governing decisions over resources. Blair's 'Third Way' between laissez faire capitalism and socialist state provision included a key role in partnership with Government for the so-called Third Sector, that of civil society, in addressing Britain's social needs. New Labour was arguably corporatist, rather than socialist.

In order to do that effectively, of course, Third Sector organisations needed resources. Under the logic of New Labour, resources would be closely tied to Government objectives, and organisations held closely accountable not only for the proper expenditure of funds but also for the effectiveness of their programmes. Effectiveness would increasingly be measured using the tools, the evidence regime, and the language of business, otherwise known as New Public Management. Where resources were limited, they would increasingly be 'targeted' at problems prioritised by the Government. Funds would be allocated competitively, with governments active in creating a market in which services were purchased by funders on behalf of 'consumers' of those services.

This new regime of governance was mixed in its effects. Arguably, it helped to organise the sector, provided standards for a qualified workforce and for training. For example, Community Education Validation and Endorsement (CeVe) was established in 1991, given delegated powers by the then Scottish Office to endorse Community Education courses at universities and colleges and with private providers. Standards were established through a survey of employers who specified the 'competences' needed by this workforce. The Competences were codified, and became the basis for approval of training courses. CeVe morphed into the Approvals Committee of the Standards Council for CLD for Scotland, and in its current form it approves, through a panel of peers, training and development courses for part time and volunteer colleagues and a range of degree level professional qualifications. These now include opportunities at most levels for youth workers though the generic qualification at ordinary and honours degree level remains 'the standard'.

A further development in the governance of youth work was the process of inspection: compulsory for statutory services, elective for the voluntary sector. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education in Scotland (HMIE) developed the first How Good is our Community Learning and Development? appraisal policy in 2000. This was followed by an inspection cycle of all 32 local authorities until 2005. This provided HMIE with a unique perspective on CLD delivered by local authorities and voluntary sector organisations.

Young Scot and Youth Information were also established in this period, backed by a cocktail of funding from local and national government, business, philanthropy and national agencies such as the Police and Health Service. This piece of work was originally part of the Scottish Community Education Council portfolio but was then floated as a separate charity in 1993. It has now a substantial spread of services including on-line available to all Young Scots from 11-26 years of age. There are over half a million Young Scot's Discount/Proof of Age Cards in circulation.

The forming of the Scottish Youth Parliament came from discussions that took place with SCEC/Community Learning Scotland Government COSLA and others following on from the International Year of Youth in 1995. Elected by young people rather than appointed, as if often the case with Youth Parliaments, the parliament held its first meeting at Murrayfield Stadium exactly one day before the first ever devolved Scottish Parliament met on the Mound in 1999. Young Parliamentarians were invited to join the opening of the Parliament. Despite one or two rocky periods in its short history the Youth Parliament has become a real force for the voice of young people and is now built into the fabric of Scottish public life.

YouthLink Scotland was also born, or reborn, in this period, an outcome of an extensive rationalisation of quasi-government bodies in 2001-2. In some ways a forced partnership between the voluntary and statutory elements of the youth work sector, it was an attempt to create a one door approach to youth work issues. After a somewhat turbulent beginning, Youthlink has slowly but surely found its way and its voice, largely succeeding in the attempt to represent the entire sector. The development of a Policy Forum and the production of the Nature and Purpose of Youth Work Statement were key early milestones and it has continued to keep the balance between advocacy for the sector and a consultative facility for Government and policy makers. It had a pivotal role in the development of the refreshed National Youth Work Strategy, launched in April 2014.

Devolution and post-devolution

In May 2007 a change in government of seismic proportions took place when the Scottish Nationalist Party took control of a minority government from the Labour/Liberal Democrat Coalition. For the Youth Work Sector this represented an immediate threat. Only two months previously the first ever Youth Work Strategy had been launched, with funding package attached, following a wide public consultation. It was not at all certain that if the new government would honour the commitments of the outgoing government. Thankfully by the summer it was clear that this was the case and so a year of action was put in motion to raise the profile of youth work, improve quality of service provision and training, and make stronger links with schools and with other government policies around health, justice, and employability.

The next four years saw a much closer working relationship develop between the national voluntary organisations and government with the role of volunteers and their importance to social cohesion being recognised. At the same time the sector was involved in developing new strategies around antisocial behaviour, proceeds of crime, knife crime, anti-sectarianism and the Curriculum for Excellence, the SNP's broad education strategy. New sources of funding were lobbied for and secured: the proceeds from dormant bank accounts, and resources drawn from confiscated assets deemed to be proceeds of crime were not huge pots of money but nevertheless proved crucial for the sector in difficult times.

On the governance front, following an extensive consultation with the CLD sector, HMIE developed How Good is our Community Learning and Development 2? in 2006 and a second inspection cycle commenced. This development was notable for a much stronger alignment with Curriculum for Excellence, the new Scottish Government's education policy, and a more consistent focus on the outcomes of CLD work. In 2011, HMIE merged with Learning and Teaching Scotland to form Education Scotland. The inspections now focused upon Learning Communities - the group of CLD services, especially youth work, delivered around the catchment area of a secondary school. This dramatically increased both the number of inspections of CLD and the profile and recognition of youth work across Scotland, especially in improving things for young people in disadvantaged areas. This increasingly reflected in changes in legislation and policy covering both youth work and adult learning in 2014. The establishment and funding, in 2009, of the Standards Council for CLD in Scotland with a direct mandate to professionalise the sector also indicates the generally appreciative stance held by the Scottish Government.

Financial support for youth work across the nation has been uneven since the SNP succession, however, especially since the 2008 financial crisis. In a major shift in the relationship between the Scottish Government and local authorities known generically as the Concordat, decision-making for a great deal of social policy was devolved to local authorities, with almost all central prescription for the use of particular funds removed. The Scottish Government set objectives at the broadest level, and local authorities then enter into an Agreement in which they spell out how these objectives would be met at the regional level. There was a great deal of fear that in a time of fiscal restraint, youth work would be squeezed out under the pressure of local authorities continuing to pay for those services for which they had legal obligation, and that continuing support for youth work would depend on the very variable sympathy of local councillors.

In some local authority areas, this is not far from the truth. In others, the funds available to youth work have actually increased. In practice, the access that young people have to youth workers varies widely. This has come under some Scottish Government attention, with the requirement for closer accountability for local authorities in meeting obligations, and with stronger backing for a National Youth Work Strategy. Local Authority provision became harder to delineate as review after review saw youth work moved between various services although with a few exceptions youth work has fared better than its partners. A key strategy has been the linking of youth work with the Curriculum for Excellence, and in some authorities this has been largely successful. A key role for youth work in partnership with schools has been increasingly recognised, though there are still endemic problems around parity of esteem, protectionism and understanding of roles.

One of the key statements within the original strategy was the recognition that all young people could benefit from being involved in a youth work setting and that it was not only targeted services that mattered. The educational role of youth work and its ability to reach those furthest away from formal systems was recognised. This was a great encouragement to generic providers while it still made it clear how youth work was a service that could make a significant difference to those most at risk and on the cusp of exclusion and crime.

The nature and purpose of Youth Work statement appeared to be taking root. It remains to be seen what will happen over the next few years but at least within government and increasingly within wider society seeing young people as an asset rather than a liability seems to be gaining some traction.

Conclusion

Generally, the picture for youth work in Scotland is not dissimilar from the rest of the United Kingdom. Similar origins in the Industrial Revolution gave rise to similar responses, carried by very similar kinds of organisations. The institutional recognition of youth work as a practice, and its location administratively and discursively within the field of Education under Circulars 1486 and 1516 created a common language which was then cemented by the power of the Albemarle Report of 1960 and the resources which flowed from its political success. Scotland shared Albemarle's characterisation of youth work as association, training and challenge, located administratively and conceptually within Education as a professional discipline, as well as the methodological practice of starting where the young person is at, the voluntary principle and youth work's location in the leisure space.

The differences, however, are significant. Like most of the world, Scotland never really had a Youth Service in the way that England and Wales did, with all the power and legacy of a national institution that the Service provided. Hitching youth work to adult education and to community development has shaped youth work practice north of the border in particular ways. The consistently left-leaning Scottish constituency, and the enduring political currency of questions of inequality contribute to a different political environment, one that is systematically more sympathetic, if not necessarily more generous. Some difference in key issues persist. No doubt partly because of the weather, immigration (and attendant racism) has never been the issue in Scotland that it has further south, though Protestant/Catholic sectarian conflict has attracted more attention.

The future is hard to predict. At this current moment, where colleagues in England have seen support for youth work dissolve under the pressure of the Global Financial Crisis and the current Minister for Education, the Scottish Government has just reaffirmed its support not only for Community Learning and Development in general and for youth work in particular. However, the demands for 'efficiency savings' continue, and there is no sense of the recession having ended for the youth work sector. Despite the cross-party commitment to a more equal society and the Scottish Government's ambitions to make Scotland the best place in the world to grow up in, deep, intransigent poverty remains in the de-industrialised heartlands of the Central Belt. There are certainly levers like the Curriculum for Excellence and the Prevention Agenda that the youth work sector can pull on to make a claim on resources, and there is a sympathetic ear across parties in government, but the contradictions are endemic and outcomes are still uncertain.

References

Bartie, A., & Jackson, L. A. (2011). Youth Crime and Preventive Policing in Post-War Scotland (c. 1945-71). Twentieth century British history, 22(1), 79-102.

Booton, F. (ed.) (1985) Studies in Social Education Volume 1: 1860-1890, Hove: Benfield Press.

Foucault, M. (1986). What is an author? In P. Rainbow (Ed.), The Foucault reader (pp. 101-120). New York: Pantheon Books.

Mackie, G., Sercombe, H. and Ryan, A. (2012) A Service, a 'way of working', or a profession? A discourse analysis of Community Education/ Community Learning and Development policy in Scotland. Discourse: studies in the cultural politics of education. 34 (3) 1-17

Nicholls, J. (1999) David Nasmith. In Span, March/April. Retrieved June 1 2014 from http://www.lcm.org.uk/Articles/50130/London_City_Mission/About_Us/History/David_Nasmith.aspx

Patrick, F., (2006) Getting here …. with echoes from the past. In Youth Work and Young People: Realising Potential. Dundee: University of Dundee

Ministry of Education. (1960). The Youth Service in England and Wales ('The Albemarle Report'). London: HMSO.

Scottish Education Department. (1975). Adult Education: the challenge of change. Report by a Committee of Inquiry (the Alexander Report). Edinburgh: HMSO.

Springhall, J., Fraser, B., & Hoare, M. E. (1983). Sure & Stedfast: A History of the Boys' Brigade, 1883-1983 (p. 94). London: Collins.

Other key documents

1991 Youth Work in Scotland A report by HMIE. Edinburgh: HMSO

1995 Taking Youth Work Seriously Scottish Youth Work Partnership/Scottish Community Education Council

1996 Agenda for a Generation UK Youth Work Alliance/Scottish Community Education Council

1998 Communities Change Through Learning (Osler Report) Edinburgh: HMSO

1999 How Good Is Our Community Learning and Development? Inspection manual for CLD Practitioners and Inspectors. Edinburgh: HMSO

1998 Promoting Learning-Developing Communities. A Council of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA) consultation paper on the future development of Local Authority Community Education in Scotland. Edinburgh: COSLA/Scottish Community Education Council

1999 Scottish Office Circular on Community Learning and Development 4/99 Edinburgh: HMSO.

2001 Report of the Scottish Youth Summit (June 2000) Edinburgh: Scottish Executive

2002 Working and Learning Together Scottish Executive Working Draft Guidance. Edinburgh: HMSO

2003 Empowered to Practice: The future of CLD training in Scotland: Edinburgh: Scottish Executive/ HMSO

2004 Step It Up: a Youth work training report and implementation plan, Edinburgh: YouthLink Scotland /Scottish Executive

2004 Nature and Purpose of Youth Work (First Edition) Edinburgh: YouthLink Scotland

2004 Working and Learning Together Edinburgh: Scottish Executive/Communities Scotland Guidance, HMSO

2006 Strengthening Standards: improving the quality of Community Learning and Development service delivery (the Milburn Report). Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.

2007 Moving Forward A strategy for Improving young people's chances through Youth Work, Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Crown.

2008 (circa) Delivering change..understanding outcomes in CLD. Edinburgh: Communities Scotland/ Learning Connections.

2009 Improving Scottish Education Glasgow: HMIE

2009 Valuing Young People: Principles and connections to support young people to achieve their potential Edinbuirgh: Scottish Government

2009 Bridging the GAP. Improving outcomes for young people through schools and Youth Work Partnerships Edinburgh: Scottish Govt/YouthLink Scotland /Learning and Teaching Scotland.

2014 National Youth Work Strategy 2014-2019, Edinburgh: Scottish Govt/Education Scotland/YouthLink Scotland

Chapter 6: Learning to Improve

Contents

References

Introduction - Learning To Improve

How Good is Our CLD? 2 (Extracts)

(HM Inspectorate of Education, 2006)

Delivering Change

(Communities Scotland, 2007)

LEAP Manual

(Extract from revised version, Scottish Community Development Centre for Scottish Government, 2008)

References

Core texts

How Good Is Our CLD (2) - Part 1: What is self-evaluation and Part 2: Performance and Quality indicators (HMIE, 2006) - pages 9-29

Delivering Change (Communities Scotland, 2007)

LEAP: A Manual for Learning Evaluation and Planning in Community Learning and Development (Revised version - SCDC for Scottish Government, 2007) - Section 2: Exploring the principles of LEAP - pages 21-33

Related Content

Literature Review of the Outcomes of Community Learning and Development, Tett, Crowther and McCulloch, (2006) Communities Scotland and University of Edinburgh.

Building Connections, Getting Involved: Measuring Social Capital Outcomes of Community Learning and Development, Crowther, Tett and Edwards for Scottish Government, 2008)

Identifying and Quantifying the Outcomes of Community Learning And Development: Development and testing of a research instrument (Avante Consulting for Scottish Government, 2009)

Let's prove it: Providing evidence on the local and national outcomes of CLD activities (CLDMS, 2010)

Explaining the Difference (Learning Link Scotland and Evaluation Support Scotland, 2011)

Gathering the Evidence: Statistics and Stories (McArdle/Briggs, Aberdeen University/Aberdeenshire Council for CLD Managers Scotland/Education Scotland 2012)

Action Research by in and for Communities (Scottish Community Development Centre, 2012)

Learning To Improve

Introduction by John Galt

Over the past decade CLD providers and practitioners paid increasing attention to how they approach planning and evaluation. Planning became more focused on the differences made in the lives of individuals, groups and communities; more effort was put into gathering and analysing evidence of impact; and self-evaluation was developed as a means of improving the quality of services. While these trends were evident in many areas of social policy, they presented particular challenges for CLD because it had always been difficult to directly attribute broad outcomes for individuals or groups to particular CLD interventions. CLD remained vulnerable to criticism that its claims of transforming individuals and communities were based more on rhetoric than evidence; partly because evidence of impact was difficult to obtain[63](Tett, 2010). Over the period real progress was made in planning and evaluating the impact and quality of CLD, although the pressures caused by reducing public spending following the banking crisis of 2008 made it ever harder for CLD providers to strike the right balance between proving their worth to decision makers and funders, and improving outcomes for people and communities.

The move towards a greater focus on outcomes in CLD was originally driven by Working and Learning Together to Build Stronger Communities (2004) which called on community planning partners to 'assess more thoroughly the contribution of CLD to achieving outcomes.' This led to significant efforts by providers and national agencies to put tools and processes in place to evaluate, demonstrate and convey those outcomes.

Many CLD practitioners had been introduced to an 'outcome focused approach' through the LEAP framework. LEAP offered a practical planning and evaluation tool that felt grounded in CLD practice. The starting point was sustained dialogue with participants, communities and other stakeholders to identify issues and agree what successful outcomes would look like before going on to develop outputs, identify the methods to be used and allocate resources to achieve the outputs and carry out the methods. Crucially, the process of how these steps were carried out was key to the LEAP model; in particular, a real and substantial dialogue about the changes to be sought was the essential starting point.

In 2007, the Concordat agreed by the minority SNP administration and COSLA put a set of shared national outcomes at the heart of Scottish social and economic policy and led to a new National Performance Framework[64] to measure impacts. The potential impacts of CLD seemed relevant to many of these national outcomes and this was reflected in the Joint Statement with COSLA on CLD (2008). The challenge became how to articulate what was sometimes referred to as the 'golden thread' linking the outcomes negotiated with learners and groups based on their interests and aspirations with those long term strategic outcomes set by government around areas such as raising education attainment, increasing employment, regenerating neighbourhoods and improving health and wellbeing.

Learning Connections[65]acknowledged the difficulty of this process and responded with Delivering Change (2007) which provided a flexible menu of potential outcomes more closely linked to CLD activity. It took the view that in most cases CLD providers would find it more helpful to concentrate on these 'intermediate' outcomes which over time laid the foundation for changes in the national 'end' outcomes. As the public funding situation got increasingly difficult, CLD Managers Scotland argued that there was a greater urgency to measure the impact of CLD on 'end' outcomes to prove its worth to funders. In Let's Prove it (2010) they provided a framework which encouraged practitioners to do more to capture what participants told them about the changes that they experienced.

Not all outcome based planning paid the same attention to dialogue with participants as LEAP did. There was often an over-emphasis on policy-led outcomes which diverted practitioners from the process of identifying outcomes with communities and learners into more top-down planning. This led to an increasing debate over the extent to which the outcome-focused approach itself reflected managerialist tendencies which were at odds with a CLD approach.

WALT (2004) also restated the need to focus on effective self-evaluation to improve the consistency and quality of CLD services. HMIe's revised How Good is our CLD? 2 (2006) set out a strong framework for that self-evaluation as well as providing a basis for inspection. It stressed the need to base judgements on the quality of CLD on evidence of outcomes and impact and highlighted four main sources of that evidence: performance data; plans and other key documents; feedback from participants and other stakeholders; and practitioners' observations. It also provided a common set of quality indicators for managers and practitioners to evaluate the impact of CLD activities and analyse their strengths and areas for improvement. HM inspectors later worked with voluntary sector partners to develop How Good is our Third Sector Organisation? (2015)[66].

HMIe continued to provide external scrutiny of the impact and quality of CLD provision through inspections[67]. In 2008, a new inspection model was introduced which focused on CLD activity in geographical 'learning communities' surrounding secondary schools. The starting point for learning community inspections was the shared self-evaluation carried out by local CLD partners. Between 2008 and 2015 nearly 200 learning community inspections took place across the country, providing a significant evidence base of the impact and quality of CLD activity. The findings showed that the impacts of CLD on young people, adults and communities were generally very positive; however inspectors reported that the extent to which providers could show clear evidence of these impacts remained less well understood and developed. Inspection findings also gave a consistent message that CLD partners needed to improve their joint planning and self‑evaluation and this message seemed to be heard. Over the period CLD practitioners became more confident negotiating outcomes, gathering and analysing evidence of impact, reporting on progress and learning from their findings. Evidence from inspections of good planning and evaluation practice was increasingly used in CLD professional development and more practitioners were recruited as Associate Assessors who were able to share what they learned working with inspectors back in their own organisations.

Many CLD providers focused more time and resources on gathering performance data. This was helped in part by advances in information technology. More and more data was certainly being generated through web based systems such as Cognisoft, although it was not always clear how well it was being used to inform practice. Numbers alone, however, were never going to capture the experiences and changes in people's lives that result from CLD work. Robust qualitative evidence remained harder to capture although some positive steps were made on this, for example through the Gathering the Evidence: Statistics and Stories programme which used quantitative and qualitative evidence to measure impact and support staff development.

The lack of research studies which focused on the outcomes of CLD as practiced in Scotland left a significant gap in the evidence base for practitioners throughout this period. Learning Connections had commissioned several small studies between 2006 and 2009 which produced largely positive results but given their scale they could only infer the likelihood of connections between CLD activity and end outcomes. A national CLD research instrument was piloted but was not widely used by the sector and the pilot study's recommendation for investment in more longitudinal research on impacts was largely ignored.

There were however examples where the sector started to draw on research practice. A practical guide was developed in 2011 to help community and voluntary groups carry out action research in and with their communities and some practitioners started to make use of related research such as the Go Well longitudinal study in Glasgow which produced strong findings on the impact of community capacity building in regeneration areas[68]. Logic modelling was another approach increasingly used as a way to show a causal connections between identified needs, CLD activities and the differences made for individuals and communities. Explaining the Difference (2011), developed by Learning Link Scotland in partnership with Evaluation Support Scotland, was a good example which used a logic model to articulate the outcomes of adult learning in the voluntary sector within the context of the national outcomes. This was updated in 2015 with a new title Evidencing the Impact.

By the summer of 2015, when this chapter was written, the use of evidence to understand the impacts of CLD had been embedded into statute through the CLD Regulations (2013). Education Scotland, as part of a wider review of HM inspections, was updating the How Good is our CLD? Framework and reviewing the learning community inspection model while encouraging the whole Scottish education sector to adopt an improvement model (2014)[69] that looked 'inwards' through self-evaluation; 'outwards' through research and good practice; and 'forwards' by scanning for major changes on the horizon.

The progress made on evidencing impacts meant that the contribution of community learning and development to national policies in areas such as social justice, educational attainment, community empowerment and democratic renewal was more clearly articulated than ever before. At the same time though, in a period of austerity politics, CLD providers were not being spared from the increasingly severe spending cuts taking place across both the public and the third sectors.

How Good is Our CLD? 2 (Extracts)

(HM Inspectorate of Education, 2006)

Self-evaluation for quality improvement

Part 1: What is self-evaluation?

The CLD performance and quality indicators are a core component of an overall

quality-improvement framework. The framework has been developed to focus on six high-level questions which encompass the key dimensions of CLD:

1. What key outcomes have we achieved?

2. How well do we meet the needs of our stakeholders?

3. How good is our delivery of key processes?

4. How good is our management?

5. How good is our leadership?

6. What is our capacity for improvement?

Self-evaluation, external inspection and review of CLD provision will focus principally on the experiences of young people, adults and the community and the impact CLD provision has on peoples' lives.

Each indicator is organised to help us make a judgement about the strengths and weaknesses in that key area. The themes structure the process of reflecting on and discussing participants' outcomes and our practice with fellow practitioners. Relating practice to the illustrations helps to identify strengths and weaknesses. By identifying and describing the strengths and weaknesses in our area we can focus on what we need to do to make improvements.

How good is our community learning and development?

To answer this overarching question in the context of CLD provision and have a full understanding of the impact of the delivery of a service, we need to gather information. Practitioners have always reflected on the quality of the services they provide. By working together to evaluate the impact of our services, we can come to a shared view of how well we are doing and how we can make things better. To ensure the quality of provision is maintained and improved, we also need to evaluate how effectively services are delivered and managed, and how well we plan for improvement.

Making such evaluations is dependent on a shared understanding within and across service providers and stakeholders of what constitutes high-quality outcomes and processes. The quality and performance indicators in this document set out to support the development of a shared understanding for all those concerned with delivering or evaluating CLD provision. The indicators are organised round the high-level questions above and, taken together, answer the overarching question, How good is our community learning and development?. Answering this question requires us to summarise the impact of CLD provision on young people, adults and the community and the quality of outcomes for them. The overarching framework of indicators, measures and themes is given on the following page.

Self-evaluation involves:

- a broad view of performance across the six high-level questions; and

- a closer look at particular aspects of work.

Forming a broad view

Practitioners within a particular CLD service or in multi-disciplinary groups such as the local CLD partnership or ALN partnership can form a broad view by scanning across all the quality indicators. Using evidence that has been gathered in the normal course of work, they can identify broad strengths and weaknesses. This will give an immediate impression of areas of major strength, or areas where more attention is required.

Taking a closer look

It may not always be helpful or manageable to try to evaluate every aspect of provision in depth at the same time. In order to have a greater understanding of the effectiveness of particular aspects of practice, managers and practitioners can also take a closer look at them. The stimulus to take a closer look could derive from a range of issues that include:

- the wish of a small group of practitioners to find ways to evaluate and improve what they are doing;

- an issue identified during the broad view;

- an issue arising from a national priority or a local improvement objective;

- an issue arising from a survey of the views of young people or adults in an area;

- an inspection or inquiry; and

- research findings which have implications for the quality of the service.

This means specific groups of practitioners can also carry out self-evaluation by asking themselves such questions as:

- How well are we delivering services for young people in this neighbourhood?

- How effectively is the team of practitioners working together to deliver family learning?

- How are we doing in this community development team or in this generic CLD service?

It could also focus on specific themes by asking such questions as:

- How well do we consult with young people, adults and the wider community and take account of their views in the area covered by this CLD action plan or ALN plan?

- How effectively do practitioners in this area work together to assess risk when working with young people, vulnerable adults and families?

By encouraging practitioners to structure their discussion and reflection on the work they are doing, the quality and performance indicator framework can support improvement by individuals and small teams as well as at operational and managerial levels.

Self-evaluation and planning

In order to plan effectively we need to know how well we are doing. Effective self-evaluation provides a strong basis for good planning.

Planning for CLD strategies and ALN within a framework of Community Planning has encouraged practitioners to work together to identify local objectives to improve CLD provision. Self-evaluation can support these planning processes and ensure that plans are built on robust, evidence-based knowledge of the quality of outcomes, provision and the needs of the community.

How do we gather evidence?

We have a number of sources of evidence which can tell us how well we are meeting the needs of stakeholders and what difference we are making.

There are, essentially, four main sources of evidence from which evaluations can ultimately be made. These are:

- performance data;

- relevant documentation;

- stakeholders views and feedback; and

- direct observations of practice.

These sources of evidence are complementary. No single source can meaningfully provide enough evidence on its own to enable a reliable or robust evaluation to be made. The principle of triangulation has been tried and tested over many years by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education (HMIE), by other independent external evaluators and by CLD services.

In essence, triangulation involves the scrutiny of one source of evidence, backed up by another and corroborated by a third line of enquiry. An example would be an evaluation based on the examination of a key youth policy document, the implementation of which was then fleshed out in discussion with senior CLD staff and further corroborated in discussion with relevant stakeholders such as young people, youth workers and school staff. Through this process of triangulation, it should then be possible to observe the outcome of putting policy into practice, and, through this, to evaluate the impact of policy in meeting the needs of key stakeholders.

Performance outcomes and relevant documentation

Since 2000, partnerships in all local authority areas in Scotland have developed community learning strategies with a range of performance objectives. This initiative was supported by the publication, Learning Evaluation and Planning (LEAP) that encouraged new approaches to planning that were needs-led and outcome-focused. Since 2003, the Local Government Act has required local authorities and other key stakeholders to develop Community Plans. Government guidance in February 2004 on the future development of CLD was issued to Community Planning Partnerships. This guidance requires local authorities to lead the development of CLD strategies and articulates three National Priorities for CLD:

- Achievement through learning for adults

- Achievement through learning for young people

- Achievement through building community capacity.

In addition, funding for area regeneration through Social Inclusion Partnerships and the Better Neighbourhood Services Fund was replaced by the Community Regeneration Fund in 2004. Community Planning Partnerships now deliver regeneration programmes on the basis of Regeneration Outcome Agreements. As a result, CLD providers are working to achieve a range of outcomes and targets set out in key planning documents.

Information on the extent to which these outcomes are being achieved can be collated as part of the self-evaluation process and will give a clear indication of the progress being made. Any difficulties in achieving targets set can be followed up by a taking a closer look to find out what the barriers to achieving the objectives are.

Other objectives will refer to improving the quality of the provision and will not always lend themselves easily to the collation of performance data. The quality indicators will help us evaluate progress in these areas.

Information gathered from stakeholders

This information is gathered primarily from young people, adults and the community along with any advocates on behalf of vulnerable or excluded members of the community. It may also include information from surveys of the general public or voluntary or community organisations working in the area.

Information can be collected systematically when young people, adults and community organisations are using a service, or when they end their involvement with a service. We may also, from time to time, specifically survey participants or meet groups of participants to find out their views.

Whatever approach we decide to use, gathering information from participants is an essential part of the self-evaluation process. Without it, it is very difficult to understand the impact of our work on young people, adults and the community and to know if we are doing the right things. It is almost impossible to answer the high-level questions with any degree of confidence without including the views of participants.

Stakeholders also include paid and voluntary staff and partners with whom we work. Their views should also be sought.

The six-point scale

The indicators can also be used to help us to form a view on the level of effectiveness in a particular aspect of practice. Inspectors from HMIE evaluate using six levels of effectiveness. Practitioners engaged in self-evaluation can use the same six-point scale. Awarding levels is a professional skill rather than a technical process and there are many ways in which provision can merit a particular evaluation.

The following describe key characteristics at each of six levels.

An evaluation of excellent will apply to performance which is a model of its type. The outcomes for young people, adults and the wider community along with their experience of provision will be of a very high quality. An evaluation of excellent will represent an outstanding standard of performance, which will exemplify very best practice and is worth disseminating beyond the service or area. It will imply these very high levels of performance are sustainable and will be maintained.

An evaluation of very good will apply to performance characterised by major strengths. There will be very few areas for improvement and any that do exist will not significantly diminish the experience of young people, adults and the wider community. While an evaluation of very good will represent a high standard of performance, it is a standard that should be achievable by all. It will imply that it is fully appropriate to continue the CLD provision without significant adjustment. However, there will be an expectation that CLD practitioners will take opportunities to improve and strive to raise performance to excellent.

An evaluation of good will apply to performance characterised by important strengths which, taken together, clearly outweigh any areas for improvement. An evaluation of good will represent a standard of performance in which the strengths have a significant positive impact. However, the quality of outcomes and experiences of young people, adults and the community will be diminished in some way by aspects where improvement is required. It will imply that the CLD services should seek to improve further the areas of important strength, but take action to address the areas for improvement.

An evaluation of adequate will apply to performance characterised by strengths, which just outweigh weaknesses. An evaluation of adequate will indicate that young people, adults and the community have access to a basic level of service. It represents a standard where the strengths have a positive impact on the experiences of young people, adults and the wider community. However, while the weaknesses will not be important enough to have a substantially adverse impact, they will constrain the overall quality of outcomes and experiences. It will imply that CLD practitioners should take action to address areas of weakness while building on strengths.

An evaluation of weak will apply to performance which has some strengths but where there will be important weaknesses. In general, an evaluation of weak may be arrived at in a number of circumstances. While there may be some strengths, the important weaknesses, either individually or collectively, are sufficient to diminish the experiences of young people, adults and the community in substantial ways. It may imply that some young people or adults may not have their needs met or be left at risk unless action is taken. It will imply the need for structured and planned action on the part of the CLD service and partners.

An evaluation of unsatisfactory will apply when there are major weaknesses in performance in critical aspects requiring immediate remedial action. The outcomes and experiences of young people, adults and the community will be unsatisfactory in significant respects. In almost all cases, practitioners responsible for provision evaluated as unsatisfactory will require support from senior managers in planning and carrying out the necessary actions to effect improvement. This may involve working alongside other staff or agencies. Urgent action will be required to ensure the young people, adults and the community have their needs met.

Each quality indicator in this document contains a set of illustrations at the levels of very good and weak. Illustrations are intended to provide examples, not to be fully comprehensive. Outcomes and practice not described in the illustrations will still contribute to the evaluation.

What are we going to do now?

At whatever level within the service we are using the quality indicators to look at our practice and answer the question, How good is our community learning and development? we should now be in a position to plan for improvement and report on how well we are doing. It is important when undertaking any form of self-evaluation to keep focused on the end purpose, which is making things better for young people, adults and the community. The answer to, What are we going to do now? must therefore always be a plan for action, which will make a positive difference in the lives of people who use our services.

Reporting on self-evaluation

Whether and how the outcomes of self-evaluation are reported depends on the purpose and the level of the work done. The purpose of reporting is primarily to help decision-making about how to make improvements, and to inform stakeholders, such as young people, adults, the wider community, the CLD partnership, the ALN partnership, the public, elected members of councils, voluntary and community organisations, and police and health boards.

The following examples of different types of reports may both be the outcomes of self-evaluation activity.

- A team of youth workers in a CLD service decides to evaluate the effectiveness of its support to young people identified by their local school as being vulnerable. As a result of this exercise, they may not need to write an extensive report. The important activity would be sharing their practice through collating evidence against the selected indicators. Through discussion, they would identify some aspects of their work, which they either wanted to take a closer look at, perhaps involving other practitioners, or identify a small number of points for action. They may wish to share the points of action they have identified with practitioners in other disciplines and their managers. In this case writing an extensive report on the self-evaluation exercise would not be appropriate.

- The ALN partnership in an area wishes to take a broad look at how well literacy and numeracy provision is delivered by all services in their area. Each of the key providers in the area, the CLD service, the local further education college, key voluntary organisations, social work, education and the local enterprise company undertake to do a broad-brush evaluation against all the quality indicators in their own services. The senior managers who have led the self-evaluation exercises have a day together to share the results across the providers. As a result they produce a detailed written report for the ALN partnership and the senior managers in each service, which highlights the strengths and weaknesses of literacy and numeracy provision and identifies priorities for development. The priorities identified are then fed into the literacies action plan.

The report should:

- recognise key strengths; and

- identify development needs and priorities and set measurable targets for improvement.

Improving services

Meeting the needs of our stakeholders involves a number of professional groups. Developments to make things better for young people, adults and the community can involve a wide range of practitioners in a number of organisations, including voluntary or community organisations. It is important therefore that the outcomes of self-evaluation and plans for improvement feed into the appropriate planning structures and are shared across services and providers. Depending on the work undertaken, the outcomes may result in priorities being included in a number of planning structures. The following list gives some examples.

- A community plan. This is the vehicle for improving all services in an area. CLD strategies detail the CLD contribution to achieving the outcomes of the community plan.

- A local community plan or CLD action plan which sets out how local providers will meet the needs of people within geographic areas or communities of interest.

- A Regeneration Outcome Agreement.

- A school development plan, if an individual school has evaluated its processes for working with vulnerable young people outside of school hours.

- A children's services plan where the youth work contribution articulates with the work of other providers to meet the objectives for improving services for children and young people.

- A local health improvement plan, if specific priorities identified relate to how health professionals carry out their work in partnership, or on health promotion.

- An education improvement plan, where an issue across all education establishments has been identified, for example, the need to ensure all children and young people have the opportunity to develop personal safety skills.

- A Council of Voluntary Service (CVS) plan, where specific priorities for aspects of CLD provision have been identified.

- A policing business plan, when a specific priority (e.g. relating to young people and drugs) has been identified for practice across the local force area.

- A community safety plan.

Whatever the planning structure(s) for taking forward improvement, it will help if we select a manageable number of priorities for which we can identify specific, achievable, measurable and time-bound targets. Even where we can see how improvements can be made across a number of aspects, we may wish to focus on those of greatest concern. It will make more impact on services if a manageable number of priorities are taken forward, with a notable impact on the outcomes and experiences of young people, adults and the community. In some cases small changes in practice identified by a group of practitioners in an area can have a significant positive impact. It is not always necessary for self-evaluation to result in major changes or reviews of practice.

Links between self-evaluation, inspection and review

It is always useful to have an external measure of how we are doing. HMIE carry out inspections and reviews to evaluate the quality of CLD provision. Information from inspections can form part of the evidence for local self-evaluation. HMIE has a responsibility to evaluate how well CLD provision meets the needs of young people, adults and the community across all areas of Scotland. Inspection by HMIE covers much of the same ground as local self-evaluation. Inspectors will gather evidence, make professional evaluations using the quality and performance indicators and answer at least some of the six high-level questions outlined above. They will write a report which will address the questions outlined, based on evaluations of the evidence gathered and summarise the key strengths and areas requiring further development in an area. Any self-evaluation which has recently been carried out locally will contribute to the inspection process. HMIE is also commissioned by Scottish Executive departments to undertake reviews of national voluntary sector organisations engaged in CLD delivery. These reviews operate in a similar way to CLD inspections.

Part 2: Performance and Quality Indicators

The framework for self-evaluation explained

The framework for self-evaluation described in the following pages provides a systematic approach for CLD partnerships and providers to use when evaluating the effectiveness with which they deliver their services. The framework does not assume a particular organisational structure for CLD within a local authority. It can be applied whether responsibility for all CLD functions is located within a single department or is distributed across a number of different council services or partner agencies.

The framework has been developed in accordance with the principles of the Excellence Model of the European Foundation of Quality Management (EFQM) and can be used in conjunction with other quality models, for example, Investors in People (IiP), Charter Mark and ISO 9000. Evidence produced through the use of other models can contribute to overall evaluations. The diagram in Appendix 1 shows how these models relate to the framework for self-evaluation.

The framework is based on six high-level questions which can be answered by evaluating the quality of CLD provision systematically across ten Key Areas.

- What key outcomes have we achieved?

Key Area 1. Key performance outcomes

- How well do we meet the needs of our stakeholders?

Key Area 2. Impact on service users

Key Area 3. Impact on staff and volunteers

Key Area 4. Impact on the local and wider community

- How good is our delivery of key processes?

Key Area 5. Processes and delivery

- How good is our management?

Key Area 6. Policy development and planning

Key Area 7. Management and support of staff

Key Area 8. Partnerships and resources

- How good is our leadership?

Key Area 9. Leadership

- What is our capacity for improvement?

Key Area 10. Capacity for improvement

The inputs and processes outlined in Key Areas 5-9 contribute to the outcomes and impacts identified in Key Areas 1-4.

Key Areas 1-9 contain indicators and measures, each with themes which focus on specific aspects of the area being evaluated.

Key Area 10 provides guidance which can be used to evaluate the degree of confidence reached by those carrying out the evaluation that the council and its partners have the capacity to continue to improve the quality of CLD provision. The evaluation will take into account their track record in making improvements to date and significant aspects of their internal and external contexts.

Using the framework in self-evaluation

CLD services and partner agencies can use the framework to provide a systematic structure for evaluation. They may choose to address each Key Area in turn or to group Key Areas for evaluation according to their established cycle, whether that is organised at the level of individual services/departments or corporately across the council.

CLD providers can also use the framework as a diagnostic tool. By looking first at the outcomes and impact of the learning experiences they provide (Key Areas 1-4), they can identify key issues for further exploration, observation and analysis using the tools provided within Key Areas 5-9.

Finally, CLD providers are encouraged to arrive at an evaluation of their overall capacity for improvement, using the guidance in Key Area 10.

Individual organisations can also use the framework for self-evaluation. It is possible to interpret the framework to suit your organisation's context. For example, you could adapt the indicative theme in 6.3 which reads 'articulation of operational plans with the community plan and CLD strategy' to best suit the planning arrangements of your organisation.

Using the framework in inspection

When engaging in inspection and reporting activities, HMIE will focus on specific Key Areas and indicators selected from the overall framework. Some of these Key Areas and indicators may be used across all or most CLD providers, while others may be used only in particular contexts, depending on decisions taken during scoping activities. In some cases, HMIE may also choose to focus on those specific themes from individual indicators which provide the most appropriate tools for use in the context of a particular CLD service. It will be the responsibility of the CLD providers being inspected to provide evidence to support the level of performance indicated within their self-evaluations.

HMIE will use the advice in Key Area 10 to arrive at an evaluation of CLD providers' overall capacity for improvement.

Answering the high-level questions

What key outcomes have we achieved?

Key Area 1 focuses on the overall performance of CLD provision. It provides a structure for councils to use when considering their success as organisations in delivering national priorities for CLD as set out in guidance and programmes for development, as well as strategic priorities relating to their distinctive vision, values and aims. Key Area 1 also focuses on the extent to which councils fulfil their statutory duties and are financially secure, both of which are key aspects of overall performance. This Key Area takes a broad, long-term perspective which focuses on a council's successes in improving the quality of CLD, both overall and in comparison with other providers. Individual organisations can also use this indicator to look at their overall performance.

How well do we meet the needs of our stakeholders?

Key Areas 2, 3 and 4 focus on the impact of CLD Provision on key groups of stakeholders. In other words, these areas look at the benefits which stakeholders derive from the services delivered by CLD partners. Evaluation in these Key Areas will take into account stakeholders' views, together with evidence from direct observation and quantitative data, in order to arrive at overall judgements of the CLD services' impact on its key stakeholders. Where evidence from these sources is conflicting or indicates significant weaknesses, CLD providers should follow audit trails to identify and address the possible causes, using indicators from other Key Areas in the quality framework. This investigation and analysis could focus on a number of issues, for example, the quality of the council's CLD provision, its processes for communicating with, and involving stakeholders, and/or its management of information. The focus will be on evaluating the impact on specific groups of participants, and arriving at holistic evaluations of the overall impact on their experiences.

How good is our delivery of key processes?

Key Area 5 focuses on the work of the provider in relation to its CLD functions. It articulates clearly with the competences required of professionally qualified staff in Scotland and is consistent with the National Occupational Standards that have been developed for specific aspects of CLD. In other words, it builds upon the processes that effective practitioners employ to achieve maximum impact in their work.

How good is our management?

Key Areas 6, 7 and 8 focus on the operational activities necessary to ensure effective and efficient delivery and Best Value. These activities include the provider's processes for developing and updating policies, for involving its stakeholders, for operational planning, for managing staff, finance and resources and for developing productive partnerships. Strengths and weaknesses in these areas will affect the quality of the processes delivered within Key Area 5, their impact on stakeholders as described in Key Areas 2, 3 and 4 and the performance of the providers as a whole in relation to CLD provision in Key Area 1.

How good is our leadership?

Key Area 9 focuses on the strategic direction of the council and its partners in relation to CLD. It looks at their corporate purpose and the expression and delivery of their aspirations by means of strategic planning with partner agencies and the community. It considers the quality of leadership at strategic level, and within teams and organisational units. Individual organisations can also use this indicator to consider the effectiveness of their leadership.

What is our capacity for improvement?

Judgement of an organisation's ability for improvement takes into account the evaluations arrived at in Key Areas 1-9, with particular reference to the quality of the leadership and management of the CLD provider and overall impact and outcomes. The CLD provider's focus on improvement and its track record in bringing about improvement are particularly important, as is the accuracy of its self-evaluation, which is used as the basis for planned improvements. The judgement also takes into account any significant aspects of the CLD provider or partnership's internal or external context, for example, impending retirements of senior staff, plans to restructure or significant changes in funding. The judgement reviews the past, and looks forward to the future.

Judgements of a CLD provider's capacity for improvement could be expressed in terms of a degree of confidence that it has the capacity to continue to improve. The judgement may be that the evaluators are confident that the provider or partnership has the capacity to continue to improve. This judgement would be made when highly effective leadership and management have brought about major improvements to outcomes and impact on participants and other stakeholders. Evidence at the time would indicate that these improvements were sustainable and that improvement would continue. No significant changes in the internal or external context of the organisation would be apparent or predicted at the time the judgement was made.

When there are reservations about one or more of these aspects, the use of other terminology would be more appropriate. For example, those carrying out the evaluation might have only 'limited confidence', or indeed, 'no confidence', that the provider or partnership has the capacity to continue to improve. It would be important for evaluators to note the nature of their reservations, for example, by pointing to specific aspects of the work or its current or future context.

Key Area 1. Key performance outcomes

Key Area 2. Impact on service users

Key Area 3. Impact on staff and volunteers

Key Area 4. Impact on the community

Key Area 5. Processes and delivery

Key Area 6. Policy development and planning

Key Area 7. Management and support of paid and voluntary staff

Key Area 8. Partnerships and resources

Key Area 9. Leadership

Key Area 10. Capacity for improvement

Delivering Change

(Communities Scotland, 2007)

Understanding the Outcomes of Community Learning and Development

What does this document aim to do?

'Working and Learning Together to Build Stronger Communities', the Scottish Executive's guidance on community learning and development (CLD), said that we wanted to be 'able to assess more thoroughly the contribution of CLD to achieving outcomes.'

In other words, we want to be able to say more about the difference that CLD makes in the lives of individuals, groups and communities.

This document aims to help us to do that by setting out for the first time the range of outcomes that we expect CLD to bring about or contribute to.

As a result, this document is mainly aimed at being a useful resource for people who work in this field. We think that it can:

- provide a tool that can help those involved in CLD to explain to others (for example, community planning partnerships) what their work achieves;

- help CLD providers and those people that use their services (for example, learners or community activists) to discuss what the outcomes of their work together should be; and

- provide a solid basis from which we can use our improved understanding of outcomes to develop better ways of identifying and recording them, where this is appropriate.

The document presents these outcomes as a framework. It focuses on the kind of outcomes that practitioners, managers and - perhaps most importantly - the people who take part might expect to see arising more or less directly from CLD activities.

We developed the first draft of this framework from a range of existing documents, and with the help of people who work in CLD or have an interest in it. We then consulted other groups about the draft, including CLD providers and people who use the services (a full list of everyone involved is on page 28).

So these outcomes haven't come from nowhere. They're based on what a whole range of people who really know about this work think.

And, importantly, we need to finally say what this document does not aim to do. The framework is meant to be a tool to help people - it is not meant to tell people what to do. Instead, it presents a menu of possible outcomes of CLD, from which people can choose the most appropriate ones for their work and their situation.

We should never forget that all CLD is built on the principle that learners and communities are at the heart of this work - it is their aims that the work focuses on. We can't talk about outcomes in this field without recognising that it's the outcomes that people who take part want to achieve that are most important.

A guide to the document

This document aims to promote a better shared understanding of what we mean by outcomes in CLD.

First of all, it answers the question, what are outcomes? It sets out what we mean by outcomes and explains that we can often see changes come about both more quickly and over the long-term (we call these outcomes intermediate and end outcomes).

Secondly, the document sets out to explain what the outcomes in CLD are. Taking as its starting point the general description from the first section, it gives details of how the ideas of intermediate outcomes and end outcomes apply in CLD.

Next, the document gives examples of the wider outcomes of community learning and development. It explains that though CLD mainly aims to achieve or contribute to end outcomes (and so improve quality of life for individuals and communities), this can be difficult to identify and record. However, the document gives examples of a range of areas where we know, from research and experience, that CLD can achieve or contribute to end outcomes.

The most important part of the document deals with the framework of outcomes for community learning and development. This sets out the intermediate outcomes of CLD - those that practitioners, managers and people who take part are most likely to be able to see and value. The framework sets out the outcomes of CLD in two sections - those related to personal development (for both adults and young people) and those related to building community capacity.

Finally, the document asks what next? It explains how the framework links to other tools which are used in CLD - in particular How Good is our Community Learning & Development? and the Learning Evaluation and Planning (LEAP) process - and how we will continue to develop work in this area.

What are outcomes?

Outcomes are the changes that come about as a result of us taking action.

When we decide something needs to happen, we set aside resources to do it (these are called the inputs), we apply different methods to be able to do it (the processes), and achieve things, like an activity we have delivered or something we have produced (the outputs). The outcomes are the changes that happen as a result of that chain of events.

In any activity, some of the outcomes may happen fairly quickly and as a direct result of the action we have taken. However, we know that sometimes the results of what we do are seen in the longer-term, and might be the result of various factors - our action might be only one of these.

We can think of this range of outcomes as the 'ripples' on a pond when a stone is dropped in. Outcomes that come about straight away tend to be closer to the action we originally took.

But the further we move away from the action we originally took, the more difficult it is to identify and measure the outcomes. In the example of the stone being thrown in the pond, we know that, as the ripples move outwards, they'll be more and more affected by other things - like the effect of the wind.

In this document we've used two terms to highlight the difference between these two kinds of outcomes. We've called these intermediate outcomes and end outcomes.

We see being able to focus on outcomes as a priority - we want to know about what has actually changed as a result of our actions. If we focus just on the processes or the outputs then we have no way of knowing if they are effective or not.

What are outcomes in CLD?

The general statements about outcomes on the previous page apply to CLD. Outcomes in CLD are simply the changes that come about as the result of any kind of CLD activities.

People who work in CLD will very clearly understand that their work with people and groups is likely to be over the long-term. It can often take a long time to work with people to build their skills and confidence, particularly when they have had a bad experience with education, or they've not had their views listened to before.

Because of this, it's very important that we understand that there are intermediate outcomes and end outcomes in CLD too.

The intermediate outcomes of CLD will be more closely linked to the CLD itself. For example:

- adult learners taking part in a numeracy group may become more confident (and, hopefully, better at understanding and using numbers);

- young people campaigning for a local skate park may become better at working together; or

- a network of community groups in a local area might take action together on the issues that are important to them.

These achievements are very important but they also lay the foundation for wider changes over the long-term.

In CLD we would expect that these outcomes will then cause further 'ripples', and that wider outcomes will come about which improve the quality of life of individuals and the wider communities in which they live. These end outcomes of CLD will be longer-term and more difficult to identify and measure.

However, they will be the outcomes that people - including communities themselves -will be most interested in. For example:

- an adult learner who gained confidence gets more involved in their child's education, which leads to their child achieving more at school, college or university;

- a young person who can work well with other people will be more likely to get a job; or

- community groups which work together can use their influence on the local council to improve services in their area.

The most important part of this document is the framework starting on page 11, which focuses on the intermediate outcomes of CLD. These outcomes are those that we would expect to see arising more or less directly from CLD activities.

The diagram on page 25 sets out how we see the process of delivering outcomes in CLD.

Wider outcomes of CLD

The purpose of CLD work is to improve the quality of life for individuals and communities - what we call in this document end outcomes.

These end outcomes - particularly when relevant to CLD - should be related to the aims of communities themselves. In other words, they should be related to the changes that people want to see in their lives and the lives of those around them.

The end outcomes will also be of interest to organisations and partnerships that are trying to achieve significant changes across whole areas and communities - like community planning partnerships.

We would suggest that in most cases it is not reasonable for people working in CLD to be totally responsible for end outcomes. It is difficult to ask people who provide CLD services or activities to provide evidence that they directly cause these effects.

Larger organisations and increasingly partnerships are more able to focus on end outcomes. But even for these organisations, it will often be very difficult to link these wider outcomes with CLD activities. It is more reasonable to look for end outcomes as the overall result of a whole range of activities - for example, at the level of community planning partnership structures.

Highlighted on the next page are some examples of areas where we might expect CLD to contribute to end outcomes that are particularly important to the Scottish Executive. This is not meant to be a full list and obviously there may be other outcomes that communities themselves would want to see.

How directly CLD intermediate outcomes link to these end outcomes depends on the type of work involved. In some specific cases there might be a very clear link, but in others there will be a more general contribution. Let's take improved health as an example.

A community health development project might have a direct outcome by improving people's health within the population the project is aimed at. The project would aim to measure this outcome.

Research shows that someone who takes part in learning is more likely to have improved health. We can assume that, because of this, a community-based adult learning project will therefore make a contribution to this outcome -though it would not be sensible to aim to measure this at this level.

However, it is vital that all those people involved understand and are able to talk about the contribution that CLD can and does make to end outcomes. This will help us to:

- work with communities to understand how support and opportunities through CLD can contribute to achieving their aims; and

- make the links between CLD and wider outcomes for communities set in strategic documents like community plans and regeneration outcome agreements.

Outcomes related to the economy and employment

These might include:

- improving employability (that is, developing people's skills so they have a better chance of getting a job);

- higher levels of employment;

- improving labour-market position (for example, getting a better paid or more skilled job);

- higher levels of activity in the social economy; and

- improving people's attitudes toward setting up businesses and being enterprising (for example, towards being creative and taking appropriate risks).

Outcomes related to learning and education

These might include:

- improving children's performance at school;

- lower levels of children playing truant and getting excluded from school; and

- getting more people to take part and progress in lifelong learning, including further and higher education.

Outcomes related to getting involved in democracy

These might include:

- getting more people to take part in democratic processes (for example, standing and voting in elections, or lobbying local politicians); and

- more consultation between democratic representatives (for example, local councillors, or members of the UK or Scottish parliaments) and communities.

Outcomes related to health

These might include:

- improving health;

- higher levels of physical activity; and

- providing better support to members of the community.

Other wider outcomes of CLD

There are other areas where the end outcomes of CLD can also be important. These include the following.

- Outcomes related to community safety, such as reduced crime or fear of crime (including antisocial behaviour).

- Outcomes related to building more integrated communities, such as less discrimination and celebrating people's identities and differences.

- Outcomes related to taking part in arts, sports and culture.

- Outcomes related to the physical and natural environment.

The framework of outcomes for CLD

Achieving the end outcomes set out in the previous section might be mainly why CLD services are provided but it can be very difficult to identify and measure the contribution that CLD makes to them.

We are suggesting that in most cases CLD providers and people who take part will find it more helpful to concentrate on the intermediate outcomes of their work. As a result, this framework of outcomes for CLD focuses on those outcomes. They are the changes that practitioners, managers and those people taking part will be most likely to be able to identify and to record, where this is appropriate.

Principles and values of the framework

Before setting out the framework, it's important to make an overall statement that supports it. You can't define CLD just in terms of the outcomes that are produced - it's also about how the process happens.

In particular, this framework is based on the understanding that there's a common definition of community learning and development in 'Working and Learning Together', which is supported by common principles and approaches. The principles of CLD set out in 'Working and Learning Together' are as follows.

- 'Empowerment' - encouraging people to take control of, or have a say in, decisions that affect them.

- 'Participation' - giving people every opportunity to get involved in learning and acting with others.

- 'Inclusion, equality of opportunity and anti-discrimination' - giving everyone a chance to be involved, whatever their background or abilities, and actively challenging discrimination.

- 'Self-determination' - allowing people to make their own choices about what they do.

- 'Partnership' - achieving more by encouraging everyone with an interest to work together.

These principles also support the framework, and the outcomes set out in it.

Personal development and building community capacity

There are two aspects to the framework, focussing on:

- personal development; and

- building community capacity.

However, much - if not all - CLD practice will cut across these two areas. In other words, for any particular piece of CLD work, you might be able to identify outcomes from across these areas - and we would very strongly encourage you to do so.

Three national priorities for CLD

Similarly, it's tempting to see the personal development outcomes relating more closely to work from the first two national priorities for CLD:

- Achievement through learning for adults.

- Achievement through learning for young people.

And the second part of the framework clearly relates most closely to work on the third national priority for CLD which is:

- Achievement through building community capacity.

However, we want to recognise and encourage thinking across these boundaries. In any kind of CLD work it may be perfectly appropriate to choose any of the outcomes in any part of the framework.

CLD is about personal development

CLD supports people to become confident individuals.

Through being involved in CLD, adults and young people:

- are more confident;

- feel better about themselves;

- expect to achieve more;

- are more able to do things for themselves;

- are more able to take responsibility for themselves and their actions;

- are more able to understand and discuss their own values and beliefs; and

- are more able to understand and discuss their needs and aims.

CLD supports people to become effective contributors.

Through being involved in CLD, adults and young people are more able to:

- communicate with other people;

- solve problems and make decisions;

- work with other people;

- form and develop good relationships; and

- use their skills and experience to support and lead others.

CLD supports people to become responsible citizens.

Through being involved in CLD, adults and young people are:

- more able to discuss and understand complicated issues that affect their community, society and the wider world;

- more able to plan and take action on issues for their community, society and the wider world;

- more able to make sure that their views and opinions are heard and taken on board;

- more aware and understanding of different people's experiences, abilities, backgrounds and beliefs; and

- better able to get on with people who have different experiences, abilities, backgrounds and beliefs.

CLD supports people to become successful learners.

Through being involved in CLD, adults and young people:

- have more belief in their ability to learn;

- are more motivated to learn;

- are more able to identify and understand what they need and want to learn;

- understand different ways to learn;

- are more able to choose ways of learning that suit them in different situations;

- are more able to take control of how and what they learn;

- are more able to share their learning with others;

- are more able to use what they have learned in different situations in their lives;

- are more able to use information and communications technology (such as computers); and

- are more able to use their skills with numbers.

CLD is about building community capacity

CLD supports people to be confident, skilled and active members of the community.

Through being involved in CLD, adults and young people:

- are more confident about working with other people in their community;

- have more skills and knowledge they can use in their community;

- are more able to use what they have learned in different situations in their community; and

- are more able to see how things in their community can change for the better.

CLD supports communities to be active and have more influence.

Through being involved in CLD, adults and young people are more able to:

- make links with other people in their community and build working relationships with them; and

- take action together on the issues that are important to them.

Through support from CLD, community organisations:

- have more influence on the issues that are important to them.

CLD supports community organisations to get access to resources and to deliver services effectively.

Through support from CLD, community organisations are more able to:

- access resources (like meeting places, equipment and money) that allow them to work on the issues they think are important;

- control assets (such as buildings and equipment) that allow them to work on the issues they think are important; and

- deliver services, where this is the most appropriate way of dealing with an issue they think is important.

CLD helps community organisations plan, manage and assess their work effectively.

Through support from CLD, community organisations are more able to:

- find out about and understand issues for the community;

- develop a plan of action on issues the community has identified;

- manage themselves well; and

- learn lessons from what they do and act on them.

CLD supports community organisations to include a wide range of people in their work.

Through support from CLD, community organisations:

- are more aware of different cultures, backgrounds and beliefs within their community;

- value and use the positive contributions of people who have a wide range of experiences, abilities, backgrounds and beliefs; and

- are more able to work well with other organisations which represent people who have different experiences, abilities, backgrounds and beliefs.

CLD supports productive networks and relationships.

Through support from CLD, community organisations are more able to:

- make links with organisations from other communities and build working relationships with them; and

- develop and keep working relationships with other organisations and services in their area.

Core skills

Some of the outcomes highlighted on pages 14 and 15 are related to core skills. These include being able to:

- communicate with other people;

- solve problems and make decisions;

- work with others;

- use ICT (such as computers); and

- use skills with numbers.

Where it's useful, we can be more specific about the outcomes we might expect which are relevant to these skills.

Through being involved in CLD, adult learners and young people are more able to:

- communicate with other people by:

- listening and observing effectively;

- speaking so others can understand;

- reading and understanding what they are reading; and

- expressing information, ideas and feelings in writing.

- solve problems and make decisions by:

- finding out about things for themselves;

- thinking about a range of possible solutions in a particular situation; and

- deciding on the best solution or action to take in a particular situation.

- work with other people by:

- negotiating with other people;

- sorting out disagreements;

- co-operating with other people; and

- reflecting and learning from experience.

- use ICT (such as computers) by:

- using ICT to manage information; and

- using ICT to learn and practise skills.

- use their skills with numbers by:

- understanding and using their skills with numbers;

- applying their skills with numbers to solve problems;

- understanding information which is presented as numbers; and

- presenting information as numbers.

Specific learning outcomes

Personal development through CLD can also include developing skills and knowledge in specific areas. Usually this will be the main topic that a learning opportunity sets out to cover or will relate to the particular issue that a community group wants to take action on.

Because these are so varied - from skills for being involved in a management group or committee, to local history, to healthy eating, to political awareness, to local planning law - it's not possible to list them all here. However, these are also important outcomes that can be identified and valued.

The Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework (SCQF) is a useful tool if you are designing learning with specific learning outcomes. It can help you focus on what you want learners to be able to do.

What next?

Improving understanding of the outcomes of community learning and development is important but it's just a first step. We also need to be able to provide evidence that those outcomes are actually taking place.

This is partly important because we have to provide evidence to policy makers and those who provide funding that investing in CLD work brings about real change.

However, a far more important reason is that we have to be able to support those individuals and groups we're working with to identify and appreciate the outcomes they are achieving, whether that's increased confidence, new skills, or a greater say over the decisions that affect them.

That means that focusing on outcomes must be one of the most important parts of CLD.

We are committed to making sure this happens. In particular, we're working with others to make sure that this framework links to the other tools that are available to help people plan and assess the effect of their work.

Links with Learning Evaluation and Planning (LEAP)

At the heart of LEAP is a process for planning, the first stage of which involves identifying what we want to change (desired outcomes) and how we will know that it has happened.

To help people to do this, LEAP offers a series of indicator development tables. These tables offer some suggestions of what outcomes might result from CLD work. Our framework aims to set out those outcomes in more detail. This would give someone who is using LEAP a quick and easy list of possible outcomes.

We are currently working with the Scottish Community Development Centre to develop an updated version of LEAP - taking into account the framework of outcomes and the revised How Good is our Community Learning & Development?. This is to make sure that it continues to be an important resource for planning that focuses on outcomes and the needs and aims of people who take part.

Links with 'How Good Is Our Community Learning & Development?'

How Good Is Our Community Learning & Development? provides a framework to help practitioners and managers assess the CLD they provide (we call this self-evaluation). The information gained from this self-evaluation can be used to improve services.

That means CLD providers need to know about the outcomes they are bringing about - because if they don't, how can they know they're successful?

Because of this, How Good is our Community Learning & Development? says that an important way to know if you are delivering a good-quality service is if you can show that you're having an effect. This is highlighted in particular in quality indicator 2.1, which focuses on the 'Impact of the learning experience on individual participants (young people and adults)' and quality indicator 4.1, which focuses on the 'Impact of capacity building on the local community'.

Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education (HMIE) have used a number of headings in quality indicators 2.1 and 4.1 to help people to think about the themes in which they should be looking for impact. HMIE have used the term 'impact' in the same sense as we have used intermediate outcome in this document.

In quality indicator 2.1, 'Impact of the learning experience on individual participants (young people and adults)', the headings used which relate to this framework are:

- Successful learners

- Confident individuals

- Responsible citizens

- Effective contributors

In quality indicator 4.1, 'Impact of capacity building on the local community', the headings used which relate to this framework are that community groups should 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'.

These headings have also been used for this framework to make it easier to make links with How Good is our Community Learning & Development?

Put simply, this means that organisations can use the framework to explore in more detail what kinds of outcomes they want to achieve, and work towards meeting the expectations set out in How Good is our Community Learning & Development?

We are currently working with HMIE to develop a resource that helps people to develop a system to look at the effects of their work. This will build on quality indicators 2.1 and 4.1 and link to the outcomes identified in this framework.

LEAP Manual

(Extract from revised version, Scottish Community Development Centre for Scottish Government, 2008)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.[70] 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.

- 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.

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.

The Worked Examples document provides illustrations of this framework in practice.

iii. Being change and outcome-focused[71]

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.

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'.

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.

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.

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:

A participatory organisation looks more like this:

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.

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.

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.

Chapter 7: Purpose, Ethics and Competence

Contents

References

Introduction - Purpose, Ethics and Competence

Reclaiming Social Purpose: framing the discussion

(Ian Martin, from Reclaiming Purpose in Community Education, 2008)

Competent Practice: using the CLD Competences to reflect, develop and progress

(CLD Standards Council, 2009)

CLD Code of Ethics

(CLD Standards Council, 2010)

References

Core texts

Competent Practice: using the CLD Competences to reflect, develop and progress (2009) &

CLD Code of Ethics (2010) (Both CLD Standards Council)

Reclaiming Social Purpose in Community Education (The Edinburgh papers 2008, Reclaiming Social Purpose Group) - Reclaiming social purpose: framing the discussion: Reclaiming Social Purpose in Community Education: pages 9-12

Related Content - main references

Challenging Practice (CLD Standards Council, 2009)

Using the competence framework (guides for practitioners, leaders, employers, trainers, and working in partnership (CLD Standards Council, 2009)

A Code of Ethics for Community Learning and Development: Report on Consultation ((CLD Standards Council, 2010)

The Voluntary code of practice for Social Enterprise in Scotland (Social enterprise network, 2013)

CLD Code of Ethics: A Youth Work Commentary (CLD Standards Council, YouthLink Scotland, 2011)

Community-led Health for All (SCDC/CHEX/NHS Health Scotland, 2012)

LGBT Charter of Rights - Award Standards (LGBT Youth Scotland, 2013)

Digitally Agile National Principles (YouthLink Scotland, Learning Link Scotland, Scottish Community Development Centre, 2014)

Ethical Practice, Competent Practitioners (CLD Standards Council, 2015)

Purpose, Ethics and Competence

Introduction by Mike Naulty

When does adapting to change become the abandonment of principles? Over this period there has been concern expressed, particularly in academic quarters in articles such as Reclaiming Social Purpose in Community Education (2008) that CLD was losing its sense of social purpose with a move towards a more consumerist view of learning accompanied by greater managerialism and auditing of policy delivery and a move away from notions of community-based emancipatory education for democratic renewal. This view has often been associated with distaste for "community learning and development" as a term and a sense that "community education" expressed a more liberating concept of practice.

This chapter explores the rationale for, and purpose of, CLD as a model of practice in the context of the debate outlined above. With the advent of the CLD Standards Council a different approach has been emerging, which reasserts a value-based approach to practice, while linking this to a strong focus on competences, themselves seen as embedded in ethical principles. The CLD Standards Council reviewed the previous 1996 CeVe "key elements and competences" and developed a refreshed and updated competence framework through engagement with the field. To promote and support all stakeholders in CLD with the development of values-based, "competent" practice, the Standards Council produced Using the Competences for the Community Learning and Development Sector in Scotland: A Resource Pack (2009). In this guidance it stated:

Competent CLD workers will ensure that their work supports social change and social justice and is based on the values of CLD. Their approach is collaborative, anti-discriminatory and equalities-focused and they work with diverse individuals, communities of place or interest and organisations to achieve change.

A Code of Ethics for Community Learning and Development, also developed through extensive dialogue with the field, followed in 2011. Use of this has been supported by CLD Code of Ethics: A Youth Work Commentary produced by the CLD Standards Council and YouthLink Scotland, and more recently by Ethical Practice, Competent Practitioners. Building on the debates articulated in Chapter 2, the CLD Standards Council is developing a model of professional practice for the CLD sector that emphasises inclusiveness and social justice, based on values, a code of ethics and the rigour of a set of robust competences. The Standards Council is not alone in seeking to redefine what is meant by "a profession" or "professionalism"; for example, both the General Teaching Council Scotland and the Scottish Social Services Council are seeking to address some similar issues. CLD's central focus on empowerment and primary commitment to participants and communities gives the challenge of developing an appropriate and viable version of professionalism both a particular edge and a pressing importance.

What this model of practice does not do, of course, is to dissolve the tensions inherent in the relationship between CLD practice and its contexts. Indeed factors including the continuing squeeze on public expenditure, the focus of local authorities on delivering "outcomes" through tightly-controlled processes and the contract culture that forms much of the environment for third sector organisations, all alongside a growing recognition of the need for communities to be active partners in decision making and service delivery, have contributed to a heightening of these pressures. Often it is by negotiating action based on the values underpinning CLD within and against these kinds of constraints that good and challenging practice is forged; but if the space for negotiation is too limited this becomes increasingly rare.

New ways of creating space for practice to develop are also apparent. The increasing focus on community empowerment, explored particularly in Chapters 8 and 11, is one example of this. Another is for CLD practitioners to make links with the promotion of human rights and the use of human rights legislation. LGBT Youth Scotland, an organisation with a clear CLD focus, developed and utilised the LGBT Charter of Rights as a tool to support organisations to include LGBT people and embed equality principles in their work. Digital technologies open new opportunities for CLD practice while presenting both technical and ethical challenges for practitioners. The development of Digitally Agile National Principles by a partnership of national CLD agencies shows the application of the model of practice based on values, ethics and competences to these challenges, suggesting a growing professional maturity. Practitioners will continue to encounter the challenges of addressing the tensions of professional autonomy; the initiatives being taken to provide support for them in doing this are both important in themselves and as a part of the growth of CLD as a profession that can govern itself. In this context, the task of "reclaiming social purpose" can be seen as one that needs to be continually re-addressed.

Reclaiming Social Purpose: Framing the Discussion

(Ian Martin, from Reclaiming Purpose in Community Education, 2008)

The title of today's meeting suggests that we may have lost something - or perhaps that something in us may have been lost; and the fact that it is called a 'symposium' suggests that this a shared concern and that there is a collective determination to do something about it. I see my task as simply helping to get this process going.

The Scottish-born philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre (1985) has characterised institutions - and, by extension, vocations and professions - as 'embodied arguments'. This idea may be a useful starting point for us today:

"Every institution is … the embodiment of a historical argument and the expression of a set of values. Institutions survive by a continuous adaptation of their argumentative base, a continuing fulfilment of their original argument in a new context. … At some point, of course, an argument may become redundant or irrelevant, and the institution founded on it will itself become redundant or will have to reorganise itself around a different and more relevant position."

(Craig, 2003)

How does this notion of the 'embodied argument' apply to our discussions today? It seems to me that the idea of social purpose remains an important part of the 'embodied argument' of community-based educational work, and why we choose to do it. My own view is that what we are talking about is, essentially, a way of making a particular kind of politics pedagogical. Social purpose education has always stood for purposeful intervention in the interests of social and political change: change towards more justice, more equality and more democracy. Traditions of this kind exist in most popular histories and cultures - in the rich world and the poor world, North and South. Briefly, social purpose education can be characterised in the following terms:

- participants/learners are treated as citizens and social actors

- curriculum reflects shared social and political interests

- knowledge is actively and purposefully constructed to advance these collective interests

- pedagogy is based on dialogue rather than transmission

- critical understanding is linked to social action and political engagement

- education is always a key resource in the broader struggle for social change.

In our own particular Scottish context and tradition the notion of social purpose has been closely linked to democratic process. In fact, the Scottish version of community education was rooted in a distinctively social democratic way of thinking. Whatever the pros and cons of the Alexander Report, it did take the notion of democracy and learning for democracy a good deal more seriously than we seem to today (in spite of everything else that's been happening in Scotland of late). It also accepted that this kind of learning for 'pluralist democracy' could be an unpredictable and risky business:

"Society is now less certain about the values it should uphold and tolerates a wide range. Individual freedom to question the value of established practices and institutions and to propose new forms is part of our democratic heritage. To maintain this freedom, resources should not be put at the disposal only of those who conform but ought reasonably to be made available to all for explicit educational purposes. The motives of those who provide education need not necessarily be identified with the motives of those for whom it is provided."

(Scottish Education Department, 1975)

We seem to have strayed a long way from this. That is why, just over a year ago, some of us circulated an 'Open letter: Whatever happened to learning for democracy?' We will be talking about this and subsequent developments later on today. Part of the embodied argument of our work, which we are now in danger of losing, lies precisely in nurturing the democratic impulse harnessed to a social justice agenda. This, it seems to me, is our distinctive vocation, ie using 'vocation' in the sense of finding a meaning for life in the work we do. Perhaps what we now really need is to rediscover our vocation.

Noam Chomsky, in his book Power and Prospects, makes the distinction between 'visions' and 'goals'. I think this may be useful in framing our discussions today. Chomsky (1996) says:

"By visions, I mean the conception of a future society that animates what we actually do, a society in which a decent human being might want to live. By goals, I mean the choices and tasks that are within reach, that we will pursue one way or another guided by a vision that may be distant and hazy."

He goes on to encourage us to reassess our vocation in these terms:

"An animating vision must rest on some conception of human nature, of what's good for people, of their needs and rights, of the aspects of their nature that should be nurtured, encouraged and permitted to flourish. …. This much, at least, is true of people who regard themselves as moral agents, not monsters - who care about the effects of what they do or fail to do."

For me, maintaining such an 'animating vision' for our work as 'moral agents' means thinking as systematically and consistently as we can against the grain of the neo-liberal common sense of our times. This brings to mind the title of Mike Newman's (2006) recent book, Teaching Defiance. If, as the global pro-democracy movement proclaims, 'Another world is possible', then the dispositions of this world, the world in which we now live, must, indeed, be defied and resisted. And, incidentally, Newman seems to be insisting that there can be no defiance without teaching - as distinct from learning. So, if we wish to think of our work in terms of what I have called the 'democratic impulse harnessed to a social justice agenda', the question is this: What is the vision of a future society that animates what we actually do, and how do we begin the messy business of making the choices and undertaking the tasks this implies?

This brings me to my last point, which is about language and learning. In an important book called Beyond Learning, Gert Biesta (2007) seeks to recover, or re-invent, what he claims has been lost as the new language of learning has replaced the old language of education - and we may pause here to think, in particular, of what may have been lost in translation as 'community education' has morphed into 'community learning and development'. The nub of Biesta's argument is this:

"… the new language of learning facilitates an economic understanding of the process of education, one in which the learner is supposed to know what he or she wants, and where a provider is simply there to meet the needs of the learner (or,in more crude terms: to satisfy the customer). …. [This] makes it very difficult to raise questions about the context and purpose of education, other than in terms of what 'the consumer' or 'the market' wants. This … poses a threat to educational professionalism and ultimately also undermines democratic deliberation about the ends of education."

Biesta draws our attention to the crucial role of language in all this. The way we talk about our work (or choose not to talk about it) helps to make it what it is (or what it isn't). This is one of the real dangers of the kind of managerial and corporatised jargon we are now expected to use. But democracy and social justice cannot be 'delivered' like a pizza. The point is that our work is partly constituted by the language we use to describe it and engage in it; and it becomes imbued with the values and purposes - and, indeed, the errors - we bring to this process. To a significant extent, therefore, we make our work what it is by the way we talk about it. Let us bear that in mind today.

Ian Martin, University of Edinburgh

Competent Practice: Using the CLD Competences to Reflect, Develop and Progress

(CLD Standards Council, 2009)

On behalf of the Standards Council, I am pleased to introduce this guide to the refreshed CLD Competences. The guide is part of the Competency Toolkit we have designed to support the innovative and creative CLD practice being developed across Scotland.

The impetus for refreshing the CLD Competences was the recognition of our changing sector, which has presented new challenges and opportunities, and therefore altered the needs of practitioners, organisations, learning providers and the communities that we all work with.

The Competences form a key part of the quality assurance process for CLD. They can be used by individuals to reflect on their own practice; by leaders to strengthen their organisations; by training providers to inform the design and delivery of future learning programmes, and with our partners to support effective partnership working.

So, wherever you work in the context of CLD, I trust you will find this guide helpful and thought-provoking - and I encourage you to check back regularly for the development of other resources at www.cldstandardscouncil.org.uk

Rory Macleod

Director

The Standards Council for CLD for Scotland

The CLD Standards Council is the new professional body for everyone active in community learning and development in Scotland and was founded in March 2009.

We have over 50 practitioners from across the CLD sector involved in the work of the Council ensuring that a representative and diverse range of stakeholder interests are actively involved in developing and evaluating our work. Enthusiastic and committed members are channelling their energies into developing CLD practice through our four committees: Executive, Approval of Training Programmes, Continuing Professional Development and Registration Committees.

Further, in developing our work, we are committed to sustained discussion with fieldwork practitioners.

For more details of how you can get involved or learn more about the Council's work, current committee members and up to date news and events in the community learning and development sector please visit our website: www.cldstandardscouncil.org.uk

Our Core Responsibilities

The CLD Standards Council will work with the sector to establish and maintain high standards of practice in CLD across Scotland. Our aim is to work with all everyone in the sector to:

- Deliver a professional approvals structure for qualifications, courses and development opportunities for everyone involved in CLD

- Consider and establish a registration system available to practitioners delivering and active in CLD practice

- Develop and establish a model of supported induction, CPD and training opportunities

Continuing Professional Development

We are committed to continuous learning and the transformative effect it has on individuals, organisations and communities. We believe in celebrating learning, relishing challenge and reflecting critically on our practice. We aim to embed a culture of learning in our sector.

The Purpose of the Competences

The competences are not a checklist to be completed; they are a tool to help develop practice. They can be used to:

- build capacity for effective partnership working

- enable outcome focused practice

- link the academic and practice worlds effectively

- link development to learner aspirations

The framework brings together the knowledge, skills and organisational and personal characteristics that make up competence in CLD.

A PowerPoint presentation exploring the CLD Competency Framework in full, including descriptions of the purpose, context and indicators for each of the seven competences can be downloaded free from the Standards Council website.

www.cldstandardscouncil.org.uk

Values of CLD

Self-determination - respecting the individual and valuing the right of people to make their own choices.

Inclusion - valuing equality of both opportunity and outcome, and challenging discriminatory practice.

Empowerment - increasing the ability of individuals and groups to influence issues that affect them and their communities through individual and/ or collective action.

Working collaboratively - maximising collaborative working relationships with the many agencies which contribute to CLD and/or which CLD contributes to, including collaborative work with participants, learners and communities.

Promotion of learning as a lifelong activity - ensuring that individuals are aware of a range of learning opportunities and are able to access relevant options at any stage of their life.

Competent CLD workers

Competent CLD workers will ensure that their work supports social change and social justice and is based on the values of CLD. Their approach is collaborative, anti-discriminatory and equalities-focused and they work with diverse individuals, communities of place or interest and organisations to achieve change. They can influence or lead people, understanding when this is or is not appropriate.

Central to their practice is challenging discrimination and its consequences and working with individuals and communities to shape learning and development activities that enhance quality of life and sphere of influence. They have good interpersonal and listening skills and their practice demonstrates that they value and respect the knowledge, experience and aspirations of those involved. They will initiate, develop and maintain relationships with local people and groups and work with people using:

- non-formal contact;

- informal support; and

- informal and formal learning and development opportunities

Competent CLD workers will also have self-management skills that are appropriate to the level at which they are practising. While these are not detailed in the competences, they are covered through the SCQF framework and the National Occupational Standards.

You need to be clear about the intention of any intervention you undertake and how this will support social change and how it relates to the outcomes you want to achieve.

Critically reflective CLD workers

CLD practitioners are aware of their values and principles and critically reflect on their practice and experience so that they integrate their knowledge, skills, values and attitudes and use these effectively in their work. They use self-assessment, participative processes and evidence of the impact of their work to plan and manage their activities.

As a reflective practitioner you take responsibility for your own learning and seek to develop your skills, knowledge and key attributes. You are able to choose the practice role that is suitable to the situation.

The Five Key Attributes

- Knowledge and understanding

Training, theory and practice provide the basis of acquiring new knowledge and growing understanding

- CLD values and principles

The values and principles of CLD are fundamental in ensuring both the social justice outcomes of CLD and the skills needed and the processes chosen. These are:

- Self-determination

- Inclusion

- Empowerment

- Working collaboratively

- Promotion of learning as a lifelong activity

- Attitude and behaviour

Personal development in the form of the focus, self management, effective communication and presentation, responsibility and accountability, the ability to influence and to deal with complexity, change and diversity and self development of practitioners in a range of relationships and partnerships

- Skills and processes

Interpersonal and listening skills and the ability to negotiate with and influence people where appropriate are essential. As is the ability to initiate, develop and maintain relationships with other professionals and with local people and groups and work with people using:

- non-formal contact;

- informal support, and

- informal and formal learning and development opportunities

- Reflection and action

So that you integrate your knowledge, skills, values and attitudes with your experience and use self assessment, participative processes and evidence of the impact of your work to plan and manage your activities and identify your learning and development needs.

Competence: Know and understand the community in which we work

Purpose: so that practitioners can work with individuals and communities to identify and plan action based on knowledge of some of the internal and external influences at work.

Context: understanding the context within which our work takes place will be based upon our knowledge of social, political and wider environmental influences on communities. Competent CLD practitioners are aware of the relevant global and local factors that impact on the community with which they work.

As a competent practitioner with an understanding of the community/ environment in which you work, you will be able to demonstrate that you can:

- conduct an external community/ environment assessment, considering the political, economic and social context of the community;

- investigate internal views and information relating to the area within which you work;

- critically analyse internal and external factors impacting on individuals and communities;

- identify needs, assets and opportunities using relevant information and evidence;

- involve other stakeholders in identifying and agreeing needs and local priorities;

- evidence an awareness of challenges relating to barriers to participation within the local community/environment;

- ascertain conflicting needs and demands.

Competence: Build and maintain relationships with individuals and groups

Purpose: so that people's ability and opportunities to work together are enhanced.

Context: CLD is built upon the interactions between people, be these community members, activists or those working with organisations offering support. These relationships provide the basis to support learning and engage people in action to support change within their communities.

As a competent practitioner able to build and maintain relationships with individuals and groups you will be able to demonstrate that you can:

- seek out and engage with individuals, groups and communities;

- practise in different roles, such as facilitating, supporting, leading, advocating, that are appropriate to the work in which you are involved;

- use informal dialogue in individual relationships and within groups;

- handle challenges and opportunities constructively;

- understand and deal with the underlying dynamics at work within relationships and groups;

- work towards the resolution of conflict;

- recognise the power dynamic and action needed to equalise power relationships in decision making;

- facilitate endings for individual and group relationships where appropriate.

Competence: Provide learning and development opportunities in a range of contexts

Purpose: so that people can identify and achieve their individual and collective goals.

Context: CLD is based on providing learning and development opportunities that are accessible and responsive to individual and community priorities. These opportunities create personal and community benefits such as improving self-confidence and skills and enhancing employment opportunities, as well as supporting health and well-being, community regeneration and individual and community activity.

As a competent practitioner able to provide learning and development opportunities in a range of contexts you will be able to demonstrate that you can:

- provide education and development opportunities that are developed in dialogue with individuals and communities;

- generate learning opportunities that will stimulate personal and community change;

- tackle barriers to participation;

- develop, design and deliver learner-centred programmes;

- take advantage of learning and development opportunities in everyday situations;

- use appropriate methods and techniques;

- support progression and transition;

- use appropriately targeted methods to promote learning and development opportunities.

Competence: Facilitate and promote community empowerment

Purpose: so that people can take individual and collective action to bring about change.

Context: CLD practice is built on critical analysis of internal and external factors that influence individual and community priorities and has a distinctive role in working with people to take action to identify and influence decisions that impact on the quality of individual and community life.

As a competent practitioner able to facilitate and promote community empowerment you will be able to demonstrate that you can support individuals, groups and communities to:

- analyse and understand power dynamics and decision-making processes;

- use community action as a means to achieve change;

- be inclusive and involve the wider community;

- interact within and across communities;

- participate in decision-making structures and processes;

- campaign for change;

- identify and manage community assets.

Competence: Organise and manage resources

Purpose: so that individuals, communities and organisations can achieve effective management of community assets and resources, services and organisations.

Context: CLD practitioners need to understand the culture of organisations, the responsibilities of those involved and how organisation and management styles, practices and governance relate to sustainable organisations.

As a competent practitioner with an understanding of planning, organising and managing resources you will be able to demonstrate that you can:

- develop and plan programmes and project activities;

- manage and monitor programmes and project activities;

- promote and manage a culture based on equality;

- organise, deploy and monitor resources effectively;

- recruit, manage and support people (staff, volunteers);

- identify and access funding/ resources;

- understand and manage risk;

- interpret and apply relevant legislation (e.g. equalities, Child Protection, Health and Safety).

Competence: Develop and support collaborative working

Purpose: so that people can enhance decision making and collaborative activities that impact on the quality of life of individuals and communities.

Context: CLD practitioners need to understand, recognise and value the benefits of collaboration and build appropriate and effective alliances, networks and other forms of working together.

As a competent practitioner able to develop and support collaborative working you will be able to demonstrate that you can:

- develop and support collaborative working within your own organisation;

- initiate collaborative working with relevant organisations;

- participate in partnership and collaborative working;

- support community participation in partnership and collaborative working;

- clarify and articulate the role of your own organisation and that of others;

- negotiate and agree roles in collaborative and joint work, taking a leadership role where appropriate;

- identify, put in place or provide appropriate training and development opportunities for collaborative working;

- challenge and be challenged on issues undermining effective partnership working being aware of tensions and conflicts;

- manage the ending of collaborative and joint relationships.

Competence: Evaluate and inform practice

Purpose: so that robust evidence can sustain, inform, influence and change policy and practice.

Context: Competent CLD practitioners require to build evidence-based practice based on an appreciation of the value of research and evaluation. They need knowledge of the methods and techniques commonly used and an understanding of the current issues and challenges in evaluation, quality assurance and performance measurement in CLD.

As a competent practitioner with an ability to evaluate and inform practice you will be able to demonstrate that you can:

- understand the differences between research, evaluation and associated concepts;

- employ appropriate tools, frameworks and methodologies in the evaluation of practice;

- draw on evaluation findings to inform your own practice;

- use participative evaluative processes;

- promote and support community led research and evaluation;

- analyse policy, research and evaluation evidence;

- learn from other perspectives and challenge your own assumptions;

- interpret and use evidence related to outcomes and impact;

- present evidence to a range of audiences using appropriate tools and technologies.

How can I use the Competences?

The Standards Council in conjunction with Linked Work and Training Trust has produced a series of Competence How to Guides for the following groups:

- Practitioners

- Leaders

- Employers

- Learning Providers

- In Partnership

The Guides are available to download from the Competence section of the Standards Council website.

CLD Code of Ethics

(CLD Standards Council, 2010)

Community Learning and Development (CLD) is a field of professional practice constituted by the adult education, community development and youth work professions. While their practices and the constituencies they serve may differ, they have in common a commitment to their constituents as their primary clients, and to the power of informal education to transform situations, structures, communities and individuals.

Education is a prerequisite for democracy and citizenship. CLD seeks to extend the reach of effective democracy, particularly by actively engaging those who are excluded from participation in key social processes that shape their lives, and to widen the scope of democracy to enable full participation in the common wealth. The following principles are informed by this core position.

1. Primary client.

Our primary client (our 'constituent') is the community, the young person, or the adult learner with whom we engage.

2. Social context

Our work is not limited to facilitating change within individuals, but extends to their social context and environment. It recognises the impact of ecological and structural forces on people.

3. Equity

Our work promotes equality of opportunity and outcome. Our practice is equitable and inclusive.

4. Empowerment

We seek to enhance constituents' capacity for positive action by:

- enabling them to clarify and pursue their chosen priorities

- building skills of decision-making, engagement and co-operation

- making power relations open and clear

- supporting constituents in holding those with power accountable

- facilitating disengagement from the professional relationship.

Our starting point is that constituents are capable of assessing and acting on their interests.

5. Duty of Care

We will avoid exposing our constituents to the likelihood of harm or injury.

6. Corruption

We will not seek to advance ourselves, our organisations or others, personally, politically or professionally, at the expense of our constituents.

7. Transparency

Engagement with the young person, adult learner or community, and the resulting relationship, will be open and truthful. Potential conflicts of interest will be openly declared.

8. Confidentiality

Information provided by constituents will not be used against them, nor will it be shared with others who may use it against them. Constituents should be made aware of the limits to confidentiality. Until this happens, the presumption of confidentiality should apply. Wherever possible they should be consulted before disclosure.

9. Cooperation

We will actively seek to cooperate with others in order to secure the best possible outcomes for our constituents.

10. Professional Development

We will work reflectively, identifying and using the information, resources, skills, knowledge and practices needed to improve our capacity to meet our obligations to constituents.

11. Self-awareness

We should be conscious of our own values and interests, and approach cultural and other difference respectfully. While the need to challenge may arise, we must try first to understand.

12. Boundaries

The CLD relationship is a professional relationship, intentionally limited to protect the constituent and the purpose of our work. These limits should be clarified, established and maintained. The relationship with an individual constituent is based on trust and is not available for sexual engagement.

13. Self-care

CLD practice should be consistent with preserving the health of CLD workers.

Chapter 8: Communities Leading Change

Contents

References

Introduction - Communities Leading Change

Developing Local Organisations

(Alistair Hunter, in Journeying Together: Growing Youth Work and Youth Workers in Local Communities, 2010)

A Charter for Rural Communities

(Extracts from The Final Report of the Carnegie Commission for Rural Community Development, 2007)

Capacity building for activism: Learning from the past for the future

(By Lynn McCabe; from Community Empowerment: Critical Perspectives from Scotland, edited Emejulu and Shaw, 2010)

References

Core texts

Developing local organisations (Ally Hunter, in Journeying Together, Edited Rogers and Smith, Russell House 2010)

A Charter for Rural Communities - The Final Report of the Carnegie Commission for Rural Community Development

Capacity building for activism: learning from the past for the future (Lynn McCabe in Community Empowerment: Critical Perspectives from Scotland, 2010 pages 65-70)

Related Content

Sikh Sanjog: A Short History, 1989-2005 (2007)

Changing lives: the impact of community-based activities on health improvement (Health Scotland, 2006)

Delivering Outcomes in Community Learning and Development: Current issues for outcome-focussed practice in community capacity building (report for Scottish Government by YouthLink Scotland, Learning Link Scotland, Scottish Community Development Centre, 2008)

Strengthening Scotland's Communities: Community capacity building practice development programme report (Scottish Community Development Centre for Scottish Government, 2008)

Policy, politics and practice (Mae Shaw in Reclaiming Social Purpose in Community Education, 2008)

What community development does: A short guide for decision makers to how it achieves results (CDAS, 2008)

Meeting the Shared Challenge - understanding a community-led approach to health improvement (Jane Dailly, Alan Barr (SCDC, Chex, NHS Health Scotland, Scottish Government, 2008)

Changing Ideas: Case studies of strategic approaches to community-led health improvement (2009) Healthy Communities -meeting the shared challenge programme

Trust in the Community? Development Trusts in Scotland (in Community Empowerment: Critical Perspectives from Scotland, 2010, pages 28-32)

Action Research by, in and for Communities (ARC) (Scottish Community Development Centre, 2011)

Putting asset based approaches into practice: identification, mobilization and measurement of assets (Glasgow Centre for Population Health, 2012)

Asset Transfer from Policy to Practice (Development Trusts Association Scotland, 2013)

Communities Leading Change

Introduction by Stuart Hashagen

The place of community development in Scotland has shifted significantly over the past 15 years. Through the 1980s and 1990s a strong commitment was built with local authorities, especially the more strategic regional councils, embracing its values and approaches as a cornerstone of social, educational and economic development. The report produced for the Scottish Office by a Working Group on the Future of Community Education, Communities: Change through Learning (1998)[72] brought together the previously distinct traditions of community education and community development (the latter mainly associated with Regional Council social work departments) into their current identity as Community Learning and Development (CLD). However, by this time the local government reorganisation of 1996 had bedded in, and many of the new Councils abandoned or severely reduced their commitment to community development.

Since then there has been a curious and somewhat contradictory path for community development. In many ways it is seen to be strongly embedded in Scottish thinking and culture. The International Association for Community Development is based in Scotland (and held a successful conference in Glasgow in 2014); European community development organisations look to Scotland as having a leading role in policy and practice, and the Community Development Alliance (see What Community Development Does, CDAS, 2008) has over 100 national organisations in membership, each of which sees community development as a key part of its purpose.

Yet on the ground, very few organisations (either public or third sector) are to be found doing the basic neighbourhood work or community work at the core of community development. We need to unravel some of these contradictions.

The world of government and the world of community

As covered elsewhere, government interest and direction over community development as part of CLD, has moved from Community Learning Scotland, (a Non-departmental Public Body (NDPB) that was subsequently abolished), to Communities Scotland, (a government agency that was also abolished) to a directorate within core government, (briefly) to Learning and Teaching Scotland (another NDPB, also abolished) to Education Scotland, also a government agency. In the Communities Scotland years it was associated with regeneration and renewal, while Education Scotland's focus is primarily educational. In 2016 the community development policy responsibility passed back to Scottish Government, while the other elements of CLD remained with Education Scotland

In theory community development work or at least community capacity building (see next paragraph) was to be delivered through the CLD Partnerships that Community Planning Partnerships were expected to establish following the Working and Learning Together guidance. In practice however, very little 'agenda-free' community development work was in evidence, while what work was done was linked to government priorities in regeneration, health improvement, community care or employability, often by workers without a strong background in the field.

The effect of all this at community level has been a notable reduction in community groups and organisations being formed or mobilising around matters of concern to the community; severe problems for established community organisations seeking to survive and be sustainable; and latterly the shift for other organisations into compensating for cuts in the work of the NHS and other public bodies unable to cope with demand. But in many cases this has caused community organisations to deviate from their core mission.

Conversely, the introduction of the Community Empowerment Act (see Ch 4) has seen a rapid growth in the number of community development trusts and similar bodies seeking to acquire or exercise control over community assets. There is a danger that some of these new bodies may lack sustainability and that their governance may be inadequate: addressing these issues is likely to be a future challenge for community development.

Outcome-focused planning and the SOAs have, perhaps perversely, also shifted the focus of community organisations away from local determination of needs and opportunities towards delivering or complementing the delivery of government-defined outcomes, (see Delivering Outcomes in CLD: current issues for outcome-focused practice in community capacity building)

Community Capacity Building and other misconceptions

As it evolved as part of CLD, the community development agenda became defined as the Community Capacity Building (CCB) strand, alongside adult learning and work with young people. Several initiatives were instituted to define the field, and to encourage good practice in an outcomes-focused environment (the Delivering Outcomes paper referred to above, Strengthening Scotland's Communities Community capacity building practice development programme report).

Despite this, CCB continued to be seen as the least widely supported and adopted strand of CLD, with some of the consequences outlined above. There was an unresolved discussion of the boundaries of the CCB role, whether it was part of or the whole of community development, and its relationship with community engagement as discussed in section 4. Community development agencies continued to propose that CD included both CCB and engagement, provided that both were clearly founded on a widely acknowledged set of values and principles.

Dispersal and diffusion

A notable trend has been the adoption of community development thinking and practice, or elements of it, in many public-facing sectors. In part, this responds to the emphasis in public service reform (see Chapter 10). In health, the advent of healthy living centres and the exhortation of the then Chief Medical Officer to adopt 'asset based' approaches to public health and health improvement[73] have been significant. In community regeneration, community organisations have been established that provide both local services and community development activities. Many of these have become established as community development trusts. One the one hand this can be seen as the 'mature' stage of community development in so far as community based, community led organisations are 'in control', while on the other hand questions are to be asked about their long-term viability, their ability to address issues of inequality, and whether they are by default taking over roles that should more properly be the concern of the state. Many of the community-based housing associations in the west of Scotland have also adopted community development strategies as part of their 'wider role' beyond the provision of good quality affordable housing.

The economic imperative

A particular concern for many has been the shift in community development thinking away from a needs-based and essentially social and educational focus to one driven by economic imperatives. Much of the focus is on employability, enterprise and the economic use of community assets. The years of austerity have seen a triple burden on the most disadvantaged communities: less money coming into households; scaling back of many public services on which the poorest communities are most dependent; and the absence of the community development resources that could assist in alleviating the consequences.

Other community organisations have been deviated from their core by the economic/ social enterprise imperative; they have had to seek independent income streams to survive.

The assets debate

Community development thinking and practice has been influenced by its relationship to community engagement (see Chapter 4) and to emerging thinking around the concepts of co-production and the assets approach. Co-production, at least in theory, can be seen as an opportunity for more established and organised communities to engage with public bodies to co-design and co-deliver services in a better way, to mutual advantage; as such it is an aspect of community engagement and preventative action.

The assets approach has two distinct, somewhat contradictory meanings. One, which is becoming embedded in empowerment debates is that if communities can own assets they can generate income that provides independence and freedom to meet local needs in different ways. The other interpretation is the concept of asset-based community development, originating in the USA (and according to its critics, reflecting an individualistic, free-market ideology) which asserts that work should start with the assets people have, rather than the deficits they experience. In one sense, this simply re-states a basic principle of community development; the downside has been seen as an unwillingness to recognise the impact of inequality and exclusion[74].

It can be suggested on the one hand that both co-production and assets-based approaches have influenced a range of agencies and practitioners towards more empowering ways of working; and on the other that there is a continuing need for values-based community development work if they are to achieve their stated ambitions.

Looking ahead - can communities lead change?

As the CLD sector faces the challenge presented by the implementation of the plans required by the CLD regulations, the role of community development is being revisited in the context of the Community Empowerment Act. It may be an opportunity to embed the 'big picture' values of social justice, extending democracy, human rights, community life and wellbeing, thereby challenging the prevailing market-driven narrative. We can be optimistic, but is the community development view sufficiently well-articulated and clearly expressed to mount such a challenge effectively?

Developing Local Organisations

(Alistair Hunter, in Journeying Together: Growing Youth Work and Youth Workers in Local Communities, 2010)[75]

This Chapter is a personal exploration of the power of local organizations and of what makes a 'successful' local organization. It examine the key themes and organizational characteristics that, over more than a decade of youth and community work, I have observed lead to success at the front line of youth and community work.

In the following pages I use the generic term 'local organization' to describe any locally-based agency, club or group. The material draws together themes and practices that are shared across organizations of all shapes and sizes.

The term 'successful' is used to capture the best practice that I have experienced. Part of the purpose of the Chapter is to encourage people to reflect on their own organization - and how they can influence it, as well as work within it.

Foreword: social capital

John Field (2008) has argued that that the central ideas underpinning discussions of social capital are that social networks are a valuable asset and that relationships matter. He goes on to say that interaction enables people to build communities, to commit themselves to each other, and to knit the social fabric.

A sense of belonging and the concrete experience of social networks can, it is argued, bring great benefits to people.

Trust between individuals thus becomes trust between strangers and trust of a broad fabric of social institutions; ultimately, it becomes a shared set of values, virtues, and expectations within society as a whole. Without this interaction, on the other hand, trust decays; at a certain point, this decay begins to manifest itself in serious social problems... The concept of social capital contends that building or rebuilding community and trust requires face-to-face encounters. (Beem 1999: 20)

Local organizations are at the heart of the creation of social capital. After identifying some defining characteristics of local organizations, this Chapter will describe some of the key qualities that can help local organizations succeed in their goals. Finally, I outline my personal priorities for action by local organizations.

Being local

Local organizations have always played a fundamental role in developing individuals, groups and communities. By 'local organizations' I mean autonomous bodies and groups that work wholly or mainly for the benefit of the areas in which they are set up. In a modern world, where the social fabric of our communities is being stretched, the role of the local organization has become more important than ever.

Kretzman and McKnight say the purpose of an organization is about 'empowering individuals (and groups), mobilizing their capacities and working together'. They also describe the local organization as being 'an amplifier of gifts, talents and skills of individuals, groups and communities' (1993:109)

Community connections

Charles Handy, argues that most organizations are not designed, they grow. He continues, 'but not all organizations adapt equally well to the environment within which they grow. Many like the dinosaur of great size but little brain, remain unchanged in a changing world' (Handy 1999:253).

Successful, local organizations have the ability to stay connected to their local communities and in touch with current and immediate trends. This is a very difficult task. It is, therefore, important that organizations have appropriate guiding principles in place.

The local organization that I managed for a number of years, works with young people by maintaining a close, genuine and authentic relationship. As an organization the values are learning, innovation, participation, empowerment and partnership. These values define the relationship with young people and also define how the organization operates, how it grows, structures and delivers its purpose.

We expect young people's fashions, expectations and relationships to change on regular (sometimes daily!) basis. Successful organizations, therefore, need to define their own purpose and organising principles using the same rules of engagement - they must master the ability to constantly reflect, understand and change!

Over the last 10 years this organization has used a very simple strategy to develop a successful organization. The strategy has two parts:

- Always work from the strengths of your client group: and

- Always be prepared to give a practical demonstration of what you are proposing to do, in order to build trust and respect.

Local organizations must go on a shared journey with your community and focus on what is important to them - successful local organizations are concerned with practical solutions.

Learning by doing

I am currently teaching my daughter how to ride her bike and spend long periods of time helping her to learn by doing. It is seemingly obvious that you can only learn to ride a bike by doing it. My daughter has to master the 3 basic principles of balance, steering and pedalling in order to be able to ride her bike. With my practical help and in her own time she has put all of the pieces together for herself and she will never forget.

I use this as an example because it highlights the simple yet practical 'can do' approach. If I had enlisted my local authority or government to do the job we would have assembled a committee to assess the situation; recruited people who understood the principles of balance, steering and pedalling. And finally we would have produced an extensive report with recommendations that formed a policy to be enacted to help my daughter ride her bike. The big picture approach would have no impact on her ability to ride a bike.

Local innovation

In the UK we are organised by and around the structures and arms of national and local government that have become fixated with political culture of blame and finding and fixing problems.

Local community organizations know intimately the long-term problems within their communities and are set the task of fixing them with short term financial and policy commitments. This approach has permeated youth work and I am constantly asked to talk to decision-makers and 'experts' who want to know why young people are involved in anti social behaviour or why young people won't engage with services - both examples look for quick answers and in so doing are missing the point of asking the right questions and appreciating the personal nature of the local organization.

A parallel for this exists in the medical world where they have discovered that you don't learn about good physical health by studying illness, you learn about good health by exploring the reasons why people have good health. The same can be easily transferred back to youth work, young people and organizations, we must not be made to focus on anti social behaviour cures or certificated achievement, instead we must focus on promoting social behaviour and that the learning and skills agenda must be firmly based around the needs of the young person and not the solely economic or academic agendas.

In the last 10 years there has been an emerging breed of new, local organizations that mark a new direction for most charity-based, grant-receiving local organizations. These organizations have had a significant record of social innovation (Mulgan et. al. 2007) and include a number of social enterprises. In the UK context, such social enterprises include community enterprises, credit unions, trading arms of charities, employee-owned businesses, co-operatives, development trusts, housing associations, social firms, and leisure trusts. Whereas conventional businesses distribute their profit among shareholders, in social enterprises the surplus tends to go towards one or more of the business' social aims - education, for example, vocational training or environmental issues.

Wider links

In our local communities local organizations are more likely to be connected to people, have their finger on the pulse and be aware of what is needed to bring about change. It is, therefore, essential that such agencies understand and have the ability to adapt to and work within political, cultural and organizational environments.

As the physical and social assets within many local communities continue to break down, links to the wider world are critical. A vital function of local organizations is to connect with and influence the social, political and decision- making networks beyond the local community.

As local organizations we must be prepared to speak the many languages of partnership, embracing and delivering on our communities' and others' priorities to secure finance and ensure our communities' aspirations are furthered.

Crucially, we must find effective linking mechanisms that allow us to collaborate in a multi faceted local world while protecting the integrity and honesty of our organizational and communities values. It is essential to understand the importance of bonding, bridging and linking with individuals, organizations, governmental entities and funding agencies.

Processes for success

This section of the Chapter focuses on the processes that I have found within successful local organizations. I want to focus on mindset, envisioning and being resilient.

Mindset

Any organization is made up of people working towards a vision. The organization may have support mechanisms in place, such as values, aims, objectives, policies and procedures. But every individual within the organization approaches those mechanisms with their own unique experience and personality.

The human factor has a major impact on the personality and culture of an organization. It is essential, therefore, that we can find ways to ensure that the human factor can be focused on building a healthy and successful organization.

Carol Dweck has championed a simple and interesting theory that enables such an approach. She argues that people can be divided into two basic 'mindsets' and that these mindsets can be learned. She does not dispute that some people find some types of activities or learning easier than others, she disputes that others can't learn!

Dweck's work is supported by substantive empirical research.

The fixed mindset. This mindset upholds the idea that people's ability is fairly fixed and not open to change. According to such a view, people are either 'sporty', 'academic', 'practical', 'musical', etc. or they aren't. This mindset also labels people according to personal characteristics. So people are either 'good' or 'bad', 'confident' or 'shy'.

The growth mindset. The growth mindset views people as adaptable. It suggests that they aren't fixed but have potential for development and growth. Dweck asserts that, with enough motivation, effort and concentration 95 per cent of the population can become better at almost anything. Dweck calls this the 'incremental theory', to suggest the idea that people are capable of making incremental changes in ability and other personal characteristics. (Dweck 1999)

This basic idea has massive implications for learning and how organizations can be shaped to make the most of their most volatile, yet important resources. Successful organizations and their people exhibit a 'growth mindset'. This mindset is acquired through recruitment of a certain type of individual and/or learned through induction, training and a conducive, working environment.

It is of critical importance that successful organizations and their leaders have a mechanism for understanding how staff think and how their thoughts can be orientated in a manner that is beneficial to the organization. Many of us have witnessed the devastating effect that negative and fixed mindsets can have within

teams and organizations and how quickly de-motivation or bad habits can spread due to an individuals approach.

Envisioning

Successful organizations are not just filled with positive people who are willing to develop themselves and grow; they are filled with people who believe in a vision and have a plan to create it. Applied Strategic planning is defined as The process which the guiding members of an organization envision its future and develop the necessary procedures and operations to achieve that future. (Goodstein, Nolan and Pfeiffer 1993:38)

Collective vision

Creating a vision is a process that should involve all the stakeholders of an organization. At a recent stakeholder day we refreshed our vision and mission statement and were blown away by the input of a 12 year old young person who gave an invaluable insight into his experience of working with the organization.

Kouzes and Posner say that vision 'Provides an organization with a forward looking, idealised image of itself and its uniqueness'. The direct input from this young man gave us the opportunity to drop all of the ,baggage, we had as staff, such as funding and office space, and focus on the truly important matters of our uniqueness as an organization and what the future might look like.

Vision is only a part of the big picture, Joel Barker, a well-known futurist, shared his perspective by reflecting that:

...vision without action is merely a dream, that action without vision merely passes the time, but vision with action can change the world. Goodstein, Nolan, Pfeiffer 1993:39)

Enacting a vision needs a plan. Russell Ackoff (1981) suggests four ways that organizations plan for the future.

1. Reactive: planning through the rear view mirror.

2. Inactive: going with the flow.

3. Preactive: preparing for the future.

4. Proactive: designing the future and making it happen.

Being proactive

In my former organization we made a concerted effort on proactive planning and have seen good results. We focused on understanding and setting out what we wanted the future for young people in the area to look like and how we would reconfigure all the parts of the youth work machine to make this happen.

The Street: live programme which is the main focus of this plan has won 2 major awards in the 2 years since its inception as is being used by others around the

country as a model of best practice - most importantly it is the most well attended youth provision in the whole area because it is truly connected to young people.

Being 'resilient'

In recent years, the concept of 'resilience' has developed as a central pillar of positive psychology (which focuses on the empirical study of such things as positive emotions, strengths-based character, and healthy institutions). It differs from much existing psychological theory that pathologies emotions and aims to 'fix' or 'cure' problems or illnesses.

During a talk to the Go Dundee network Tal Ben-Shahar (2008), a leading positive psychologist and professor at Harvard articulated resilience in the following terms. People and organizations who are resilient demonstrate the following qualities.

Goal focused

A central element of resilience echoes the importance of 'envisioning' and maintaining an orientation focused on the future. Local organizations must concentrate on delivering on the needs and aspirations of young people and not be sidelined by the latest political whim or priority.

We are all too aware that resources follow centrally- and locally-set priorities and that we need resources to pay wages and other expenses. We must work to deliver these priorities, while finding ways to deliver them in a way that allows young people to be creative and fulfilled.

A key to success

When conducting an annual review and strategic plan, a new member of my former organization's board reflected on the major difference he saw in between successful and unsuccessful organizations. He said future orientated organizations exist to meet the needs of local young people and are happy to trust in young people and can shift their programs to suit the ever-changing nature of young people.

Unsuccessful organizations need local young people to exist, so their needs can be met. They are scared of changing the status quo, because they have much to lose.

Seligman (2004) believes resilience theory rejects the idea that risk is something to be avoided. Instead, it focuses on those factors that promote well-being in individuals and organizations that are faced with adversity. He suggests that rather than take a defensive stance against risk, resilience theory takes the view that the life of an organization, with all of its ups and downs, is there to embraced - and that coping with risk and bouncing back from adversity are good for the organization and its success.

Positive role models and strong values

As organizations and educators, we have to 'walk the walk', not just 'talk the talk'. The following words variously attributed to Rudyard Kipling, Arthur Gulterman and anon. explained why:

No printed word, nor spoken plea Can teach young minds what they should be. Not all the books on all the shelves - But what the teachers are themselves.

During adolescence, young people are at their most vulnerable and impressionable age. They are in need of role models and take them from all areas that are close at hand, friends and family, board members, partners or mentors. The same applies to growing local organizations: in my many meetings with successful organizations, all can recall a pivotal time and set of experiences that have defined their approach and subsequent success.

Role models are not concerned with the imparting of knowledge and information. They demonstrate a specific set of specific values, attitudes, lifestyles and outlooks. Together, these form a frame of reference on which organizations (and young people!) make their choices. It is, therefore, critical to surround ourselves as individuals and organizations with role models who will add to a positive and constructive frame of reference (see Rose 2004).

Focus on strengths

Successful organizations focus on strengths, the things that work for them and young people. They have strategies and approaches to focus the organization, staff and young people on asset-based, strength focused work.

Developed considerably by David Cooperrider, Appreciative Inquiry is the search for the best in people, their organizations, and the world around them. Appreciative Inquiry involves searching out what gives "life" to a living system when it is most alive, and most effective.

The organizational impact of Appreciative Inquiry is to establish a community of people committed to change, enthusiastic about the possibilities of the future, and pledged, in one sense or another, to work for it.

Appreciative Inquiry is a particular approach to asking questions and envisioning the future that fosters positive relationships and builds on the basic assets of a person, a situation, or an organization. In so doing, it enhances a system's capacity for change and collective working.

Appreciative Inquiry utilizes a 4-stage process focusing on:

1. DISCOVER: The identification of organizational processes that work well.

2. DREAM: The envisioning of processes that would work well in the future.

3. DESIGN: Planning and prioritizing processes that would work well.

4. DELIVER: The implementation of the proposed design.

The basic idea is to build organizations around what works, rather than trying to fix what doesn't. It is the opposite of problem-solving. The method aims to create meaning by using real success stories.

Well connected, with real partnerships

There is a key parallel between personal and organizational partnerships. Both are formed around a relationship that forms an association between two or more people or groups. This association may be based on emotions, like respect or trust, regular business interactions, or some other type of social or work commitment.

Partnership is one the most used and most misunderstood buzz-words of the last decade. There is no doubt that collaborative and joined up working can have real benefits for ourselves and those with whom we work. However, it is important to realise that just because we call something a partnership it doesn't make it a partnership.

In my mind, partnerships should focus on doing those things that only they can do - and that no-one else and no other grouping can do better or more efficiently. In my experience the key to successful partnership working is two-fold. First, the partners need to be able to work together with mutual understanding and integrity. Secondly the partnership must have a strong commitment to evaluation and understanding the progress they are making and how they are making it.

Priorities for action

In the last section of the Chapter, I identify three aspects of organizational life that could form the focus of action and change. Together, they provide a strong foundation from which to grow continued success.

1. Establish an asset-based philosophy

In their pathway publication on building communities from the inside out Kretzmann and McKnight (1993:4) explain two different approaches to setting and maintaining a direction of travel for your organization; needs driven and asset based, internally- focused and relationship-driven.

They say that the two different approaches have these outcomes. Needs driven organizations:

- View the community with an endless list of problems;

- Can add to a cycle of dependency within communities;

- By their nature find it very difficult to engage the full community.

Asset based, internally-focused and relationship-driven organizations:

- Focus on the capacities of their communities on what can be achieved and by whom;

- Focus on problem solving and learning from a shared organization and community perspective, so learning stays in the hand of those who experience it;

- Initiate and grow relationships and trust across communities and organizations mutually.

Genuine, authentic and lasting organization success will only come from an appreciation of local need and working from an asset-based approach.

Instead of focusing on a community's needs, deficiencies and problems, the asset-based approach helps communities become stronger and more self-reliant by discovering, mapping and mobilising all their local assets. Three key examples of the assets of a community are:

- The skills of its citizens, The young, the old and the in between.

- The dedication of its community associations - churches, interest groups, clubs.

- The resources of its formal institutions - businesses, schools, libraries, colleges, hospitals.

According to the UK Centre for Applied Positive Psychology, an organization's greatest assets are its people's strengths. But these assets are not always well understood or managed. Everyone has strengths. But not everyone is clear about what their strengths are and how to use them. Critically for organizations, neither are their managers.

Building on strengths

Experience shows that by building on strengths and assets in an organization can:

a. Tap into unused talent throughout the organization. There is untapped talent and energy in the organization. Much time and resource is spent in attempting to improve performance, but little of that is directed at getting the best out of people.

b. Attract and retain more of the people it needs. People like to use their strengths: doing so reinforces and re-energises them. Without the opportunity to use their abilities, many people leave.

c. Improve individual performance. Individual performance is significantly improved by a focus on strengths. The traditional approach of moulding individuals to jobs and focusing correcting weaknesses has proved unsuccessful.

d. Build employee engagement. Use of strengths is one of the key drivers of employee engagement, which itself is linked to improved employee retention, discretionary effort, quality, customer satisfaction and loyalty.

e. Develop flexibility. Selected and deployed on the basis of strengths - less on the basis of what they 'have done', and more on the basis of what they 'could do' - employees are more willing and able to accept changes in role and organization.

f. Improve teamwork. A focus on strengths in teams allows for the efficient allocation of tasks and, with greater role flexibility, encourages co-operation. The positive emotions generated by the use of strengths enable social integration.

g. Increase diversity and positive inclusion. An understanding of strengths encourages people to value difference. Teams made up of people who differ tend to be more creative and to perform better.

h. Increase openness to change and the ability to deal with change. The use of strengths generates positive emotions which facilitate performance by broadening people's mindsets.

i. Deal more positively with redundancy. A strengths perspective supports the understanding of redundancy as a mismatch, rather than an absence, of talent.

j. Contribute to the happiness and fulfilment of employees. Apart from being more likely to achieve their goals, people who use their strengths experience higher levels of energy, well-being and authenticity.

2. Build a creative, 'can-do' organizational culture

Organizational culture is an idea in the field management that describes the psychology, attitudes, experiences, beliefs and values both the personal and cultural values of an organization.

Schein defines organizational culture as:

A pattern of basic assumptions, invented discovered, or developed by a given group, as it learns to cope with problems of external adaption and internal integration, that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way you perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems. (Quoted in Goodstein, Nolan, Pfeiffer 1993:15)

Schein also asserts that, culture is the most difficult organizational attribute to change, outlasting work programmes or services offered to young people, individual, staff and all other physical attributes of the organization. His organizational model illuminates culture from the standpoint of the observer, described by three cognitive levels of organizational culture.

Much of culture is invisible; it requires strategic analysis to make culture apparent. Modern anthropology distinguishes between internal understandings of cultural events and the understanding of the observer.

In the context of a successful local youth work organization, it is vital to understand what young people value in the youth work and not just what organizations or funders want them value or understand. Young people's own terms and experience are the foundation for the formulation of all successful and sustainable youth work programmes.

Doing what you say you'll do

Often described to me as 'the way we do things around here', organizational culture can be as simple or complicated as we chose to make it. Looking back, my own priority has been to concentrate on doing what we say we will do as an organisation. If we say we are going to be there at certain times on certain nights, then we will be there.

In practice, the key phrase has been 'attention to detail'. And that attention has to be paid from the planning stages, not just in 'delivery'. In fact, it is at the planning

stages where attention to detail is probably most important. We would give more time collectively to checking that we felt that what we were planning was appropriate to the organization - and that we were going about our tasks in a way that was compatible with our organizational values.

Over the long-term, consistency and commitment - and consistency of commitment - will establish an organization as a trusted partner and ally - for young people, for the community and for other organizations. Doing what you say you'll do helps to establish a 'virtuous circle' of increasing success.

Sometimes it can be hard to maintain the 'can-do', optimistic outlook! One vital strategy for maintaining that 'glass half-full' outlook is to surround yourself with other 'can-do' people. One way of sustaining the work is to actively network with other practitioners with a similar outlook (see Chapter 9). The networks can be local, regional national - even international, thanks to the development of the internet. It may mean joining formal networks or it may mean making time to go out for informal chats with colleagues (from the same or different fields) - or going to conferences, logging on to interesting sites and joining various forums. Whatever form it takes, that support of like-minded colleagues is essential succour to potentially isolated practitioners.

3. Create time for reflection

The ability to reflect in and on action is the 'golden thread' that runs through any successful organization. Reflecting in action are defined by Schön as the ability of professionals to 'think what they are doing while they are doing it'. He regards this as a key skill.

Schön asserts that the only way to manage the 'indeterminate zones of (professional) practice' is through the ability to think on your feet, and apply previous experience to new situations. This is essential work of the professional, and requires the capability of reflection-in-action. He asserts that reflecting on action is made after the event, that it is consciously undertaken, and often documented.

Organizations need the ability to think on their feet, adapt to change and record reflections in order to inform our future actions. Creating time for reflection is probably the single most important practical action organizations can take to uplift their performance.

Continually taking stock

Giving time for reflection enables individuals and organisations to take stock, to give context to their activities and to clarify exactly what is 'working' and what's not. The reflection can - and should - take place at personal, team and organizational levels:

- Personally: staff members are encouraged to think through their own ideas before bringing them to the team; the possibility of non-managerial supervision can play a valuable role here.

- As a team: team reflection is especially valuable in the planning stages of projects - a valuable way of 'testing out' practical ideas and of checking that our plans match with our organizational values.

- Organizationally: structured staff meetings, with prepared agendas, can help organizations to avoid the 'hijacking' of agendas by so-called 'crises'

In the context of Rank's Youth or Adult? programme, the emphasis on reflection illustrates the impact and effectiveness of the YMCA George Williams College's approach to learning. The course sets up a way of working that, because of its success, workers and managers give a high priority to incorporating it into their 'regular' practice. Within my own organization, involving staff in the College's Diploma Studies has reinforced the importance of reflection. And it has also helped us to build our own distinctive culture and ethos.

On reflection

Like young people, local organizations are complex, subject to change at a minute's notice and are strongly influenced by the environment in which they exist. Successful local organizations are underpinned and driven by a set of values that, in their most fundamental state, seek association, connection and learning with those they come in contact with.

In many ways, success relies on a positive state of mind and the ability to look towards (and create) the future. Individuals and organizations looking to raise their levels of success can benefit from a focus on an using asset-based approach, adopting a 'can-do' approach and by taking time to reflect on their activity.

I hope that this Chapter has challenged you and inspired you to reflect on your own organization and has encouraged you to work on your organization as well as in it!

Questions for reflection

- What, for you, makes an organization a 'local' organization?

- How do you assess the 'connectedness' of your organisation ...within the local community and beyond?

- How important do you see these organizational characteristics: mindset, envisioning, being resilient and having role models?

- Are any of the organizational characteristics particularly important for your own organization?

- How could you address the three priorities for action in your own organization? Is one of them more important than the others for you?

Establish an asset-based approach?

Build a creative, 'can-do' organizational culture?

Create time for reflection?

Alistair Hunter

A Charter for Rural Communities

(Extracts from The Final Report of the Carnegie Commission for Rural Community Development, 2007)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Too often reports about the countryside focus solely on the negatives, forgetting the many advantages, which they offer. In fact, rural communities can be fantastic places to live, work and play. Many rural communities offer:

- Well developed community resources and valuable local assets

- Healthy environments for leisure, education and enterprise

- Strong social networks

But some rural communities do face many challenges:

- Depressed local economies for example in fishing and some agricultural areas

- An ageing population, with a shrinking skilled workforce Poor infrastructure, especially transport

- Overly complex planning

- Lack of affordable housing

- Complex and confusing funding 'cocktails' for local initiatives

- Pockets of extreme poverty

Planning for rural community futures

The Carnegie Commission for Rural Community Development over the past three years has undertaken one of the most comprehensive consultations on the challenges and opportunities facing local rural communities across the UK and Ireland in recent years. Our intention was to make a serious assessment of the state of the UK and Ireland's countryside communities today:

But it was more than that. We have looked ahead, to understand what might happen to rural areas in the future: a greater dependence upon the resources of rural areas for energy production and economic regeneration, set against continuing house price rises and an ageing population. Using 'futures' scenario planning, we have been able to develop recommendations in line with the challenges and opportunities that communities do not yet face, as well as those they do.

In light of our evidence gathering, we now present our Charter for Rural Communities. Our report and Charter are about the role that enterprising rural communities can play supported by the public, private and third sectors. The contribution of local communities to rural development has been under recognised for far too long.

Common Attributes of Success: Learning from Best Practice

Looking to the future, we have sought to identify the essential ingredients of a thriving rural community of the future. They are:

- Community ownership and management of local assets

- Stronger local governance and effective community action planning

- Strong social networks founded on high levels of volunteering and skilled support

We have identified ten characteristics of the sustainable rural community of the future. Realistically, no one community is likely to display all these characteristics - but our fact-finding turned up many excellent examples of rural communities already displaying inspiring survival techniques.

Among the many cases which impressed us were:

Caithness Partnership- People's Panels

Tipperary Institute - integrated area planning

Plunkett Foundation 'The Store is the Core'

Sense of Place - place based education in Cornwall

Cae Post recycling in Powys

We saw many, many more.

Can-Do Rural Communities

Based on these models of success we set out our ideas for action. We see central and local government, landowners, the Social Investment Bank, the Lottery distributors, Third Sector agencies, trusts and local communities working together to deliver these actions. These include:

- A major expansion in community ownership of local assets

- An enhanced role for parish and community councils

- A Centre for Excellence supporting rural community development policy and practice on the ground.

- Encouragement and assistance for local communities to develop and manage their own services and to engage in community planning

- A greater role for local communities in supporting sustainable development.

Not just thinking - doing

Good ideas are worth nothing without the will to put them into action. For this reason the Commission is looking to the Carnegie UK Trust and others - central and local governments, regional development agencies, the private and third sectors and independent funders to support the proposals we present. They are challenges for local people too. Each has a vital role to play to realise the dynamic, vibrant and sustainable rural communities that can succeed.

The recommendations we make cover the short and medium time frame. We believe that with goodwill they could all be implemented within five years. Indeed some are already beginning to take place and we state where we are supportive of current policy and practice. Others are not yet on the radar and need to be.

Recent and pending changes in the governments of all of the countries and jurisdictions of the UK and Ireland provide the opportunity for new thinking. We hope that across the political spectrum there will be support for the agenda we present. We believe that as a result local communities across the UK and Ireland will be energised to play a much more central part in shaping their futures.

OPTIMISING ASSETS

The vibrant rural community of the future will display an assets-based approach rather than concentrating simply upon needs, will use financial and other instruments to take own- ership of community assets and will manage assets responsibly and actively over time for public benefit.

Why action is needed

In 2005 Carnegie commissioned a literature review and case studies of Asset-Based Rural Community Development (ABCD) around the world, together with a parallel review of the UK and Irish experience. ABCD has emerged globally as a rejection of deficit regeneration models, where communities have to demonstrate all the things they lack in order to win resources. It takes as its starting point the existing assets, particularly the strengths inherent in community associations and social networks, and mobilises these, alongside tangible assets such as land and buildings, to create new economic and social opportunities. So important are the social and human assets within rural communities, that we explore this in more detail in a later section. Our focus here is upon harnessing the tangible assets.

During our consultations across the UK and Ireland we became aware of a strong interest in harnessing rural assets more effectively to provide social and economic advancement for rural communities. The Quirk Review in England, published in May 2007, is the latest in a number of government reports that are highlighting the importance of community ownership of assets. Quirk recommends a major programme of awareness raising and capacity-building, and urges local authorities and other bodies to take a more corporate approach to their overall asset portfolio and their relationships with local communities.

In our visits, we saw clear evidence of the significant regeneration that occurs when local communities can access assets for community well being and public benefit. A focus on assets is not however to deny that rural areas also have needs. Asset Based Community Development builds the capacity of people to participate actively in finding ways to meet them. A good motto is: 'use what you have to secure what you have not'.

Transfer of public assets is already legally possible either at market value or at a discount. Clearly as this transfer is from one form of social ownership to another we would recommend the latter. We applaud the announcement of the UK government in May 2007 that local authorities should be encouraged to transfer unused buildings at a peppercorn cost to local communities. This is an important way in which local and other public authorities can support the development of social enterprises, providing them with a means of generating a sustainable revenue stream.

There are some people living in rural communities with considerable wealth who need to play a greater part in supporting sustainable rural community development. In our consultations with the Country Land and Business Association in England and sister associations and with individual large estates, we have identified a growing interest in asset- based community development and a keenness to make greater use of land and buildings for wealth and income generation for community benefit.

Some of the more inspiring examples are in the Western Isles of Scotland, where local communities, following the 2004 Land Reform Community Right to Buy legislation, have been supported by the Lottery and Highlands and Islands Enterprise to purchase land and buildings from private owners. In other areas we have seen productive partnerships developing between landowners and local communities, for mutual benefit. We strongly support these developments and believe that many more private owners would consider these options, if the asset ownership were secure for the community in perpetuity.

The acquisition of land and buildings by local communities is a serious undertaking and can present great capacity building challenges. We acknowledge the risks to communities when taking on substantial asset ownership. Ill prepared, this can be a very disempowering burden. Neither should we assume that assets are always valuable. If you own a forest and the price of timber falls the asset may become a liability (however temporarily). Active management of the asset - e.g. contingency plans to use the forest for other purposes - is essential. Asset acquisition has to go hand in hand with appropriate support to enable rural communities to navigate the wide and increasing range of legislative and regulatory requirements.

The asset-based approach encourages the identification of assets that exist within communities but often remain hidden or unacknowledged by needs-based practices. It acknowledges the importance of physical and human/social assets, and in particular how these can be brought more effectively into community use. Many rural communities already own village halls and have run these facilities successfully for decades. We are now witnessing a growing interest by rural communities across the UK and Ireland in the acquisition of other assets.

Currently there are few community organisations however with the spare capacity and skills needed to prepare a firm proposition to funders and there is a need for funding streams to be established to provide working capital to cover the costs involved e.g. feasibility studies, surveyors' and legal fees. Another challenge is to find legal mechanisms to retain assets in a community over time - in effect to turn them into part of the growing capacity of the area.

A frequently raised issue is the financing of community acquisition of local assets and their development. We are confident that there is a significant demand in the UK and Ireland for support in developing projects such as community woodlands, amenity land around villages, community owned shops and post offices, multi-use buildings, children's play areas, renewable energy plants - whatever the community needs. There is however an urgent need to ensure financial mechanisms to support rural asset acquisition.

Scottish Land Fund

The Scottish Land Fund, administered by Highlands and Islands Enterprise, has assisted 150 communities to acquire land and develop land-based projects since its launch in February 2001. In addition to the well-publicised projects such as the Isle of Gigha and Anagach Wood, a wide range of smaller projects has received assistance.

One of the leading players in this work is the Development Trust Association, which brings together nearly 400 community development organisations that use enterprise and asset development in order to reverse social and economic decline. DTA members as a whole have already supported the transfer of £350m million of assets into community ownership, transforming derelict and underused property into facilities and services that people want, and at the same time generating income which can be reinvested into the community.

EMPOWERING LOCAL GOVERNANCE

The vibrant rural community of the future will have the capacity to play an active role in shaping its own future through a revitalised system of elected and participative govern- ance at local community level.

Why action is needed

There is a significant local democratic deficit across most of rural UK and Ireland. For decades there has been a trend towards larger and more distant local authorities covering extensive rural areas and towards regional structures of governance. We have also seen a growing policy emphasis upon local authority partnerships with the private and third sectors and a call for greater consultation with service users and local community interests.

Whilst we see many advantages in the development of unitary local authorities and devolution to regional levels, this has had the effect of weakening the capacity of local communities themselves to make substantive decisions appropriate to their locality. It is time to rectify this serious weakening of community governance.

We have not looked at the issue of local government reform. However from the perspective of rural community development, we believe that a system of elected and participative governance at local community level needs to be introduced as a matter of priority where it does not exist and where it does, for example through parish and community level councils, strengthened. Enhanced community level democracy is not a guarantee of the vibrant, dynamic community and we acknowledge that in some instances it can lead to NIMBYism. But our experience is that this attitude tends to occur where local communities have inadequate information allowing fears to develop. The advantages of rejuvenating local democracy far outweigh the disadvantages.

Parish and community councils have huge potential but in general inadequately represent their communities to meet the challenge of change because of their lack of power and resources. There is little local interest by the large majority of rural residents in most parish or community councils. Turnout at elections and public awareness as to what they do is negligible.

In England and Wales, parish and community councils do have duties and powers (including the power to precept i.e. to raise revenue from local taxation) but too many make little use of them. In Scotland, community councils have few powers, but work within a statutory framework. In the Republic of Ireland and in Northern Ireland there are few parish councils and none has a statutory basis. We consider that new systems of elected governance at community level are an essential requirement for the revitalisation of democratic governance and should be introduced across the UK and Ireland.

Parish and community level councils are currently caught in a Catch 22 situation. Many people fail to vote because they are unaware of what the parish or community council could do. One way of addressing this would be for the adoption of a single day for parish and community level council elections within each country, as currently is the case with local authority elections.

There is also an important role for community-led organisations other than parish and community councils. In many areas, community associations, market town partnerships and development trusts attract far more local interest and involvement than parish and community councils. Precisely because they are seen to be doing things. These community-led organisations are a manifestation of community governance and we have seen many examples of inspiring and effective community regeneration led by them.

In spite of the introduction of community planning across the UK and Ireland, and the existence of an extensive repertoire of techniques and skills for encouraging public participation, we have great concerns about the extent to which local community views are reflected in the strategic planning processes led by local authorities and other agencies.

There is a need to alter the power dynamic and to strengthen the capacity of the local community to shape these processes and outcomes. This requires greater effort on the part of agencies to engage local communities in the planning process, but also, critically, giving local communities themselves the authority to be the authors of their own local plan, a community action plan, which should in turn inform and influence the strategic council wide community plan.

Caithness Partnership

The partnership is researching new ways of ensuring rural community engagement and buy-in to Community Planning activities through the Caithness Rural People's Panel. This is a virtual panel of 50 residents with contributions from people from their home via the Internet.

Community action plans would provide the means for rural communities to define local priorities themselves and thereby to influence the strategies of local authorities and other agencies. We have seen good examples of where a local parish or community council or a Market Town Partnership have developed sophisticated community action plans involving extensive public participation and where the plan has in turn influenced the local authority.

Tipperary Institute and PLANED

Tipperary Institute has an impressive track record in the Irish equivalent of strategic planning - the Local Area Partnership. The Institute has developed a framework for community action planning, which incorporates economic, social and environmental dimensions. This is called 'Integrated Area Planning' for a defined geographical area and is being trialled in Co. Offaly.

In Wales, PLANED (Pembrokeshire Local Action Network for Enterprise and Development) are widely recognised as a leading proponent of community action planning. In particular they have developed a wide repertoire of participatory planning techniques and have demonstrated over the last fifteen years just how effective the implementation of action planning can be by turning round the fortunes of small towns like Narberth.

There is a need for local authorities and other planning agencies to enhance their capacity to engage with local rural communities and in particular those residents who may be less articulate, organised and rarely consulted. This recognition is most advanced in Scotland and Wales. In Scotland for example the government has published guidance for community consultation and standards for community engagement in community planning and local authority community learning and development staff are employed to support public participation.

Community Planning in Powys

The Chief Executive and senior staff at Powys County Council have demonstrated exceptional leadership in relationship to Community Planning. They convene a 'Leadership Group', which includes Powys Action with Voluntary Organisations (PAVO) as a key player in the community planning process as they have responsibility for the running of over 20 community forums in the county. Local people are able to express their views and promote ideas for action though these Forums.

Ideas for Action

1. Introduce elected governance at local community level.

There is a need to enhance the profile and powers of parish and community level councils, so that they play an increasingly important role in strengthening community governance and democratic revitalisation in rural areas.

We call upon governments to establish, if they are not in place already, systems of elected governance at community level, with representatives elected every four years on a single voting day (as appropriate in each country).

2. Provide parish and community level councils with the power to precept where they do not have it.

It is an important part of our vision for sustainable capitalisation and financing of rural activities for communities to have the freedom to raise money through taxation to support locally identified priorities. Parish and community level councils have negligible budgets and thus little capacity to finance their aspirations.

We call upon governments to give the power of precept, where it does not exist already to all parish and community level councils.

3. Give parish and community level councils the duty to commission a community action plan every four years.

Every market town and cluster of villages should produce a community action plan outlining local people's vision for their community and ways in which they believe that can be realised and funded. The commissioning of the plan should be the duty of the elected parish or community level council, but could be implemented on their behalf, with the clear requirement that there must be extensive community engagement.

We call upon governments to place a duty upon parish and community level councils to prepare and publish a community action plan every four years and a duty upon higher tier authorities to consider these plans in their own strategic planning.

4. Provide funding, technical advice and assistance to local communities to prepare community action plans and an entitlement to free training for parish and community level councillors.

The process of producing a plan will cost money and be labour intensive for volunteer community representatives. We have highlighted the importance of ensuring effective community engagement, in particular by those who for one reason or another rarely participate. Parish and community level councils must be resourced to commission a genuinely participative plan. Professional rural community development staff should be employed to assist local communities in this process.

We call upon local authorities to provide funding and other resources to enable parish and community level councils to access independent technical assistance and capacity building support so that a community action plan can be produced.

ENRICHING SOCIAL CAPITAL AND WELLBEING

The vibrant rural community of the future will display high levels of volunteering and social action, high social trust and neighbourliness, and a welcoming ethos that attracts people to remain or to move into the area.

Why action is needed

The Commission has identified social capital as one of the most important assets that all rural community have access to. Networks of civic engagement, such as village associations, community festivals, sports clubs and cooperatives are essential manifestations of social capital. The stronger these networks, the more likely it is that members of a community will cooperate for mutual benefit. Social capital has some characteristics of other forms of capital in that it is a resource one can build up to draw on at a later date.

The Commission has observed rich social capital in many rural communities. For example, throughout the UK and Ireland there are thousands of agricultural shows, village fetes and shows run largely by volunteers. Each takes many months to plan and draws upon many skills within the community: livestock judging and handling, marquee erection, accounting, catering, publicity and promotion, front of house announcements, first aid, traffic management, programming, child care and weather forecasting!

It is the association of people working together that builds strong and caring communities. Groups of people come together because they share concern about an issue. Community action can provide an essential lifeline to vulnerable residents. Examples of rural community organisations performing this particular function include: luncheon clubs for older people, rural stress help lines, debt counselling and rural women's networks.

Vibrant communities are places where people young and old are encouraged and motivated to want to improve their community and enjoy doing so. The role of the individual volunteer, the activist, the shaker and doer (the 'fiery spirit') is critical. As too is the collective capacity of the community group. Both need to be supported by community development and volunteer development organisations.

Incomers can bring valuable new ideas and energy, enriching the social capital of a community. But there are challenges associated with rapid population change. One example being the relationship of a settled community with migrant workers who are often living outside village communities in mobile homes. We have highlighted already our belief in the need for inclusion and diversity and to harness the talents of all.

SEEDS, an advocacy group for migrant workers' rights in Northern Ireland

A major multi-cultural festival held in May 2007 marked the opening of a drop-in centre for new citizens arriving in this part of Northern Ireland. SEEDS was established to recognise the rights of migrant workers and to respond to their needs. The Mayor, Councillor Helen Quigley said "The fact that the centre is opened as part of the One World Festival celebrations made it a very special occasion for multi- cultural communities in our area. It sends out the right message to newly arrived citizens that we welcome them and are here to help and assist them in every way that we can.

Social capital has to be cultivated and invested in. This involves skills in building networks and community organising, as well as enhancing the dialogue between local people and external agencies. Rural community development as an approach to building social capital has long been recognised in public policy. However the vast majority of rural communities in the UK and Ireland still have no access to skilled community development expertise. We have identified local community volunteers (of all ages), professional community development workers and other professionals working in local communities as having a vital part to play.

All of these players have continuing learning and development needs. The opportunities and challenges for rural community development we have identified in this report highlight the importance of capacity building. Whether it be to run a community enterprise, to produce a community action plan, to harness new technology, to represent community interests, to engage in partnership initiatives, or to have the organisational capacity to challenge, ready access to learning and development support is critically important.

Wildworks

Wildworks is a Cornwall based theatre company specialising in landscape-based works that involve communities in development and performance. The setting for the work is usually places that have great historical resonance for the communities, but are currently seen as without use. A disused tin mine is the setting for Souterrain; based on the epic story of Orpheus and Eurydice, Souterrain is a tale of love and adventure in the underworld so the theme resonates with this ex-mining community. Indeed the content of the drama comes from the lives & memories of those who live there.

The Commission diagnoses a skills deficit in two respects: we have too few volunteers and professional staff with community development skills and approaches; and the skills they may have and which training providers, where they exist, are still training people for are inadequate for the current and future challenges. We believe that this must be remedied through enhanced and more diverse experiential learning opportunities.

Ideas for Action

1. Strengthen social capital through investing in rural community development personnel.

From the paucity of labour market information that we have been able to identify there is a clear supply shortage of rural community development workers, with fewer than 1,500 trained rural community development workers in the UK and Ireland. From our evidence-taking sessions it is clear that they are overstretched in terms of the local communities they are able to assist.

We call upon governments across the UK and Ireland to double the supply of trained rural community development practitioners.

2. Review rural community development training and occupational standards.

Further and Higher education training providers, local enterprise agencies and the third sector will continue to have an important role in the provision of training for volunteers and professional community development staff. However we are especially keen to see an expansion in more accessible 'on the job' and open learning opportunities for people living and working in rural communities.

We call upon the national Sector Skills Councils andprofessional endorsement and validation bodies to review rural community development occupational standards and training for volunteers and staff.

We call upon the national further and higher education funding councils to expand funding investment in local work-based learning opportunities for volunteer and paid community development staff.

3. Establish a centre of excellence to support learning and teaching in rural community development.

We support the development of a centre for rural community development that can support learning and development across the UK and Ireland and increasingly internationally. It should support action research, promote innovative learning approaches and materials, network facilitating opportunities for communities and professionals to learn from each other and support the training of the trainers. The diagnostic model at the heart of this report should inform its curriculum. Finally, the centre should take to the road on learning journeys to visit communities, share and test knowledge and emerging practice, and encourage communities to learn from each other.

We call upon Carnegie UK Trust to work with others to establish a UK and Ireland centre for rural community development to support policy and practice development.

ENHANCING ENVIRONMENTAL CAPACITY

The vibrant rural community of the future will adapt to the needs of a low carbon economy by reducing its carbon footprint, nurturing its biodiversity assets and reaping the potential of community owned renewable energy gen- eration.

Why action is needed

It is now clear that our current fossil fuel-based lifestyles must adapt to limit greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere and thereby the harsher impacts of climate change. Major reductions will be essential to meet or go beyond the Government's target to cut the UK's carbon dioxide emissions by about 60 per cent from their 1990 level by 2050.

Current environmental concerns have also prompted a fierce debate about the relative impact of different forms of food transportation over both long and short distances. This has at the very least helped to raise consumer awareness of the environmental costs of their food choices. There are new opportunities for food producers and processors to collaborate in the building of local collecting and distribution networks. In the medium term, we expect large-scale retailers to develop more local distribution hubs, sourcing as much produce as possible locally. Rural communities need to be ready for these shifts in patterns of production and distribution.

There are new opportunities for the production of renewable energy and environmental resource stewardship. Renewable energy is readily available as locally sourced biomass from either woodland or forestry or from specific energy crops in many rural areas as well as wind, tidal or wave sources. The renewable energy can be used in community-based projects for either heat alone through district heating schemes or for combined heat and power generation.

The development of large-scale wind farms is splitting communities, particularly where there is perceived to be little community benefit. The Commission has visited community-owned wind farms which enjoy strong support and which generate ongoing income for community use. Here they are clearly seen as a community asset.

Isle of Gigha Community Wind Farm

Gigha Renewable Energy Limited, a trading subsidiary of the Isle of Gigha Heritage Trust, established the UK's first grid-connected local community-owned wind farm in December 2004. This landmark project meets all of Gigha's energy needs, exporting the surplus to the mainland and providing an annual net income to the community of around £80,000. Community members were consulted at each stage through a series of meetings held throughout the development of the project. The Gigha community has named the turbines 'Creideas, Dòchas and Carthanna'; the Gaelic names for 'Faith, Hope and Charity'. The financial model for the project was based around a combination of grant funding, loan funding and equity, including an £80,000 shareholding through Highlands and Islands Enterprise.

The consequences of not taking action on the challenge of climate change are now being realised. This is an area where community action can make a difference through recycling, energy saving schemes and eco design. There are also increasing opportunities for communities and local employers to develop 'green jobs' linked to sustainable development.

Rural Communities Carbon Network/ ruralnet|uk

This project will raise the awareness of the actions that rural communities can take in response to the climate change challenge. It builds on existing, isolated community action and will support other rural groups by providing access to an online panel of experts, good practice toolkits and a mentoring service linked to a small grants programme.

Ideas for Action:

1. Create employment related to renewable energy production and green living.

The changing climate will present a range of new opportunities to rural areas, from the chance to develop under-utilised assets such as woodland to tourism development and eco-building design. We are concerned that we will not have a sufficient skilled workforce to meet existing international carbon reduction obligations and to maximise the opportunities provided by dispersed renewable energy production and green living, including organic farming and the construction of eco-friendly affordable housing, schools and other buildings.

We call upon governments to work with employers and Sector Skills Councils to invest in developing a skilled workforce in rural communities to meet the new environmental challenges.

2. Reward low carbon communities through the local taxation system and other incentives

Rural communities have a real opportunity to present shining examples to the rest of society of new models of sustainable living, energy generation and efficiency, and the low carbon economy.

We call upon governments and local authorities to reward low carbon communities through the local taxation system and other incentives.

3. Adopt practical measures to enhance the capacity of rural communities to protect the environment and to adapt to a low carbon economy

Energy companies, environmental organisations, schools, youth and community education services have a major role to play in developing environmental awareness and supporting practical community initiatives. These services need to work with local communities to identify environmental protection and low carbon projects as part of community action planning.

We call upon local authorities and their community planning partners to support the capacity of local communities through technical advice and environmental awareness raising programmes.

A CHARTER FOR RURAL COMMUNITIES

OPTIMISING ASSETS

1. We call upon governments, regional development agencies, Lottery distributors, the Social Investment Bank and independent funders to enhance financial support for rural Asset Based Community Development.

2. We call upon the landowners' associations in the UK and Ireland to enhance their promotion of asset based community development and to establish an advisory service to support their members.

3. We call upon governments to introduce measures to encourage asset transfer and which secures public benefit and community ownership in perpetuity.

4. We call upon regional development agencies to establish specialist teams to support community asset transfer and ownership, building upon the model of Highlands and Islands Enterprise.

5. We call upon the employers of community development staff to support learning exchange and training opportunities for community organisations and community development workers in asset based community development.

ACHIEVING FAIRNESS FOR EVERYONE

6. We call upon governments and local authorities to support local rural benefit take up campaigns.

7. We call upon governments to publish revised rural deprivation indicators and to make the analysis available at parish and community council level.

8. We call upon national occupational skills councils, employers and training providers to review professional training competences to ensure that staff are more adequately prepared for collaborative working to address social exclusion in rural settings.

9. We call upon governments, the Human Rights Commission, schools and community education services to give greater prominence to anti discriminatory education and community mediation programmes in rural areas.

EMPOWERING LOCAL GOVERNANCE

10. We call upon governments to establish, if they are not in place already, systems of elected governance at community level, with representatives elected every four years on a single voting day (as appropriate in each country).

11. We call upon governments to give the power of precept, where it does not exist already, to all parish and community level councils.

12. We call upon governments to place a duty upon parish and community level councils to prepare and publish a community action plan every four years and a duty upon higher tier authorities to consider these plans in their own strategic planning.

13. We call upon local authorities to provide funding and other resources to enable parish and community level councils to access independent technical assistance and capacity building support so that a community action plan can be produced.

INCREASING FINANCIAL RESOURCES FOR COMMUNITY BENEFIT

14. We call upon funders to make applying for funding, especially for small amounts, as simple as possible.

15. We call upon funders to share information as to what works and does not and to have programmes capable of responding to replication of proven success.

16. We call upon funding bodies to introduce funding opportunities for periods of longer than five years for rural community development.

17. We call upon funders to support community action plans and community budgeting as ways of targeting funds to address needs and priorities identified by local communities.

ENJOYING LOCALLY RELEVANT SERVICES

18. We call upon governments and the utility companies across the UK and Ireland to ensure the provision of essential services for all rural communities.

19. We call upon governments to support initiatives in the co- production of services.

20. We call upon local authorities and other service planners to identify and support co-production opportunities as part of the community planning process.

21. We call upon public service providers to extend commissioning and procurement opportunities for social enterprises.

22. We call for local enterprise agencies to enhance support for social entrepreneurs and the development of social enterprises.

23. We call upon public, private and third sector service providers to work together to create multi service delivery points in rural areas.

ENRICHING SOCIAL CAPITAL AND WELLBEING

24. We call upon governments to double the supply side of trained rural community development practitioners.

25. We call upon the national Sector Skills Councils and professional endorsement and validation bodies to review rural community development occupational standards and training for volunteers and staff.

26. We call upon the appropriate national further and higher education funding councils to expand funding investment in local work- based learning opportunities for volunteer and paid rural community development staff.

VALUING LOCAL DISTINCTIVENESS

27. We call upon governments, the curriculum development agencies, local education authorities and the teaching profession to support place- based education as a cross cutting feature of the primary and secondary curriculum in rural schools.

28. We call upon governments and arts councils across the UK and Ireland to expend investment in rural community arts, particularly through the employment of cultural animateurs and community arts workers.

29. We call upon governments, tourist authorities, national parks and local authorities to enhance the community development dimension of tourism and leisure.

DEVELOPING RELIABLE INFRASTRUCTURE

30. We call upon governments, regional and local authorities to adequately resource community managed transport and access initiatives within an integrated transport and access strategy.

31. We call upon governments to establish Community Land Trusts Facilitation Funds in each country.

32. We call upon governments to revise planning laws to create more opportunities for the acquisition of land by housing associations and Community Land Trusts to build eco-friendly affordable housing.

ENHANCING ENVIRONMENTAL CAPACITY

33. We call upon governments to work with employers and Sector Skills Councils to invest in developing a skilled workforce in rural communities to meet the new environmental challenges.

34. We call upon governments and local authorities to reward low carbon communities through the local taxation system and other incentives.

35. We call upon local authorities and their community planning partners to support the capacity of local communities through technical advice and environmental awareness raising programmes.

SUPPORTING A DYNAMIC LOCAL ECONOMY

36. We call upon enterprise development agencies and training providers to deliver accessible training and small business development support in rural areas.

37. We call upon enterprise development agencies and local authorities to support local communities in the identification of local assets with economic development potential.

In addition we make four key recommendations specifically targeted at the Carnegie UK Trust.

38. We call upon Carnegie UK Trust to work with others to establish a UK and Ireland Centre for Rural Community Development to support policy and practice development.

39. We call upon the Carnegie UK Trust to support the national and international exchange of experience on asset based rural community development.

40. We call upon Carnegie UK Trust to initiate a rural funders' forum in each country.

41. We call upon Carnegie UK Trust to publish an annual review over the next five years of the impact of the recommendations made by the Commission.

Capacity building for activism: Learning from the past for the future

(By Lynn McCabe; from Community Empowerment: Critical Perspectives from Scotland, edited Emejulu and Shaw, 2010)

Introduction

Working in the same area for twenty years might not be an appealing prospect for many community workers, particularly in the current climate, but sticking around for that length of time has its advantages. In particular, it has given me the opportunity to witness change - not only in the area and in the people I have worked with but in the community itself. Over time, I have also observed how national and local policy initiatives have impacted on community development and the ways in which we are expected to work with communities.

In many ways, the physical environment of North Edinburgh (formerly Greater Pilton) has changed dramatically for the better during the last two decades, with new community facilities in most neighbourhoods and many new housing developments replacing some of the area's worst housing stock. Two of the best examples are in West Granton and Muirhouse, where local tenants had a major input - not only in the design and layout of the houses but also in the development of the surrounding areas. There is, however, a downside to the regeneration process which has been taking place in North Edinburgh. According to local activists, there has been a decrease in the numbers of houses available for rent which has made it difficult for many people who were decanted to return to their neighbourhood. They also point to the increase in the private sector's involvement in housing in the area. Many people feel that the strategy to increase home ownership in North Edinburgh has led to an increase in private rented accommodation which has left many former council tenants paying higher rents and having less security of tenure. This situation is exacerbated by 'absent' landlords who fail to carry out their duties and by a high turnover of residents, making it difficult to re-establish the sense of community and belonging once found in many of these neighbourhoods.

Another positive development which is worth noting is the wide range of voluntary organisations which have been established in the area over the last 20 years. The services they provide address many of the needs that statutory organisations were either unable or unwilling to meet. Most of these projects can be traced back to grassroots campaigns initiated by local people. Unfortunately, however, the global economic crisis and the consequent cuts in public sector funding means that many of the services and jobs provided by these organisations might not exist in the next few years.

As we can see from the above, North Edinburgh has a history of community activism which has been responsible for many improvements in ordinary people's lives. The area also has a long history of issue-based campaigns which have generated a collective political response from the community. The list of campaigns is too lengthy to document here, but it is worth highlighting some of the issues which local groups have taken up over the years: rent increases, dampness, poor repairs, unemployment, ill-health, the loss of health services, pollution, school closures, the poll tax, racism, water privatisation, 'super snoopers', poverty, lack of affordable childcare, fuel poverty and poor public transport.

The problem

It was on my return to work after a period of study that I sensed a change in the nature of community activism in North Edinburgh. Re-reading articles in back copies of the community newspaper and discussions with local people about current issues made me aware that many people felt completely powerless to challenge and organise a collective response to the savage cuts to projects which they had fought for, developed and, in some cases, managed.

I was also aware that many of the activists who had fought for the right to have a place at the governance table were now extremely disillusioned with official structures established to promote community participation. I also knew from personal experience, and from conversations with people, that it had been a long, painful process to get the authorities to accept that the community had a legitimate right to be consulted on important issues and to be represented in local decision-making structures. Many activists who had been involved at that time were now of the opinion that a seat at the table was no longer necessarily in the community's interest. This was illustrated at a public meeting at the end of 2009 when community representatives were put in a position where they felt duty-bound as 'partners' to approve cuts to local projects.

I also was aware from my research that the local authority's strategy to increase involvement in local affairs was actually having the opposite effect, as many activists were choosing to walk away from a process over which they felt they had little influence. Some activists have decided to remain within the system, feeling that projects are best defended from the inside, but this situation creates an uncomfortable distance between 'the engaged' and 'the estranged'.

The crisis in community participation in North Edinburgh has been exacerbated by the fact that very few new activists are coming up through the system. There are many reasons for this, but it seems obvious to me that a significant factor has been an excessive emphasis on promoting participation in official structures at the expense of the kind of active issue- based work which traditionally generated new activists who were motivated by anger or solidarity. The irony of the situation is that a decrease in community activism and a decline in the community's capacity to assert itself is happening at the same time as participation, engagement and empowerment are, once again, key priorities for local and national government.

The role of community development

Since my introduction to community politics in North Edinburgh in the mid-1980s, I have been consistently impressed by the capacity of local people to rise again and again to the challenge of fighting injustice within their community. In fact, it was this fighting spirit and the idea that ordinary people could make a difference that inspired me to qualify as a community worker in the first place. And it was a growing uneasiness at what I saw to be the loss of this vital capacity and fighting spirit that made me return to what I consider to be the basics of community development - in order to work out what had led to this situation and what would be an appropriate response.

From my own experience, the basics involve a number of things:

- identifying an issue or problem which causes concern to members of the community

- researching and analysing the issue or problem

- consulting local people about their understanding of the problem

- bringing together people who are interested in developing a collective response

- providing the group with the necessary support to address the problem.

In addition, the process should be educational and should provide a range of learning opportunities relevant to the group's needs and objectives.

The proposal

The proposal for a social history project emerged from my initial discussions with local activists who were angry that many of the achievements won by the community over the years were under threat and exasperated because the community didn't seem to be able to fight back. They recounted the many campaigns which had taken place in North Edinburgh and the different, and often creative, tactics employed by campaigning groups. People also talked about why they had joined campaigns and how their involvement had led to other things. It became very clear to me that this was extremely valuable information, from a social history perspective. More importantly, it also struck me that such a project would provide a space for local activists to reflect on their history of community activism - and what had become of it. My hope was that collectively-gained insights might re-motivate people and encourage them to develop alternative methods of articulating and addressing issues. In addition, it could also help to rebuild the community's capacity to re- engage with decision-makers on their own terms and to exercise more power and influence over what matters to them.

Although social history may not be an explicit priority of my employer, the Children and Families Department of the City of Edinburgh Council, I nevertheless see it as a valid and legitimate aspect of Community Learning and Development work which is entirely consistent with the stated outcomes of The Scottish Empowerment Plan produced by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA):

Fundamentally, community empowerment is about people taking collective action to make change happen on their own terms.

The project

The original aim of the Project was to document the history of community activism in North Edinburgh from 1980 to the present time, to examine the ways in which it had changed during that period, and the factors which had contributed to these developments. Although the proposal gained widespread support from local activists, it was felt that the timescale should be extended - back to when the area was first developed in the 1930s. It was also suggested that the project should document the wider history of the area as this would highlight how those problems and issues experienced by local residents had contributed to the area's tradition of community activism. Although this additional aim significantly increased the group's work, it has proved to be an extremely important aspect of their research in terms of how this 'hidden' history illustrates the relationship between the wider social, political and economic context and the provision of housing for the working class.

The first phase of the project, which began in March 2009, involved a small group of activists in various kinds of research: reviewing videos of local campaigns, analysing back copies of the community newspaper, collecting articles from national and local newspapers from the 1930s, and identifying material from other sources such as personal records, archives from local projects and national organisations. From this research, the group have produced a valuable archive containing articles, photographs, publications and videos.

The group have also produced two 'timelines'. The first charts key national policies and events and has helped the group appreciate how decisions at Westminster and further afield relate directly to local issues. Such work also helps to make the crucial link between local and global dimensions of politics and power. The second timeline summarises key issues during each decade and many of the initiatives developed by the local authority in response to the problems of and in the area.

As I have already said, my view is that community development is an educational process which should involve a range of relevant learning opportunities for those involved. In terms of the social history group who are responsible for developing this work, this has meant negotiating a curriculum which meets the needs and the interests of group members. This has helped to maintain people's interest in the project and, at the same time, has ensured that participants are equipped to tackle each new phase of the project. During the last year, the programme has included practical sessions which have developed the group's research skills: visits, speakers on different topics, learning how to use computers to scan material and access information via the web, attending conferences, meeting and exchanging information with activists from other areas. There have also been sessions which provide the opportunity for people to discuss, debate and reflect on local and national politics and their impact on the local community.

The group is currently compiling a short publication which will highlight key aspects of the archive. Members of the group have been involved in all aspects of this project, drawing on the knowledge and insights they have gained from the research process. The next phase of the project will involve producing an archive of interviews with local activists who will be given the opportunity to tell their own personal stories to illustrate the area's history and their experience of community activism. The material will eventually be edited as a DVD and will focus on wider issues of citizenship. Once the publication and DVD have been completed, the plan is to use these materials to generate discussion within the wider community and to involve more people in the process of critically reflecting on the changing nature of citizenship and why it matters. This represents a significant opportunity for local people to make sense of what's happening in and to their community and to develop their own ideas about what to do about it.

Those involved in the process have found the experience extremely useful and rewarding. They have developed their own analysis of the changing nature of community activism and have been able to reflect on their own experience as activists (as distinct from 'learners') and the impact this kind of learning has had on their own lives, the lives of their families and the wider community. Most of the group are retired and have indicated how much they value being able to contribute to something they feel passionate about. This is worth bearing in mind when we consider the current lack of priority given to providing educational opportunities for older people. It also highlights the potential of this group of citizens in helping younger people develop the knowledge and skills which are necessary to take part in democracy.

The project does not make any great claims concerning the current state of community engagement in North Edinburgh, but it does create some much-needed critical distance for local activists and shows how we can learn from the past for the present. North Edinburgh Social History Project is a modest project involving a small group of retired people who are supported by a part-time community worker with access to a very limited budget. What it demonstrates, however, is that there are alternatives to the current model of capacity building and that even within the narrowest of policy agendas there is still space to try and make a difference.

Lynn McCabe

Chapter 9: Learning Communities and a Learning Society

Contents

References

Introduction - Learning Communities and a Learning Society

Learning, Knowledge and Development

(By Lyn Tett, from Community Education, Learning and Development, 2010)

Adult Education in Scotland: past and present

(By Ian Martin and Jim Crowther, Concept journal, 2010)

Learning in Scotland's Communities

(HM Inspectorate of Education, 2011)

Advancing Scotland as a Learning Society

(The Standards Council for Community Learning and Development for Scotland, November 2011)

References

Core Texts

Learning, knowledge and development (Lyn Tett in Community Education, Learning and Development by Lyn Tett. 3rd edition, copyright Lyn Tett 2010, published by Dunedin Academic Press Ltd.; ISBN 978-1-906716-10-3;

Pages 51-68

Adult education in Scotland: past and present (Crowther and Martin, Concept 2010)

Learning in Scotland's Communities, HMIE, 2011

Advancing Scotland as a Learning Society, (CLDSC 2011)

Related Content - main references

Skills for Scotland - A Lifelong Skills Strategy (Scottish Government, 2007)

Delivering Outcomes in CLD: Current issues for outcome-focused practice in adult learning (summary report for Scottish Government by YouthLink Scotland, Learning Link Scotland, Scottish Community Development Centre, 2008)

Worth Doing: using the Scottish Credit and Qualification Framework in CLD (SCQF/Scottish Government, 2008)

Improving Scottish Education (2009) HMIE

Lifelong learning in Scotland: cohesion, equity and participation (Field, J. Scottish Educational Review, 2009)

Social Practice in Community Based Adult Learning (Education Scotland, 2011)

Quality and Improvement in Scottish Education (HMIE, 2012)

Curriculum for Excellence and CLD - Improving Life Chances (Education Scotland, 2013)

Learning Communities and A Learning Society

Introduction by Christine Barber

Although the lifelong learning agenda for Scotland promotes opportunities for growth, development and fulfilment, without intervention within a social justice framework, it is recognised that it can result in reinforcing inequalities. This premise is fully explored in Learning, knowledge and development, 2010. Two examples of how community educators worked with adults to build knowledge and understanding that develops from their issues and concerns are utilised to powerfully illustrate the ways in which practice can challenge narrow policy conceptualisations.

A critical stance is adopted, whereby the dominant discourse that places people as victims who need to have 'experts' to show them what to do is confronted. In its place, ways in which people can take back control, name their problems and find appropriate solutions are debated. Through these discussions a compelling case for the adoption of a model of lifelong learning which focuses on democratic renewal is revealed. Furthermore, the crucial role for community educators in achieving a 'learning society for all' is well established, albeit, in a time of great changes and challenges.

Scottish adult education can be defined in terms of two traditions, the 'radical' tradition - learning based on a curriculum concerned with social and political change and the 'respectable' tradition - learning provision that focuses on personal development. The distinction that is made between these traditions highlights the importance of ideological purpose in thinking about the practice of adult education. Furthermore, it provides a useful starting point to explore adult education. However, that said, in reality adult education is much more complex.

This intricacy is explored in the article, Adult education in Scotland: past and present, Concept, 2010. The authors, Crowther and Martin discuss how the overlap between these distinct traditions reveals the ways in which the growth of the welfare state in the twentieth century and the changes in social and political struggle shaped adult education over time. In the 1970s adult education, youth work and community development were integrated to become the 'Community Education Service'. With this change, official endorsement was given to the need to widen educational opportunities for oppressed and exploited groups by adopting a 'community development approach'. This helped to reinvigorate the social purpose of existing learning organisations and led to the development of community based learning initiatives that were linked to social and political change. However, further policy directives endorsed the need for more institutional forms of learning which were increasingly operated in a culture ruled by market values.

As highlighted in Adult education in Scotland: past and present, although these policy developments have had a negative impact on the development of 'radical adult learning', deep-rooted issues such as the crisis in public welfare are inspiring resistance and creating movements which support collective action and adult learning. Despite working in a difficult policy context and coping with public sector cutbacks, many educators still manage to adopt a radical ideological stance in their work. As Crowther and Martin comment, this has become increasingly difficult, but increasingly urgent.

At the time of the publication of HM Inspectorate of Education's (HMIE's) report, Learning in Scotland's Communities, 2011 inequalities in health, income and educational outcomes were continuing to present major challenges for Scotland. Furthermore, public services were facing severe financial constraints. To support providers of education and others services to respond to these challenges, the report (which drew upon HMIE's findings from inspections undertaken since 2008) advocated for a clearer focus on 'learning communities'.

A 'learning community' was defined in the report as a 'group of partners who work together to support learning and development within a locality' and it was viewed as being fundamental in achieving the ambitions of Curriculum for Excellence and addressing inequalities. However, the report showed that learning communities in Scotland were at different stages of development and their work varied in impact. Thus the intention of the report was to encourage debate within a range of organisations, including schools, community learning and development (CLD) providers, colleges and social work, and assist action to further improve outcomes for learners and communities.

The report highlights examples of effective practice, such as CLD providers using important skills and experience that support young people to achieve. It also outlines areas for improvement, including the need for more schools, CLD providers and a range of other organisations to work together under the common purpose of Curriculum for Excellence to support all children and young people to achieve all that they can.

In 2011, a series of conversations on Advancing Scotland as a Learning Society: the Contribution of Community Learning and Development took place across Scotland and with a wide field of community learning and development activists and practitioners. This timely conversation took place when Community Learning and Development services were facing reductions in direct financial assistance and there was uncertainty over future funding.

Respondents were united in their view that there was a lack of visionary thinking and leadership; no collective voice for the CLD approach; and little understanding of CLD processes. Indeed, it was thought that Scotland could not claim to have 'a learning culture for all'. However, in the midst of working in a context which they viewed as being extremely vulnerable, they offered a practical and optimistic vision of a 'learning society for all' which they thought was possible and which they wanted to work towards. A powerful message was delivered on the role of the CLD process in achieving such a learning society. The approach and values base was identified as critical to a people-led transformation of public services and a future learning society that needed to be challenging, compassionate, promote social justice, and be open and accessible to all.

To achieve the looked-for change, a number of priorities were set: the purpose, nature and uniqueness of the CLD approach needed to be clearly defined; the role of CLD in assisting with the design of alternative, authentically involving models of power-sharing needed to be recognised; a life-related, issue-centred Scottish adult learning initiative led by local people and supported by community learning workers needed to be established; the integration of Curriculum for Excellence into youth work practice and the opportunity for more productive dialogue between school and youth work needed to be embraced.

Although this national conversation revealed a powerful positive response to human beings and to their struggles and achievements, such a response was not found to be very evident in policy responses to the social context. Accordingly, a plea was made for CLD to help embed the belief in humankind at the centre of policy making and an invitation to action - to create a 'Scottish Learning Society for all' - was issued to practitioners and activists.

Learning, Knowledge and Development[76]

(By Lyn Tett, from Community Education, Learning and Development, 2010)

The real point, the real practicality [of education], was learning how to change your life. Really useful knowledge is knowledge calculated to make you free.

(Johnson, 1988: 21-2)

Introduction

Can learning contribute to a more equal society? There is evidence that if local people are engaged in using their own knowledge then they can develop a capacity for self-determination through 'the construction, interpretation and the re-shaping of their own social identity and social reality' (Cullen, 2001: 64). Such an approach to knowledge recognises that learning is located in social participation and dialogue as well as in the heads of individuals and treats 'teaching and learning not as two distinct activities, but as elements of a single reciprocal process' (Coffield, 1999: 493).Engaging in learning can contribute to a more robust and active citizenry through enabling people to review more critically and creatively the values and workings of society and developing mutual tolerance of diversity and difference (see Schuller and Watson, 2009: 180). The implications for learning that leads to democratic renewal are that community educators need to think about what would be 'really useful knowledge' to the people with whom they are working. Such knowledge is not value-free, but needs to seek out 'meaningful, practical starting points for curriculum negotiation within a critical structural analysis' (Johnston, 2000: 16). Education's role is to make space for the collective production of knowledge and insight, and then build on what emerges from the experiences of those actively participating in creating it. This chapter provides two examples of how community educators have worked with adults to build knowledge and understanding that develops from their issues and concerns. The first example focuses on family literacy and the second on health education. These examples have been chosen because they illustrate both how people have been excluded from participation in decision making processes and also how they might take action against these excluding practices.

Family literacy learning - an example from practice

Constructions of literacy

The common way to think about literacy is to see it as a ladder that people have to climb up. This ladder begins at school and the literacy that adults need is seen as the extension of this process in post-school contexts. The emphasis is, there fore, on standardising literacy accomplishments through the use of tests, defining what are core skills and pre-specifying uniform learning outcomes. People are ranked from bottom to top with the emphasis on what they cannot do rather than what they can. This leads to a deficit model where those on the bottom rungs are positioned as lacking the skills that they need. The frameworks used to define this ladder are top-down ones, constructed largely in terms of pre vocational and vocationally relevant literacy requirements. Consequently, they do not recognise the validity of individuals' own definitions, uses and aspirations for literacy, with the result that they are 'disempowering' because they are not negotiable or learner-centred and not locally responsive. They define what counts as 'real literacy' and silence everything else. This deficit discourse also gets internalised by individuals and has consequences for how they see them selves. It undermines their self-esteem and their sense of themselves as learners.

However, the Scottish Government has recognised some of the problems associated with this narrow approach and instead advocated that:

The aim [of literacy learning] is to access learners' ability to apply their learning to real contexts and to measure the economic, personal and social gains that they make, including their willingness to learn in the future.

(Scottish Executive, 2001: 14)

Building on this, the Adult Literacy and Numeracy Curriculum for Scotland (Communities Scotland & Scottish Executive, 2005) developed a social practices approach to adult literacy and numeracy. This means that rather than seeing literacy and numeracy as the decontextualised, mechanical, manipulation of letters, words and figures, literacy is regarded as being located within social, emotional and linguistic contexts:

Literacy and numeracy practices integrate the routines, skills, and understandings, that are organized within specific contexts and also the feelings and values that people have about these activities. If you are worried that you can't do something then you are going to find it more difficult in a public or workplace context than if you were at home in a relaxed situation.

(Communities Scotland and Scottish Executive 2005: 3)

These policies and approaches provide opportunities for community educators to base literacy programmes in the life situations of adults and communities in response to issues that are derived from their own knowledge. When the emphasis is put on how adults can and want to use literacy then the focus moves to what people have, rather than what they lack, what motivates them rather than what is seen by others as something they need (see Tett et al., 2006). In addition, where the power to determine the content of the curriculum lies primarily with the student, rather than the provider, then it can be instrumental in challenging these imbalances in deciding what is to be learnt.

Family literacy

The central assumption behind family literacy programmes is that the high degree of correlation between the literacy difficulties of the child and those of the parent means that these two areas should be tackled together. One issue that such programmes are designed to address is the situation whereby teachers make assumptions about building upon home literacy experiences but have little idea of what actually happens there. This means that the literacy history of parents or the differences between home and community practices and those of the school are unexamined. Research suggests that when the range of literacy activities that people already engage in and feel comfortable about are built on, then the culture of the home is positively valued leading to greater self-efficacy for parents (see Tett and Maclachlan, 2007). How parents' self-efficacy can be built up is illustrated by a family literacy project based in an outer-city housing estate in a poor working-class area of a Scottish city. By positively valuing the home and community life of participants it sought to include the literacy practices of everyday life in the curriculum and build on them. The participants in the project were parents of children who attended the primary schools in the area who had said they had literacy problems that they would like to work on in order to help themselves and their children. Less then 10% of the participants were men partly because the courses were held during the day when most fathers were working and partly because almost SO% of the families were headed by lone, female parents. Groups of up to 10 engaged in an educational programme that is detailed below.

Developing the curriculum

When they began the programme, participants were asked to identify the literacy practices that they used at home and in their community lives. The term 'literacy' was widely defined as including the ability to read, write and use numeracy, to handle information, to express ideas and opinions, to make decisions and solve problems (see Scottish Executive, 2001). It was discovered that although the programme participants regularly used a wide range of numeracy, reading and writing practices, they considered them unimportant and not 'real' literacy. Everyday uses included: working out timetables and schedules; budgeting; scanning the TV pages to find out what was on; checking on their horoscopes; understanding a range of signs and symbols in the local environment; writing brief notes for family members; making shopping lists; keeping a note of birthdays and anniversaries and sending cards; texting using their mobile phones; finding information from the internet and sending emails. These existing uses of literacy provided the starting point for the curriculum and so based education in everyday literacy concerns and practices as well as the students' concerns and aspirations about their own and their children's learning and relationships to their teachers. Th.is range of approaches provided a real incentive for learning because it concentrated on what really mattered to the participants.

Negotiating the curriculum in this way was not, however, simply a matter of passing responsibility for its development from the tutor to the student: that would be an abdication of the tutors' critical, interpretative role and specialised skills. Tutors remained responsible for organising a pedagogical context where participants could collectively realise their best potential, where they all become subjects reflecting together on the process rather than passive individualised objects of the process. From this perspective education was seen as a cooperative activity involving respect and trust. The emphasis on the process of teaching and learning fore-grounded the lived experience of the participants where 'no one teaches another, nor is any one self-taught. People teach each other, mediated by the world' (Freire, 1972: 53). Tue project tutors valued home and community literacies, the fostering of effective understanding between home and school literacy practices and an emphasis on the wealth of the knowledge that parents contributed to the educational development of their children.

Curriculum approaches were developed that built on a range of strategies that supported, rather than undermined, what parents did. The participants were encouraged to think critically about their own school experiences in a way that avoided simplistic explanations of failure at school. Sharing their negative school learning episodes led to a focus on what made learning difficult. For example, 'I didn't learn because the teachers only paid attention to the bright ones' and 'If you answered a question and got it wrong you were punished so I tried to avoid answering anything', leading to the realisation that 'not learning at school wasn't only my fault'. Positive experiences, such as 'I liked art because the teacher made it fun 'or 'Miss Brown took the time to explain the maths I didn't understand so I could catch up with the others', were used to discuss what made learning easier and more positive. In addition, participants were asked to discuss the differences between their own school experiences and those of their children in order to identify changing pedagogical practices. For example, 'The teachers teach them arithmetic in a way I don't understand'; 'Fiona likes going to school which I never did'; 'James' reports tell you what he can do rather than just telling you what he can't do'. Similarly, participants were encouraged to identify and value the things they did with their children that helped them to learn.Th.is included teaching their children local songs and games as well as talking about what had happened that day. The emphasis was on the positive ways in which parents already successfully educated their children through different ways of knowing the world instead of assuming that parents lacked knowledge and skills that the teacher had to impart (see Taylor and Dorsey-Gaines, 1988). So the teaching was based on a group process, where the tutor and students learnt together, beginning with the concrete experience of the participants, leading to reflection on that experience in order to affect positive change.

Using the literacy practices of everyday life

The project also asked students kept a log of their own reading and writing practices and to interview other people in their families about their roles as readers and writers. Th.is showed that the students regularly used a range of oral communication, reading and writing practices but they had not considered them to be important. These included adult-child conversations, listening to family stories and taking part in everyday tasks such as housework that research shows all help children to learn by fostering their attention, developing their thinking and flexibility and using narratives to describe events (Rogoff, 2003). Recognising and working on actual literacy practices provided an appropriate starting point for the curriculum because it grounded educational intervention in the problems of everyday life. This included challenging assumptions about the homogeneity of reading and writing practices since the wide variation in the group's experiences and the influence of gender, ethnicity and class on what was considered 'normal' was revealed through their discussions. For example, Mandy found that her telling of the traditional stories from her 'Traveler' culture, where the whole extended family would gather around to tell ghost stories, was unusual and meant that she and her children had a much better memory for stories than many other people. On the other hand, Jimmy discovered the gendered nature of his practices since it was his wife who remembered to send birthday cards whereas he was expected to deal with more formal writing such as paying the bills. As well as this, a critical examination of the presumptions about family life that were contained in their children's reading books revealed assumptions about nuclear family roles that were at odds with many of the participants' own experiences. The next stage of this part of the project was for the participants to create, with the help of the computers, stories for their children that reflected their own lives. Access to good word-processing and drawing packages enabled attractive texts to be produced that were authentic reflections of the relevant issues in their own families and communities.

The project staff also focused on developing critical language awareness through enabling learners to see language and the reading of texts as problematic (see Wallace, 1992) .This involved, for example, collecting texts that the participants came across in everyday use from a range of genres (advertisements, newspapers, letters from school, bills, cereal packets, 'junk mail', emails and family photograph albums) to work on as a group. They were asked to identify: to whom the text was primarily addressed; who produced it; why it was interesting and what message the producer was trying to get across so that they could see that all writing was created for particular purposes. Such decoding challenged the participants' taken-for-granted assumptions that there was just one form of writing and helped them to see that the writing that they created could vary in form too. Student-led investigations, which involved taking Polaroid photo graphs of a range of public writing including graffiti, public notices, shop signs, posters, and then coming together to decode these pictures, enabled discussion to take place about the concerns in the community and the messages that were presented to them. Both these approaches enabled the participants to see the ways in which literacy is constructed in different contexts and for different purposes and led to lively discussions. Two examples were the prevalence of racism in the community as revealed through graffiti on the walls of the houses and how particular family life-styles, including having two parents, were assumed by the manufacturers of breakfast cereals. These thematic investigations, or codifications, were based on the ideas of Paolo Freire ( 1972) and were designed to help the parents to step back from the immediacy of daily life and observe it from a distance so that they could reflect on their social situation and their own place within it.

Sometimes the materials produced by the students were used to create a group poem around the theme of the discussion so that individual contributions led to a collective, cooperative outcome. On other occasions, the theme generated letters of complaint to the appropriate authorities, for example, in relation to the removal of racist graffiti. The general approach of the project was to link reading with writing and talking so that these three important facets of literacy could be brought together. Oral language, especially in relation to rhymes, story-telling and word games, was used to highlight the importance of using the language of the home and community in other contexts including the school. This approach involved the recognition that some people are at a disadvantage because of the ways in which a particular literacy is used in dominant institutions. 'The culture children learn as they grow up is, in fact, "ways of taking" meaning from the environment around them' (Heath, 1983: 49) and not a 'natural' way of behaving. The social practices of the school and other institutions, and the language and literacy they reinforce, were made visible to show that they represented a selection from a wider range of possibilities, none of which was neutral. These practices then became a critical resource for learning and literacy.

Another important aspect of the project was the use of authentic assessment situated in real life contexts, which was done with, not to, participants . The ability to make changes in their practices and take action was used to assess their progress rather than standardised tests. This process-oriented focus involved students developing a 'portfolio' of examples of their literacy work as evidence of what they had learnt. Portfolios included the titles of books that participants had read with their children; stories that they had created about their own family life, letters and emails written to friends and families; diaries; examples of reading and writing from a variety of contexts including church, neighbourhood meetings, work; as well as photographs of writing that had interested them. This type of assessment helped the students to reflect both on what they had learned and also how they learned and gave them opportunities to test out their newly acquired skills, knowledge and understanding. Reflection was enhanced when the portfolio was brought along to the group and formed part of a 'show and tell' session that could also be shared with the children. Assessment was based on the extent to which students had been able to change their literacy practices from their own baselines-the distance that they had travelled. This type of assessment also allowed changes in relationships, particularly with their children and the school, to be recorded. This was a very different approach from the way in which people's learning is normally assessed, through the use of standardised outcome-based methods, and was empowering to both students and tutors. For students it enabled them to take responsibility for their own learning and have an equal say in the direction it should take based on their own goals. For tutors it provided feedback on the programme design, content and delivery and the strengths and weaknesses of their approaches.

By taking a critical approach to speaking, reading and writing practices the participants in this project were enabled to see that there are a variety of literacies rather than just the one used by the school. This, in turn, helped to challenge the deficit views of the culture of the home and the community that had been internalised by many parents. As they gained confidence in their own literacy practices they were able to interact on a more equal basis with the school's staff so that they were involved more directly in their children's education. This required the development of a greater understanding by teachers of what parents needed to know about school practices that was partly achieved through joint training sessions with the family literacy project and school staff. The other aspect of confidence building was through helping parents be in a better position to know what to ask the school about their children's progress that took account of the culture of the local community. Parents learnt by sharing and valuing experiences as well as by suggestions and ideas introduced by the tutor.

Working together

This project also showed the value of people working together as a group. Good relationships between and amongst tutors and students created an atmosphere of trust where support, encouragement and constructive feedback helped people to take risks. Being in a positive environment gave people the 'scaffolding' (see Vygotsky, 1986) to go that little bit further with their learning and to stretch their understanding beyond what they currently knew. The project also demonstrated the importance of the emotional and social dimensions of learning and how working together helped the parents to see learning as both possible and valuable. For example, 'Being part of the group has helped me to keep going even when things were really difficult at home 'and 'The others knew I didn't like writing on the flip-chart because my spelling isn't good but with their encouragement I did it and after that I felt really proud of myself '. This approach in turn enabled the parents to become more autonomous in their learning and develop the ability to use their own judgement regarding the quality of their work. For example, 'The first version of my letter to the council about the graffiti was all muddled up so I rewrote it four times before I was satisfied it said what I wanted' and 'I was asked to do a reading by my Church so I got the other parents to listen to me and tell me how it sounded and gradually learned that I had to say it really slowly if people were going to understand me.' Parents and tutors together formed a community of practice that acted as a 'locus of engagement in action, interpersonal relations, shared knowledge, and negotiation [that are mediated by the communities in which their meanings are negotiated in practice' (Wenger, 1998:85). This approach to the assessment of learning also enabled some of the parents to move on to more formal provision and the project tutors developed relationships with other providers so that individuals could easily go to the local Further Education College and take courses that led to accreditation if they wished.

Another aspect of working together was that the parents were able to attach meaning and significance to shared experiences and common understandings created out of a variety of contexts and circumstances. For example, parents said:

Khurshid got to make friends with the other children where before I'd kept her in because I was afraid they would all be racist. I was the only dad in the group and felt a bit ashamed that I was looking after Kim because my wife can earn more than me. But I've learnt that I'm OK as a dad and that I can learn myself and help Kim with her schoolwork.

As a result of this project people were able to reflect on their experience and add new and different knowledge. It put people back at the heart oflearning, as the subjects oflearning rather than the objects of educational interventions that were supposed to be good for them. Learning then becomes a shared endeav our between tutors and students, a two-way, rather than a one-way, process (see Thompson, 2001).

Educational development and health-a second example from practice

Health inequalities

The second example from practice focuses on the relationship between educational development and health. A great deal of research has shown that poor health and premature death is caused by the structural factors of inequality and poverty and the ways in which these material conditions cause psychosocial stress in early life (e.g. NHS Health Scotland, 2009; Marmot and Wilkinson, 2006). In Scotland life expectancy for those born in 2001 was predicted to be 74.6 years for men and 79.8 for women in the more affluent areas compared to 69.2 for men and 76.S for women in the least affluent areas (Macintyre, 2007: S). These inequalities at birth are exacerbated because universal medical services are used more by advantaged social groups and so are less available to those who are poorer. 1hisis known as the 'inverse care law' (Tudor Hart, 1971) and it operates because more advantaged groups have better access to the resources of time, finance and coping skills than those who are poor. 1hismeans that advantaged people are able to avail themselves of help to, for example, give up smoking and can also access preventive services such as immunisation, dental check-ups and cervical screening more easily (Macintyre, 2007: 8).1heplace where people live also has a fundamental impact on the quality and meaning of their day-to-day life and health. These include social relations with people, the physical fabric of the locality and the local geographies of services and facilities. Research shows that, in combination, features of place can be either sustaining or undermining of psychosocial well-being and health (Gattrell et al., 2000: 166).

Participating in education cannot change these structural inequalities but it does have an impact on people's well-being and on their ability to access services (Hammond, 2004; Macintyre, 2007). To illustrate this impact a course is examined called 'Health Issues in the Community' that has involved people from throughout Scotland in investigating their concerns about local health issues. 1hecourse provided opportunities for people to express their own views, and to question dominant assumptions and explanations, particularly where they differ from their own experience. It draws on people's lived experience of individual and community health problems to build a curriculum based on the issues that are important to them and their communities. This has involved tutors developing a meaningful relationship with each group so that the design of the programme takes account of the influences that impact on them. Like the literacy project described earlier, this programme focuses on the role that participants' own knowledge and development can play in contributing to change.

The assumption underpinning the course is that damaging social experiences produce ill health and that remedial action needs to be social. this view of health focuses on the socio-economic risk conditions such as poverty, unemployment, pollution, poor housing and power imbalances that cause ill health. It also emphasises that 'people's experiences of health are more about the quality of their emotional and social situation than about their experience of disease or disability' (Labonte, 1997:9). The perspective taken by the course was that an important way that inequalities in health can be tackled, and social exclusion reduced, is to find ways of strengthening individuals and communities so that they can join together for mutual support.

At the end of each course participants investigated and wrote about a health issue in their community that they believed was important and a selection of their writings has been published in three books edited by Jane Jones ( 1999a; 1999b; 2001). This section draws on these published writings by using the words of the participants to demonstrate the impact of these health issues and the action they took to bring about change.

Housing and health

Poor housing was one of the major health issues identified by those living in socio-economically excluded communities. As one student put it:

In my community due to poor housing design and inadequate heating systems families are forced to live with dampness. If they did heat their houses properly they probably would not be able to afford to eat, and are therefore forced to live with dampness in their homes.

(Frank, in Jones, 1999b: 8)

High-rise flats are a common feature of socially excluded communities and the isolation this type of housing causes was another factor that led to stress and depression. 'Isolation is a major problem in the flats as you can go for days without seeing anybody' (Cathy; in Jones, 1999b: 9).Animosity between neighbours was also a problem when people were living, quite literally; on top of each other. 'This was often combined with overcrowding, especially for those with large or extended families.

Participants in the course demonstrated that one way of ending the spiral of despair regarding poor housing and ill health was through community development. This meant that rather than seeing dampness and the noise pollution caused by poor housing as an individual trouble, that must be solved by an individual taking action on his or her own, the reasons behind the problem were examined:

The way forward was through people coming together to tackle the problem as a public issue rather than a private one. Our strategy was forcing the housing department to address the problem of poor housing and developing effective procedures in dealing with noisy neighbours.

(Alan, in Jones, 1999b: 35)

Through the process of developing strategies for tackling the problems and taking their issues to the wider community the groups grew in confidence and were able to take well-thought-out solutions to policy-makers. One group involved in the course eventually gained better insulation, cladding, soundproofing and heating for their houses through a long campaign of local and wider action. As one member of the group reported:

The [better housing] had an instant effect on improving people's health both directly and indirectly by reducing people's stress and anxiety levels. Your home should be a place where you can relax, unwind and escape from the outside world.

(Jimmy; in Jones, 1999b: 35)

Contesting official definitions of health

It appears that health professionals' dominance over the definition and analysis of health and illness is still disproportionately influential in health policy and practice (see Carlisle, 2001; Graham, 2000; Macintyre, 2007). It is difficult for policy-makers to recognise the political and social determinants of health, and to make the connections between the psychosocial effects of lack of control over the social and material conditions of people's lives, and poor health. Moreover, there is a pervasive assumption that it is people's individual life styles that need to be changed in order to improve health rather than their social and material conditions. Contesting these official definitions of health was, therefore, a key issue in working with communities on their own health issues. This had a number of implications that are now explored.

If people feel that they are able to take action about their circumstances and recognise that their problems are not their individual responsibility then much can change. For example, one student was angry that the media blamed people for their own poverty and got together with other people to see what they could do. The group talked to community education staff and they helped them to sort out what were the important issues and how to work from there. The student explained:

Healthy diet was a big issue and it was the priority. The shopping centre was the only place in our town that you could get fresh fruit and vegetables but the prices were way above most people's budgets. We decided to take action first of all about telling people what were healthy foods. Then we went to our local farmer to buy our fruit and vegetables so that we could sell them cheaper, only adding on the cost of petrol. The group sent out leaflets giving information on where to go to buy cheaper fruit and vegetables, the response was staggering. Everyone knows what a healthy diet is but they just can't afford it.

(Hetty, in Jones,2001: 33)

This example illustrated the difficulty that people living in less advantaged areas had in easily accessing a healthy diet where living on a limited income meant that food could not be wasted.

Another challenge for people was to see the potential of effective social action. Poor people often blamed themselves for the burdens that they carried and hid their feelings of guilt and inadequacy away. One aspect of changing this was to challenge the stigma associated with mental health and the medical solutions that were offered. Participants in the course described their worries about going to the doctor with their symptoms and their fears about the impact this would have on their children. For example, one student said,

'It is really frightening to say what you feel. You think, if I tell them that, the bairns [children will get taken away. You're frightened of being labeled a bad mother'

(Joan, in Jones, 1999a: 91).

Moving from an individual solution to one that comes from collective action was the next step in the process of analysis, but this usually needed the intervention of 'skilled helpers' (see Brookfield, 2000). One way in which the 'Health Issues in the Community' course provided such help was to show how apparently private troubles were actually public issues (Mills, 1959). An important aspect of this was to look at the issue of mental health. For example, one student commented on the way in which her own understanding changed:

I had been on tranquillisers but I felt so ashamed about it that I hid it from everyone. Then this young woman spoke up about her experience in the discussion group and I realised that lots of women had had the same feelings. You have to learn that it isn't your fault but you need people to talk to about it first.

(Laura, in Jones, 1999a: 130)

Working with a community to increase self-determination through collective organisation and action was an important task for the tutors. Building organisations and ensuring that community voices were heard had direct health benefits. For example, another student reported:

I'm involved with the stress centre now that got set up because a group of us thought about what would have helped us more than just getting a prescription. We decided that it was somewhere to go to get some support and someone to talk to, so we met a lot of different people and eventually the Centre was set up. Working there has done a lot for my self-confidence and I know that we can help people. It takes time but it can be done.

(Norah, in Jones, 1999a: 133)

The people who participated in this course have involved themselves in action that has enabled them to have there voices listened to about the health issues that are important to them. At the individual level this has raised their self-esteem and confidence as shown above. This in turn has enabled them collectively to have an impact on decision-making and the use and distribution of resources in relation to health. For example, a group of older people gained a chiropody clinic in their community as a result of presenting the results of a local questionnaire about the difficulties there were in accessing the provision in the nearby town (Jones, 2001). Research shows that lack of control over one's own destiny promotes a susceptibility to ill-health for people who live in difficult situations where they do not have adequate resources or supports in their day-to-day lives (see Graham, 2000). This course has demonstrated that by taking action about the health issues that were important to them the people have made a real difference to their personal and collective health.

An alternative discourse of learning, knowledge and development

These two examples have shown the importance of listening to local voices and building a curriculum that assumes that people are knowledge rich rather than deficient. This has implications for community educators' practice since all learning represents the practical articulation of a particular set of values. This means that what is counted as important knowledge needs to be considered as one way in which inequalities of power are reproduced. In a democracy, political representatives, public institutions and services, the activities of those who work for them (e.g. doctors, teachers, welfare workers), community organisations and groups, have to be accountable to the people they represent, or work for. Learning and education should, therefore, contribute towards enabling people to interrogate the claims made and activities done on their behalf and, in turn, encourage them to develop the skill, analysis and confidence to make their own voice heard ( Crowther and Tett, 2001: 109). Education should also help people to engage in a wide range of political roles and social relationships that occur outside both the workplace and the marketplace.

Community educators need, through their daily practice, to demonstrate the efficacy of this model of gaining knowledge, skills and understanding that focuses on learning for democratic renewal rather than on increasing economic competitiveness. Seeing the effects of this way of working in action helps policymakers, and others involved in the delivery of education and training, to understand that alternative constructs of learning are effective in enabling individuals and communities to fulfil their social and personal, as well as their economic, needs. The diverse purposes and contradictions of lifelong learning highlighted in Chapter 3 provide challenges and opportunities for community educators and places them in a central position to debate the ideas and how they might be interpreted. This is a position that they should be exploiting, since the ambiguity of policies provides opportunities to use these spaces to develop a more radical practice. Lifelong learning policies can also offer opportunities for the fostering of active citizenship and social inclusion. For example, the Scottish Executive (2001: 8) has suggested that 'an inclusive society is also a literate society: Stimulating and supporting education for a more active and inclusive construction of citizenship involves marginalised people recognising that their capacity for learning and generating new knowledge is their key resource.

Lifelong learning and the opportunities it represents can be used as a unifying force, not only between providers but also between different interest groups, in ways that ensure that this process challenges oppression and exclusion. This will involve the nurturing of an education and training system whose function is not to reflect and reproduce existing inequalities in society but rather one that prioritises provision for those whose earlier educational and socio-economic dis advantage should give them a first claim in a genuinely lifelong learning system. Educators can then act as an emancipatory force for change especially if they start:

from the problems, experiences and social position of excluded majorities, from the position of the working people, women and black people. It means working up these lived experiences and insights until they fashion a real alternative.

(Johnson, 1988: 813)

Within this paradigm people's classed, 'raced' and gendered experiences would be seen as an educational resource to be used, rather than a deficiency to be rectified.

Education and learning which is rooted in social interests can represent a resource for people to identify inequalities, probe their origins and begin to challenge them, using skills, information and knowledge in order to achieve and stimulate change. Through this type of learning, the production of knowledge is put back into the hands of people, competing values can be thought about and their relevance for people's lives can be assessed. Clearly, whilst education alone cannot abolish social divisions it can make a contribution to combating them, not least by tackling the ways in which social exclusion is reinforced through the very processes and outcomes of education. People's 'success' or 'failure' in school have a long-lasting effect on how they perceive themselves and are perceived by others. The dominant myth of meritocracy implies that anyone who is brought up properly, who is supported enough by caring parents, who is loved and feels good enough about themselves, will rise above the hardships imposed by poverty, sexism and racism. This myth permeates common-sense understandings of what learning implies because failing to meet the demands of schooling is seen as an individual problem. As Mohanty (1994: 147) points out:

Education represents both a struggle for meaning and a struggle over power relations. Thus education becomes a central terrain where power and politics operate out of the lived culture of individuals and groups situated in asymmetrical social and political positions.

Once people and communities are positioned as failures then itbecomes difficult to make choices and have their desires fulfilled. However, if they can be helped to challenge individually-based, deficit views of themselves and their communities then a small step has been taken in enabling their voices to be heard.

Conclusion

This chapter has shown that learning and development that builds on experience and emphasises the wealth of people's knowledge, rather than their deficits, is more effective. It is a conceptualisation of learning that is grounded in the life situations of adults leading to the joint development of a curriculum based on the knowledge that people bring from their own family and community contexts. The curriculum should lead to the development of a critical understanding of the social, political and economic factors that shape experience. The challenge for community educators is to capture the positive belief in the power of learning and in the potential of all people that comes from engaging in more democratic decision-making about what is important knowledge. This type of learning society, that has at its heart the qualities of 'co-operating in the practice of change and critically reviewing it' (Ranson, 1998:28), would provide some real choices about what being a citizen means and show how everyone can con tribute to democratic processes.

These two case studies have illustrated the importance of responding to the voices of those who are excluded. When people do not have their voices heard their only other option is to exit from participation in decision-making to the detriment of the wider society that then creates policies for people rather than with them. As Ian Martin argues:

'Community education' is about evolving more open, participatory and democratic relationships between educators and their constituencies ... The reciprocal quality of these relationships is crucial: community educators claim to work with people-not for them, let alone on them ... This fundamental element of role redefinition and reversal has wide ranging implications for the nature of educative relation ships, the context of learning and the potential for redistribution of educational opportunity.

(Martin, 1987: 17)

Faced with a dominant discourse that blames people for the poverty that they suffer it is easy for these feelings of failure to be internalised and so confidence and self-esteem are lost. When people are excluded from participation in decision-making as well as access to employment and material resources then individual action that will change their circumstances becomes almost impossible. Working together on local issues can,however1lead to the development of a political culture that focuses on the fundamentally unequal nature of society rather than people's individual deficits. Emphasising the importance of the redistribution of resources shows that there are alternatives to increasing inequalities. These alternatives will grow out of the local politics that are founded in civil society. Popular participation in these more active forms of politics therefore needs to become central to the process of democratic renewal for communities struggling to change their circumstances (see Crowther, 1999).

Adult Education in Scotland: Past and Present

(By Ian Martin and Jim Crowther, Concept journal, 2010)

The distinction that is sometimes made between 'radical' and 'respectable' traditions in Scottish adult education (Bryant, 1984) highlights the importance of ideological purpose in thinking about the history of adult education and its current state today. The radical tradition refers to adult learning based on a curriculum concerned with social and political change whereas the respectable tradition describes provision aimed primarily at personal development or individual advancement. Reality may have been more complicated than this simple distinction implies, but it remains a useful starting point for analysing adult education.

The roots of the respectable tradition can be traced back to the important influence of protestant Calvinism and Presbyterianism. The ideals of thrift, discipline and self-improvement associated with these religious beliefs generated a culture that supported education as a means of acquiring both spiritual salvation and material advancement - along with a wider appreciation of culture and the arts. Education has always had a high value in Scottish culture which historically, for adults, took the form of autodidactic learning and mutual improvement (Cooke, 2006). A secular and institutionalised version of this self-help culture was evident in the growth of Mechanics Institutes in the late 18th century, which were essentially aimed at improving the scientific understanding of skilled artisans, and their emergence in Scotland led to their growth across the UK in the 19th century.

The radical tradition was linked with the growth of socialist ideology in the 19th and 20th centuries. The movement for social and political change provided a 'rough and ready' form of adult learning for social and political action that reached a broad and developing working-class constituency which was becoming conscious of itself as a class. It was not until the early 20th century, with the growing strength of radical political parties, that educational organisations developed to support the struggles of the labour movement. (Crowther, 1999). The communist inspired Labour Colleges in the 1920s provided the first systematic attempt at radical education provision for working people based on a Marxist inspired curriculum. The aim was to intellectually equip organisers at the point of production to play their part in leading the anticipated political revolution. The rival organisation, the Workers' Educational Association (WEA) which was founded in 1903, adopted a broader ideology and curriculum but it too was geared towards providing education for working people to become social and political leaders.

In contrast, the respectable tradition in the first half of the 20th century was linked with the slow growth of university outreach provision - a patchwork of liberal adult education classes, leisure and interest-based courses, provided mainly by the ancient Scottish universities of Glasgow, Edinburgh, St Andrews and Aberdeen - and local authority adult education classes covering a similar if less 'high brow' range of subjects. The other important strand of educational provision (or, more accurately, training) was 'night classes' which offered certificated vocational courses mainly in further education colleges. In statistical terms, more people were probably involved in vocational training than all other forms of adult education put together.

In reality, the overlap between the radical and respectable traditions is also important because they have been reformulated and reconfigured over time, partly because of the growth of the welfare state in the 20th century and partly because of changing currents of social and political struggle. The development of community education in the 1970s drew on these distinct traditions.

Following the recommendations of the 1975 Alexander Report, Adult Education: The Challenge of Change, the expansion of adult education provision by local authorities, particularly in disadvantaged communities, led to the creation of Community Education Services, which combined adult education, community development and youth work into an integrated service. The main aim was to widen educational opportunities for traditional 'non-participants' by adopting a 'community development approach'. The focus of intervention was primarily the individual, but it was also understood that adult education could be an integral part of the process of social change as the following quote indicates:

"Society is now less certain about the values it should uphold and tolerates a wide range. Individual freedom to question the value of established practices and institutions and to propose new forms is part of our democratic heritage. To maintain this freedom, resources should not be put at the disposal only of those who conform but ought reasonably to be made available to all for explicit educational purposes. The motives of those who provide education need not necessarily be identified with the motives of those for whom it is provided."

(Scottish Education Department 1975, 25).

Official support for dissent and its value to a democratic society encouraged educational links with social movements, especially the peace movement and women's movement, which helped to reinvigorate the social purpose of organisations like the WEA. In addition, the translation of Paulo Freire's ideas into English in the early1970s chimed with the new emphasis on cultural struggle and the role of education as a resource for oppressed and exploited groups. The Adult Learning Project, which was established in Edinburgh in 1979, was an attempt to translate Freire's ideas on cultural action into the Scottish context (Kirkwood and Kirkwood, 1989). This initiative in community-based adult education has attracted considerable international interest over the years, and made a small but important contribution to the growth of devolution and the democracy movement in the 1990s, which eventually led to the establishment of the new Scottish Parliament in 1999.

Despite this, the overall assessment should recognise the fragmented and localised nature of the radical tradition in adult education. The marginal status of community education in welfare policy created conditions where experimentation and creativity sometimes flourished and where different and, at times conflicting, ideological approaches co-existed - but it also limited their impact geographically and institutionally. On the whole, adult education outside of formal provision has been characterised by official indifference, the strong preference being for institutional and credentialised forms of learning and education. The policy emphasis on essentially economistic and instrumental model of lifelong learning for people in the labour market has also added to this trend (Crowther, 2006).

Despite the relative autonomy of the Scottish Parliament the overall policy pattern for lifelong learning, across the UK, involves individuals taking responsibility for looking after themselves and their families by training and retraining rather than depending on state welfare provision (Martin, 2003). This, in turn, has had a marked impact on adult education in that the grassroots' perspective which permeated the Alexander Report, implied a constructivist view of knowledge whereby people learned from their experience and education was a resource for addressing their individual and collective problems. In contrast, the primary value now attached to lifelong learning is to acquire instrumental knowledge and skills which will be 'delivered' in a variety of contexts and modes. This emphasis on packaged instrumental skills for work, as distinct from a curriculum based on the interests of people in communities, plays an increasingly important role in what is deemed worth learning and what type of society we want to become.

Another feature of this new policy context is the emphasis on the role of adult education in promoting social cohesion in a context of steadily increasing inequality (Tett, 2006). Adult education has either to fulfil tightly controlled policy objectives - for which funding is available - or it must increasingly operate in a culture dominated by market values. For example, adult literacy is a current policy priority and has received substantial resources with the aim of reaching 150,000 new learners in Scotland in a five-year period. Provision is free, and some interesting and creative work is occurring. The consequence, however, is that adult learning without a literacy component is under-resourced and largely dependent on adult educators obtaining short-term funding sources which have a limited lifespan and impact. This is the case in the voluntary sector in particular but also in local authority provision more generally. Furthermore, adult classes provided by local authorities - which from the 1970s began to reach a wider constituency - are increasingly driven by market criteria, which has meant that subsidies for low-waged and unemployed groups have been cut and class fees increased. The market processes now at work will serve to restrict and stratify the student body and undermine progress that has been made on providing a varied curriculum open to a wide range of adults.

Widening participation, in terms of increasing the number of students enrolling in higher education, has been an important part of the UK policy agenda. This has led to the emergence of learning support services within higher and further education to enable students to cope with academic study and literacy demands. In this respect, what some adult educators - particularly literacy practitioners - used to do in communities is now provided within these formal institutions. This trend is reinforcing a 'respectable' model of progression in adult education understood primarily in terms of acquiring formal educational qualifications and credentials which are subject to inflation. Meanwhile, a wider sense of what progression might mean, or one that is framed in advancing social and collective interests, is simply no longer on the agenda.

A notable difference in higher education in Scotland, compared to the rest of the UK, is that there is no payment of student fees - at least for the time being (Paterson, 2000). Students are able to take out loans to cover living costs which are subsequently re-paid when they begin earning a specified level of income. Despite this, the overall pattern across the UK is that the costs of higher education have shifted away from the state and onto students and their families. One all too predictable result is that the proportion of working-class students entering higher education is in decline. The selective nature of the education system has not significantly changed because market mechanisms have simply replaced or, more likely, reinforced social and cultural expectations as barriers to entering higher education. The direction is clear: it is towards a new kind of respectable adult education in which learning is driven by the needs of the economy and social cohesion is organised through market mechanisms.

Despite the above picture, autonomous forms of radical adult learning linked to social and political change remain important - even if many adult educators find it difficult to create the space to justify making connections with them. Nevertheless, a number of deep-seated issues such as the continuing democratic deficit, the degradation of the environment, the experience of globalisation, a crisis of public welfare, foreign policy, and so on, are actively stimulating resistance and spawning popular movements which ally adult learning and collective action (Crowther, Galloway and Martin, 2005). There are still adult and community educators who seek to maintain a radical ideological stance in their work, but they have to negotiate and compromise what they can do within the constraints of a hostile policy environment and, in the context of public sector cutbacks, this is increasingly difficult as well as increasingly urgent.

References

Bryant, I. (1984) Radicals and Respectables: The Adult Education Experience in Scotland, Edinburgh: Scottish Institute of Adult Education.

Cooke, A. (2006) From Popular Education to Lifelong Learning: A History of Adult Education in Scotland 1707-2005, Leicester: National Institute of Adult Continuing Education.

Crowther, J. (1999) 'Popular education and the struggle for democracy' in J. Crowther, I. Martin and M. Shaw (eds.) Popular Education and Social Movements in Scotland Today, Leicester: National Institute of Adult Continuing Education.

Crowther, J., Galloway, V. and Martin, I. (eds.) Popular Education: Engaging the Academy - International Perspectives, Leicester: National Institute of Adult Continuing Education.

Crowther, J. (2006) 'The Scottish Parliament, democracy and adult education', Scottish Affairs 55: 47-63.

Kirkwood, G. and Kirkwood, C. (1989) Living Adult Education: Freire in Scotland, Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Martin, I. (2003) 'Adult education, lifelong learning and citizenship: some ifs and buts', International Journal of Lifelong Education, 22 (6) 566-579.

Mooney, G. and Poole, L. (2004) '"A land of milk and honey"? social policy in Scotland after Devolution', Critical Social Policy 24(4): 458-483.

Paterson, L. (2000) Education and the Scottish Parliament, Edinburgh: Dunedin Academic Press.

Scottish Education Department (1975) Adult Education: The Challenge of Change, Edinburgh: HMSO.

Tett, L. (2006) Community Education, Lifelong Learning and Social Inclusion (2nd ed.), Edinburgh: Dunedin Academic Press.

Learning in Scotland's Communities

(HM Inspectorate of Education, 2011)

Introduction

The purpose of this report

The challenges facing communities and providers of services are at a higher level than they have been for a considerable time. Inequalities in health, income, early years experiences and educational outcomes continue to present challenges for Scotland to become a society in which all are enabled to thrive. Resources for public services are under severe constraint and will reduce further in real terms over the next few years. How might providers of education and others respond to these challenges? How might they build on already effective work to further improve outcomes for people in our communities? This report argues that we need a clearer focus on our communities as 'learning communities'. We need to strengthen and extend the connections between educational establishments, public, voluntary and private providers, and communities themselves to secure improvement.

The report sets out HM Inspectorate of Education's (HMIE's) findings from our work in learning communities since September 2008. It is intended to stimulate debate and serve as a basis for action to improve outcomes for learners and communities further.

The report should inform the wide range of people who deliver public services in Scotland and contribute to learning and development in communities. It will be of interest to senior officers of public bodies, headteachers, officers in education, colleges, CLD, health and social work and their partners in voluntary organisations and other services.

In the first section we explore some of the drivers of change in this important area of public policy and comment on how these connect with current practice in learning communities. In the second section, we provide an analysis of the findings from inspection activities in learning communities. Finally, we summarise the main findings including a number of areas for further development which we hope will assist the process of improving outcomes for learners and communities.

What we mean by learning communities

Both in Scotland and internationally, the term 'learning community' is used in a variety of ways and contexts. For the purposes of this report, we build on mainstream UK definitions of learning community and tailor them to the context for CLD in Scotland.

A learning community seeks to address the learning needs of its locality through partnership. It uses the strengths of institutions, public, private and voluntary services, and community groups to enable children, young people and adults to achieve to their full potential. Learning communities use learning as a way to build community capacity, and to promote social cohesion, social inclusion, regeneration and economic development.

In practical terms, therefore, a learning community is the group of partners who work together to support learning and development within a locality.

Some potential benefits of learning communities

Investment in formal education and non-formal learning can be one of the best means of combating poverty, improving overall health, and eliminating social exclusion.

'Although learning often takes place within formal settings and learning environments, a great deal of valuable learning also takes place either deliberately or informally in everyday life. Policy makers in OECD countries have become increasingly aware that this represents a rich source of human capital.'

Recognising Non-Formal and Informal Learning: Outcomes, Policies and Practices (OECD, 2010)

By placing learning at the heart of the development of a community, successful learning communities can:

- contribute to equipping learners and communities to meet the emerging challenges of the knowledge-based economy of the 21st century;

- encourage social activity and so develop a more vibrant and participative society at a local level;

- help with economic development and diversification - contributing to competitiveness;

- foster a new generation of leaders so necessary for both a vibrant local economy and civil democracy; and

- promote social inclusion. Those previously marginalised can, through their active engagement in learning, reduce dependency relationships and contribute effectively to their communities.

Building momentum behind drivers of change

This section considers some of the drivers which may help to promote the development of successful learning communities and their long-term sustainability. It links these key policy drivers with HMIE evidence gathered from the inspection programme of learning communities and more widely across all sectors of learning.

Curriculum for Excellence

Improving outcomes and raising standards for all children and young people are at the heart of Curriculum for Excellence. The aspirations of Curriculum for Excellence are for all young people to become confident individuals, effective contributors, successful learners and responsible citizens. It takes a broader view than previously of how, what and where young people learn. Most obviously, this is reflected in the four contexts for learning within Curriculum for Excellence:[77]

Two relate to learning within curriculum areas and inter-disciplinary learning. The other two - the ethos and life of the school as a community and broader opportunities for achievement in the outside world - are now seen as equally important.

CLD partners have, over many years, contributed to young people's opportunities and achievements outside school. So too, do they often contribute to learning within schools, particularly in relation to young people with more challenging behaviour and more widely to personal, social and health education. Schools have been increasingly building stronger partnerships with community providers to extend and enhance opportunities for learning and achievement in and out of school as part of their implementation of Curriculum for Excellence. We illustrate some of these in the appendix. More young people are gaining accredited achievement awards which recognise the notable contribution they are making. More achievement awards are now levelled and credit rated within the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework, alongside other qualifications[78].

In our reviews of national voluntary organisations we see very good examples of organisations providing high quality opportunities for young people to achieve. In some places, these organisations also make an important contribution to meeting the needs of children and young people with additional support needs. However, some important voluntary services are unevenly distributed across Scotland for reasons of history or the availability of skilled and active volunteers.[79]

Curriculum for Excellence provides a unifying purpose around which a wide range of practitioners across all partners within a learning community can now work more fully in partnership to achieve common goals for children and young people. Although we are seeing positive developments in this area, there now needs to be greater and stronger partnership working between schools, CLD partners and others who contribute towards better outcomes for learners to ensure that the aspirations of Curriculum for Excellence are fully realised across Scotland.

Skills for Scotland

For significant numbers of adults in Scotland, returning to learning can be a significant challenge. These adults are also more likely to be experiencing inequalities of various kinds such as health and income, or living in our more disadvantaged communities. The Skills for Scotland strategy[80] recognised the role of CLD in the post-compulsory learning landscape:

CLD is a vitally important part of the jigsaw, particularly for those who have been away from work and learning for a long time and may need more intensive, personalised support.

In learning community inspections, inspectors examine the impacts on learners of adult literacy and numeracy work, provision of language support for inward migrants and a range of other activities, including family learning and parenting. Sometimes we see the impact of local social enterprises on young people and adults. Occasionally, we see CLD providers working with private sector companies to enhance the skills of staff and trainees. All of these activities support adults to improve their capacities and skills at work, at home and in their communities. Almost all of these activities build the confidence and self-esteem of participants and increase their ability to move on in their lives. An important development is the contribution that many early years centres and some primary schools are making to engaging parents in their own lifelong learning.

The Skills for Scotland strategy remains a major point of reference for community providers and others to help tackle the challenges presented by the economic downturn and the reduction in spending on public services.

Getting It Right For Every Child (GIRFEC)

As Curriculum for Excellence is founded on a learner-centred approach, so too is GIRFEC founded on a child-centred approach. Through implementing a GIRFEC practice approach, services aim to improve a broad range of outcomes for children and young people. GIRFEC applies to all those working across children's and young people's services. It also relates to adult services that have an impact on children and young people. The GIRFEC approach seeks to streamline and improve outcomes for children through the delivery of a number of important policies.[81]

These include the Early Years Framework, Equally Well, Achieving Our Potential, More Choices More Chances and Curriculum for Excellence. CLD staff and their partners are engaged in supporting each of these, and the policies are consistent with the social practices approach widely used in CLD.

In learning community inspections, we have found a number of positive examples of CLD staff working with colleagues from a range of services from the statutory, voluntary and community sectors. In doing so, they are providing more integrated and responsive services that can make a significant difference to children and their families. In many instances, CLD staff are playing a significant role in engaging with children, young people and families to develop local solutions that make a significant impact on countering disadvantage. Examples of this include the Challenge Dads project in Aberdeen and the Woodlands Family Unit in Fife. However, there remain a number of challenges. These include developing shared training that supports improved understanding of each others' roles and being able to demonstrate the impacts of joint action.

Community capacity building in challenging economic times

The contribution of communities themselves to improving outcomes for children, young people and adults has never been so important. As resources for public services are expected to diminish over an extended period, so demand for services is expected to increase. Building community capacity to deliver or co-produce services is one potential approach to meeting this challenge. Embedded within community planning is a commitment to high standards in community engagement.[82] The Community Empowerment Action Plan[83] sets out specific actions to support longer-term change in the relationships between public service providers and communities and their aspirations. Guidance from Scottish Government and COSLA to community planning partnerships sets out the expectations of CLD partnerships in relation to building community capacity.[84] [85]

What do we know about community capacity building from learning community inspections? Overall, we find most learning communities are active and vibrant, with community and voluntary groups making important contributions to community life. In places, this is to do with voluntary and community organisations making effective local contributions over many years. In more disadvantaged communities, it is often to do with community workers enabling local people to address community issues through collective action. There are many examples of this, for example, in Glasgow, where members of the community are supported by staff in Glasgow Life, social work, and housing associations to address local issues. Where local community planning is well developed it is often a consequence of new partnership arrangements where local interest groups, including social enterprises, come together with public bodies to jointly address local needs and issues. An important trend is the growth of community development trusts where the trust arrangement is used as a vehicle for community-led improvements in local communities.[86]

We have identified three further trends in community capacity building:

- First, we are seeing a greater contribution from young people and schools to their communities. School leaders are thinking more broadly about young people's learning experiences and the contributions they can make to their communities, for example by encouraging higher levels of volunteering.

- Second, contributors to effective community capacity building who had often been overlooked in the past are being recognised. For example, providers of culture, leisure and sport services can build the capacity of local groups and clubs to manage the provision, helping to build the skills of those involved and make their communities better places to live.

- Third, we see more communities setting their own agendas for improvement and working with public agencies on their terms to help them achieve their objectives. The Arbroath Area Partnership is a good example of this.

In the current climate of reductions in public spending, the importance of community capacity building has probably never been greater.

Inequalities matter to all of us

There was a clear message about inequalities in Scottish education from the OECD[87] in 2007:

Within Scotland there continues to be concern about the performance of pupils at the low end of the attainment spectrum. Recent evidence shows that attainment (as measured by the National Qualifications examination system) of the lowest 20 percent is actually flat at a time when increases are being seen at the top end of the spectrum. (OECD, 2007)

Important research on the impact of inequalities in developed countries and amongst US states,[88] suggests a clear relationship between wealth inequality and health and social problems. The authors:

Provide the evidence on each of 11 different health and social problems: physical health, mental health, drug abuse, education, imprisonment, obesity, social mobility, trust and community life, violence, teenage births, and child wellbeing. For all 11 of these health and social problems, outcomes are very substantially worse in more unequal societies.

The conclusion is that more equal societies almost always do better on key indicators of health and social wellbeing and education.

Against this backdrop, the Scottish policy context for tackling inequalities is ambitious and challenging. Scottish Government and Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA) have three linked social policy frameworks: Equally Well (health), the Early Years Framework and Achieving our Potential (poverty and income inequality). A review of progress in relation to these was published in June 2010 and confirmed that the three social policy frameworks remain powerful drivers for delivering long term improvements in outcomes for people.[89]

One of the consistent themes from inspections of learning communities is that CLD partners often work well with the most disadvantaged parts of our communities. Most local authority CLD services, for example, take a targeted approach to their work to ensure that they are meeting priority needs. Increasingly, significant aspects of their work are focused on improving the employability and employment prospects of young people and adults. Many voluntary sector partners are also well focused on meeting the needs of particular disadvantaged groups such as unemployed people, homeless people, the financially excluded, the frail elderly, or people with disabilities. Because of its work with people in these groups and the impact that work can have, CLD has an important role in tackling inequalities in Scotland.

As thinking and actions on learning communities develop, the roles of CLD partners in reaching and working with the most disadvantaged individuals, groups and families in Scotland will be an important element in reducing inequalities. This calls for even greater effort in connecting the contributions of the range of partners who contribute to this ambitious agenda across Scotland.

Outcomes-based approach to planning and evaluation

In recent years a fundamental shift began to take place in the planning and evaluation of public services in Scotland. Many services had previously been content to evaluate their effectiveness by counting the volume of their activities or their outputs. Now there is a National Performance Framework, which is based on outcomes, and Single Outcome Agreements by which Community Planning Partnerships and Scottish Government will gather information about performance and improvements that are being achieved in communities. Across Scotland, there is now a stronger drive towards better self-evaluation, in other words how well public and voluntary services know their strengths and areas for improvement and importantly, what they are doing to improve. There is now a clearer focus across public and voluntary services on

needs-led, outcomes-focused planning and service delivery, but still further work to do in making this a reality. As COSLA[90] said in its submission to the Independent Budget Review Panel:[91]

COSLA would like the Panel to recognise that, whilst the outcomes- based approach is not yet fully developed across the public sector, it is worth pursuing and is the most likely model to result in a cohesive approach to spend across the public sector.

Both COSLA and the Independent Budget Review Panel endorse an approach to prioritising public spending that supports early intervention to improve the quality of life of people in Scotland, and to reduce costs further down the line.

In short, says COSLA, we spend large amounts of money dealing with negative outcomes.

For CLD in Scotland, an outcomes-based approach is not new. As long ago as 2000,[92] CLD providers were being encouraged to adopt a needs-led and outcomes-focused approach to planning and evaluation. Over time this has helped to improve planning and evaluation for CLD in Scotland, but not yet comprehensively or fast enough. Our learning community inspections clearly indicate that CLD partnerships need to improve how they demonstrate the outcomes of their work and show how they are improving over time. Also, the principles of outcomes-focused planning and evaluation now need to be applied across a wider range of partners than has been the case thus far.

For learning communities in Scotland, these are important considerations. Our inspections show that CLD partners can have a very positive impact on the lives of some of our most disadvantaged citizens as well as others across the social spectrum. Yet because some CLD partnerships are less well developed in demonstrating outcomes, too little is known about the differences that their work is making. For example, through our inspection activity, we gather evidence from many learners of the positive impacts of adult learning and community work on improving their health and mental wellbeing.[93] However, we seldom find significant evidence of where this information is gathered and used both in performance reporting, for further continuous improvement and to inform resource allocation.

What we know now about learning communities

From September 2008, HMIE made a significant change in its arrangements for inspecting CLD. We introduced inspections of learning communities within the geographical areas surrounding non-denominational secondary schools. The secondary school and its learning community were inspected at the same time, and there was an overlap in the membership of the inspection teams. In denominational secondary schools, teams also considered the community dimension in their inspection work. This approach to inspecting learning communities includes looking at activities and their impacts from the perspective of the learner, irrespective of which agency is active in the provision. This has placed a greater emphasis on the quality of partnership activities in communities across the range of institutions and agencies that play a part in supporting people to achieve, and in making communities better places to live. However, this approach has also presented challenges to some providers, especially where partnership arrangements are insufficiently embedded, or poorly integrated.

Since September 2008 we have reported on the inspections of 91 learning communities across the 32 local authorities in Scotland. The evaluations from these inspections are summarised later.

The approach has enabled us to look more effectively at young people's learning experiences both in school and in their communities. It has focused attention on the inter-relationships between the learning and development of children and young people, and the contexts within which they grow up at home and in their communities. It has identified examples of effective practice where schools are making good use of community resources to enhance learning in school, and where young people and staff are making significant contributions to the communities in which they are located. It enables us to develop an understanding of how learning happens in more than one place, and to evaluate the connections and partnerships that are essential if the aspirations of Curriculum for Excellence are to be fully realised.

The impacts of CLD in learning communities

In learning community inspections during this period we have looked at the impact of partners in raising achievement for young people and adults and the achievements of community groups and organisations. These evaluations focus on how well learners are included and participating and how well they are achieving, attaining and progressing. Inspectors talk to service users about how they see the impact of provision on their development.

Young people with more challenging behaviour at Williamwood High School, East Renfrewshire, use Dynamic Youth and Youth Achievement Awards to focus their learning through activities such as drumming, computing and video-making. This work helps to motivate them in their learning and to develop transferable skills for life and work such as communication and problem solving.

- In 72 of 91 inspections the impact on young people was evaluated as good or better.

- in 74 of 91 inspections the impact on adults was evaluated as good or better.

Overall, this is a very positive picture. Beneath these headline figures there lies a wide range of local circumstances, differences in the strategic contexts within which managers, staff and volunteers operate, and different service and partnership configurations.

Army Cadets in Alloa participate in The Duke of Edinburgh's Award as a vehicle for their personal development. Some young people have additional support needs and all enjoy and are motivated by this context for and style of learning. As a result they develop important skills for life and work such as team work, leadership, communication and working with others.

The range of impacts of this work include developing young people's confidence, skills, resilience and accomplishments through accredited achievement awards, increasing people's employability, engaging adults in lifelong learning, improving parents' capacity to relate positively to their children and teenagers, improving reported physical and mental wellbeing, reducing the likelihood of offending, and enabling people to become more active in their communities. Much of the work results in participants reporting improved self-confidence and self-esteem which in turn helps to raise their aspirations and build their capacity to act to improve their situations.

Inward migrants across Scotland are supported to contribute better at work and settle into their new community through the provision of support with English for speakers of other languages

(ESOL). For example, some of this work improves the customer service provided by migrants in the tourism sector. It also helps families to deal with correspondence with official agencies and public utilities.

Where practice is most effective, there are very good arrangements for ensuring that services are delivered for and with those whose needs are greatest. CLD provision that connects well with schools, health, employment, social work, and police enables provision to be well targeted towards those who are at risk of becoming excluded.

In evaluating impacts on the community, inspectors talk to a range of community groups, voluntary agencies and community workers. They focus discussion on how groups experience the support they receive from public and voluntary agencies. Of particular interest is the extent to which groups are able to influence local decisions and the impacts of the services they provide locally.

- In 75 of 91 inspections the impact on the community was evaluated as good or better.

Again, this is a very positive finding. Our previous CLD inspection programme had led HMIE to focus attention on community capacity building within more disadvantaged communities. In the last two years, our activities have taken us into communities of all types across the length and breadth of Scotland. This has sometimes led us to look at what communities are doing for themselves rather than what staff are doing to support and develop community groups.

A picture has emerged of active communities in all types of urban, rural and island communities where particular groups and individuals bring energy and commitment to community development. Some communities require more professional support than others. Most have significant numbers of skilled and confident volunteers, whether in community groups, voluntary organisations or in public agencies.

Where communities are particularly well organised, they make very effective use of a range of supports from public and voluntary agencies to meet their objectives. These are usually inclusive partnership groups that bring together the key players in the community and focus on high level issues such as learning, health and the local economy.

The Arbroath Area Partnership is a highly effective area forum with representation from a wide range of interests in the town. The work of members had improved community cohesion and the attractiveness of the town to tourists through a wide range of local initiatives.

The outcomes of CLD activities

Whilst inspections focus clearly on the overall quality of provision, inspecting the outcomes of CLD requires a clear focus on performance data and trends over time. Does the data show improvements over time? For example, is youth work provision improving young people's attendance at school and reducing exclusions? Is adult learning enabling significant numbers of adults to move on to training, further education, volunteering or employment? Does capacity building activity result in more young people and adults volunteering in their community?

Whilst the impacts of CLD are generally very positive, the extent to which providers are able to provide clear evidence of outcomes is less well developed. It is not straightforward to identify robust sources of evidence of outcomes or to demonstrate cause in relation to an effect, but some CLD services are beginning to do this successfully.

As a result of the difficulty in demonstrating outcomes, it is possible that some CLD partnerships are under-reporting the benefits of their activities and as a result decisions taken at a local level may not be fully informed.

Sometimes this is caused by a failure to recognise the wide range of outcomes achieved through the work of CLD partners across all of the strategic objectives of Scottish Government. Sometimes it is a consequence of service structures narrowing the range of outcomes which the service or services within which CLD is located seek to achieve. Sometimes, it is because local authorities corporately have not yet agreed measures of performance that test outcomes rather than outputs. Seldom too are CLD partnerships sufficiently developed to evaluate outcomes across partners, rather than through individual providers.

Inspectors also find that where there are weaknesses in strategic leadership this can have a knock on effect on the capacity of providers to demonstrate improved outcomes at a local level.

- In only 32 of 91 inspections 'improvements in performance' was evaluated as good or better.

This disappointing aspect became clear early in the inspection programme, and it was only more recently that we have seen improvements in a few local authorities. As a result, HMIE has worked with national partners, principally CLD Managers Scotland and Learning and Teaching Scotland to develop a framework to help CLD partnerships to think through the outcomes of their work and to link these to Single Outcome Agreements and the National Performance Framework, see related document: Let's prove it: Providing evidence on the local and national outcomes of CLD activities (CLDMS, 2010).

How good are providers at improving services?

Within Scottish education, there is now an increasing commitment to using self-evaluation to bring about improved outcomes. In learning community inspections we evaluate how effective CLD partners are at improving their services. We consider how well they use information from participants and other stakeholders to help them to improve. Are they using effective processes to evaluate the impacts and outcomes of their work? How well do they plan for improvement and monitor how well they are doing? And how well do they report progress in their work to a range of stakeholders?

- In only 32 of 91 inspections 'Improving Services' was evaluated as good or better.

Again, this pattern of performance was identified relatively early in the inspection programme. It was clearly linked to the issues identified earlier in relation to improvements in performance. As the programme developed, a few authorities were showing significant improvement in using self-evaluation to improve their work. For example, East Renfrewshire Council had put in place very effective approaches to ensure that their services were improving appropriately and that self-evaluation was embedded and robust. In order to support the sector in this aspect of development, East Renfrewshire Council, supported by HMIE, delivered a national seminar to help practitioners from across Scotland to learn from their experience. The feedback from this seminar showed this to be a successful method of enabling CLD partnerships to learn from the experience of others and one which if replicated, had the potential to enable partnerships to share good practice which would in turn lead to further improvement.

The evaluations from inspections are summarised in the table below.

Summary of evaluations from learning community inspections

Learning Community inspections (based on 91 reports)

Key themes identified from inspection evidence

Beyond the overall evaluations from inspections outlined above, we have identified two key themes that we explore below. The first of these is:

- CLD providers as partners with schools in implementing Curriculum for Excellence.

Curriculum for Excellence is a broad and ambitious curriculum for children and young people and its implementation is the responsibility of a wide range of practitioners, by no means solely restricted to teachers. Adults too, in our experience, regard the capacities of Curriculum for Excellence as a reasonable ambition for their own learning.

Since September 2008, we have seen some positive changes in attitudes amongst school leaders and community providers about working together to improve outcomes for children and young people. In some parts of Scotland this partnership work is very well established and successful. In other places the potential for effective partnership work has not yet been fully realised. In the best practice, schools use the considerable resources of their communities to enhance the learning experiences of children and young people in line with the intentions of Curriculum for Excellence. Young people in these schools often comment that they are well engaged and motivated by outside groups that contribute to the curriculum through, for example, assemblies, as part of their personal social and health education or for lunchtime or after school activities in, for example, expressive arts and sports.

Some secondary schools are very successful in engaging employers as partners in supporting enterprise education and preparation for working life. Young people can also be effectively engaged by out of school activities, whether work experience placements, or, increasingly for senior pupils, opportunities for volunteer placements that help them to extend their skills and attributes, and also evaluate their suitability for a possible future career.

Local units of national youth organisations often provide very effective opportunities for young people to achieve. Many provide learning experiences that are well suited to children and young people with additional support needs. Youth workers are often very skilled at enabling young people to learn about and deal with some of the health and social problems that they face.

Young people who face serious challenges in their lives are very well supported by Fairbridge Scotland in Edinburgh, Glasgow and Dundee. This support enables them to make successful transitions. Learners take high levels of responsibility for their own learning and are more constructive and aspirational as a result of their participation.

In both schools and their broader learning communities we are seeing a greater emphasis on young people leading learning with their peers. Increasingly, young people in the senior phase are leading aspects of learning for their younger peers. Teachers and youth workers can empower young people to learn through developing independence and taking greater responsibility for shaping and managing their work and in so doing, achieving greater depth and enjoyment. Some pupil councils have moved on considerably from concerns about, say, the fabric of school buildings to engaging with senior staff and teachers about learning and teaching.

Youth workers often play a significant role in supporting schools to develop more robust arrangements for listening to the voice of young people about their school experience.

Community partners can make significant contributions across all aspects of Curriculum for Excellence. In youth work, young people can develop their skills, knowledge and understanding in social studies, religious and moral education, modern languages, creative arts and technologies. In the expressive arts, for example, there are a number of high quality youth music and technology projects across Scotland that complement and add to provision in schools very well. We know that there are also very important contributions to literacy, numeracy and health and wellbeing, especially given that these are the responsibility of all. Developments of this kind will always evolve differently in different schools, in the light of the context of each school and its community, but in some areas such development is slow and there is a need to develop this further to ensure that more children and young people can benefit from them. We provide examples of how CLD providers are developing in relation to Curriculum for Excellence in Appendix 1.

HMIE has also gathered considerable evidence of home/school workers, community workers and adult learning staff making a significant difference to the health and wellbeing of parents. As parental confidence increases, so too can their capacity to relate positively to their children and support them in their learning. Curriculum for Excellence recognises the importance of parents as partners in their children's learning.

A less-well documented, understood or valued aspect of schools and early years centres is the varied contributions they make to their communities. We give examples of this in Appendix 2. The second key theme arising from learning community inspections is:

- Schools and others as partners in delivering the range of outcomes of CLD.

Since HMIE introduced learning community inspections, inspectors have found evidence of a range of practice that has confirmed a broadening of partnerships to support the broad outcomes of CLD - that is, achievement through learning for young people and adults, and achievement through building community capacity. A few years ago, for example, headteachers frequently did not consider that they had a role in parents' learning. Many can now give examples of effective interventions through which schools provide adult learning or they work more effectively with partners to engage parents in learning. This trend is most noticeable in early years centres and primary schools. CLD practitioners in a variety of roles work closely with the families of younger children to support parents in dealing with the challenges of parenting.There are increasing examples of practitioners engaging with fathers and other male carers in activities that improve their parenting capacities. Some schools are more alert than others to the literacy and numeracy needs of parents and families. In a few examples, school resources have been used to address the language needs of parents who are inward migrants.

Some schools are more aware than others of the potential to engage young people in their communities through regeneration and other activities. Where senior staff see their schools as active contributors to community improvement they become more focused on addressing community needs and issues. With the increased emphasis on achievement within Curriculum for Excellence, there has been a significant increase in schools working with others to engage young people in, for example, volunteering activities and leadership activities. This can be part of accredited achievement awards such as The Duke of Edinburgh Award or Youth Achievement Awards or stand alone elements of the senior phase where for example young people work voluntarily in nurseries, primary schools or other community services.

Dornoch Academy is very well engaged with its community and staff make a significant contribution to community wellbeing through volunteering, including through the Dornoch Community Development Trust. Community members are influential and nearly all community managed projects network effectively with each other and public agencies to improve local services.

Inspection evidence has also identified a number of examples of the contribution of culture and sport providers to CLD outcomes. These play an important role in providing opportunities for young people and adults to achieve. They too can help to build community capacity through their links with sports clubs and cultural groups, sometimes working with schools.

Features of effective practice and areas for improvement

Learning communities are important not only in achieving the ambitions of Curriculum for Excellence, but also to other wider aspirations, including addressing inequalities. The evidence presented in this report shows that learning communities are at different stages of development across Scotland and that they vary in the impact and outcomes of their work. We offer here some features of effective practice and areas for improvement, for senior officers in public services, heads of establishment in education, managers and practitioners in CLD, teachers and other staff in early years and schools. Our purpose is to support improvement and development towards more systematic and effective partnership working between educational establishments, community providers and the communities they serve.

Features of effective practice:

- CLD providers have developed and use important skills and experience that support young people to achieve, including, in the best practice, those with additional support needs.

- Opportunities for accredited achievement are developing well and are helping to provide opportunities for all.

- Schools and early years centres are becoming increasingly active in working with partners to support learning for parents and carers.

- Increasing numbers of secondary schools are active in supporting young people to engage with their communities. CLD providers are important partners in supporting this development.

- In a few examples, CLD partnerships are well focused on achieving significant outcomes and demonstrating, through effective self-evaluation, how well these are being achieved.

Areas for improvement

- More schools, CLD providers and a range of others now need to work together under the common purpose and outcomes of Curriculum for Excellence to enable all children and young people achieve all that they can.

- Community practitioners and teachers need to learn together so that they develop a shared understanding about their roles and responsibilities in successfully implementing Curriculum for Excellence, particularly in relation to the experiences and outcomes, achievement and assessment.

- Community providers, working with early years centres and schools, should continue to build the confidence of parents to engage as learners themselves and to support their children's learning.

- Volunteering and other motivating learning activities now need to be developed further across partnerships, to provide all children and young people with rich learning experiences in both the school and community that extend their skills and develop their attributes and so help them prepare for life and work.

- Schools, centres and all of those involved in CLD need to work more closely together to deliver improved outcomes through joint planning and self-evaluation.

- Partnerships within learning communities need to improve their capacity to measure outcomes across the full range of their impacts and to work across partners in doing this.

Reflective Questions:

This section is intended to be used by schools, early years centres and CLD providers as part of their self-evaluation and planning for improvement. Resources such as How Good is our Community Learning and Development 2 and Let's Prove It: Providing evidence on the outcomes of CLD activities are also useful tools to help in this process.

- How well do our strategic and operational partnership arrangements support children and young people to achieve the outcomes of Curriculum for Excellence? How well do they support providers to deliver the wide range of outcomes of CLD? How might we improve?

- To what extent are we considering fully the potential and actual contribution of voluntary sector partners to achievement and inclusion, including the local units of national youth organisations and how can we improve?

- Are we making best use of providers of youth achievement awards to extend opportunities for young people to gain accredited awards? How might we improve?

- How do we ensure that all practitioners are aware of experiences and outcomes and the implications of new approaches to assessment?

- How well do schools and community providers work together to promote positive attitudes to health and social issues and to support all learners, including at times of transition?

- How well do we work together to plan and evaluate our work in order to improve outcomes for children, young people, adults and communities?

- How well do we include culture and sports providers in raising achievement, meeting the needs of adult learners and building community capacity?

- How do we improve the capacity of CLD partners to capture the wide range of significant outcomes from CLD provision linked to local and national priorities?

Advancing Scotland as a Learning Society: A Community Learning and Development Contribution

(The Standards Council for Community Learning and Development for Scotland, November 2011)

This short paper is a straightforward affair. It is a concise record of a series of conversations and dialogues that took place across Scotland and across a wide field of Community Learning and Development activists and practitioners. It is written with good faith and belief and is intended to be considered sincerely and with gravitas.

Its general implication is that our nation has not completed its journey towards a cohesive and all impacting learning society... it remains fragmented, a touch narcissistic in places and falls short of being able to claim that we have a learning culture in Scotland for all.

Despite noble attempts, this must be acknowledged.

We have, this paper suggests, lost some of the meaning behind education for all, a term that has been hijacked by media and some of our influencers so much as to throttle its potential.

Yet there is much dialogue about and around learning for all, support for all, change, change for the better, for all of our citizens who are all learners all of the time and, on occasion when they choose, in life changing circumstances.

This paper suggests that we need to raise the bar through debate and conversation. Those who operate in silos, national and local must change their approach to develop our services in the interest of the learners and communities. This requires some seamless joining of the current high quality delivery so that wherever and whenever we participate in our community life we are part of a learning culture and the consequent opportunities this gives us. Whoever we are.

Community Learning practitioners must assume their responsibility for a contribution to this dynamic.

To continue this dialogue we urge you to begin to ask the questions implicit and explicit in this paper... of yourself and colleagues, of partner agencies, and consider what contribution you are making to a learning society that will benefit Scotland.

The Enlightenment in Scotland and Europe in the mid 18th Century was described also as the Age of Reason. This wasn't to find compromise but to effect and influence change for the better for the people of our country and beyond. These conversations took place when chaos reigned in other parts of our nation, when war prevailed. Yet the conversations continued.

Perhaps the greatest strength in the summary of the Conversations is the high level of consensus shown across Scotland. With this comes the possibility of establishing a foundation for a powerful, united voice; a more confident and higher profile and a call to restate both purpose and direction.

A choice has to be made.

Rory Macleod

Director

The Conversations Project

Between January and June 2011 we held a series of 15 Conversations across Scotland. Four were large open gatherings, held in Glasgow, Inverness, Dundee and Edinburgh, and eleven were smaller gatherings with invited participants from a range of arenas directly or indirectly related to CLD. A total of 209 people accepted our invitation to share their views.

The Conversations began with an analysis of the current socio-political context. Then three core questions were asked of all participants:

1. What would be the definitive characteristics of a Scottish Learning Society?

2. What are the obstacles that might get in the way of this type of society being created?

3. What are the first steps that should be taken in order to build such a society?

The level of consensus demonstrated in the responses was remarkable: a firm belief and affirmation of the CLD process - which is not necessarily the same as the CLD profession. The approach and values base are seen as key to a people-led transformation of public services.

In what ways do you identify yourself as practising in a CLD context?

The Context

At a time of increasing need, current financial restrictions present a huge challenge:

- The requirement to maintain mandatory services, particularly within Local Authorities, has increased pressure on non-mandatory services which are arguably better positioned to respond flexibly and effectively.

- Reduced direct assistance, including grant-aid to the voluntary and community sectors, has had a significantly detrimental effect on many front-line services.

- Uncertainty over future funding has had a negative impact on strategic planning, staff morale and the security of support for the most vulnerable.

How do you deal with this uncertainty? What keeps you going?

The societal challenges are also considerable - inequality, poverty, unemployment, alcohol/drugs abuse, depression - and are too often met by crisis interventions driven by a short term fire-fighting approach. The focus is on fixing a wide range of specific problems now, when what we need is a longer term vision adopting a more holistic approach. The emphasis, perhaps unintentionally, is on ameliorating the effects, often perceived by some workers as 'keeping the lid on it'.

Do you feel like you are simply 'keeping a lid' on the challenges in your communities? How would you tackle these challenges differently?

Communities need to take ownership of their issues: there is an imperative to widen participation and build and release capacity. Growing engagement must also lead to social action and to a different relationship with authority structures. But while these authority structures adopt the rhetoric of a people led, community involving approach, there is a view that they are finding it difficult to really change the way they relate to communities and free themselves from traditional practices.

Do you involve your community in shaping your work?

From a more specific CLD viewpoint there is evidence of a service in an extremely vulnerable position. It is felt that there is not enough understanding of CLD - its approach and contribution - particularly from politicians. This is seen to be true particularly in the fields of community based learning and 'soft' skills development. Self critical comments were made around the responsibility of workers and the profession in this regard. It was felt that, as workers, we should stop being 'the chameleon service' that changes its colour in order to fit in better, secure funding, protect its existence.

Do your colleagues understand what CLD is? What your values and principles are?

Characteristics of a Learning Society

Across Scotland, CLD practitioners offered a practical and optimistic vision of a better future which they thought was possible and which they wanted to work towards.

Fundamentally it was stated that a Learning Society would value learning for its own sake; it would place emphasis on learning about self, relationships and community.

A Learning Society:

- would be challenging, questioning, creative, curious and risk-taking

- would be compassionate, collaborative, caring and playful

- would promote social justice, be open to change and have an international perspective

A Learning Society would be open to all. There would be access for everyone with a spectrum of opportunities, entry points, locations and routes and it would not necessarily be about formal recognition, qualifications or be institution based.

The learner would be at the heart of such a society with the natural human desire to learn acknowledged, affirmed and nurtured.

The Learning Society would be aspirational, inspirational and courageous; invest in individuality, in being in community, in persons in relationship, both with each other and the world.

Are you clear about your contribution to a Learning Society? What will you do today / next month / next year to start a culture change?

Obstacles

If people are willing, what is preventing us from creating this society today? Reasons included:

- A lack of visionary thinking and leadership, both from politicians and professionals

- A political agenda driven by short termism, quick fixes and a search for popular solutions.

- A lack of policy coherence; silo mentalities are too evident and there is little holistic thinking

- A culture fixated on inspections, risk-aversion, certainty chasing and protection of territories, professions and institutions; a competitive mindset purporting to promote co-operation

- A focus on individualism - the 'me' before 'we' society - which is more destructive of aspirations than the current financial challenges

- Learning is not valued. There is a lack of space, in daily life and increasingly physically, for opportunities to think creatively and reflect profoundly

- No collective voice exists for the CLD approach and there is little understanding of its processes

Are you leading? What is your vision for CLD, for communities in Scotland?

The First Steps

All the conversations were completed by considering 'first steps'. What needs to be done - what could be done nationally and locally - today?

- Open up the debate and develop dialogue. An emphasis should be placed on a promotion of both a public and professional discourse with a particular focus on the governance of all public services. We should be developing, and trusting, what was referred to as 'the collective intelligence'.

Have you started a dialogue in your community? In your partnerships?

- Intentionally build and release local capacity and leadership, particularly amongst children and young people. We should not be afraid of 'the community'. We should emphasise the necessity of 'soft' skills development. We need to 'walk the talk', specifically in the promotion of democratic literacy.

- Even more critical encouragement of partnership and consortia working. The development of multi-disciplinary teams and integrated workforces should grow alongside budget sharing and allocation on the basis of who is best able to undertake the task rather than the traditional lead service group.

- Culture change in organisations to the 'we' not 'me' emphasis. Co-operation, collaboration and building trust need to underpin the rhetoric and practice of partnership and co-production.

How can you encourage co-operation, collaboration and trust in your organisation? In your partnerships?

Conclusions

Finally, the Conversations produced a remarkable level of consensus on what the Standards Council should do to support CLD practitioners in advancing Scotland as a Learning Society. We want to work in partnership with you to pursue these nationally identified priorities.

- Clearly define the purpose, nature and uniqueness of the CLD approach. The conversations were not focussed on protecting or defending a CLD profession. They focussed on defining what was particular about an approach that was increasingly being used and developed in the fields of social enterprise, health initiatives, arts work, library and information services as well as adult education, youth work and community development, and across many departments of local government and voluntary and community sectors.

- Empowerment. If empowerment is to lead to power sharing then structures must be designed to support this. The opening-up of existing structures to enable wider attendance will not be enough if final control of the decision making processes and mechanisms remain largely in the same hands. Can CLD assist with the design of alternative, authentically involving, models?

- Community led approach. There was much discussion around community capacity building and capacity releasing. The movement from Local Authority towards local authority must involve a substantial investment in community focussed, neighbourhood based adult learning. The opportunity for a life related, issue centred Scottish adult learning initiative led by local people and supported by community learning workers - including health professionals, youth workers, community arts specialists amongst others - was felt to be overdue.

- Partnership. The support for partnerships and partnership working was clear. There was, however, a feeling that much more could be achieved and even closer working relationships established. Given the focus on the reform of public services, the engagement of local people, the need for tighter financial controls and the potential for 'co-production', how can we support practitioners to create and engage in effective partnership working?

- Schooling. There are many possibilities heralded in Curriculum for Excellence and many practitioners are enthusiastic about integrating it into their practice. But many also spoke of schools, particularly in the secondary sector, disconnected from the community and of an exploitation of youth work approaches to the detriment of effective impact and worker/young person relationships. How can we support colleagues to explore the threats and opportunities for schools and youth work in order that a more productive dialogue takes place?

- The centrality of the belief in humankind. The positive responses to human beings and to their struggles and achievements were powerful. These feelings were not expressed by naive dreamers but by practitioners in the front line, in community, in contact. This response is not very evident in policy reactions to our current social context, particularly with regard to young people. How can we help to place the belief in humankind at the centre of policy making?

AN INVITATION TO ACTION

We can't plan our way into the future; we need to learn our way into the future.

We are starting a national dialogue with this paper. Will you work with us?

Chapter 10: Promoting Partnerships for Change

Contents

References

Introduction - Promoting Partnerships For Change

CLD in Dundee - Making a Strategic Impact

(from Making an Impact, CLD Case Studies, Scottish Government, 2010)

Partnership in action: A personal reflection

(By Stuart Fairweather, from Community Empowerment: Critical Perspectives from Scotland, Edited Emejulu and Shaw, 2010)

Strategic Guidance for Community Planning Partnerships: Community Learning and Development

(Scottish Government, 2012)

References

Core Texts

CLD in Dundee - making a Strategic Impact (in Making an Impact case studies, Scottish Government, 2010, pages 80-84)

Partnership in Action: a personal reflection (Stuart Fairweather in Community Empowerment: Critical Perspectives from Scotland, Emejulu and Shaw Editors, 2010, pages 71-75)

Strategic Guidance for CPPs: Community Learning and Development (Scottish Government, 2012)

Related Content

Making an Impact CLD case studies (Scottish Government, 2010)

Doing Things Differently - Making the case for CLD nationally and locally (CLDMS, 2010)

Report of the Commission on the Future Delivery of Public Services ("the Christie Commission") (2011)

Putting Learners at the Centre: Delivering our ambitions for post-16 education (Scottish Government, 2011)

Prevention and Early Intervention - Case Studies of CLD in Action (CLDMS, 2013)

Delivery of Regeneration in Scotland - Report of the Local Government and Regeneration Committee of the Scottish Parliament, 2014

Community planning - Turning ambition into action - Report by Audit Scotland for the Auditor General/Accounts Commission, 2014

Promoting Partnerships for Change

Introduction by Colin Ross

Increasingly throughout the period from 2001, "partnership" has been seen as a defining feature of the way public services are developed and delivered in Scotland, central to the aim of "modernising" services without relying solely on contracting-out and privatisation.

The Communities - Change through Learning[94] report in 1998 marked the beginning of a decisive shift in Community Learning and Development (CLD) policy and practice towards partnership working as a fundamental feature of the way provision is planned, developed and delivered. Circular 4.99 formalised the requirement for Community Learning Plans and as highlighted in Chapter 1, the Working and Learning Together to Build Stronger Communities guidance built on this approach.

CLD in Dundee - Making a Strategic Impact provides an example of CLD as a central part of a sustained effort by a local authority and its partners to bring about positive change. It highlights the clearly-articulated roles of CLD staff in youth work, adult learning and community regeneration teams and their well-evidenced impact in relation to the goals for the city set through the Single Outcome Agreement; and it makes clear that the essential pre-condition for CLD playing this type of role is that:

"In Dundee, the Single Outcome Agreement approach is not seen as an external imposition. It is being used to change lives and improve services. It has become an integral part of the day-by-day work of publicly funded services in the city."

An obvious implication of this statement is that in other parts of Scotland, the "Single Outcome Agreement approach" may indeed have been seen as an imposition from central government, or have remained more-or-less peripheral to the day to day services and their impact on peoples' lives. The report of the Christie Commission on the Future Delivery of Public Services, published in June 2011, stimulated a major shift in the debate and a growing recognition that issues such as these needed to be addressed.

The commission's report presented a stark picture of the challenges facing public services from spending constraints and rising demand, while crucially placing at the heart of this analysis "our failure up to now to tackle the causes of disadvantage and vulnerability", and the huge expense of dealing with the consequences. This pointed unavoidably to the conclusion that centrally-directed cost-cutting could not provide a means of achieving viable public services, and gave credibility to Christie's advocacy of services designed with and for people and communities, of "working closely with individuals and communities to understand their needs, maximise talents and resources, support self-reliance, and build resilience" and of "prioritising preventative measures to reduce demand and lessen inequalities". Where previously lip-service might have been given to these types of principles, they now began to be seen as part of the necessary basis for developing a compelling programme of reform driven by economic and social imperatives.

The CLD in Dundee - Making a Strategic Impact case study illustrates the development in a variety of settings of strategic approaches to empowering people and communities through integrated, partnership-based CLD practice. These approaches, together with the shift in public policy in which the Christie Commission report played a central part, provided both a positive context for the Scottish Government's Strategic Guidance for Community Planning Partnerships: Community Learning and Development, published in June 2012 and the basis for its content. The guidance re-emphasised that CLD identifies itself by the nature of practice, not by setting or job title, and that as a result "partnership" is not merely desirable, but required by the whole nature of the work:

"CLD is a coherent and distinctive set of practices, defined by clearly identified competences; it is delivered in diverse settings and sectors, by practitioners with a wide variety of job titles, working with people of all ages. We must link all this together effectively if we are to achieve the impact that we seek."

(Strategic Guidance for Community Planning Partnerships: Community Learning and Development, 3.2)

The practice partnerships referred to here have a direct and immediate focus on "working closely with individuals and communities to understand their needs, maximise talents and resources, support self-reliance, and build resilience", as Christie advocated. The Dundee case study highlights, however, that for practice partnerships to fulfil their potential, there is a need for Community Planning Partnerships, and other partnerships with authority to shape the development of services, to exercise it effectively in favour of participative governance and the empowerment of individuals and communities.

There was little evidence that this type of change in the way that power is exercised had progressed across Scotland to any great extent by 2015. The Scottish Parliament's Local Government and Regeneration Committee, for example, in its report in 2014 on the Delivery of Regeneration in Scotland commented that:

"It is clear that all partners are not yet placing enough emphasis on true community participation in their approaches to regeneration, or are doing so too late in their decision making process. We heard the same message during our public services reform inquiry."

Audit Scotland, in its report in November 2014 on Community Planning: Turning Ambition into Action, concluded that this frequent inability to match action to rhetoric was an integral part of wider difficulties in making Community Planning work:

"Many CPPs are still not clear about what they are expected to achieve and the added value that can be brought through working in partnership. SOAs...lack a focus on how community planning will improve outcomes for specific communities and reduce the gap in outcomes between the most and least deprived groups in Scotland."

The report also points to "a wider ambiguity both nationally and locally about the extent to which the focus of community planning should be on local needs or about delivering national priorities." National government, while championing community empowerment, has also driven a strong focus on outcomes determined at the centre and an expectation that Community Planning has a key role in delivering these.

CLD practitioners are at the sharp end of empowerment and of efforts to create partnerships that support rather than stifling or co-opting community initiative; given the complex and contested developments outlined above, it is unsurprising that this is a challenging environment. Stuart Fairweather, in Partnership in action: A personal reflection highlights that this is the case even in a city where there is evidence of real progress through communities organising themselves and the development of collaboration. Nonetheless the paper articulates the scope for positive change and the role and responsibility of CLD practitioners in supporting this. Describing the role of forums for participation in creating space for conversations between local people and groups on the roles and responsibilities of the local authority and the scope for sharing resources and knowledge, it suggests that:

"These practical connections, whilst fragile, point in the direction of solidarity and 'partnership' with those who have similar interests. Here community workers with a responsibility for developing positive social relations can assist in the opening up of questions and ideas."

Audit Scotland also recognised the potential for progress: "there is a strong sense of renewed energy nationally and locally to improving community planning." More recently, great hopes have been invested in the energy generated by the campaigns around the independence referendum, and What Works Scotland, an initiative with the aim of "supporting effective public services in Scotland", is one significant example of efforts to capitalise on this, and to link support for community empowerment to the development of participative democracy.

All of this can be seen as positive from a CLD perspective, and indeed as offering exciting opportunities. Alongside this, the tension that Audit Scotland suggested between, on the one hand, the need of governments to demonstrate progress in relation to national outcomes, and, on the other, the diverse aspirations of communities is unlikely to disappear. Fairweather's conclusion that we need to remind "everyone, including ourselves, that participatory democracy requires ongoing learning and critical understanding" seems certain to retain its force and relevance.

CLD in Dundee - Making a Strategic Impact

(from Making an Impact, CLD Case Studies, Scottish Government, 2010)

What is behind the approach taken?

In Dundee, the Single Outcome Agreement approach is not seen as an external imposition. It is being used to change lives and improve services. It has become an integral part of the day-by-day work of publicly funded services in the city.

The CLD management team in Dundee work to ensure that CLD's impact and essential contribution is recognised and built into strategic planning as a fundamental part of service delivery. This approach was adopted to ensure that CLD in Dundee is recognised for the role it has in the delivery of the city's Single Outcome Agreement (SOA).

Whilst CLD does not hold the legally required status of statutory provision such as schooling and social work, CLD makes an impact in key areas such as achievement and attainment; progression; and healthier, active and included individuals and communities. CLD's contribution to the Single Outcome Agreement is now such that without it, success would be seriously compromised.

How does the approach fit with local and national outcomes?

The aims of Dundee's approach are set against both the local and national outcomes required. To this end, Dundee City Council has decided that through the local CLD Partnership and with the Scottish Government they are committed to four Strategic Priorities. These are:

- Jobs and Employability

- Children and Young People

- Inequalities

- Physical and Mental Wellbeing

The SOA document makes it clear that all strategic outcomes and the all of Dundee CLD Partnership's activity will be measured by the contribution they make to these four priorities.

Within these priority areas, 11 Strategic Outcomes have been set:

1. Dundee will be a regional centre with better job opportunities and increased employ ability for our people

2. Our people will be better educated and skilled within a knowledge economy renowned for research, innovation and culture

3. Our children will be safe, nurtured, healthy, achieving, active, respected, responsible and included

4. Our people will experience fewer health inequalities

5. Our people will have improved physical and mental wellbeing

6. Our people will receive effective care when they need it

7. Our communities will be safe and feel safe

8. Our people will experience fewer social inequalities

9. Our people will live in stable, attractive and popular neighbourhoods

10. Our people will have high quality and accessible local services and facilities

11. Dundee will have sustainable environments

To maximise the achievement of these Strategic Outcomes in an integrated way, the Management Group has agreed that they will be co-ordinated and reported through the Theme Groups.

A tight and highly integrated system of monitoring against simple clear Strategic Outcomes has been devised and the CLD contribution and responsibilities are woven tightly through the whole process.

New reporting systems have been developed based on a Performance Improvement and Management Framework. This offers self-assessment opportunities and is built on a computerised system used partnership wide to gather data and support monitoring arrangements.

Great emphasis is also given in this partnership to the importance of external evaluation. The CLD team welcome those who wish to study aspects of their work. This has resulted in a substantial body of objective evidence that can be used to help build future plans and new approaches. Staff are enthusiastic about engaging in professional debate and contributing to the development of new approaches and ideas.

What does the approach involve?

At an early stage, arrangements were made to ensure that all three aspects of CLD outlined in "Working and learning together to build stronger communities" (WALT) were in a strong position to contribute to the delivery of the Single Outcome Agreement. Over many years CLD in Dundee has systematically and continually highlighted the contribution made.

Adult Learning links to the Single Outcome Agreement by contributing to the intermediate outcomes of the Employability and Learning and Culture Theme Groups of the Dundee Partnership. The systematically gathered evidence base permits an outcome based approach. This strand of CLD provision therefore contributes in a highly visible and clearly demonstrable fashion.

CLD's Adult Learning staff are based in Community Regeneration areas targeting excluded groups and responding directly to learning needs. Regular external evaluation provides evidence of transformation in people's lives: through securing employment, breaking cycles of unemployment, progressing into learning, increasing confidence and developing the motivation to continue with further study.

A strong Literacies Partnership delivers on the SOA target of reducing the number of adults with literacy/numeracy difficulties and provision of English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) contributes towards an inclusive community.

Capacity building is apparent through the Community Regeneration strand which has established

a clear link between CLD, Local Community Planning and the SOA of the overarching Dundee Partnership. This has been achieved through contributing to the intermediate outcomes of the Building Stronger Communities and the Health and Care Theme Groups of the Dundee Partnership.

As with other strands of CLD, Community Regeneration provides evidence of outcome based work, in this case it does so in support of Local Community Planning, making a direct contribution to the successful delivery of the Single Outcome Agreement.

A framework for measuring the impact of Local Community Plans has been developed. CLD's Community Regeneration staff are based in Community Regeneration areas and respond to needs and priorities identified in the Local Community Plans. Capacity Building support is given to each of the five Community Regeneration Forums, the four Neighbourhood Representative Structures and Community Organisations. The Dundee Community Regeneration Forums were cited as an example of good practice in the recent Scottish Government Community Empowerment Action Plan.

The Dundee Partnership has recognised the key role for the Community Regeneration Team in promoting effective community engagement and developing community involvement in the planning, delivery and evaluation of public services.

Youth Work in Dundee takes a similarly integrated approach. The Xplore Case Study in this series illustrates the process of delivering outcomes within the requirements of the SOA Framework. The contribution of targeted youth work on the ground can readily be traced to the, majority of the SOA's required Strategic Outcomes.

The Dundee Youthwork Partnership has produced an Action Plan which defines CLD's unique contribution to the SOA's strategic outcome "our children will be safe, nurtured, healthy, achieving, active, respective, responsible and included". This contribution has been acknowledged within the Integrated Children's Services Plan which sits within the SOA Delivery Plan.

What difference has the approach made?

The Dundee Partnership has embraced the concept of SOAs enthusiastically and the CLD work force are active in helping to devise carefully targeted plans to make Dundee a better city to live in. Systems are in place to gather evidence of improvement and impact and work out what works best at each step. The CLD contribution is fully embedded in the plans and the CLD workforce are confident about the importance of their contribution.

How does it work?

Planning and Delivery

CLD makes a visible contribution at a strategic level in Dundee at least in part due to the simple planning and committee structure devised for the delivery of the SOA. This operates under the overarching senior group the Dundee Partnership Management Group. Chaired by the Chief Executive of the City Council, the Director with responsibility for CLD in his remit sits on this group, as do senior officials from the major public institutions in the city.

Below that is the Dundee Partnership Co-ordinating Group which monitors the outcome delivery plans in accordance with the priorities that have been established. The Head of the CLD Service sits on this Co-ordinating Group.

The eight Theme Groups for the Partnership are as follows:

- Workand Enterprise

- Learningand Culture

- Building Stronger Communities

- Integrated Children's Services

- Healthy Dundee

- Dundee Community Safety Partnership

- Dundee Partnership for the Environment

- Cross Cutting themes

Outcome Delivery Plans, the responsibility of each of the Theme Groups, form the vital connection linking the strategic and intermediate outcomes to the frontline day-to-day activity of the partners collectively and individually.

Managers responsible for the three stands of CLD actively contribute to several of these Theme Groups.

Five sub-groups of relevant providers have been developed. These are:

- Literacies Partnership (ALN)

- Discover Learning Partnership

- Adult Learning;

- Community Engagement; and

- Youth Work providers.

These sub-groups report to several Theme Groups: Learning and Culture; Building Stronger Communities and Integrated Children's Services.

The CLD workforce knows where it stands with the three sub groups which mirror strands of CLD with their familiar titles and clear territory. The links to the Theme Groups are more complex and by design have to be cross-cutting, cross-sectoral and collaborative. These linkages almost automatically mean that people must come to know and understand each other, their work and priorities. This may lack the neatness of single lines of accountability, however, it ensures greater knowledge and understanding in the Partnership. This is important to success, as is the fact that CLD is represented at every level in the planning system.

Partnership working

The Single Outcome Agreement produced by the Dundee Partnership has a straightforward, though aspirational, three-strand Vision. Accompanying the Vision is a clear statement signed by all partners that:

[The SOA] "... can only be delivered in partnership. It demands that each of us plays our part to the full, but crucially, that we share the commitment to work together to achieve the change we need in Dundee."

This statement plays a crucial role in pulling together all parties in a collective endeavour. All are charged with superseding departmental or professional rivalries and individual budget pressures to the greater good of the people of Dundee.

The statutory signatories are Dundee City Council and the Scottish Government and they also include NHS Tayside, Tayside Police, Tayside Fire and Rescue, Skills Development Scotland, Scottish Enterprise and TACTRAN (Tayside and Central Scotland Transport Partnership).

The supporting partner signatories are:

- Dundee Voluntary Action;

- Chamber of Commerce;

- Dundee College;

- University of Dundee; and

- University of Abertay.

Funding

Built into the Dundee Partnership's approach is the belief that once strategic directions have been set and systems are put in place for monitoring impact accurately, autonomy over budget allocation decisions can be devolved to lower levels. This has advantages both to the empowerment of staff and in the likelihood of service provision being more closely attuned to what the citizens of Dundee actually want and need.

What lessons have been learned that can help other areas?

Professionally qualified staff are important. A high proportion are CLD qualified, or if not then 'equivalence plus relevant experience' is sought. In addition, staff are supported to achieve professional qualifications. It is felt that this policy has made a positive difference and helps staff at all grades to cope with the fluidity that can be required of them. In addition the CLD team in Dundee is actively committed to supporting national developments such as the new CLD Standards Council, and staff time is being given to serving on the committees.

The extensive emphasis given to external evaluation of the CLD work has been fundamental in illustrating and proving the impact of CLD. It has also supported staff in a culture of reassessment and supported progress in new directions.

A culture of celebration of CLD achievements and positive media coverage has been helpful. There is a high level of public awareness of the work in Dundee and beyond, fed systematically by staff proud of the achievements of learners and communities.

The Dundee Partnership multi-agency database has provided an invaluable tool both in co-operative partnership work and in drawing out evidence. It allows irrefutable evidence of the impact of CLD targeted work to be produced, for example in the statistics of goal achievement in the Xplore

case study.

CLD workers have made a point of utilising nationally recognised externally approved and validated 79 achievement awards extensively. Youth Achievement Awards for example provide robust evidence

of sustained endeavour by young people. Building such opportunities into programmes of work

with CLD learners is given high priority.

The Dundee Partnership planning system, lines of accountability and committee structure has a simplicity that means it is demystified for staff and citizens of Dundee alike. The CLD team can see exactly where their work contributes to overall success. There are robust and transparent systems in place to help the making of decisions about what fits and will be funded and what does not. The twin perils of over-planning and disaffection seem to have been avoided.

Partnership in action: A personal reflection

(By Stuart Fairweather, from Community Empowerment: Critical Perspectives from Scotland, Edited Emejulu and Shaw, 2010)

Introduction

What can be learnt from engagement and supporting engagement in partnership? In this article, I draw on my own experience as a community worker to explore the limitations of and possibilities for critically supporting 'participatory democracy' in a city that includes many of Scotland's hardest hit communities. Further, given the state's 'manufactured' interventions, I will consider how, as workers in alliance with our fellow citizens, we can promote positive learning and change.

Context

Since Scottish devolution in 2000, we have seen a move from a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition to a minority SNP Government. Councils, too, have been reshaped by voting reform. Notwithstanding these changes, the governance of geographic communities has remained high on the political agenda. Community work has been a consistent part of this agenda, given its proximity to the local. In policy, 'social inclusion' has now been eclipsed by 'community planning' and 'regeneration' is to be 'mainstreamed'. The names of the programmes and the furniture of civil society have changed but rhetoric has remained remarkably consistent.

Politicians of all persuasions in Westminster, Holyrood and local government have used the language of social justice whilst supporting the inequality created by the market. In the places where that inequality bites deepest, participation has been sugar-coated with the promise of 'closing the gap'. In the absence of independent local political structures, community workers have been asked to find participants to manage the contradictions of policy on the ground. It would be fair, in these circumstances, to ask why people bother. Part of the answer might be that, given the changes in our society over the past forty years, any offer of involvement appears positive. In addition, a process that suggests the defence and attainment of resources may seem too good to pass-up. Where does this leave participants and community workers who are committed to critical learning?

Dundee and regeneration

From 'New Life for Urban Scotland', through 'Social Inclusion Partnerships' to local 'Community Planning', Dundee has had a history of individuals and groups engaging with the system. There have been many 'battles' with the 'suits' and there has been a lot of learning in the process. With the Government's ongoing desire to mainstream regeneration, people were faced with a stark choice: either wind up the existing Regeneration Forums or re-configure them in relation to Community Planning.

Historically five Forums, each with a financial allocation and a local elected membership of 15 citizens, made decisions about community regeneration. Unsurprisingly, retention of the Forums was strongly argued for by their members. Equally unsurprisingly, the Scottish Government and Dundee Partnership (the City Council and other key public sector bodies) highlighted the Forums as positive examples of empowerment in Community Planning. However, for the Forum members, the important thing was to defend and develop local projects alongside getting a say. In what is becoming a tradition in Dundee, a review group was established.

During the second half of 2009, the Review Group met. Its members were drawn from the Forums and Dundee Partnership. Consideration of various options took place but the turning point was agreement on a budget of £750,000. In return, Dundee Partnership pushed for a strong relationship between the Forums and the relatively new, officer-led, local Community Planning Partnerships. This was accepted on the understanding that the Forums would in no way be seen as a sub-group. Detailed discussion also produced additional Fora which would address geographic anomalies.

The current situation is that six of Dundee's eight electoral wards - those with areas of 'multiple deprivation' - now have a Regeneration Forum with an allocation of £125,000. This is targeted towards local projects that relate to Dundee Partnership's Outcome Agreement with the Scottish Government and followed events at which new people were elected to the Forums alongside experienced participants. Community workers played a big part in supporting this strategy, with the well-advertised events attempting to ensure strong connections between the Forums and the wider community. Now the real work starts for the Forum members and the community workers.

The forums, democracy and learning

Now that the 'new' Forums have been established, one of the tasks for the workers supporting them is 'training'. The individuals that have signed up to participate in the Forums obviously need to know the rules of the game, how to access funding and so on, but there is also the potential for discussion about how and on what basis the Forums relate to various actors in the city, in particular:

- the state, in the shape of Dundee Partnership

- the communities from which they emerge

- other community and voluntary organisations across the city.

To date there has been very limited discussion amongst workers about this. Indeed creating opportunities for community workers to talk about anything other than targets and cuts is difficult. Yet consideration of the context in which the Forum operates could provide a starting point.

Another concern for community work relates to how participants are 'framed' in policy. Partnership, for example, has cast people in the role of volunteers or stakeholders and sometimes as partners. This creates the danger of distancing people from the communities they are part of. Conversely, the simplistic use of clichéd terms like 'activist' suggests the possibility of an agenda being imposed by others. Aside from the terminology, there is a temptation to see Forum members in abstract from their broader 'public' lives where they connect with others (or don't): at the bus stop, in the back garden, at the post office or in the pub. In addition, and given the distance of many citizens, including community workers, from formal politics there is a need to consider the complexities of popular, participatory and representative democracy.

Some would suggest that the Forums are merely about money and services and have little to do with active community democracy. This understandable assertion may be right, in part. The Forums have reduced over time and the ability to shape the deployment of local activity has been mixed. At best, some things have been changed to become more responsive. At worst a 'take it or leave it' approach has been adopted by inflexible service providers. Simultaneously, schools have been funded by Private Finance Initiatives, major projects have closed and houses have been demolished. The Forums have provided an opportunity for skills to be learnt in managing small funds at a time when major budgets have been used to benefit the interests of the private sector and 'the market'. Neverthless, involvement in the Forums has allowed people to question this assault on 'the public'. Supporting the 'new' Forums to continue in this way requires workers to recognise the wider context. In particular it means broadening the base of Forums, so that people can come together.

Making connections

Establishing structures and cultures that support people and groups to engage in challenging citywide policy is no easy task. It requires an interest in the benefits of involvement beyond the local. This also means coming up against a view of the city's future that is uncritical of the market. To date, much of the citywide engagement with Dundee Partnership has been defensive, ensuring the Forums' work and approach are respected. At times, some influence over specific aspects of policy has emerged through shaping the direction of major projects. But the constant changing of policy has eroded these occasional gains. Pressure has come from the city's desire to meet the aims of its strategic agreements with the Scottish Government, whilst preoccupation with target setting blocks off alternative objectives.

So is this where 'democracy from below' stops? The prospects do not look great. But some suggestions have been made. For example, bringing the Forums together with Community Councils and other neighbourhood groups (including from the two affluent wards) has been mooted. This would provide a more powerful vehicle for consultation with Dundee Partnership. Alternative strategies have yet to be discussed but community workers are well placed to support thinking on this.

Such networking is to be encouraged, particularly if it fosters thinking about Dundee's place in world. A recent community event set out to celebrate the achievements of an area of the city, although getting beyond the local proved difficult. Community workers felt comfortable encouraging individuals to discuss their needs within their community, but consideration of the community's needs within the city or beyond proved harder. If community workers are to support learning that looks beyond the local, we ourselves need to collectively discuss and understand the pressures on Scotland's communities. A culture that distrusts critical thinking and exploration of structural inequality makes this difficult. Creating the spaces to think and share ideas is not always easy, but it is not impossible. The conversations of those involved in the Forums and other local groups provide one starting point. Here questions are raised about the role and responsibility of the Council, about its duty to provide services to people and other policy choices. This is not far from the language of rights and a discussion of the power to make choices. Forum members can also be encouraged to talk about their experiences of working across communities, sharing resources and knowledge. These practical connections, whilst fragile, point in the direction of solidarity and 'partnership' with those who have similar interests. Here community workers with a responsibility for developing positive social relations can assist in the opening up of questions and ideas.

Conclusion

There have been some signs of optimism, as I have described, but there has not yet been any real and transparent debate about learning and development. On the contrary, the imposition of crude measurement and fatuous 'continuous improvement' targets numbs the mind and weakens the soul. It is not what people came into community work for and it is hardly surprising that some want to get out as quickly as they can. Nevertheless, my view is that there is still the possibility, in the face of cuts, to listen to people without pandering or patronising and to discuss the contradictions of engaging in 'partnership' with the state. This means reminding everyone, including ourselves, that participatory democracy requires ongoing learning and critical understanding.

Strategic Guidance for Community Planning Partnerships: Community Learning and Development

(Scottish Government, 2012)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This guidance comes against the backdrop of the most ambitious set of reforms to post-16 learning ever undertaken in Scotland. The Government is pursuing those changes with three clear objectives in mind: to align the system more purposefully with our ambitions for jobs and growth; to improve people's life chances; and to ensure the sustainability of our system in a time of inescapable pressures on public spending.

Community learning and development (CLD) is an integral part of this story. It already plays a central part in ensuring individuals, families and communities across Scotland reach their potential through lifelong learning, mutual self-help and community organisation - and that the available support and opportunities are community-led, built around people's aspirations.

This strategic guidance clarifies our expectations of Community Planning Partnerships (CPPs), within the broad framework of public service reform, and in line with the Review of Community Planning and Single Outcome Agreements (SOAs). We expect local authorities to provide clear leadership and direction, and to drive the action needed to ensure we maximise the contribution of CLD partners in the reform of public services.

It is important to be clear about the purpose of CLD. We see it as empowering people, individually and collectively, to make positive changes in their lives and in their communities, through learning. This guidance outlines the action necessary to maximise CLD's impact, resulting in better alignment of services and optimal use of resources.

The Government's National Performance Framework sets out the strategic objectives for all public services, including those delivering CLD. CLD's specific focus should be:

1. improved life chances for people of all ages, through learning, personal development and active citizenship;

2. stronger, more resilient, supportive, influential and inclusive communities.

The implementation of this guidance must be led by CPPs, with support from Government bodies such as Education Scotland and with national and local Third Sector partners. It should form an integral part of public service reform, ensuring that Community Planning provides the vehicle to deliver better outcomes in partnership with communities.

Using an evidence based approach; reducing outcome gaps between areas; jointly prioritising outcomes; and strengthening community engagement and participation are the principles which will shape work on community planning and SOAs. This will, in turn, improve partnership working, including CLD partners, in delivering SOAs.

Evidence from a range of sources, and in particular from the inspection of learning communities, demonstrates the powerful impact of CLD on the lives of learners and communities. To secure yet further improvement, we need now to strengthen the coordination between the full range of providers, and communities themselves.

Our communities face major challenges from the wider economic outlook, falling public expenditure and our changing demographics. But Scotland cannot afford the potential consequences of high levels of youth unemployment, the decline of vulnerable communities and the challenges faced by an increasingly elderly population. This is why it is essential we build resilient communities and release the talents of people (particularly those of our young people) across Scotland. That is what this guidance aims to do.

1. CONTEXT

1.1 In this guidance, the Scottish Government is renewing its commitment to Community Learning and Development (CLD). This matters because building a learning culture is central to the well-being, resilience and dynamism of our communities - and, ultimately, in achieving our purpose

To focus government and public services on creating a more successful country, with opportunities for all of Scotland to flourish, through increasing sustainable economic growth.

1.2 The Government's response to the Commission on the Future of Public Service Delivery sets out a vision of how Scotland's public services need to change:

'We will empower local communities and local service providers to work together to develop practical solutions that make best use of all the resources available. The focus of public spending and action must build on the assets and potential of the individual, the family and the community rather than being dictated by organisational structures and boundaries. Public services must work harder to involve people everywhere in the redesign and reshaping of their activities.' [95]

1.3 In our 2011 proposals for reforming post-16 learning, Putting Learners at the Centre, we made clear our wish to work with partners in strengthening the strategic approach to CLD in Scotland. The result is this refreshed guidance for local Community Planning Partnerships (CPPs), community planning partners more generally, and other national stakeholders.

1.4 CLD is an essential means of delivering Scottish Government priorities, in particular Curriculum for Excellence, GIRFEC and the Government's social policy frameworks for combating poverty, tackling health inequalities and prioritising early years. Annex A illustrates the current Government priorities of particular relevance.

1.5 We have developed this guidance through talking to a wide range of interested and expert stakeholders. It builds on recent progress and forms the starting point for a process of implementation, learning and improvement, that - crucially - focuses on outcomes for learners and communities.

2. THE PURPOSE OF CLD, AND THE OUTCOMES WE EXPECT

2.1 CLD should empower people, individually and collectively, to make positive changes in their lives and their communities, through learning. The principles that underpin practice are:

- empowerment - increasing the ability of individuals and groups to influence matters affecting them and their communities;

- participation - supporting people to take part in decision-making;

- inclusion, equality of opportunity and anti-discrimination - recognising some people need additional support to overcome the barriers they face;

- self-determination - supporting the right of people to make their own choices; and

- partnership - ensuring resources, varied skills and capabilities are used effectively.

The purpose and principles are embodied in the competences and ethics for CLD practice as set out by the CLD Standards Council for Scotland.

2.2 Our current guidance (Working and Learning Together, 2004) outlined CLD priorities as (i) achievement through learning for adults; (ii) achievement through learning for young people; and (iii) achievement through community capacity building. These priorities provided a clear focus for CLD, but we were told in our recent discussion phase, they sometimes led to artificial boundaries for practice between age groups and between work with individuals and groups.

2.3 The Government's National Performance Framework sets out the strategic objectives for all public services, including those delivering CLD (see Annex B). Within this, CLD's specific focus should be:

- improved life chances for people of all ages, including young people in particular, through learning, personal development and active citizenship

- stronger, more resilient, supportive, influential and inclusive communities.

2.4 CLD helps to develop the resilience and ambition needed to combat the effects of economic factors which cause deprivation and inequality. It ensures that barriers to achieving better life chances are identified, understood and overcome and that communities are full partners in delivering practical and policy solutions.

3. EFFECTIVE DELIVERY

3.1 This guidance sets out the principles within which CPPs should co-ordinate planning of CLD provision, setting out specific priorities. By clearly defining roles and responsibilities, it provides a basis on which community planning partners should work together to make best use of available resources.

3.2 CLD is a coherent and distinctive set of practices, defined by clearly identified competences; it is delivered in diverse settings and sectors, by practitioners with a wide variety of job titles, working with people of all ages. We must link all this together effectively if we are to achieve the impact that we seek.

3.3 CPPs should ensure CLD has a core role in delivering identified outcomes for communities. This will depend on maximising the contribution of the following partners:

- services in local authorities and government bodies with an identified CLD remit, and in voluntary sector organisations publicly funded for this purpose. These services should be closely aligned with education, culture, sport, leisure and library services and should use the resulting synergies to deliver agreed outcomes;

- those - often in the voluntary sector - in settings such as community health, housing, social enterprise, anti-poverty work, equalities or sustainable development;

- other public service organisations such as colleges and universities, the NHS and Skills Development Scotland;

- local communities or communities of interest, for example ethnic minorities or people with disabilities, concerned with shaping CLD services in order to deliver the outcomes that are important to them.

3.4 All these partners should aim to deliver CLD outcomes through:

- community development (building the capacity of communities to meet their own needs, engaging with and influencing decision makers);

- youth work, family learning and other early intervention work with children, young people and families;

- community-based adult learning, including adult literacies and English for speakers of other languages (ESOL);

- volunteer development;

- learning for vulnerable and disadvantaged groups in the community, for example, people with disabilities, care leavers or offenders;

- learning support and guidance in the community.

3.5 Local strategies for CLD should maximise the synergies between all these roles, across sectors; to do this, CPPs should consider if they are delivering the core activities of CLD through a sufficiently joined-up approach.

4. IMPROVING OUTCOMES FOR COMMUNITIES

'Communities have high expectations of public services and have a key role to play in helping to shape and coproduce better outcomes within their communities. If community planning partnerships are to unlock that potential, their foundations must be built on a strong understanding of their communities, and provide genuine opportunities to consult, engage and involve them. CPPs must be able to engage closely with the needs and aspirations of their communities, within the context of local and national democratic control...' [96]

4.1 The foundation of CLD delivery is an assessment - in partnership with learners and communities - of needs, strengths and opportunities. This clearly aligns with the Government's response to the Commission on the Future Delivery of Public Services, which sets out the approach to public sector reform as built on four pillars:

- a decisive shift towards prevention

- greater integration of public services at local level

- enhanced workforce development and effective leadership

- a sharp focus on improving performance through greater transparency, innovation and use of digital technology.

Prevention

4.2 A focus on prevention is a long standing feature of CLD practice. CLD practitioners prioritise preventative measures, work to reduce inequality and target the underlying causes of inter-generational deprivation and low aspiration.

4.3 Working with communities to realise and build on their own strengths or assets is at the core of the CLD delivery model. We want everyone involved in delivering CLD to emphasise this primary role. Activities must be designed with individuals and communities as active partners, in ways that focus on reducing the longer term need for input by public services - including CLD.

4.4 Public service planners and decision-makers will want to prevent problems from emerging and increase the opportunities for individuals, families and communities to shape their own lives. To this end they should make full use of CLD's ability to:

- build an in-depth understanding of people's needs, strengths and aspirations through sustained dialogue;

- identify issues and solutions at an early stage;

- identify barriers to participation and strategies for overcoming these;

- mobilise and support direct participation in planning and service design; and

- enable community organisations to develop their infrastructure.

Effective partnerships: services and communities

4.5 The growing diversity of CLD provision coupled with the increase in partnership working to deliver a wide variety of programmes, services and initiatives means CLD activities and approaches now have a role in many partnerships.

4.6 Partnership working is already embedded in how CLD is delivered, but, as part of our drive for reformed public services, we need it to be deepened further, widened and more closely focused on outcomes.

- First, we want providers to go further in involving learners and communities as active partners in planning and delivering CLD, and to strengthen their focus on helping communities to influence, shape and co-produce services more generally.

- Second, we want to see partnerships that plan and deliver CLD include the full range of relevant partners. This means each local authority should have a clearly defined framework for planning and delivering CLD, through partnership, as a key element of its reformed public services.

- Third, partnership working to deliver CLD outcomes should provide the basis for delivering key priorities such as:

- securing agreements to ensure effective links between learning in the community and college-based learning;

- joined-up working to deliver better outcomes for children and young people through Curriculum for Excellence, including family learning;

- more clearly focused and integrated support for communities to build their own capacity;

- engaging fully in delivering shared outcomes with national and local Third Sector organisations, including culture and sport;

- developing stronger links with Community Justice Authorities and community safety partnerships;

- further development of CLD's role in local employability partnership work.

Finally, we want CLD practitioners and managers to build on the role they already play in helping other public service providers to engage effectively with service users and communities. The delivery of the three Change Funds, for Older People, Offenders and Early Years, should provide opportunities to use CLD expertise, making best use of existing resources.

Workforce development and effective leadership

4.7 At national level, CLD policy and related legislation are being developed in response to changing needs. We ask that workforce development keeps pace with these and supports their implementation.

4.8 The national CLD CPD Strategy and the i-develop framework provide the focus for developing a learning culture across the sector. The CLD Competences provide a common framework for practice, underpinned by a code of ethics.

4.9 Education Scotland, in partnership with the CLD Standards Council, will work with others to support CLD providers to build partnerships that continue to develop the CLD workforce. We welcome the joining-up of CPD partnerships across local authority and professional boundaries, for example the joint CPD programmes in the North Alliance and Glasgow Life.

4.10 We want to see an integrated approach to all stages of professional learning. A core of highly skilled practitioners will remain essential to achieving the impact we expect from CLD, and we recognise the need to consider further the future of pre-service training in that context.

4.11 Clearly, effective leadership is crucial to CLD delivering its role and impact. Further work to develop the skills, understanding and confidence for leadership at all levels within the CLD workforce should be a key focus for CPD.

Improving performance, innovation and sharing good practice

4.12 Effective self-evaluation by groups, services and partnerships is essential to improving performance and delivering better outcomes for learners and communities. Education Scotland will provide public accountability through inspection, challenge and support to local authorities and partnerships. In addition, CPPs should ensure that CLD providers are part of the planning and reporting process supporting Single Outcome Agreements, paying particular attention to local indicators.

4.13 In this context, CLD providers have developed a range of management information systems to support performance management and improvement. The information and evidence these produce is strong in relation to individual projects - but need more development in relation to wider programmes and outcomes at partnership level.

4.14 Valuable work has been done to quantify the impact of CLD and to identify savings it can help deliver for other areas of public investment. We will work with partners to build on this and develop the best unified, flexible framework possible for self-evaluation, performance management and measurement of impact, to meet local needs and improve understanding at national level.

4.15 We will work with partners to support CLD providers in driving forward the modernisation of their own services, using self-evaluation as a tool for continuous improvement.

5. IMPLEMENTATION AND SUPPORT

5.1 The implementation of this guidance provides the impetus for CLD to be delivered as a consistent, central element of public services in Scotland and will be based on a continuing dialogue with key stakeholders.

5.2 Throughout this guidance, we have laid out what we expect from community planning partners, with local authorities providing clear leadership and direction. We have also asked Education Scotland to develop an implementation framework, ensuring its own programmes of policy implementation, inspection, self-evaluation and practice support provide the necessary challenge in order to secure change.

5.3 This approach will achieve greater consistency in the provision and practice of CLD across Scotland, continuing to foster local flexibility in establishing priorities and delivering services, whilst improving outcomes. The implementation process should ensure that:

- the core purpose of CLD is closely aligned with developments in post-16 education reform and community empowerment policy;

- CLD services will help to deliver the new partnership with communities envisaged by the Christie Commission reforms;

- the roles of all partners are clarified both within core services and wider CLD landscape;

- local authorities will be supported to audit the need for CLD, in line with the proposed duty in forthcoming legislation.

5.4 We recognise that the current financial climate means, while there is increasing demand for CLD intervention and expertise, there is limited current scope for additional investment. We hope that Community Planning partners approach this challenge by focusing on prevention and seeking to innovate in their use of existing resources, including Change and Regeneration funding.

5.5 Specifically, we see the following responsibilities as being necessary.

We expect CPPs to:

Ensure that systematic assessments of community needs and strengths provide the basis for SOAs and service strategies and plans.

Ensure this assessment is based on engagement and continued dialogue with communities, utilising CLD expertise, as well as on analysis of other data.

Ensure SOAs have a clear focus on prevention and community empowerment as the foundation of reformed public services and utilise CLD provision and methods for these purposes.

Review current partnership arrangements for planning, monitoring and evaluating CLD and ensure that they are fit for the purposes set out in this Guidance.

Education Scotland will:

Raise awareness of the opportunities, challenges and responsibilities outlined above.

Ensure its own CLD activities have a clear focus on implementing this Strategic Guidance and build and maintain a national overview of the impact of CLD. This will include:

- policy implementation;

- practice development;

- support and challenge to local authorities and their partners; support for self-evaluation; and

- evaluation and scrutiny including inspection.

Promote the national CPD strategy and the i-develop framework.

Promote high standards of practice underpinning CLD.

Contribute to delivering the implementation framework and subsequent action plans.

Highlight to Scottish Government any issues arising relating to workforce development.

Education Scotland, working with key national partners, will:

Establish an implementation framework, ensuring that issues identified in this Guidance are addressed and that existing and proposed strategic developments in the broad CLD field are integrated with this implementation process e.g. ALIS 2020

Ensure learning from the implementation process is shared by local and national partners, and informs its continuing development.

Keep under review the progress in implementing this Guidance and report to Scottish Government annually or with specific issues.

Support the CLD Standards Council to become an independent registration body for practitioners.

We expect the CLD Standards Council for Scotland to:

Establish a registration system for practitioners delivering and active in CLD practice.

Deliver a professional approvals structure for qualifications, courses and development opportunities for everyone involved in CLD.

Develop and establish a model of supported induction.

Convene a CLD employer group for Scotland and explore options around workforce, including links with UK wide work on National Occupational Standards.

The Scottish Government will:

Explore legislative powers for CLD and communicate progress with partners.

We will pursue improving the involvement of colleges in community planning as part of implementation of the recent SG/COSLA review.

Examine the need to consider further the future of pre-service training.

Continue to involve CLD stakeholders in its post-16 Education Reform Programme.

Continue to promote the benefits of CLD methods across a wide range of policy areas.

Support Third Sector national organisations through the distribution of core funding.

Fund the SCQF Partnership to allow it to support and credit rate CLD courses.

Continue with plans to refresh the current youth work strategy, Moving Forward, in partnership with national youth work organisations.

Work with the Improvement Service and Education Scotland to develop improved indicators for the impact of CLD work as part of the on-going Local Outcome Indicator Project which supports CPPs in Scotland.

Commission Education Scotland to provide an evaluative report on the impact of the guidance, based on inspection evidence and any other thematic evaluative activity.

Annex A: The Policy Context For CLD in Scotland

Annex B: The Outcomes of CLD in Scotland

Chapter 11: Looking Forward to Change

Contents

References

Introduction - Realities and Ambitions: Looking Forward to Change

Community Learning and Development in Scottish Local Authorities 2013

(By Peter Taylor; CLD Managers Scotland, 2013)

The Requirements for Community Learning and Development (Scotland) Regulations, 2013

Standing at the Crossroads - what future for Youth work?

(By Ian Fyfe and Stuart Moir; in Youth work at the Crossroads, Concept, 2013)

Adult Learning in Scotland - Statement of Ambition

(Scottish Government/Education Scotland, 2014)

Community Development - Everyone's Business?

(Alan Barr, for Scottish Community Development Centre, Community Development Alliance Scotland, Scottish Community Development Network, 2014)

References

Core Texts

Community Learning and Development in Scottish local authorities: A Changing Scene, 2012/13 (CLDMS, 2013)

The Requirements for CLD (Scotland) Regulations, 2013 (Scottish Parliament)

Standing at the Crossroads - what future for Youth work? (Ian Fyfe and Stuart Moir in Youth work at the Crossroads, Concept) 2013

Adult Learning in Scotland - Statement of Ambition (Scottish Government/Education Scotland, 2014)

Community Development - Everyone's Business? (Alan Barr, 2014)

Related Content

The Task Before us Now (Fraser Patrick, 2010)

CLD in Scottish local authorities - Changes and Pressures 2011/12 (CLDMS)

Digitally Agile Community Learning & Development - Are We? (YouthLink Scotland, Learning Link Scotland, Scottish Community Development Centre, 2012)

Response of the Scottish Community Alliance to the consultation on the Community Empowerment and Renewal Bill - Introduction (2012)

The Enabling State: From Rhetoric to Reality (Carnegie UK Trust, 2013)

Co-production of health and wellbeing in Scotland (Governance International, with Scottish Government Joint Improvement Team, Scottish Co-production Network , Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland, 2013

Youth Work at the Crossroads (Concept, 2013)

The Requirements for Community Learning and Development (Scotland) Regulations 2013: Guidance for Local Authorities (Scottish Government, 2014)

Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill

Response of the Scottish Community Alliance to the consultation on the Community Empowerment and Renewal Bill - Introduction

Youth work at the Crossroads (Concept, 2013)

Speak for Yourself: report on engagement with refugee and asylum seeking women, Scottish Refugee Council, 2014

Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act, 2015

Realities and Ambitions: Looking Forward to Change

Introduction by Colin Ross

In the years from 2012 to 2015 there was a series of developments in strategy, policy and legislation that either focused on aspects of CLD or were very directly relevant to it.

The SNP manifesto for the 2011 Parliamentary election had included a commitment to introduce a Community Empowerment and Renewal Bill with a major focus on extending rights for communities to take over land and buildings. Extensive consultation and parliamentary scrutiny resulted in greater emphasis on supporting community participation than originally envisaged, and in attempts to ensure that the legislation would promote rather than exacerbating inequality. The Community Empowerment Act received Royal Assent on 24 July 2015.

Also by then, the statutory basis for CLD had been strengthened through secondary legislation, The Requirements for Community Learning and development (Scotland) Regulations, 2013, a refreshed national Youth Work Strategy was in place and a renewed political and policy interest in adult learning had been signalled through the development and publication of a Statement of Ambition. These three developments could be seen as building on the Strategic Guidance for CLD discussed in the previous chapter.

Summarised in this way, these related developments might appear to have put in place a truly robust framework for the provision of CLD. It is important to note that the experience of practitioners and managers only very partially and patchily reflected this, but equally that without these or similar strategic initiatives, it seems likely that by 2015 CLD provision would have existed only in an extremely fragmentary and residual form. Community Learning and Development in Scottish local authorities - A changing scene, 2012/13 provides a snapshot of one part of the efforts to ensure that the kind of coherent provision needed to make a reality of the policy ambitions was maintained and continued to evolve in response to changing needs and opportunities.

It was clearly no coincidence that alongside Adult Learning in Scotland - A Statement of Ambition, the National Youth Work Strategy 2014-19 was entitled Our ambitions for improving the life chances of young people in Scotland. A cynical view would have been that framing strategic aims as ambitions offered the scope for positive rhetoric without the need for a price tag. However for providers, intermediary agencies and many practitioners the policy focus was welcome, even without there being resources attached; this was particularly the case for those working in adult learning, which aside from the attention to and investment in literacy and numeracy had suffered from a lengthy period of policy neglect.

A fair assessment would seem to be that these policy developments were neither negligible in their effects nor decisive for the ability of CLD to impact significantly on communities or its sustainability as a profession. As for any other set of practices, it is wider economic, social and political developments, and the way they shape what governments do, as much or more than the specific policies directly relating to its activities, that determine the opportunities and constraints for CLD; all the more so when these policies are stronger on rhetoric than on specific commitments.

The vast majority of the resources for CLD programmes comes from public funding, whether provision is in the public or third sectors, and consequently they need to demonstrate their relevance and effectiveness in impacting on public policy objectives. However, if it is a value-based professional discipline, as it claims to be, it also has a responsibility for the specific role of its own practice principles in bringing about positive change. Often this responsibility reinforces the expectations of policy; but often also it is in tension with them.

In Standing at the Crossroads - What future for Youth Work (the opening paper in a collection of the same name) Ian Fyfe and Stuart Moir describe government policy metaphorically as a GPS potentially locking youth work practice into pre-determined priorities such as those related to "employability" or crime prevention at the expense of its ability to respond to the expressed needs of young people. They point to the importance of youth work being "driven by local imperatives" and the need to "strike a balance between the political and economic uncertainties affecting practice priorities and a desire to respond effectively to the changing nature of youth". Similar comments would be equally relevant in relation to other CLD practices.

Fyfe and Moir note the issues arising from a situation in which "the longstanding principles, traditions and characteristics that typify youth work in Scotland have been embraced by a variety of professional colleagues in other practice areas", much youth work provision takes place through voluntary, uniformed or faith-based organisations and "alongside a genuine desire for the integration of services" there is increased competition for limited funding.

In Community Development - Everyone's Business? Alan Barr addresses, in a different context and from a different starting point, a number of similar issues to those examined in Standing at the Crossroads - What future for Youth Work. He notes that "it is important to acknowledge the longstanding debate about the extent to which community development is a specialist activity or an approach that can be adopted by workers in many disciplines".

Community Development - Everyone's Business? also explores the tensions between needs as identified by policy makers and the priorities of communities, highlighting for example the difficulties that can arise for community development practitioners from being constrained to operate within geographical boundaries set by public agencies rather than those recognised by communities themselves. The model for practice set out implies a need to engage with policy makers and acknowledges that "action driven by communities should not be viewed any more uncritically than the actions of agencies that seek to intervene in them". It argues that the implication of this, along with other factors including the complexities of translating into the public sphere the "private troubles" that usually constitute the most pressing issues for people struggling with disadvantage, is that while community development "may at one level seem quite simple" at another it is "immensely complicated, requiring advanced knowledge and understanding".

Both Barr in Community Development - Everyone's Business? and Fyfe and Moir in Standing at the Crossroads articulate the essential role of highly-skilled practitioners working from a clear value-base and with the needs and assets of communities as their starting point. In doing so, they firstly challenge some of the more simplistic ideas of how community empowerment is to happen, in particular in communities that face serious disadvantages arising from deprivation and exclusion.

Secondly, they highlight once again the urgency both of CLD professionals working collectively to drive high standards of practice and of demonstrating clearly the difference these standards make. Fyfe and Moir hint that the stance of "permanent opposition" often characteristic of youth work (and perhaps equally of other CLD practitioners) is not adequate for current realities. Barr calls on practitioners to move beyond "the petty differences" between those working in different contexts and roles and for a "concerted and integrated approach that embraces inter-professional and community partnership and establishes an open and honest culture of collaborative evaluation that facilitates joint learning and innovative practice". He points to the need for this to be adopted by policy makers as well as in day-to-day practice and to be evident in investment both in practice and in workforce development.

In difficult times, these two pieces provide a combination of vision and realism, driven by continuing debate, which if shared and utilised can nourish the empowerment of people and communities across Scotland.

Community Learning and Development in Scottish Local Authorities 2013

(By Peter Taylor; CLD Managers Scotland, 2013)

Introduction

Community Learning and Development (CLD) is a set of professional approaches to achieving outcomes, embodied in the competences and ethics for CLD practice published by the CLD Standards Council for Scotland. These approaches can be delivered in several sectors and settings, but have a solid base in services delivered by all 32 of Scotland's local authorities.

These authorities also co-ordinate CLD partnership work in their areas. Their responsibility for co-ordinating partnership work has been reinforced by the 'Strategic Guidance for Community Planning Partnerships: Community Learning and Development' issued by the Scottish Government in 2012. It is likely to be further influenced by proposed new secondary legislation and by the Scottish Government's Review of Community Planning.

The Strategic Guidance states that "CLD should empower people, individually and collectively, to make positive changes in their lives and their communities, through learning. The principles that underpin practice are:

- empowerment - increasing the ability of individuals and groups to influence matters affecting them and their communities

- participation - supporting people to take part in decision-making

- inclusion, equality of opportunity and anti-discrimination - recognising some people need additional support to overcome the barriers they face

- self-determination - supporting the right of people to make their own choice

- partnership - ensuring resources, varied skills and capabilities are used effectively."

At a time of reductions in public expenditure, there are fears that such activities, although representing a small proportion of all local authority expenditure, might suffer disproportionate cut. At the same time public policy in Scotland has scarcely ever before been so clearly based on the premise that the approaches and values that CLD puts into practice can make an effective contribution to the delivery of desired outcomes. In particular, as the Strategic Guidance emphasises, "A focus on prevention is a long standing feature of CLD practice. CLD practitioners prioritise preventative measures, work to reduce inequality and target the underlying causes of inter-generational deprivation and low aspiration."

This report looks at how the provision of CLD services may be changing in the light of these various pressures: what scale of spending reductions if any they are facing, how they are organised within local authorities and in partnerships, what priorities are being set for them and what they are doing to promote the case for their services.

The survey

This report is based upon an online survey of members of Community Learning and Development Managers Scotland, undertaken by the organisation between November 2012 and February 2013. Some information has also been gathered from telephone contacts and discussions at CLDMS meetings. A survey was circulated to the CLD Managers in all 32 Scottish local authorities, initially in November 2012. Returns were received from 24 areas (one of them was for part of the service only, and a few omitted particular details).

We asked about budgets and staffing for CLD services in 2011/12 and 2012/13, with the opportunity to comment on prospects for 2013/14 and beyond. Those prospects will however have become clearer in many areas since many of these responses were submitted. In addition, questions about the organisation of CLD services and partnerships and the priorities set for them, were included, and one question about how support for CLD has been promoted.

Similar questions about figures for 2010/11 and 2011/12 were asked in a survey that we carried out during 2011/12. We shall refer to these where appropriate. Because non-respondents in each year were different, only 16 authorities provided comparable responses to both.

Although not every Scottish local authority has a service carrying the title 'Community Learning and Development', every authority has one or more teams who recognise a professional responsibility in this field[97]. With a very few exceptions noted below under 'management structures', they all provide some service related to each of three 'strands' of CLD, namely:

- Youth Work

- Community-based adult learning

- Community capacity building

They also sometimes manage other related services. Although the current Strategic Guidance does not emphasise the separate roles of these three 'strands' explicitly, as its predecessor 'Working and Learning Together to build stronger communities' (2004) did, they do form important subdivisions of the workforce in most, though not all, local authorities.

We asked managers to provide separate budget and staffing figures for each of these 'strands', where available, and most can do this (see p.9). These responses were in most cases submitted by one single CLD contact per local authority. In others the managers of services responsible for different 'strands' submitted separate responses.

Authorities were assured that individual financial figures would not be included in this report, but on other issues we refer to them by name where appropriate.

What are CLD budgets?

There are managers in all 32 local authorities who are responsible for all or some aspects of CLD services, under a wide variety of designations, and they recognise common professional links, not least through participation in Community Learning and Development Managers Scotland. But interpretation of our results must be subject to a major caveat. It is clearly a difficult exercise for many managers to respond to what might, at face value, be considered relatively simple questions about the overall annual budgets allocated to their services by local authorities.

Variations in reporting

We provided no specific guidance on what expenditure should be included in totals. We have relied on the professional judgement of managers who recognise a common professional identity. We are confident that the figures given do not, for example, include the full range of expenditure by wider service departments in which CLD services are located. All the services which responded are able to provide figures for CLD budgets and/or the figures for individual 'strands[98]. There is one exception[99]: Glasgow Life does not distinguish CLD budgets and staffing from those for its other cultural and leisure services (and therefore no figures for it are included under those headings below). It comments:

"As an organisation Glasgow Life are committed to CLD but see it as an approach as opposed to a distinct or separate service. It is therefore the responsibility of all front line staff to provide services which improve life chances for people of all ages, through learning, personal development and active citizenship; and which build stronger, more resilient, supportive, influential and inclusive communities."

But our experience, particularly now that we have carried out repeat surveys, suggests that the definition of CLD budgets and staffing levels not only varies between authorities but is not always well understood or consistent over time within individual authorities.

We can directly compare the responses of 16 authorities to our two surveys. Questions were asked about 2011/12 budgets on both occasions. No-one gave exactly the same figure on both occasions. In half of these cases, the difference between the two reported figures for 2011/12 was greater than either of the percentage changes in budgets between years that the same authority reported in either survey.

Clearly there are some 'genuine' changes between original and final budgets: e.g. removal of unfilled vacancies from the final totals. In several cases significant areas of expenditure and/or responsibility: e.g. administrative staff, grants to voluntary organisations, or particular related areas of service, have been added to or removed from the direct responsibility of CLD services, (as we shall see again when looking at reported changes between years). Some of these decisions may have led to a reassessment of the original 2011/12 budget figures. In other cases however it appears that someone, not necessarily based in the CLD service, simply makes different accounting choices each time the question is asked.

Reported budgets for 2011/12 were just as likely to be higher in our second survey than previously reported as they were to be lower. In half of these 16 cases the final reported budget figure for 2011/12 is greater than the first reported figure for 2011/12. In two cases the budget reported in this survey was almost double the previously reported one. We have spoken to both of the managers involved about the issue. In one case a major area of existing responsibility has now been accounted to the CLD because they "are increasingly seeing it as part of CLD". In the other there has been a similar transfer of responsibility, and in addition "The financial technicians have changed the system. The previous figure was under-reported."

Overall budget levels

Because of the variations in accounting practices, comparisons between overall levels of budgets must be treated with particular caution. However, in the 22 authorities from which we obtained usable figures, representing almost exactly 2/3 of Scotland's population, aggregate reported CLD expenditure for 2012/13 was £24.21 per head of (2011 census) population[100].

Reported CLD expenditure in individual authorities ranged from around £10 per head to over £50 (Figure 1). Many, not surprisingly, were close to the average. Both large and small authorities can be found in all parts of this range.

Figure 1 Total CLD spend per capita, 2012/13, ranked by local authority

Some of the higher figures may reflect the inclusion of items that are not included in others' calculations, e.g. some grants to voluntary organisations. Some authorities which are known by reputation to have strong CLD services do report higher than average expenditure. But this may not be simply the result of higher levels of 'like for like' expenditure - their strength may have contributed to them being given responsibility for additional areas of work.

Further research of a more substantial nature is required in order to gain a clear picture of the current provision of CLD services and workforces in Scotland to inform national policy and strategy development.

Changes in budgets and staffing

We also believe that it is necessary to exercise caution in interpreting the overall levels and trends in budgets and staffing for 2011/12 and 2012/13 that were reported in our recent survey. The aggregate totals and changes in budgets and staffing in all the authorities that provided information for the same services for each year (without attempting to resolve any of the difficulties of comparability that we have outlined) are shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Aggregate budgets and staffing, with changes

ALL COMMUNITY LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

2012/13: Budget

2012/13 FTE Posts

2011/12: Budget

2011/12: FTE Posts

Total

£85,329,253

1619.21

£85,970,607

1744

Change

-0.75%

-7.16%

No. of responses [101]

23**

21

23

21

(**The change in budgets for only those 21 authorities that reported staffing figures was -1.09%)

Seven increases in budgets between were reported (Table 2). Only one of these seven was linked to an overall increase of staffing - and that case was largely due to a transfer of responsibility for administrative posts into a service (plus some conversion of sessional budgets into part time posts).

Table 2 Changes in overall budgets reported, 2011/12 to 2012/13

% Change

N of councils

+ over 10%

1

+ 4-10%

3

+ 1-4%*

3

0% or minus less than 1%

7

- 1-4%

3

- 4-10%

2

- over 10%

4

* No areas reported increases of between 0 and 1%

The national staffing figures are strongly influenced by the experience of one large authority that recorded an exceptionally large reduction. This was the City of Aberdeen. As noted in our previous report, this made a decision, implemented from 2011/12 onwards, to deliver a large proportion of CLD services through community centres transferred to community organisations, if at all. As a result local authority CLD staffing levels have fallen by some 67%, of which 61% appears as a change between 2011/12 to 2012/13 (though the bulk of the associated budget reduction was already in place by 2011/12). A little over 50% of the entire net reduction in CLD staffing in Scotland recorded in our survey can be attributed to Aberdeen.

If we exclude from Table 1 as 'outlying' cases both Aberdeen and also the one authority, described above, that showed high increases due to staff transfers into the CLD service, the aggregate reduction in staffing across Scotland is -4.32%, and the equivalent reduction in budgets is -0.52%.

The trends in staffing levels reported are shown in Table 3[102]. One other Council recorded a staffing increase. It explained "funding has decreased, [but] the number of posts has increased because of successful external funding bids". Seven authorities reported a standstill in staffing and the rest some decreases.

Table 3 Changes in overall staffing reported, 2011/12 to 2012/13

Change

N of councils

Staffing increase

2

Staffing standstill

7

Reduction by less than (excl 2 outliers) average

3

Reduction by more than average but less than 10%

5

Reduction by more than 10%

4

There are clearly a large number of administrative and substantive factors at play in explaining the reported levels of and changes in expenditure and staffing. Shifts in responsibility for certain items of administrative expenditure appear significant in some cases of apparent budget increase. For example:

"Because of re-structuring at directorate level comparison between the 2 years is almost meaningless at this level e.g. a seeming increase in budget for central costs is simply a apportionment model used by accountants and a similar seeming increase in community use school budgets is caused by apportionment of the central PPI school financing charges. For 'core' CLD work the figures [have increased, but this] is actually caused by some staff who were part of the locality management model 'coming across' to CLD as part of a directorate re-structure".

"The Youth Work budget has been supplemented by the mainstreaming of the previously ring fenced Community Regeneration budget funded originally by the Scottish Government".

"The increase in [youth work] post numbers results from a successful lottery bid".

An increase in staffing for core CLD services is not a factor in any area. It is possible that there is a limited trend in some areas (by no means all) to consolidate a number of related service responsibilities under CLD management - whilst clearly not increasing staffing to match.

As in our previous survey, experiences of the effect of budget decisions on services are quite varied. A few councils experienced particularly painful cuts - generally not the same as those who experienced these in the previous year or who are expecting them in the coming year. Others have had a period of relative stability.

"Our budget has remained relatively static ... This was in due in part to positive political support and also the CLD Service's transition from Community Services to Education Services".

"The Council set a 2 year budget in 2011, therefore no changes in last 2 years".

"Budget savings have been achieved primarily by not filling vacant posts and through [early retirement]. There has also been a reduction in the funding available to support ESOL and Literacies Work. This has resulted in reduced levels of service in our community based adult learning".

"These figures represent a 5% reduction in the CLD budget between 2011-12 and 2012-13 which has meant a reduction of ... posts, which has brought about reduced service levels across all areas, despite our best attempts to minimise impact by targeting support functions and non-essential posts".

"Over a 3 year period CLD has lost about 25% of its overall budget. A number of CLD centres have been closed and many operations have been moved into community facilities within the new school buildings. There is less administrative support and fewer operational staff and managers. In addition money to support activities has shrunk significantly and there is very little leeway for its use".

Although a minority of services did face big reductions in expenditure in 2012/13, it seems reasonable to conclude cautiously that in this year at least, CLD service budgets were not typically singled out for disproportionate cuts, within the context of another very difficult year for local government services. Deliberate decisions actually to protect them have sometimes been taken, but are fairly rare.

CLD 'strands'

CLD services are often organised according to the three main 'strands' of Youth Work, community-based Adult Learning and Community capacity building, whether within a single service or separate services. Of the 23 areas from which full returns were received, in one area, Glasgow, as we have seen, although many professional CLD workers are employed, no separate CLD budgets or staffing figures are reported within a broader cultural and leisure service. We understand that a similar approach is planned from 2013/14 onwards in at least one local authority service elsewhere.

In the remaining 22 areas, six organise their services in such a way that they cannot, or could not readily, provide either separate budget or staffing figures for the three 'strands'. Two could provide staffing but not budget figures. The remaining majority of 14 could provide full breakdowns[103]. The aggregate breakdown of expenditure is summarised in Figure 2. Youth work expenditure is the largest identifiable strand, followed by adult learning, with the lowest budget share attributable to community capacity building[104].

Figure 2 Share of CLD budgets attributed to specific 'strands'

In a minority of those cases the full budget is allocated between the three strands. But in most there is also a substantial amount of general expenditure in the overall budget, on items which might include central management expenses, but can also include related services that come under the same management but which do not fit neatly into the three 'strands'.

The levels of these central, 'generic' or 'residual' budgets vary greatly. The proportion of the total in this category is significantly higher than that reported in our previous survey. This may be consistent with the apparent trend to widen the responsibilities of some CLD services.

But here also, variations in practice are so marked that we must be wary of interpreting apparent changes. The overall totals for 'other' expenditure are dominated by several large authorities where a significant proportion of expenditure falls into this category.

We have chosen not to show the figures for the allocation of staffing between strands. If presented on the same basis as above they show an even greater share allocated to 'other/general' purposes, but this conclusion is not reliable[105]. For similar reasons of lack of confidence in the consistency of a fairly small number of responses, we have decided not to analyse data on trends in budgets and staffing within each of the three strands.

Here again our conclusion is that the identification of CLD services within local authorities is widely variable and becoming more so.

Impact on voluntary sector

Many local authority CLD budget decisions have a direct impact on the community and voluntary sector. We asked about this direct impact. Other sources of funding and support for that sector are also of course under pressure.

Approximately half of those responding reported that there were no overall reductions in support to the sector, at least in cash terms, for 2012/13. Where specific levels of cuts in grants budgets were reported, these ranged up to 6%. There were again substantial variations across the country, as expressed for example by the following:

"The retention of the budget and ability to redirect/fill posts has allowed for an increased level of direction and support to be able to be provided to those community and voluntary sectors providing a service within the area."

"No Impact at present."

"Payments to the community and voluntary sector have received no inflationary increases during the last 3 years, which has meant reduced levels of support in real terms."

"To date, grants to voluntary sector organisations with whom we have strategic partner agreements have remained at the same level for the past three years. However, the Community Grants Scheme which community groups and smaller organisations rely on now has to underwrite local ... Christmas lights and hanging baskets [etc]."

"This year will see the first cuts in grants to voluntary sector partners. Grant funding has stood still for the last 3 years - effectively a cut."

"The overall budget for [grants] in 2012/13 was a reduction of 3% over the previous year. There will be a further reduction of approximately 7.5% in 2013/14. The net result is that organisations have had to sustain significant reductions in funding while others have had their funding withdrawn."

"The grants budget which supports the voluntary sector was subject to a 6% cut ... [With] most of the voluntary sector already living on a very tight budget this was a double whammy as the costs of maintaining their infrastructure ... including maintenance and heating / lighting costs were rising at probably 10% overall. Some of these are now facing significant hardship and one has ceased to operate."

Prospects

2013/14 may prove to be a particularly difficult year. Although preliminary indications were mixed, with some reporting 'no cuts' or an inflation-linked increase, at least three services were already, at the time of their survey responses, reporting cuts of 25% or more. These would be higher than any experienced in any authority in 2012/13[106]. These higher cuts would follow a year of, at worst, budget stability in those three areas. This pattern of particularly 'bad' years following one or more relatively 'good' years appears to be repeated in different areas every year. The following illustrate the range of responses[107].

"There is to be an increase [of 2%] and full retention of staff."

"I anticipate an inflationary increase for 2013/14."

"2013/14 will see some management posts disappear and a general diminution of budgets, in proportion to the rest of the Council. There is at this point no indication of a wholesale diminution of CLD at the expense of any other service".

"[Our budget] will be reduced by [4.8%] over the next two years. Measures are being introduced to offset the difference by increasing income generation."

"We have been asked to consider the impact of 6%, 8% and 10% reductions... . Any one of these reductions will be in addition to the agreed efficiency saving of [1.3%]."

"We have been asked to find 10% savings from the 2013/14 budget and it looks like the level of savings we will be asked to find in future years is likely to increase as the Education and Social Work Department budgets remain protected. The only way these savings can be achieved in future years will be to shut buildings and/or remove staff posts."

"25% reduction in Adult learning budget- staff reduction seems unavoidable."

"Service reducing by approximately 25/30% depending on how you count it."

Some authorities also report difficult prospects in the longer term.

"No proposed cuts for CLD in 2013/14, but cuts proposed for next 5 years and CLD will be affected at some point during that period."

"There are few signs that Youth Work will be protected from future budget savings, the percentage of which is likely to increase in future years".

"Nobody is really speaking about 2014/15 and beyond except in the most hushed tones!!"

Location within local government

There are recognised national priorities for Community Learning and Development, there is a common professional standards body and all Scottish local authorities are represented in CLDMS. Nevertheless there is no automatic presumption that local authorities will provide a unified CLD service (under that name or any other). Similarly, although Education Scotland is the policy and practice development agency for CLD and inspects CLD provision in all areas as part of Learning Community inspections, there is no automatic presumption that CLD services will be managed as part of educational services.

In the 24 authorities responding to the survey, 17 report that there is "currently a single manager whose responsibility is mainly for all three strands of CLD services" and 7 that there is no such single manager.

Adding to our survey responses with other information obtained from CLDMS members and some taken from websites, we are able to give an account of the location of CLD services in all 32 local authorities (Table 4).

Table 4 Location of CLD within authority

General nature of service division within which CLD is located

All CLD services

Divided responsibilities

Services covering both education and leisure/culture

6

Youth Work+ Adult

Learning only: 1

Services mostly covering education

12

Youth Work + Adult

Learning only: 2

Youth Work only: 1

Adult Learning only: 1

Cultural and Leisure services

2

Arm's length bodies

2 [108]

CCB: 1

Broad 'community services' departments including e.g. housing

2

CCB: 2

Chief Executive's, or services with corporate administration or Community Planning functions

3

Youth Work + CCB: 1

Adult Learning: 1

CCB: 1

We understand that in broad terms there are in fact 24 with a single manager[109] and 8 with none. This does not reflect additional local variations such as the fact that in a few areas, even if one manager has the lead responsibility for CLD centrally, the majority of staff are line managed along with other services on a locality basis.

No two Scottish CLD services seem to be located within a broader service or department which has exactly the same name as any other, with the exception of one or two 'Education' services and a couple of services located within Chief Executive's Departments. Current fashions in naming service divisions in local government sometimes make it difficult to discern what some of them are actually responsible for.

The most common link is with services that are also responsible for other education, i.e. principally schools. The table probably does do justice to the full extent of the links which exist between CLD and cultural and leisure services within some of the broader services that also involve education. The direct link with education is not present in more than a third of 'unified' CLD services and over half of the strands that are separately administered, especially CCB services.

We asked, where there is a single manager, "What, if any, other services (in addition to the three strands ...) is that manager responsible for?" Where there is no single manager, we asked "What, if any, other services are managed jointly with community-based youth work/ community-based adult learning/ community capacity building?"

Whilst some 'single managers' have responsibility for what is clearly a much wider range of services than any that could be considered to be CLD, it is also common for a diverse range of more closely linked areas of work to be managed directly as part of a CLD service. Those that receive several mentions (in approximately descending order of frequency) are:

- A range of employability work and/or related 16+ support (learning choices, Opportunism for All, Activity Agreements etc)

- Family Learning

- Local Community Planning

- Outdoor Education

- Community health work

- Community based childcare services

- Community halls and centres (perhaps not mentioned in some areas because considered an integral part of the service).

Several authorities are expecting major reviews of service configurations, either council-wide or within broader service divisions, for 2013/14 or beyond. So far all of these appear to be related to Council or service-wide imperatives. In one area where 'strands' are managed separately their merger into a common CLD service is being considered as a possible source of financial savings. In other areas there are pressures in the opposite direction:

"Other Council Departments continue to bid for various elements of the CLD Service".

No-one mentioned any plans yet to reorganise services in response to the CLD Strategic Guidance and other related policy developments, though one manager speculated on the possibility:

"I also think the new community empowerment bill will see Community Planning Partnerships in particular and the council in general look at how they organise and run their services in future. I think it will strengthen our particular field of work".

Partnerships for CLD

National policy several years ago required the establishment in CLD Partnerships in every local authority area. Many found it appropriate to retain one after the national requirement lapsed. Others found other ways of strategic partnership working for CLD by participating in a variety of community planning forums. In a minority of cases it appears that arrangements for partnership work were diminished.

In a small separate survey in September 2011 we asked members about their arrangements for partnership working. Two thirds of those who responded then had a 'CLD Partnership', though several of these were under review or had limited functions. Some of these 'CLD Partnerships' clearly offered CLD providers a less formal and direct link to broader community planning forums than those that were available to those without such a partnership.

Since then the Strategic Guidance for CLD has reinforced the need for strategic partnership work, without specifying the form that this should take:

"Local strategies for CLD should maximise the synergies between all these roles, across sectors; to do this, CPPs should consider if they are delivering the core activities of CLD through a sufficiently joined-up approach."

When asked in our recent survey "do you have a distinct CLD Partnership?" 11 managers said 'Yes', and 11 'No'. (As ever, different response rates etc. mean that any apparent trends between surveys should be viewed with caution).

The roles of the continuing CLD Partnerships are often clearly integrated into Community Planning structures (to the extent that in some cases their identification with previous CLD partnerships is doubtful). These are some of the descriptions of their roles:

"Responsible for delivery of CLD Strategic Guidance and Lifelong Learning Strategy. .. Reports to Community Planning Board"

"A strategic sub group of [Community Planning] Partnership"

"Strategic leadership on their [CPP] behalf"

"Work cross cuts all the CPP themed groups and does not directly report to any themed group. Reports to every meeting of the CPP leadership Board and to local community planning".

"Sub group of [CPP] Lifelong Learning working group. Lead on all CLD matters across partners"

"CLD partnership has merged with the Community Planning Partnership sub group - Strategic Community Learning Group. CLD are represented on this group and have a proactive role in the work of this group".

"SOA is taken forward under Local Outcomes, with the partnership group for one specific Local Outcome being akin to a CLD partnership."

Only one reported "No direct relationship".

Most of those areas which did not regard their arrangements as specific CLD Partnerships were able to report direct involvement of CLD service providers in CPP groups including:

- Childrens and Learning partnership

- Third Sector and Communities CCB Group and Area Community Planning Groups

- Education Outcome Group

- Learning Partnership

- Lifelong Learning Partnership and Strategic Forum

- Youth Alliance and Adult Learning Partnerships [and] developing a new Community Capacity Building Partnership.

Only two could not report this:

"Not at the moment, expected 2013/14"

"No - fighting for one".

In the great majority of cases there is clearly a substantial basis available from which to build the type of strategic partnership work promoted by the Strategic Guidance. Provided that this is present, the existence or otherwise of a specific 'CLD Partnership' need not be a major issue. Three of those with existing CLD Partnerships specifically reported that these were currently under review, in response, we understand, to the Strategic Guidance.

Priorities set for services

We asked managers 'Are your CLD services expected to focus on any major priorities?' all but one of the 21 authorities that replied indicated that such priorities had been set[110].

'Employability' is the most commonly mentioned priority across strands, bring important for youth work and the most common priority for adult education. Implementation of the Curriculum for Excellence is easily the most common specific priority pursued by Youth Work services. These top priorities have not changed since our previous survey. 'Asset transfer' is also still the most common single priority for community capacity building services. But this was far less clearly predominant than before, with a diverse range of other competing priorities mentioned. Perhaps this may change again once a Community Empowerment and Renewal Bill is passed! Our summary of all the priorities mentioned is shown in Table 5.

Four areas mentioned that they had adjusted or were currently adjusting their priorities to take account of the Strategic Guidance. Three others mentioned the impact of Single Outcome Agreements, and an eighth referred to a major review of strategy without specifying the drivers for this. Welfare reform was also mentioned by two as a future influence. The extent of change in priorities appeared to be greater than we had observed the previous year.

Table 5 a-d Priorities for services, by strand of work

a. Youth Work priorities

Number of respondents

CFE

12*

Employability

6

Diversion

4

16+, Opportunities for All etc.

4

Achievement awards etc.

4

GIRFEC

3

Citizenship

3

Youth representation, participation etc.

3

Transition

2

Prevention and early intervention

2

Accredited learning

2

Single mentions: Community based youth work, Community Safety, Holiday provision, Partnership working, Supporting vulnerable young people, Volunteering, Youth literacies, Youth Work and Schools

Total giving a positive response

17

* 2 of which specified 'senior phase'

b. Adult Education priorities

Number of respondents

Employability

11

Literacies*

10

ESOL

9

Family Learning**

9

Digital

3

Health and Wellbeing

3

Core skills

2

Single mentions: Accreditation, Advertised adult education programme, Financial Literacy, Identifying barriers to learning and addressing them, Offender learning, Personal and social development, Welfare Reform

Total giving any positive response

17

* including one case specifically linked to employment

** including one 'family literacies' and one specifically linked to school transitions

c. CCB priorities

Number of respondents

Asset transfer

5

Community Empowerment Bill*

3

Co-production/ health & social care involvement

3

Single mentions: Asylum Seeker/Refigee groups, Capacity building, engagement and participation, Community Facilities Management, Community Support, Credit union development, Elderly, Equalities, Kinship Care groups, Poverty, Preventative, Resilience, Social cohesion, Social Enterprise, Suport to management committees,

Total giving any positive response

13

* one linked this to Community Planning reform

d. Overall CLD priorities

Number of respondents

Strategic Guidance

4

Prevention, early intervention

3

Performance management etc.

2

Employability

2

SOA

2

Community engagement

2

Stronger communities etc.

2

Family learning

2

Single mentions: Adult of CLD, CfE, Partnership Working, Poverty, Workforce Development

Total giving any positive response

13

Promotion

There was a rich range of responses to our final question: "What strategies or initiatives have you adopted to promote the value of CLD services and protect budgets locally in the past year?"

Summarising all the classifiable responses, we have placed them in the following groups[111]. Some authorities focused on one of these groups, others reported a mixture of promotional approaches.

Probably the most common approach is to attempt to influence significant decision makers, both internally and in partner agencies, either by direct reporting and briefing or through demonstrating joint work. Councillors are inevitably a particularly important audience. The following approaches were mentioned:

Reporting to/briefing Councillors (7 generally, plus 2 specifically at local level)

Reporting to senior management: 2; to other Departments: 1

Partnership working/ influencing partners (general): 5

Specific partnership projects: 1; work with: Schools: 1, Colleges: 1

Inspections: partner involvement: 1

"Reporting to Area Committees has had a very strong influence on individual elected members because the reports provided are at the level [where] they understand the impact on local groups which they recognise easily"

"Strong local member and community support has meant CLD has been protected more than would have been expected in the current climate"

"Developing strong and transparent partnerships and promoting greater collaboration."

Another common approach is to promote wider publicity for CLD work and outcomes, in a variety of media:

Annual reports: 2; newsletters: 3; website: 2; social media: 1; press: 3; other/general publicity: 1; publicity for inspections: 1

Local and national awards: 2

Events: learner celebrations etc.: 3

"A Communications Strategy - regular bulletin reporting progress and successes. Increased use of social media to promote services and achievements"

"Submitted numerous applications into award processes. CLD picked up 5 awards"

"Through partners' newsletters, learner celebrations, press releases"

Perhaps a more difficult and longer term strategy is to raise awareness of the strategic significance of CLD.

Strengthening links to CPP/SOA: 3; Local Community Planning: 2

Promoting strategic guidance: 3

Links to specific policy areas: Poverty/Welfare Reform: 3, Employment: 3, Curriculum for Excellence: 2

Many CLD services have not (yet) achieved the position where they can describe their position in terms such as these two services:

"[We are] securing representation and making links to all the CP Partnership theme groups to enable CLD to maintain a high profile in the SOA and other strategic documents."

"We have strategically moved CLD to the centre of Community Planning Partnership. ... In the past, there has been a disconnect between the strategic CPP and local communities. The CLD Service has acted a bridge between both and this is clearly demonstrating results".

But the links between CLD and pressing national and local policy agendas are now a promising field for further promotion.

"Promotion of relevance of CLD service to youth employment, the implementation of curriculum for excellence and tackling inequality."

"Promoting CLD approaches across partner organisations using e.g. the Strategic Guidance for CLD as a catalyst for discussion".

Finally, only a minority mentioned the systematic gathering and use of evidence on the performance and impact of CLD. However others no doubt use such evidence in their communications and lobbying activities.

Impact assessment/Social Return on Investment analysis etc.: 5

CLD audit/ plan etc.: 3

"CLD Analysis/Audit agreed by Community Planning Partnership and Council"

"Local impact reports"

"Robust responses [to elected members], incorporation of local performance indicators, setting and achievement of challenging performance targets, have all contributed to a general impression of well-targeted, locally responsive, high impact CLD delivery in elected members' minds which we largely trust has an effect at budget time."

Conclusions

The pattern of who does what in Community Learning and Development is a confusing one across local authorities, and is apparently becoming more so. Yet national policy requires strategic direction over what the role of Community Learning and Development is and what priority is given to it.

Although on average CLD did not appear to suffer disproportionate cuts in 2012/13, some areas did see reductions in budgets and staffing which will have seriously weakened their services. When taken in combination with the range of other areas that have seen such reductions in at least one of the recent years or which expect them in 2013/14 or thereafter, the ability of CLD services to respond to the high expectations for them is under severe pressure.

However, in the great majority of cases there is a substantial basis of partnership working in place from which to build the type of strategic partnership work promoted by the Strategic Guidance for CLD. In addition a high proportion of services are setting priorities which allow them to maximise their impact. Many are also promoting awareness of their impact in imaginative ways, although more could be done.

Peter Taylor

Co-ordinator

Community Learning & Development Managers Scotland

The Requirements for Community Learning and Development (Scotland) Regulations, 2013

Made - 29th May 2013

Laid before the Scottish Parliament - 31st May 2013

Coming into force - 1st September 2013

The Scottish Ministers make the following Regulations in exercise of the powers conferred by section 2 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980[112] and all other powers enabling them to do so.

Citation, commencement and interpretation

1.-(1) These Regulations may be cited as the Requirements for Community Learning and Development (Scotland) Regulations 2013 and come into force on 1st September 2013.

(2) In these Regulations-

"community learning and development" includes programmes of learning and activities designed with individuals and groups to promote the educational and social development of those individuals and groups; and

"target individuals and groups" means those individuals and groups that the education authority considers, having regard to the needs of the communities within the area of the education authority, are most likely to benefit from the provision of community learning and development.

Assessment of community learning and development needs

2. An education authority is required to initiate and, having done so, to maintain and facilitate a

process by which community learning and development secured within the area of the education authority is secured in a way that-

1. identifies target individuals and groups;

2. has regard to the needs of those target individuals and groups for that community learning and development;

3. assesses the degree to which those needs are already being met; and

4. identifies barriers to the adequate and efficient provision of that community learning and development.

3. In exercise of the requirement in regulation 2, the education authority is to take such action as it thinks fit with a view to securing that the following persons are involved in and consulted on the process-

1. persons appearing to the education authority to be representative of the target individuals and groups; and

2. persons appearing to the education authority to be representative of persons providing community learning and development within the area of the education authority.

Three year plan

4.-(1) An education authority is required to publish a 3 year plan containing the information specified in paragraph (2) no later than-

1. 1st September 2015; and

2. each third year after the date of publication of the previous plan.

(2) The plan must specify-

1. how the education authority will co-ordinate its provision of community learning and development with other persons that provide community learning and development within the area of the education authority;

2. what action the education authority will take to provide community learning and development over the period of the plan;

3. what action other persons intend to take to provide community learning and development within the area of the education authority over the period of the plan; and

4. any needs for community learning and development that will not be met within the period of the plan.

(3) Before publishing a plan, the education authority must consult-

1. persons appearing to the education authority to be representative of the target individuals and groups for community learning and development;

2. persons appearing to the education authority to be representative of persons providing community learning and development within the area of the education authority; and

3. such other persons as the education authority thinks fit.

AILEEN CAMPBELL

Authorised to sign by the Scottish Ministers

St Andrew's House,

Edinburgh

29th May 2013

Standing at the Crossroads - What Future for Youth Work?

(By Ian Fyfe and Stuart Moir; in Youth work at the Crossroads, Concept, 2013)

Introduction

The collection of papers in this reader straddle a period of significant political change. The first decade of the twentieth century will inevitably be synonymous with the ongoing global economic crisis. In this opening paper we map out the journey ahead for youth work with a glance back over some key markers of the past decade that have shaped the priorities for contemporary practice. Symbolically, youth work appears to be a crossroads -‐ looking to the past for inspiration in order to make better sense of the current context and ultimately gauge the best way forward. There are choices, albeit limited, about which direction to take. The available routes ahead are significantly shaped by the political and policy imperatives of government. Metaphorically, reliance on a 'GPS' to inform the future journey for youth work is likely to be locked into the priorities of the state; subsequently the directions for practice are predetermined. We conclude that the future challenges for youth work practitioners include a need to critically take stock of the ever-‐changing context in order to assist in taking the best steps forward.

The Scottish Context - Looking back

The election of the UK New Labour government in 1997 paved the way for a programme of constitutional reform ultimately leading to the reestablishment of a Scottish Parliament in May 1999, the first for almost 300 years. The resultant devolution of power from the UK Westminster government realigned responsibility for key policy areas affecting children and young people to the Scottish Parliament. The subsequent implementation of state-‐sponsored services targeted at young people was steered by the three discrete policy themes of lifelong learning, social inclusion and active citizenship, the pillars of the new Labour vision for Scotland (Scottish Office 1998).

The historical period covered by this reader is generally referred to in the British context as the 'New Labour' years (Banks 2010). The political rhetoric of the respective UK governments and in post-‐devolution Scotland has shifted inevitably. Yet, for some commentators the ideological thread of neo-‐liberlism has weaved through the various political machinations providing an ideological link between the changing administrations (Davidson, McCafferty, & Miller 2010). In essence, we have experienced a distinct political era characterised by regimes that span a left-‐right ideological spectrum and form 'part of the broader international hegemony of neo-‐liberalism' (Simmons & Thompson 2011, p.4). Such a trend has been evident across many western democracies.

The political configuration of the Scottish Government[113] has changed through the post-‐devolution elections held respectively in 1999, 2003, 2007 and 2011. However, it is not the intention here to elucidate in detail the specific changing political climate in Scotland. By way of a summary, the first two post-‐devolution elections resulted in a coalition between the Labour and Liberal Democrat Parties in control of the Scottish Executive. Power shifted in 2007 with the Scottish National Party forming a minority government. Their position of influence was consolidated in 2011 when the electorate returned them to power, on this occasion with a clear majority.

Whilst the underlying political project of new Labour was generally welcomed across the UK in the late 1990s, significant changes in the perceived priorities for youth work provoked new tensions. Shifting emphasis highlighted an apparent imbalance of resource-‐driven intervention directed at addressing specific 'youth issues', such as risk-‐taking behaviour, employability (unemployment) and community safety. Consequently, concern with each of these broad jurisdictions for practice was fuelled by an underlying deficit discourse; blame was commonly apportioned to the lives and lifestyles of the youth of the time.

Since devolution in 1999, the relationship between young Scots and the policy agenda targeted at them has at times been confusing and contradictory. Generally, the public image of young people has become poor, generating new pressures on youth workers to respond to the alleged growing youth problem. Despite the visionary policy rhetoric that proclaimed the emergence of a 'new' Scotland 'where everyone matters' (Scottish Executive 1999), young people have all too often been portrayed in public discourse as victims of a perceived generational slide towards political apathy, social exclusion, poor health, criminality and welfare dependency resulting from long term unemployment.

Historically, youth work has responded in principle to the expressed needs of young people; as Wylie argues 'at its best, youth work has been a service driven by local imperatives' (2010, p.7). Practitioners often lay claim to having the creative capacity to hone their methods and approaches to engage meaningfully with the changing lives and lifestyles of the younger generation. In recent times, the unrelenting drive of policy has taken hold with the result that the sector, from community level up to strategic management has 'been too ready to take on the jargon of funding bodies' (Davies 2011, p.25). The homogenised labelling of young people is nothing new, but current practice initiatives also appear to be increasingly locked into the language and outcome-‐driven priorities of policy.

The past decade has been characterised by an emerging paradox between a desire to build the democratic capacity of our young citizens to take more control of their lives, alongside an ever-‐increasing expectation that modes of youth work practice can and should control their perceived deviant behaviour (Barry 2005). This conflicting vision has become all too pervasive and succinctly captured by Bradford (2004) who observed:

Youth work has been increasingly drawn into initiatives explicitly designed to manage specific groups of young people, particularly those thought to be 'at risk' of involvement in criminal activity…..Youth work's history is predicated on the idea that young people (qua adolescents) are essentially vulnerable (and thus at risk). Young people are likely to remain a source of political and social concern, and no doubt new aspects of youth risk wait to be revealed or constructed. Youth work, in one form or another, will continue to offer a flexible means of contributing to the governance of young people.

- (p. 252)

It is within this contested policy terrain that youth work has been positioned, resulting in shifting priorities for the practitioner, allied with competing demands on resources.

For many governments, austerity measures have become necessary to ensure efficiency of public spending within diminished budgets. In funding terms 'things have got a little less flexible over the last decade or so' with governments becoming 'more adept at managing community organisations' (Sercombe 2010, p.79). Added to the bureaucratic mechanisms of government, youth work services and agencies are also faced with external inspection of the outcomes of their work.

The financial resources available for youth work have become highly competitive, with dwindling funds available to the respective state-‐sponsored and third sectors. This, in turn, has impacted directly on the role and purpose of the youth work practitioner. For Wylie (2010), the contemporary economic and political landscape is 'chilling', with youth work operating within a context dominated by neo-‐liberal notions of market competitiveness (p.7). More and more we witness the goals of practice shaded by dedicated funding streams frequently at odds with the real needs of young people living in local neighbourhoods. For many youth-‐oriented services, competitive bidding for dedicated funding has become the norm, shaping practice priorities set against predetermined outcomes; often with tokenistic or indeed no consideration of the views of young people themselves. Whilst youth work practitioners find themselves in direct competition for funds, the common expectation is they also work together in partnership.

Increasingly, youth workers are engaged in a multi-‐disciplinary field of practice occupied by a diverse range of professional colleagues with whom they are strongly encouraged to form alliances and plan shared goals. Indeed, the integration and co-‐location of youth services is now a commonplace scenario and an overriding feature of the Scottish policy context (for example Scottish Government 2009 & 2012a). Across Scotland, the once-‐discrete profession of Community Education, of which youth work was a core domain of practice, has become subsumed within a diverse range of local government departments and subsequently marketed by the Scottish Government more as an 'approach' to service delivery (Scottish Executive 2003).

Essentially, the longstanding principles, traditions and characteristics that typify youth work in Scotland (and beyond) have been embraced by a diversity of professional colleagues in other practice areas such as social work, leisure, recreation, health promotion and law enforcement. The impact of this context on the collection of voluntary, faith-‐based and uniformed organisations that make up the Third Sector will undoubtedly have a far-‐reaching and devastating effect on the long-‐term stability of discrete local youth work services and projects.

Jeffs (2011) suggests we are witnessing a post-‐statutory era in terms of the make up of the broader youth work sector, evidenced in some parts of the UK amongst other things by the growth of youth workers employed by faith-‐based organisations. A sole reliance on state funding now seems an unrealistic prospect, particularly in the Third Sector. It would appear then that, alongside a genuine desire for the integration of services across sectors and between discrete professional disciplines, there is increased competition in bidding for limited funding and inevitable caveats applied to outcomes.

Against the backdrop of an emerging economic crisis over the past decade, there has been mounting emphasis on the measurement of the outcomes of youth work practice, and the perceived impact of discrete services on the lives and lifestyles of young people. For Ord (2007):

Clarity about the outcomes and the educational achievements of youth work is enormously beneficial…Evaluation is integral and a critical perspective on the effectiveness of our interventions is crucial in the development of good practice.

- (p.30)

The implementation of evaluative frameworks has become associated with a rise in perceived managerialist approaches to decision-‐making and resource allocation, described by Rose (2010) as an 'accountability model' (p.156). As a consequence, evaluation of the outcomes of youth work approaches has become an often-‐confusing and multifaceted activity that is characterised by a range of contrasting perceptions and purposes that tend to rely heavily on a technocratic systems approach (Subrha, 2007). For Ord (2007) youth work is a qualitative process and the application of crude calculations of efficiency based on inputs and outputs is problematic and 'does not allow for the subtlety of the process' (p.81).

That said, the systematic introduction of approaches to measurement has given much-‐needed legitimacy to established, yet unheralded, aspects of youth work practice. A case in point is the current emphasis on post-‐school transitional destinations; supporting young people's development towards adulthood being a long-‐standing feature of youth work practice. Furthermore, the thrust for integration and joined-‐up working highlights the benefits of a common approach to measurement that acknowledges the discrete contribution of youth work whilst removing any ambiguity over the collective desired outcome. However, Morgan (2009) highlights some potential pitfalls and offers further insight to the marginal role of young people in shaping services:

Outcomes may, in the short-‐term, drive the development of more targeted approaches to youth work but appear to be focussed on human and economic capital at the expense of social capital. The real needs of young people are often not at the centre of the policies as they continue to be viewed as recipients of programmes that are shaped 'for' them not 'by' them.

- (p.62)

As a core feature of developments over the past decade, the predominance of pre-‐set targets appear in the main to be concerned with accountability and the efficient delivery of political imperatives; in other words, an approach to measurement geared towards a market-‐orientated mode of practice. Hence, the notion of a proactive and flexible approach to youth work - the old adage of starting where young people are at -‐ appears to have become sidelined in favour of a compromised deference to and uncritical implementation of particular policy themes.

Taking Stock of the current context - Are we there yet?

Despite the socioeconomic changes of the past decade, the long-‐standing 'traditions' and values of youth work continue to feature strongly in contemporary policy literature and academic commentary. The Scottish Executive (2007) acknowledges that the overriding purpose of youth work is:

To promote achievement by young people through facilitating their personal, social and educational development and enabling them to gain a voice, influence and place in society.

- (p.12)

In definitional terms at least, youth work in Scotland is still above all concerned with the social, personal and political development of young people. The antecedents of contemporary practice continue to hold leverage in determining the overall purpose of youth work. The Statement on the Nature and Purpose of Youth Work published by Youthlink Scotland (2009) refreshed some long-‐standing principles of youth work: young people choosing to participate; the work must build from the interests and experiences of young people; recognising the young person and the youth worker as partners in a learning process. More recently, a call was made on the Scottish Government to give greater recognition to the impact of youth work in terms of positive outcomes for young people, delivery of core policy imperatives and the social return on investment in services (Youthlink Scotland 2011).

Moreover, significant progress has been made in terms of cementing the professional identity of the youth work practitioner in the broader field of youth service providers. Greater consideration has been given to the ethical dimensions of youth work practice with a flurry of publications (for example Banks 2011 & Sercombe 2011). Contemporary response to this important aspect of practice is further evidenced in the publication of a code of ethics for Community Learning and Development workers in Scotland, with an emphasis on youth work practice (CLD Standards Council 2011). Workforce development has also become a feature of the youth work sector typified by the delivery across many local communities of a Professional Development Award in Youth Work, an accredited training programme targeted at volunteer and part-‐time youth workers (SQA 2012). The sector in Scotland appears to be on the offensive in relation to the long-‐term future and security of youth work services through establishment of a national introductory-‐level training programme and enhancing the professional profile and approach of practitioners.

This is not to suggest a fait accompli for the practice profile of the modern-‐day youth worker; or alternatively that complacency is an option. Batsleer (2010) contends that contemporary youth work:

occupies an ambivalent space; on the one hand appearing to be under threat and on the other hand being valued and in demand, on condition that it constantly reinvents itself

- (p.153).

A timely reminder of the dynamic agency of the youth work practitioner is set out by Coburn (2010) who states that youth work is a 'negotiated venture, involving young people and youth workers in collaboration to develop the work they do together' (p. 35). The primary goal in this collaborative endeavour is to strike a balance between the political priorities enshrined in policy and the educational possibilities of practice in meeting the needs of young people. Perhaps an ongoing objective is to tip the balance in favour of practice that more effectively responds to the needs and aspirations of young people. The resultant markers of 'good practice' could provide more meaningful alternatives to those based merely on technocratic measurement regimes applied to outcomes relating to political imperatives. Returning to our metaphor, it is essential that the youth work road map shows the minor roads to change as well as the major motorways!

The ongoing need for reinvention and repositioning of youth work is also influenced by the changing social conditions affecting young people. As is the case in similar advanced democracies, the spectre of unemployment hangs over the current generation of young Scots. The transition between the perceived status of youth and adult is atypically characterised for many young people by protracted and broken pathways between education, training and insecure employment. There is a genuine concern for the future of today's youth related to a fear of the potentially lasting effects of negative destinations faced in the course of the transitional experience. Clearly, youth work has a key role to play in supporting successful navigation towards independent adulthood, regardless of how we determine positive destinations in the future.

A consistent criticism aimed at young people over the past decade has been their apparent disengagement from the institutions and processes of politics. Whilst the rhetoric of youth participation has given way to broader policy notions of community engagement, a desire to nurture the agency of young people through testing their opinion on services, supporting their involved in local decision-‐making, governance and action persists (Fyfe 2010). The impending referendum on the constitutional future of Scotland (Scottish Government 2012b) directly raises questions about the role of young Scots in democratic participation offering up a rich arena for youth work to nurture political literacy and action amongst the next generation of voters. In itself the debate around the voting age provides exciting new terrain for informal educational work.

The Future of Youth Work -‐ Going in the right direction?

Youth work in Scotland and farther a field is at a crossroads. Metaphorically, the journey ahead continues to be mapped against the political and policy imperatives of government at all levels. A glance at the state-‐programmed 'GPS' confirms a suggested route for contemporary youth work towards models and modes of practice that encompass policy themes such as employability, accreditation, well-‐being and crime prevention. In the Scottish policy context the goals and outcomes of youth work have been clearly aligned with the new school Curriculum for Excellence (Learning & Teaching Scotland 2010 & Youthlink Scotland 2012). The primary client group appears to be those young people in the post-‐school years, confirming a key role for youth work in supporting successful transitions - albeit governed in part by pre-‐determined destinations.

One potential negative dilemma to emerge over the past decade is whether youth work has or is losing its place as a discrete practice in the policy-‐driven context and burgeoning emphasis on partnership and integration. Talk of growing crisis in the broad field of youth work practice seems tangible. The current economic climate has ushered in a culture of instability (verging on fear) surrounding funding and subsequently job security. The space for creative and innovative responses to the changing lives and lifestyles of the rising generation runs the risk of being squeezed by bureaucratic regimes of measurement and encoded practice outcomes.

Claims of a creeping despondency taking hold in the youth work sector appear all too real. The response in some quarters has been organised resistance to and rejection of particular changes in policy in order to protect the unique and discrete role youth workers play in the lives of young people (for example Taylor 2010, Davies 2011). Batsleer (2010) recognises the standpoint of 'permanent opposition' as a long-‐standing characteristic of youth work (p.153). However, such a position is in contrast to those agencies, organisations and projects continually chasing funding opportunities with chameleon-‐like adaptability. So how does youth work strike a balance between the political and economic uncertainties affecting practice priorities and a desire to respond effectively to the changing nature of youth? This collection of papers presents an opportunity to engage with the contested identity, role and purpose of the youth worker and interrogate the impact of current policy on modes of practice. The road ahead remains somewhat uncertain. If nothing else the time seems right for youth work practitioners to take stock, draw meaning and inspiration from the past to help understand the present and build a creative and innovative way forward in the future.

References

Banks, S. (2010) Ethical Issues in Youth Work (2nd Edition). Abingdon: Routledge.

Barry, M. (2005) Youth Policy and Social Inclusion: Critical Debates with Young People. Abingdon: Routledge.

Batsleer, J. (2010) Youth work prospects: back to the future? Batsleer, J. & Davies, B. (eds) What is Youth Work? Exeter: Learning Matters Ltd, pp.153-‐165.

Bradford, S. (2004) The management of growing up: Youth Work in community settings. Roche, J., Tucker, S., Flynn, R. & Thomson, R. (Eds.) Youth in Society: Contemporary Theory, Policy and Practice. pp. 245-‐254.

CLD Standards Council for Scotland (2011) CLD Code of Ethics: A Youth Work Commentary

Coburn, A. (2010) Youth work as border pedagogy. Batsleer, J. & Davies, B. (eds) What is Youth Work? Exeter: Learning Matters Ltd, pp. 33-‐46.

Davidson, N., McCafferty, P. & Miller, D. (Eds.) (2010) Neo-‐liberal Scotland: Class and Society in a Stateless Nation. Newcastle-‐Upon-‐Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishsing.

Davies, B. (2011) Youth work stories: in search of qualitative evidence on process and impact. Youth & Policy, No. 66, pp. 23-‐42.

Fyfe, I. (2010) Young People and Community Engagement. Tett, L. (Ed) Community Education, Learning and Development. Edinburgh: Dunedin, pp.69-‐85.

Jeffs. T (2011) Running Out of Options: Re-‐Modelling Youth Work. Youth & Policy, No.106, pp. 1-‐8.

Learning & Teaching Scotland (LTS) (2010) Bridging the Gap: Improving Outcomes for Scotland's Young People through School and Youth Work Partnerships

Morgan. T (2009) Measuring Outcomes in Youth Work in Northern Ireland. Youth & Policy, No.103, pp. 49-‐64.

Ord, J (2007) Youth Work Process, Product and Practice. Lyme Regis: Russell House Publishing.

Rose, J. (2010) Monitoring and evaluating youth work. Jeffs, T. & Smith, M. (Eds.) Youth work practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan, pp. 156-‐167.

Scottish Office (1998) Communities: Change through Learning Edinburgh: HMSO

Scottish Executive (1999) Social Justice….a Scotland where everyone matters. Edinburgh: HMSO.

Scottish Executive (2004) Working and learning together to build stronger communities.

Scottish Executive (2007) Moving Forward: a Strategy for Improving Young People's Chances through Youth Work. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.

Scottish Government (2009) Valuing Young People: Principles and connections to support young people achieve their potential. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.

Scottish Government (2012a) A guide to Getting it right for every child. Edinburgh: Scottish Government

Scottish Government (2012b) Your Scotland, Your Referendum. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.

Sercombe, H. (2011) Youth Work Ethics. London: Sage.

Simmons, R. & Thompson, R. (2011) NEET young people and training for work: learning on the margins. Stoke on Trent: Trentham Books. Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) (2012) PDA Youth Work

Subrha, G. (2007) Reclaiming the evaluation agenda. Harrison, R., Benjamin, C., Curran, S. & Hunter, R. leading Work with Young People. Milton Keynes: The Open University, pp. 285-‐298.

Taylor T (2010) "Defending democratic youth work" CONCEPT Journal Vol 1. No2 2010.

Wylie, T. (2010) Youth Work in a Cold Climate. Youth & Policy, No. 105, pp. 1-‐8.

Youthlink Scotland (2009) The Statement on the Nature and Purpose of youth work.

Youthlink Scotland (2011) Communiqué from the National Youth Work Summit, September 2011.

Youthlink Scotland (2012) Young People and Curriculum for Excellence - Building Capacities through Youth Work

Adult Learning in Scotland - Statement of Ambition

(Scottish Government/Education Scotland, 2014)

Ministerial Foreword

This is an exciting time for education in Scotland. As Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning I have established and chair the Further Education Strategic Forum, the Scottish Higher Education Forum and the National Strategic Forum for Adult Learning. Together with my involvement in the Early Years Collaborative and Curriculum for Excellence, these give me an insight and an overview of pathways and experiences across all aspects of my portfolio. Together, they reflect my broad remit and bring it to life.

The common purpose for these three strategic groups, along with the other education initiatives, is to make Scotland not only the best place in the world to grow up in but also the best place to learn. We want to ensure we are fit for purpose in a changing educational and economic world. And at the heart of our ambition is the principle that everyone in Scotland has the right to access high quality learning to meet their needs and aspirations - throughout their lives.

For children and young people this is enshrined in Curriculum for Excellence. High quality learning opportunities also underpin our ambitions for improving the life chances of young people, as set out in the recently published National Youth Work Strategy: 'Our ambitions for improving the life chances of young people in Scotland' (2014-2019) Adult Learning can help develop the person, the family, their community and society generally. In the Statement of Ambition we are agreed on three core principles.

- adult learning is lifelong beginning in the Early Years, supported by Curriculum for Excellence and covering the whole age span of post-compulsory education.

- adult learning is life-wide. It covers the personal, work, family and community aspects of living.

- adult learning is learner-centred. The educational process builds around the interests and motives of the learner.

Less than a year after establishing the National Strategic Forum for Adult Learning, I am very pleased to publish our Statement of Ambition for Adult Learning in Scotland. Forum members have worked well together within a remarkably short timescale in setting out our ambition to achieve transformational change through learning. Strong evidence that it is a consultative and collaborative approach that works best in Scotland.

I have had the privilege of meeting with adult learners, practitioners and key stakeholders to discuss what matters to them and what matters for the future of adult learning; to listen to creative ideas; and to identify routes to progress.

This statement is the result of listening to learners and those who are committed to the importance of adult learning for individuals, for families and for society. It aims to inspire, through adult learning, the people of Scotland to develop their dreams and aspirations, building hope and realising ambitions for individuals and communities.

Together let's make our ambition a reality.

Michael Russell MSP

Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning

1. Adult Learning in Scotland

1.1 Adult learning is essential to enable and encourage adults in Scotland to acquire the knowledge, skills and confidence necessary to play an active and productive role, both personally and societally.

1.2 Adult learning opportunities may be formal or informal and take place in a range of settings but they must be accessible according to the needs and aspirations of the individual or group.

1.3 Adult learning settings include, among others, educational establishments, the workplace, communities and online learning at home.

1.4 Scotland's people are now living longer, healthier lives and adult learning has a key role to play with this changing demographic.

1.5 At the heart of Curriculum for Excellence is the development of lifelong learners. Experience of successful learning encourages further engagement in learning.

1.6 Adults' experience of past learning may encourage or discourage further engagement in learning activities. There are challenges in balancing the role of being a learner with the range of responsibilities of adult life. There may be additional challenges due to financial hardship, age, abilities, cultural or social backgrounds which create difficulty in accessing learning opportunities.

1.7 Change in personal life, family life, working life or community life can be a stimulus to new learning. These changes can occur at any age. Successful and relevant learning provides a means to negotiate life's transitions and can reduce stress, conflict and, potentially, the need for state intervention.

1.8 Effective guidance for adult learners requires that all relevant agencies work together to ensure common understanding and the provision of accessible information and advice.

1.9 Effective adult learning is at the core of a Scottish knowledge-based society. It drives the development of an improved personal skills base, increases the focus on achieving better outcomes for communities, and provides improved life chances.

1.10 Adult learning is key to employability - the combination of factors and processes which enable people to progress towards, move into, or stay in employment and to progress within the workplace.

1.11 Adult learning provides the foundation for initiatives to improve health and social care and establish a more open and inclusive society. It builds the capacity of individuals and groups to meet the challenges necessary for the development of a socially just and responsible Scotland.

1.12 Adult learning within the family provides modelling for children and young people. Inter-generational learning has the power to create a more cohesive society through challenging stereotypes and valuing the experience of both young and older people.

1.13 Building on the assets and potential of the individual, the family, the workplace and the community is fundamental to our ambition. As communities realise their own strengths or assets they develop resilience and the capacity to contribute significantly to their own economic and social development.

1.14 Adult learning providers including local authorities, the third sector, trade unions, colleges, employers, national organisations and others should involve learners and communities as active partners in planning and delivering adult learning. They should also support communities to influence, shape and co-produce services. The Community Learning and Development Competence Framework and Code of Ethics underpins this practice in community-based adult learning.

1.15 In June 2012, Strategic Guidance for Community Planning Partnerships: Community Learning and Development was published which stated that CLD's specific focus should be: "improved life chances for people of all ages through learning, personal development and active citizenship; stronger, more resilient, supportive, influential and inclusive communities".

1.16 The requirements for Community Learning and Development (Scotland) Regulations 2013 mean that in each local authority area a three-year plan has to be developed that outlines how CLD will be delivered. Local authorities have to consult with partners in drawing up these plans and evidencing the assessment of need. Where needs cannot be met, local authorities will be required to outline why they cannot be met.

1.17 Working together to negotiate and develop effective learning is a two-way process that involves significant learning for both specialist providers and for adult learners. This mutual relationship is supported by the Scottish social practice model, where adults' life experiences are acknowledged and built on, to create a successful learning experience.

1.18 Those using the social practice approach recognise the different values, emotions and perspectives that are embedded in learning. They are open about the power dimensions of learning and enable learners to exercise power themselves. Creating these effective learning experiences requires skilled adult learning practitioners who are themselves lifelong learners.

2. Our Ambitions for Adult Learning in Scotland

Adult learning in Scotland will be recognised by all as a central element of personal and community empowerment.

It will be informed by three core principles:

- Learning should be lifelong, beginning in the Early Years, supported by Curriculum for Excellence through Broad General Education and Senior Phase and covering the whole age span of post-compulsory education. It should take into account the specific difficulties that some adults have in accessing learning opportunities because of their age, abilities, cultural or social backgrounds.

- Adult learning should be life-wide. It should cover the personal, work, family and community aspects of living which gives the scope for building a wide and open curriculum and creates a learning continuum which is not restricted by vocational imperatives.

- Adult learning should be learner-centred. The educational process must build around the interests and motives of the learner and seek to fulfil the purposes and goals he or she sees as relevant and important.

Our ambitions are that:

- Scotland becomes recognised globally as the most creative and engaged learning society. A society where people develop through life-wide learning from the multiple contexts of home, work and their social lives and lifelong learning - often described as from cradle to grave. A society that recognises the importance of adult learning in the development of the individual, the community and the country as a whole.

- Every adult in Scotland will have the right to access learning to meet their educational needs and their aspirations. Barriers to participation, learning and achievement will be removed and inclusion and equality promoted. In planning, developing and evaluating provision, adult learners will be at the centre of the process and will be empowered and supported to participate fully in decision-making about their future learning.

- Adult learning in Scotland and the outcomes that learners achieve will be world-leading. Adult learning in Scotland will support the development of personal, family, work and community life.

3. The Key Features of Future Adult Learning in Scotland

Learning opportunities will be designed with, and for, learners based on their interests and the skills they bring in the context of both local and national economic and social drivers.

Adults in Scotland will be empowered and supported to:

- develop the knowledge, skills, confidence and creativity needed to make positive life choices, support economic growth, enhance health and well-being, participate in their local communities and take social action

- develop their networks and bonds through participation in collective activities, thus building social capital

- improve their communication skills -including literacy, numeracy, Gaelic language, Scots Language, English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) and intercultural communication

- develop their digital literacy to participate in digital civic society

- develop their ethical and critical thinking, self-determination and active civic participation

- have access to, and take advantage of, flexible learning opportunities (including online learning) within their own communities and workplaces; with priority given to those who are marginalised or require additional support to engage in learning activities.

Learners are supported to take advantage of these opportunities within an adult learning support framework where:

- adult learning programmes are creative and innovative and are continually improving through research, self evaluation, inspection and review

- adult learning in communities, and in the workplace, offers pathways to Scotland's further and higher education institutions and to employment and volunteering opportunities.

4. Key Success Factors

4.1 Scotland's future will be built not simply on its economic success but on the creation of an open, creative and inclusive learning society. Adult learning has a central role in this.

4.2 Adult learning takes place in a variety of contexts, some formal and some informal. The learning is not linear or sequential but is determined by the current needs of an individual.

4.3 It is therefore important that policy development always involves adult learners and that learners' views are taken into account in their personal learning, in local planning areas and at national level.

4.4 National policy should ensure that there is appropriate good quality advice, guidance and support in place for learners and should address barriers to learning.

4.5 Empowered adults are the keystone of a civic society. As such, many different policies contribute to the development of, and opportunities for, adult learning. A list of such policies is included at Appendix 2.

4.6 Anytime, anywhere learning is at the heart of a learning society. The availability of learning facilities within easy reach of where people live and work helps to facilitate learning across the lifespan and online learning can enhance this.

4.7 Adult learning provision in Scotland must improve outcomes for people and communities and it must provide strong evidence of personal impact as a result of learning. For Scotland to successfully and fully embrace adult learning all learning providers, employers and funders must play a full, integrated and active role in ensuring equal opportunities throughout Scotland.

4.8 The people of Scotland have high expectations for themselves, their families and their communities and adult learning has a key role to play in helping to shape and produce better outcomes. If adult learning is to unlock that potential, the foundations must be built on a strong understanding

of learner needs and provide genuine opportunities to consult, engage and involve learners in the planning, delivery and evaluation of the learning.

4.9 There should be a framework of professional development learning opportunities available for practitioners involved in delivering adult learning. Practitioners will be encouraged to improve their skills through this framework in order to provide high-quality learning experiences for adult learners.

4.10 Adult learning in Scotland will be a model of excellence that is recognised across the world in terms of inclusion, learner focus and its role in empowering individuals, families and communities to develop, grow and prosper both socially and economically.

5. Next Steps

The next stage in achieving this ambition is to put in place a strategic implementation plan that encourages innovation and leads the way for adult learners.

5.1 Learners and national providers identified the following priorities and broad issues through the consultation process, which is outlined in Appendix 3.

- Establish a cross-sectoral Task Group to develop a strategic implementation plan through the National Strategic Forum for Adult Learning.

- Ensure learners are involved in the process.

- Strengthen and build on the good practice of current models of Scotland's national and local Learners' Forums.

- Agree on publicity and marketing.

- Ensure suitable guidance is available for adults.

- Enhance access to learning and progression.

- Ensure high quality training and CPD opportunities for practitioners and community planning partnerships.

- Develop flexible provision with learners allowing for depth and breadth of learning as well as progression.

- Ensure quality provision across Scotland.

- Build on the key role of local Community Planning Partnerships.

- Strengthen role of cross-sectoral partnerships in planning, evaluating and delivering learning.

5.2 There are two stages to this process. The first is to put in place a strategic plan which will in turn inform an agreed implementation plan. The strategic plan will be produced in autumn 2014 and will inform and be informed by the planning process which underpins The Requirements for Community Learning and Development (Scotland) Regulations 2013 and by College Regional Outcome Agreements.

The implementation plan will outline the key actions that will be taken forward in partnership and delivered over the next five years; ensuring adult learners receive the best opportunities to improve their life chances in Scotland.

Appendix 1 National Strategic Forum for Adult Learning

Chair:

Michael Russell

MSP, Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning

Members:

Alan Armstrong

Strategic Director for Lifelong Learning, Education Scotland

Ann Southwood

Principal, Newbattle Abbey College

Cath Hamilton

Education Officer, Education Scotland

Craig Green

Head of Community and Information Services, Glasgow Kelvin College

Eric Whitfield

Chair of the Adult Learning Sub-Group, Community Learning and Development Managers Scotland

Jackie Halawi

Senior Education Officer, Education Scotland

Jackie Howie

Lead Officer, Learning Link Scotland

Jane Logue

Adult Learning Manager, West Dunbartonshire

Jayne Stuart

Director, WEA Scotland

John N. MacLeod

Vice Principal/Director of Studies, Sabhal Mòr Ostaig, UHI

Maria Walker

Director of Education, Learning and Leisure, Aberdeenshire Council

Marian Docherty

Depute Principal, Newbattle Abbey College

Penny Brodie

Executive Director, LEAD Scotland

Phil Denning

HMI, Education Scotland

Robert Rae

Associate, Scotland's Learning Partnership

Sylvia O'Grady

Lifelong Learning Manager, STUC

Vernon Galloway

Lecturer, University of Edinburgh

Community Development - Everyone's Business?

(Alan Barr, for Scottish Community Development Centre, Community Development Alliance Scotland, Scottish Community Development Network, 2014)

Introduction

We are at an unprecedented time of change in Scotland. Global economic and environmental pressures and changing demographics are leading to the need for our institutions to examine new ways of delivering services to help address our high levels of health and social inequality. Constitutional change is on the horizon, and whether or not Scotland becomes an independent country, it is clear that the debate has begun about what kind of country we want for ourselves and generations to come and what kind of communities we want to live in.

Across many areas of public policy we are increasingly seeing a strong emphasis on the role of communities in helping to shape and deliver Scotland's future. In the public services reform agenda, one challenge is to shift the emphasis in government from a centrally-driven service delivery model to one that works in an enabling way, supporting and working alongside community organisations, local interest groups, and the wider population to help stimulate more active participation in communities and in democratic processes.

Community development has a key role in addressing this challenge, especially in areas of Scotland experiencing entrenched health and social inequalities and where the impact of welfare changes and reductions in public spending are having the most negative effect. Working directly with individuals and groups at neighbourhood level, community development can support the design, implementation and sustainability of locally led solutions, and ensure that public services are targeted appropriately and designed and delivered in a way that effectively meets local need.

Community development is practised internationally, but over the years its foundation in Scotland has diminished. The current policy context in Scotland presents an opportunity to re-establish and re-invigorate the unifying principles of community development to help achieve better outcomes for all. But what structures and what conditions need to be put in place to ensure that a community development approach can be successful? What can we learn from experience from the past? What do we need to do differently in Scotland?

Scottish Community Development Centre (SCDC), Community Development Alliance Scotland (CDAS) and Scottish Community Development Network (SCDN) invite you to engage in this debate with us. To stimulate thinking, we invited Dr Alan Barr, co-founder of SCDC, to write this paper for us and to deliver a keynote address at our joint national conference held in Glasgow on 25th July at the Scottish Youth Theatre.

Alan's experience in the field of community development is long and varied. He took his first paid post in community development in 1969 and retired in 2010. Over his career he worked in the voluntary and statutory sectors and in higher education. Throughout his career he tried to integrate practice, teaching and research in community development and has published widely.

We believe that we are at a pivotal time for community development in Scotland.

We are delighted to share Alan's paper with you as it offers us important critical insights into some of the inherent challenges of community development policy and practice which need to be addressed if we are to successfully implement community development approaches to help all Scottish citizens realise their potential and act as equal partners in change.

Fiona Garven - Director SCDC

Peter Taylor - Policy Consultant, CDAS

Fiona Ballantyne - Chair, SCDN

The starting point

Successful community development is ultimately driven by the application of the skills and knowledge that people within communities release or develop. But because community development has a clear value stance, action driven by communities should not be viewed any more uncritically than the actions of agencies that seek to intervene in them.

It is also necessary to recognise that while some communities may be self-mobilising, the circumstance of others may render this very difficult. Some of the issues connected with this are explored within this paper but it primarily addresses the roles of those who use community development methods to support the emergence of the latent capacities of communities that face most challenges. It does so with attention to the social and/or economic constraints, often of structural origins, that may undermine the building of civil society infrastructure that in other communities may be taken for granted. It does not assume, therefore, that community development is necessarily a path to self-sustaining development, though this may be its aim. Rather it acknowledges the frequent persistence of constraints and indeed their capacity to mutate, with the result that long-term support to some communities is frequently a necessity.

With the primary focus on those who play community development roles, it is important to acknowledge the longstanding debate about the extent to which community development is a specialist activity or an approach that can be adopted by workers in many disciplines. I take the view that both contributions are critical to releasing the full potential of community development and the contents of this paper are equally relevant to both.

However, in preparing it, I have been conscious that, despite the need to reap the rewards of a fully collaborative response to community needs, the reality is that community development has often been quite schismatic. This is not simply a matter of distinction between the specialists (in Scotland usually described as Community Learning and Development or CLD workers) and those who adopt the approach within another professional role but, more worryingly, within CLD itself and between contributors from other professions, be they, for example, health, education, housing or arts workers. Whilst retaining a commitment to core values, we need to get beyond a perverse intolerance of perspectives developed from different sources, negotiate our differences, learn to integrate and celebrate what, together, we can contribute to communities.

In this paper I will therefore try to do two things: firstly, offer a model of community development that is relevant across the diverse range of contributors; secondly, address some of the critical issues that undermine the potential of community development. But by way of introduction, I will begin by making a few reflective observations about the context of practice.

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose

(the more things change, the more they stay the same)

I have now had 4 years for post retirement reflection on 40 plus years employed in one way or another in community development. Retirement is a bit like returning from a holiday - when you are there each day is distinct, you focus on what you are doing and it seems to go on for a long time. The moment you come back it as if time has been condensed and it rapidly becomes a polyglot memory. So I look back on more than four decades and find that it morphs into a single experience, albeit with changing contexts. But it has consistent themes, issues and imperatives that were always there.

Despite enormous changes for example in demography, wealth, social attitudes (e.g. racism, homophobia, religion) increased environmental threats and so on, the fundamentals of the phenomena that we need to address and the way we should work with communities have not changed greatly and, in my view, nor has the imperative to focus that work on social justice objectives. My reading of current Scottish policy statements about community development, regeneration, health improvement, community planning amongst other areas suggests that this perception is widely shared. For example the Community Learning and Development Standards Council states:

"Competent CLD workers will ensure that their work supports social change and social justice and is based on the values of CLD. Their approach is collaborative, anti-discriminatory and equaUties-focused and they work with diverse individuals, commun;ties of place or interest and organisations to achieve change."

- (CLD Standards Council)

Though each generation might like to think that it created community development, the truth is that guiding principles are substantially inherited from others. Though challenged, developed and reinterpreted over time as a reflection of changing conditions, the essence of community development remains consistent and my hope is that its core principles are not only being passed on but are, and will be, tested, adapted and applied by this and future generations. There have been and are many debates in community development about how best to apply its approach yet the consistency of its principles and purposes is reflected across a wide range of literature. Drawing on this and my own experience I have tried to construct a diagrammatic model that captures the essence of what community development is about. I believe that the model is entirely consistent with recent Scottish Government Policy papers relating to community learning and development and community empowerment but may be challeging as it draws together the relationship between purposes, methods, values and understanding of policy and socio-economic context.

I want now to turn to the model and in so doing identify some of the inherent complexities and challenges involved in practice.

A model of community development

Figure 1

The essence of community development

At the core of the diagram is community development itself and an attempt to distil the essence of its purpose and the outcomes it seeks. Ultimately, I have defined its overall purpose loosely as to: 'improve the quality of life'. I recognise that this is vague and might be considered to be open to numerous interpretations dependent on who is defining what constitutes an unsatisfactory quality of Life and what improvement would look like. However, taken in the context of the rest of the model it becomes clear that community development applies values and responds to policies that set parameters for assessing the legitimacy of 'improvements' that may be sought.

Though the ultimate goal may be quality of Life improvement, the central circle in the diagram is really pointing to the fact that community development practitioners, rather than working directly on quality of life issues, actually have a series of purposes in the way that they work that enhances the likelihood that those they work with can themselves bring about improvements that they seek.

First, community development practitioners adopt a need led and asset based approach. The starting point is not just what is causing people in communities concern but also what assets do the members of the community already bring that will enable them to address those needs. But in defining needs that should be addressed, community development workers are also applying criteria that:

- reflect the priorities of policies within which they are employed,

- their analysis of the motivations, capacities and opportunities of the community to tackle those needs and

- their occupational value base.

The last of these leads to the second point that emphasises that community development prioritises work with people who are experiencing systematic disadvantage and/or discrimination - in other words it takes positive action.

If the assets in terms of skills, knowledge and resources to address needs were already present in a community, community development would not be required. Part of the community development task is therefore to identify priority groups and areas for engagement and then to focus on the development of both organisational capacity in communities and the competences of individuals engaged in them.

Yet however well organised and endowed with relevant skills, the abilities of communities to bring about positive change are often enabled by the quality of the relationships that they have with those they need to influence to achieve that change. Hence the final purpose is defined as to enable participation. Interestingly this may involve as much attention to the attitudes and practices of agencies that communities need to engage with as it does to the competences of communities themselves.

All of this may seem quite straightforward in principle but it is worth reflecting a little on the fact that community development resources, and in particular its practitioners, rarely choose their location for practice. Rather we have increasingly sophisticated data sets that analyse socio-economic characteristics, both comparatively and normatively, on a locality basis. Rightly in my view these are used by policy makers to identify priority communities, yet the criteria used to achieve this may not be recognised by the communities concerned as the priorities that they would want to be addressed. External definition of the boundaries of communities is also frequently undertaken by agencies in order to locate their staff and associated resources. Doing this without prior community consultation frequently undermines effective practice, however sophisticated the analytical data, because it imposes what may be perceived by people to be artificial and sometimes unrecognisable boundaries. There is therefore a potential tension, firstly, between the needs that may be identified by policy makers and those that may be prioritised by communities and secondly, about the definition of community boundaries. It is vital for the policy makers to understand that if community development is to be effective it must both operate within recognised community identities and build on the motivations that the community holds and which may sometimes seem tangential to policy priorities.

Further as agencies seek to establish partnership and co-production relationships with communities they will need to tackle the challenges of adopting diverse ways of responding to community need. These need to take account of community preferences and motivations to be involved, whilst simultaneously seeking to secure equity between different communities and localities.

The context of community development

Moving to the three outer circles, the model attempts to put community development in context by considering in turn the characteristics of the wider societal environment it is operating in, the values which are commonly agreed to underpin the activity and illustrative policy areas in which the approach is given attention. It will be immediately apparent that there is strong interconnection between these things

Given an explicit predisposition to respond to disadvantaged people and places community development analyses socio-economic and political conditions to identify its priorities for intervention. Hence people and communities that experience poverty, inequality, discrimination and exclusion (and often a combination of them) are its concern. What these terms mean in different contexts (for example remote rural, multi-ethnic urban etc) needs to be carefully considered and there is much legitimate debate of the relative merits of attention to different kinds of experience moulded by different environments. It would be difficult to dispute, however, that in recent austere times these problems are in the ascendance.

It is reasonable to see community development as a public issue focused activity. In other words it addresses capacity of communities to respond to needs or opportunities that are in the open because they reflect public dialogue and difference. However, whilst ultimately the methods that community development uses require such a public discourse, frequently the problems that impinge most pressingly on disadvantaged people's lives are within relatively enclosed, often domestic arenas. They are private troubles and, if community development wants to be relevant to the core of people's experience, it needs to locate the private in a public context. It is worth dwelling for a moment therefore on the complex relationship between private troubles and public issues and how community development relates to them.

Though frequently common to many people, private troubles are often not addressed as a shared experience either by communities themselves or by agencies especially when policy emphasises individuation of needs, for example, in current welfare policy. For community development to be viable private troubles need to be translated into recognised public issues. A common criticism of personalised service responses to needs is that they frequently perpetuate myths about causes and solutions that locate explanations at a personal, pathological level when in reality they are as much products of social and economic structure. Community development may see itself as an antidote but needs to be careful to understand its environment and not to overstate its problem solving credentials. In particular it needs to recognise that for the most disadvantaged the immediacy of dealing with the consequences of their circumstances often forces them to address their situations at a personal level. But it is only by translating responses to people's needs from the private to the public sphere that we can move beyond piecemeal interventions to the preventive strategies that current policy is urging us to adopt. This is not to suggest that we should not be responding to crises in the private arena through personal services but to assert that we must connect these experiences and engage with the common denominators that indicate the appropriate foci of public issue and preventive work.

In this context it is important too to note that community members engaging with community level responses may, at least in the short term, require suppression of personal benefit in the interests of longer-term collective well-being. If self-interest is a primary motivator for problem solving, such behaviour might be seen as irrational yet it is a necessary ingredient of much preventive practice. We therefore need to demonstrate how, in the longer term, collective action can improve individual circumstances and opportunities.

All of this presents considerable challenges to community development's attempts to realise its values in action. Whilst it is underpinned by aspiration to an inclusive, equitable, socially just and participatory society it has to acknowledge that the socio-economic and political context not only militates against achieving these outcomes but also itself sometimes reflects the pursuit of countervailing values. It is fortunate for Scottish community development that the current policy environment is so supportive of its approach but we should be in no doubt that there are wider macro-economic forces often operating at global level that impinge directly on the prospects of poor communities and the capacities of government to ameliorate their impact. Employment opportunities, or wage levels for example are determined by market conditions and values and in turn these have a major bearing for example on health outcomes or potential for social conflict.

It is with these kinds of concern in mind that the diagram identifies some examples of the policy areas in which there is clearly scope for community development to operate, such as equalities (whether relating to race, age, disability, gender, sexuality or other factors), health improvement, crime and safety, affordable housing, economic regeneration, social care and so on. But it does so with a realistic acknowledgement of the wider forces that may be at work. Perhaps it is as well to remind ourselves of the observation in the Strathclyde Social Strategy that challenging structural factors from a local level is like a flea attempting to push an elephant uphill! On the other hand it is vital to recognise that communities can and do generate resources themselves and can be supported by competent workers and injections of funding to develop activities that make a real difference to the quality of people's lives even though the wider factors that can only be tackled at the macro Level may well still be in place.

However when working locally with communities, one of the ironies is that those best equipped with skills and knowledge to contribute to collective well-being (and indeed to access funding from local or central government sources) may actually be relatively advantaged. In itself this is a challenge to community development that may find it much easier to demonstrate outcomes from working with those that are already better endowed but, in so doing, contradict their own declared values and purposes. When I was involved in evaluation of one of the Scottish Social Inclusion Partnerships it conducted an analysis of the people that it engaged and mapped them against socio-economic conditions and referrals to welfare agencies in the area and concluded that the most disadvantaged had barely been touched by its actions. We need to take care to look honestly at who participates and who benefits, if we are to fulfil commitments to inclusion and social justice.

To further reinforce the challenges associated with community development, we also therefore need to note that if empowerment is a core value it needs to be used to rebalance not reinforce power relationships that contribute to disadvantage. Here community developments' simultaneous espousal of principles of self-determination can be problematic. As it seeks to empower it recognises that this necessarily involves people taking authority over their own lives, yet its own value base would require it to challenge perceived misuse of power. Organised communities can be exclusive, they can even threaten other communities. Indeed that there are those that would seek to animate communities deliberately to ferment community discord, needs to be recognised.

The processes and methods of community development

The remaining part of the diagram addresses the process and methods adopted by community development. J have left this to last, as it seems to me to be vital to consider their application in relation to the discussion of context and values. The methods used are not unique to community development and abstracted from the underlying principles could be treated simply as technical competences applied in many fields.

Being need led and asset based, community development requires sound knowledge of communities borne of systematic investigation both to determine whether and, if appropriate, how to engage. This is fully acknowledged in the 2012 Statement of Ambition for community planning that states:

"Communities have high expectations of public services and have a key role to play in helping to shape and co-produce better outcomes within their communities. If community planning partnerships are to unlock that potential, their foundations must be built on a strong understanding of their communities..."

Community development needs to help people to recognise and organise around public issues and to plan action in relation to them. It needs to help them engage with the wider community and with external agencies that affect their capacity to achieve change. The form of such engagement may be consensual or sometimes potentially conflictual, depending on the circumstances. It needs to help people to evaluate what they are doing and learn from their experience. But community development does all these things in a manner that owns its own value base. Hence communities may need to be challenged as well as supported.

All involvement in community development should provide an arena for learning on a continuous basis. The process should be designed to enable the participants to develop the skills and competences they need both to play specific roles and to act together to achieve their desired outcomes. It is important to appreciate that the nature of the learning is generally integral to the process of acting though it may sometimes also involve opportunity to access more formal provision when required. This is clearly set out in the CLD Strategic Guidance for Community Planning Partnerships which states:

"It is important to be clear about the purpose of CLD. We see it as empowering people, individually and collectively, to make positive changes in their lives and in their communities, through learning."

It is vital to ensure that the process involves reflective evaluation that enables both participants and community development workers to identify not only what has and has not been achieved but, more importantly, how these outcomes resulted. Understanding of that kind provides transferable Learning for future opportunities and challenges. Scotland has in place tools Like LEAP and VOiCE that support such evaluation, respectively of community development as a whole and community engagement in particular.

The model in practice

If this attempt to capture the nature of community development illustrates anything it is that the activity may at one level seem quite simple yet at another to be immensely complicated, requiring advanced knowledge and understanding.

The idea of community, though often a disputed one, seems to me to be quite easy to grasp even if it emerges in different forms. Whilst the concept may have generated a literature of its own, in practice, we have learned to embrace its complexity by accepting that, at their core, communities comprise people who communicate within one another in relation to aspects of their lives that are of common concern. Community is most commonly associated with neighbourhood but mutual engagement based on location is but one type of community that may be as much associated with common interest, identity or sentiment, across more dispersed territory. In so doing we have understood that individuals may simultaneously and over time belong to many types of community.

Similarly, that communities can be organised or organise themselves and that this can enable them to take more control of their lives is hardly new! Indeed it could be argued that over many centuries it is the very foundation on which more complex societal structures have ultimately been built.

In my view it is not communities themselves that are the primary challenge for community development practice but the complexity of their relationships with power whether that be in the form of formal government and administrative structures, market, political, educational or religious institutions, or indeed the countervailing exercise of influence by other organised communities. It is precisely because communities and their interests are just one element of the way that we conduct the complex social relationships that determine the character of our societies that working with them is a highly challenging activity. Community development may sometimes simply address local issues and aspirations within the confines of particular communities but this is rarely the case when the predominant issues are ones that reflect aspects of the functioning of society as a whole. Successfully addressing these cannot be accomplished in isolation from the need to address the wider underlying dynamics that generate the phenomena of poverty, disadvantage, discrimination central to the community development mission that, in many respects, have remained consistent over modern times.

Critical questions for community development therefore relate to determining the boundaries of what it can accomplish in specific communities and how it develops its interface with the wider political, policy and practice context whether at local, regional, national or international levels. In a Scottish context this complexity can readily be recognised for example in the development of community planning, the promotion of co-production and widespread commitment to community engagement.

All of this leads me to some reflections on my journey through community development and some of the things that have in my view undermined its potential and credibility.

Golden Hopes and the Three Bewares

When the Home Office invited a well-respected American academic, Professor Harry Specht, to offer an assessment of its flagship Community Development Project (comprising a programme of 12 linked 5 year action and research projects) at the end of the 1970's, the phrase that captured his conclusions was that the programme had been characterised by its 'large hopes but small realities'. In particular this related to the aspiration that the projects would not only better understand the reasons for the poverty of the project areas but also demonstrate effective new ways of tackling them.

For many of those involved, including myself, this was both fair and recognisable. In developing a structural analysis the projects had done much to challenge a tendency to pathologise the poor, and hence blame them for their own circumstances, but had found it difficult to develop a practice that addressed the implications of their analysis. There was a gap between the explanations for the phenomena and the potential to challenge them from community level. I was determined thenceforth to try to avoid such dispiriting conclusions about community development by setting realistic but nonetheless ambitious targets.

The Scottish government has supported the view of the Commission on the Future Development of Public Services that the first of its core pillars of reform should be: 'a decisive shift towards prevention'. In my view this cannot be accomplished without the kind of practice I have described in the model. It is not a task for a specialist occupational group, though their expertise could be highly beneficial. Rather it turns the spotlight on the manner in which many professions conduct themselves and requires of them a major shift in the way that they have traditionally worked. This will certainly require effectiveness in much of the other three pillars identified as crucial to reform, namely: greater integration of public services at local level; enhanced workforce development and effective leadership; a sharp focus on improving performance through greater transparency, innovation and use of digital technology.

It is with a view to assisting in meeting some of the challenges involved that the rest of this paper highlights issues and behaviours that have contributed to some of those past experiences of 'large hopes' but 'small realities'.

Beware of tokenism

As I believe was the case with the Home Office CDP, there have been too many occasions where policy and or practice conducted in the name of community development has simply not had the capacity to deliver what it promises. Public agencies including local and central government, health or police have sometimes applied the word community to a variety of areas of activity using rhetoric that raises expectations that they will involve engagement with and empowerment of communities, without necessarily doing so and perhaps, in some cases, ever intending to do so.

There has also frequently been confusion in the use of the word community as to whether it simply offers a description of the location in which more traditional styles of service delivery will take place or a commitment to changing the way that services involve, respond and adapt to the shared experience of their users. There may be genuine intent in formulation of policy to work differently, but frequently at the point of delivery are staff for whom such a style of work may be alien. In this context, it is worth noting that one of the key conclusions drawn at the end of the Strathclyde Regional Council Social Strategy programme (conducted across the 1980's and 90's and ambitiously seeking to engage all staff in a developmental relationship with the public) was that a primary failure was to establish amongst staff an understanding of what the strategy required of them. Though from the outset this f ntent had been declared ft is difficult to believe that the formidable challenges had not been appreciated. Rhetoric had outstripped ability, or perhaps more accurately, willingness to deliver.

It is not that such cultural change cannot take place but all professions have established cultures, reinforced by their qualifications processes and protection of the boundaries of entry, that do not necessarily make it easy to respond to changed expectations. Indeed professions may actively resist doing so.

As austerity cuts have deepened the problem may have been reinforced as the flexibility and capacity of staff may be restricted by ever more onerous demands to meet statutory policy and legal obligations to the exclusion of more developmental and preventive styles of work based on community engagement and empowerment. Yet the rhetoric of community empowerment and engagement is an ever more common feature of policy. Ironically it might well be a changed relationship with communities as co-producers and deliverers that would relieve pressure and liberate staff to work in a more fulfilling relationship with their communities.

In my experience those that set policy know that this problem will arise and often talk of the need for culture change but fail to put in place strategies, including continuing professional development, to enable staff to acquire and test skills that they will need in order to work in a different style. Promising what cannot be delivered helps no-one except the sceptics.

In some instances it might be suggested that cognitive dissonance is at work. For instance when community development approaches are applied to promote preventive strategies they are frequently prematurely withdrawn as soon as evidence of improvement is available. Despite knowing that without longer term commitment the problems are likely to revert to their former state if commitment is not sustained, resources are nonetheless transferred elsewhere. Though knowing what needs to be done we do not necessarily do it, at least in part because our systems for prioritising resource allocation cannot take account of the value of prevention. Such was the fate of some very effective community social work initiatives in the 1990's.

As a footnote to this section, describing the problem as cognitive dissonance may be being generous to some who seem to me to quite consciously have used community development initiatives for purposes other than those that have been set for it for example in National Occupational Standards or National Standards for Community Engagement. It is particularly tempting in the current climate to dress up reductions in actual provision, in projects that seek to engage communities either to supplement or compensate for what is being lost. Even more disturbing are apparently empowering localism initiatives as adopted by the current government in England that could be seen as apart of a deliberate strategy to undermine and disempower conventional local government.

Beware of over simplification

It might be argued that some of what is described in the previous section does not so much represent a deliberate dilution or perversion of community development, as the inevitable outcome of a lack of recognition of the complexity of the problems to be addressed. Such simplification arises when policy makers perceive the potential benefits of community development approaches without a real understanding of the challenges involved in successfully implementing them. It seems to me that this may in significant part reflect the degree to which public policy, even when planning community focused strategies, is conducted in a prescriptive and correctional manner. Whilst there may be sophisticated statistical analyses, what is often lacking is a real appreciation of how things look from a community perspective and the implications that this would have for the priorities set for policy. Examples might be found in prescriptive health education programmes for example that have in effect simply told people how they should behave.

It would be to easy however to hold policy makers who have little direct experience of community development responsible for its common tendency to over simplify what is involved. Community development itself has sometimes trumpeted models that in my view fail to acknowledge the complexities. I remember sitting in a state of apoplexy listening to an evangelistic presentation by an American guru of the Asset Based Community Development approach that, though generally well received by the audience, seemed to me to avoid addressing the fundamental issues of social and economic structure in terms of relative power, class and discrimination that held disadvantage people and communities in their place. I have absolutely no dispute with the principal that community development needs to identify and build on the assets of communities and their members. It is self evident that people will have more confidence for example if they are using their established skills and abilities or building from the physical assets that the community owns. It is also self evident that people will be more motivated if they perceive themselves to be capable and to have tools and resources that they can use.

The asset based approach recognises all of this but in some guises it has been presented as if communities could lift themselves out of their circumstances without wider societal change. This is peddling a profoundly dangerous mythology that seems to me to run right back to the Victorian values of 'self help' which though a virtue in itself is plainly not enough and actually makes the victims of social disadvantage responsible for their own salvation. Given the persistence of patterns of poverty, ill health and high mortality rates, the limitations of a solely asset based approach should be obvious. It is vital to note therefore that in Renewing Scotland's Public Services, (Scottish Government, 2011) there is emphasis not only on building on the assets of people and communities but on making best use of all the resources. It states:

"We will empower local communities and local service providers to work together to develop practical solutions that make best use of all the resources available. The focus of public spending and action must build on the assets and potential of the individual, the family and the community rather than being dictated by organisational structures and boundades. Public services must work harder to involve people everywhere in the redesign and reshaping of their activities."

Beware of isolationism

The essence of community planning in Scotland is that it encourages an holistic perspective on the needs of communities and establishes active working relationships between different disciplines and agencies that have a contribution to make, not just from the statutory but also the voluntary sector and potentially the private sector. Partnership and collaboration are key word not only to describe the relationship between agencies but also between them and communities. Indeed it is in this context that that concept of coproduction has become highly influential.

Yet despite the imperatives that such approaches involve there has often been a tendency for contributors to be reluctant to fully engage. There can be many reasons for this.

In relation to engagement with other agencies, perceived inefficiency of collaborative working, threat to control of resources (human and capital), preciousness about holding unique competences that might be compromised if required to work with others, aspirations that are not necessarily shared by or supported by other partners, low priority attached by agencies to engaging with others are all factors. These are not just a product of professional differences but can also reflect the significance of other players, external to, but nonetheless highly influential in the local setting, for example, trade unions concerned to protect the interests of staff, professional associations that set the terms of professional recognition, government departments that set down priorities for agencies that may conflict with those of local partnerships, the law that requires professions to work in particular ways.

For organisations from the voluntary or private sectors other factors may be at play. They may have no obligation to participate yet not doing so may hold risk relating, for example, to funding and contracts, or to their independence either as critics or as innovators. The relationship with partnerships dominated by powerful statutory players can engender an understandable ambivalence. Wholly engaging may be difficult.

When it comes to the extending of the partnership relationship to communities themselves some of these issues become even more stark. Community organisations generally grow organically and may not conform to the neat structures and organisational processes that guide the way agencies operate. Becoming involved in complex partnership relationships that are conducted in a manner that may be unfamiliar and uncomfortable may restrict the kind of community representation that would really reach the heart of communities. I have often observed community representatives who seem to have been co-opted and even groomed by partnerships only to become detached from their own communities and hence token (non?) representatives. The structures we adopt can therefore result in an unintended isolation of community leaders from their own communities and leave the communities themselves detached from influence in the partnership. This is not only unacceptable, it is counter-productive!

There is one further area of isolationism that I want to address. This focuses on the relationship between full time community development workers and those in a whole range of professions (education, health, social care, housing, planning, economic regeneration, policing, community safety, arts, leisure services etc) that should now be adopting a community development approach as a primary paradigm for their particular area of practice. Too often among the full timers there seems to me to have been a preciousness about defending the 'purity' of community development resulting in exclusive behaviours that often mirror those of other professions that community development workers are very ready to criticise. Those with a full time role in community development are in a privileged position in terms of opportunity to engage with communities in an holistic manner. But if they are to reap the benefits of this they need to be able to draw in, and collaborate with, those with other professional specialisms that, if applied within community development principles, can enormously enhance the possibility of developing effective responses to community needs. Those in this privileged position need the humility to appreciate and learn from the knowledge and skills that others may bring. But they equally need the confidence to move beyond their protected enclaves to share their skills and knowledge and promote the community development approach.

Not long ago I took issue with a conference speaker who described community development in tribal terms because it seemed to me that professional tribalism was the last thing that we needed if we were to fulfil the aspirations for more participatory governance. Yet that tribalism persists even to the extent of apparent schisms within the ranks of community development between those from different backgrounds, voluntary versus statutory, community education versus social work trained, rural versus urban based workers and so on. It is time to move beyond the petty differences and grasp the wider reality that with scant resources community development must maximise its impact by responding coherently to common causes and not dwelling on minor differences.

Final comment

Over a decade ago, the Scottish Community Development Centre led a consortium of agencies to deliver a training and support programme for Social Inclusion Partnerships. We entitled it 'Working Together, Learning Together'. That title captures the essence of what I have been trying to get across in this paper. The opportunities are there to make a real difference despite the need to acknowledge the limitations and constraints that may come from the context of practice. We will only realise those ambitions if there is a concerted and integrated approach that embraces inter-professional and community partnership and establishes an open and honest culture of collaborative evaluation that facilitates joint Learning and innovative practice.

This is hardly an unfamiliar conclusion, it has been drawn many times before by many people. If we are to move beyond the implicit criticism that it carries, we need a concerted effort to realise the vision. Firstly, this needs to be accomplished within day-to-day practice at project and programme levels. Secondly, it needs to be evident consistently across all relevant areas of policy and supported by the necessary investment, not just in practice itself, but equally in the attention given to continually equipping those involved in community development with the skills to address the evolving problems that communities may need to tackle.

Footnotes

1. The Making of an Empowering Profession, 3rd Edition, pages 441-460

2. The Making of an Empowering Profession, 3rd Edition, pages 311-320

3. Scottish Office Circular 4.99 - see The Making of an Empowering Profession, 3rd Edition, pages 461-472

4. National Training Organisations (NTOs) were created by the UK Labour Government with the aim of improving skills across the economy and public services.

5. National Training Organisations had been replaced by a smaller number of Sector Skills Councils covering wider areas of activity; the PAULO NTO had been absorbed as one of the strands of LLUK.

6. Campbell Christie CBE (1937 -2011) General Secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress 1986 - 1998.

7. See also Community development and urban regeneration, Stewart Murdoch, in the Community Development Journal, 2005

8. Better Communities in Scotland - Closing the Gap - the Scottish Executive's Community Regeneration Statement:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7b8EYXAkdI0NVBhQmluUVdSbGc

9. Life Through Learning: Learning Through Life - the Lifelong Learning Strategy for Scotland: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7b8EYXAkdI0SURudmNLSFRvSG8

10. National Priorities for Education: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7b8EYXAkdI0Y1NrYWlnUDNoQmc

11. To view the Community Regeneration Statement, follow this link:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7b8EYXAkdI0NVBhQmluUVdSbGc

12. Towards Community Learning Plans, HMIE, 2002

13. The Scottish Compact outlined principles for the Scottish Executive's relationship with the voluntary sector

14. How Good is Our Community Learning and Development: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7b8EYXAkdI0MGJrdzk5UENTX0k/view

15. Scottish Centre for Community Development - LEAP: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7b8EYXAkdI0MVVlMklMZmROWm8/view

16. Empowered to Practice: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7b8EYXAkdI0OVRDNlIwYmVHRVE/view

17. How Good is Our Community CLD - HGIOCLD: 5.1 Community learning planning

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7b8EYXAkdI0MGJrdzk5UENTX0k/view

18. HGIOCLD: Quality Indicator 1.1

19. HGIOCLD: 1.2 Learning opportunities

20. HGIOCLD: 1.3 Delivery of learning opportunities

21. HGIOCLD: 1.6 Participant achievement

22. HGIOCLD: 2.6 Community achievement

23. HGIOCLD: 5.5 Leadership

24. HGIOCLD: 5.4 Partnership working

25. How Good is Our Community CLD - HGIOCLD: 2.1 Work with communities to identify their needs https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7b8EYXAkdI0MGJrdzk5UENTX0k/view

26. HGIOCLD: 2.1 Working with communities to identify their needs

27. HGIOCLD: 5.4 Partnership working

28. HGIOCLD: 2.3 Promoting participation in community affairs

29. HGIOCLD: 2.4 Assisting communities to exercise power and influence

30. HGIOCLD: 2.6 Community achievement

31. HGIOCLD: 1.2 Learning opportunities

32. HGIOCLD: 2.6 Community achievement

33. HGIOCLD: 2.5 Monitoring and evaluation as a part of building community capacity

34. HGIOCLD: 3.1 Climate and relationships

35. HGIOCLD: 2.6 Community achievement

36. The Making of an Empowering Profession, 3rd Edition, 2002

http://cldstandardscouncil.org.uk/?page_id=96

37. See The Making of an Empowering Profession, 3rd Edition

38. Empowered to Practice, the Scottish Executive's response to the Community Education Training Review suggested that "validation" should be among the functions of the "practitioner-led body" it supported. However, there is no proposal to change the current position in respect of academic validation of training courses, which is carried out by Universities.

39. SEQIA was the name initially proposed for the organisation that was established in July 2011 as Education Scotland

40. Scottish Office Communities: Change Through Learning Report of a Working Group on the Future of Community Education (Stationery Office 1998)

41. Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework

42. LLUK Community Development National Occupational Standards (LLUK 2007)

43. Literacies in the Community; Resources for Practitioners and Managers (LIC Pack) (2000) Edinburgh City Council/Scottish Executive

44. The Guide to Effective Participation, 1994

45. Equal Opportunities Committee of the Scottish Parliament "Removing Barriers and Creating Opportunities, Summary of Recommendations, Vol 2, (2006) para 2.

46. Ibid, para 9.

47. Apart from certain actions of the Lord Advocate s 57 (3) Scotland Act 1998.

48. Department of Constitutional Affairs, "Review of Implementation of the Human Rights Act" (2006) p 4.

49. Department of Constitutional Affairs, "General Information on the Human Rights Act 1998", p5

50. Justice 1 Committee, Scottish Parliament, "Scottish Commissioner for Human Rights Bill 1st report (session 2) Volume 2 J1/S2/06/R1 (February 2005) "Submission from MORI Scotland" p 9. The poll was conducted 27th October - 2nd November 2005.

51. Please note, this section reflects the legislative position at the time of publication of the Guide

52. The Herald, Tuesday 17th March 2015

53. Opportunities for All Supporting all young people to participate in post-16 learning, training or work (Scottish Government, 2012)

54. From youth work to youth development: The new government framework for English youth services (Smith, M. K., 2003 - Youth and Policy No. 79, pp. 46-59)

55. Working with young people: the value of youth work in the European Union (European Commission, 2014)

56. Valuing Young People (Scottish Government/CoSLA, 2009)

57. A Guide to Implementing Getting it right for every child: Messages from pathfinders and learning partners (Scottish Government, 2010)

58. Scottish Government Labour Market Briefing, May 2015

59. School Leaver Destinations Initial Follow up 2013/14 (Skills Development Scotland, 2014)

60. CLD strategic guidance was developed in the context of Putting Learners at the Centre: Delivering Our Ambitions for Post 16 - Education

61. www.unicef.org/crc/files/Rights_overview.pdf

62. Children and Young People's Bill will enhance the existing policy framework in relation to Getting it Right for Every Child and ensure that children's rights are taken into consideration across the whole of the public sector, including education, in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child

63. Tett L, (2010) Community Education, Learning and Development, Edinburgh: Dunedin Press

64. The Scottish National Performance Framework, Scottish Government website.

65. The team with a remit for CLD within Communities Scotland, which was the executive agency responsible for regeneration.

66. Education Scotland, (2015) How Good is our Third Sector Organisation

67. HMIE Learning Community inspection Reports (2008-15)

68. Glasgow Centre for Population Health, (2011) Go Well Briefing Paper 13

69. Education Scotland, (2014): Strategy for building the capacity of education providers to improve their performance continuously

70. In the language of systems theory these are called the client, change agent, action and target systems.

71. For further discussion see: 'Delivering Change - Understanding the outcomes of community learning and development' Learning Connections (2007)

72. See The Making of an Empowering Profession, 3rd Edition, 2002 http://cldstandardscouncil.org.uk/?page_id=96

73. See for example Assets for Health Sir Harry Burns, Chief Medical Officer for Scotland, in Co-Production of Health and Wellbeing in Scotland, edited by Loeffler, Power, Bovaird and Hine-Hughes (Governance International, 2013)

74. Mary Anne MacLeod & Akwugo Emejulu (2014) Neoliberalism With a Community Face? A Critical Analysis of Asset-Based Community Development in Scotland, Journal of Community Practice, 22:4, 430-450, DOI: 10.1080/10705422.2014.959147

75. Growing Youth Work and Youth Workers in Local Communities: edited by Mark Smith and Alan Rogers, Russell House Publishing Ltd, 2010. The Chapter is reproduced by kind permission of the author, editors and publisher

76. This chapter by Lyn Tett is reproduced by kind permission of Dunedin Academic Press from Community Education, Learning and Development (Third edition, Edinburgh, 2010. ISBN: 978-1-906716-10-3). The complete book remains available for purchase in both hard copy and ebook formats. Any further reproduction of the chapter requires the permission of the publisher.

77. Scottish Government 2010: A summary of building the curriculum 5, a framework for assessment

78. Amazing Things 2, Youth Scotland

79. See reports on national voluntary CLD organisations on the HMIE Website.

80. Scottish Government, 2010: Refreshed Skills for Scotland Strategy

81. Scottish Government, 2011: GIRFEC Overview

82. Scottish Government 2005 National Standards for Community Engagement

83. Scottish Government 2009 Community Empowerment Action Plan

84. Scottish Government 2004 Guidance for community planning partnerships on CLD

85. Scottish Government/COSLA 2008

86. Development Trust Association Scotland Web-site

87. OECD 2007: Report on Quality and Equity in Scottish Education

88. Wilkinson R and Pickett K 2009: The Spirit Level: Why more equal societies almost always do better

89. Scottish Government/COSLA: Equally Well Review 2010

90. COSLA submission to the budget review panel, 2010

91. Scottish Government 2010: Independent Budget Review: the report of Scotland's Independent Budget Review Panel - July 2010

92. SCDC 2000. Learning Evaluation and Planning: A handbook for community learning partners.

93. NIACE 2010. National Inquiry into the Future of Lifelong Learning.

94.  See The Making of an Empowering Profession, 3rd Edition, 2002 http://cldstandardscouncil.org.uk/?page_id=96

95. Renewing Scotland's Public Services, Scottish Government, 2011

96. Review of Community Planning and SOAs: Statement of Ambition, 2012

97. Glasgow Life, an 'arm's length' company associated with Glasgow City Council and Highlife Highland, a similar company associated with Highland Council, provide a range of CLD services for those areas and are included in the membership.

98. Two supplied budgets but not staffing figures, and one (see note 14) gave staffing figures relating to a much wider service.

99. From our knowledge of those local authorities that did not respond to this year's survey, we believe it to be highly unlikely that any of their non-responses were caused by a similar inability to isolate CLD services.

100.  Or an average per authority of £25.59, averaging across large and small authorities.

101. Not including Glasgow for reasons explained above. In one area, only one 'strand' of CLD is included.

102. Including the two 'outliers', but excluding them from the calculation of the average

103. Not including community capacity building services in Highland, where these are not provided by the arm's length CLD service, or Renfrewshire, where they are procured from a voluntary sector organisation.

104. This pattern does not alter significantly if we exclude the two areas named in note 12.

105. But this is purely because one large authority, though it has given us an estimate for its core CLD budget within the overall responsibilities of the Head of Service responsible for CLD, has not broken down the total associated staffing levels, but only those for the three stands. Its exclusion would radically reduce the aggregate 'other/general' share of staffing to well below the levels reported last year (whilst making little difference to the reported share of budgets).

106. The large reductions in Aberdeen's budget having already largely been in place for 2011/12.

107. We have converted some cash figures to percentages.

108. Highlife Highland, does not undertake CCB; Glasgow Life does do this, but in addition there is a small community development team in Social Work

109. At least two of our non-respondents are known to be undergoing major reorganisation which may affect the situation

110. There generally appears to be an ability to distinguish separate priorities for e.g. youth work and adult education even when these are managed and budgeted for together.

111. Plus the following less classifiable responses: Draft CERB consultation Community Engagement training with and for partners. The Council has had direct budget consultations with young people on services. Held an evaluation event with partners and stakeholders to identify what has worked well and why, plus what are the gaps and priorities

112. 1980 (c.44). Section 2 was amended by the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Act 1989 (c.39), section 69 and the Education (Scotland) Act 1996 (c.43), Schedule 6. The functions of the Secretary of State were transferred to the Scottish Ministers by virtue of section 53 of the Scotland Act 1998 (c.46).

113. The name Scottish Government was adopted from 2007 onwards, previous post-‐devolution administrations operated under the title of the Scottish Executive.

Table of Contents

Table of Content

Influencing Change: Community Learning and Development in Scotland, 2001-2015

Introduction

The Making of an Empowering Profession, Volume 2 Influencing Change: Community Learning and Development in Scotland, 2001-2015

Preface

Community Learning and Development: The Making of an Empowering Profession. Volume Two

Acknowledgements

Chapter 1: Working and Learning Together

Contents

References

Working and Learning Together

Working and Learning Together to Build Stronger Communities(Scottish Executive Guidance for Community Learning and Development, 2004)

Developing an Effective Community Learning Plan (Greater Easterhouse, Glasgow) (From Illuminating Practice: Case Studies in CLD, Scottish Community Development Centre for Learning Connections/Communities Scotland, 2004)

Angus Glens Project: from personal development to community capacity(From Illuminating Practice: Case Studies in CLD, Scottish Community Development Centre for Learning Connections/Communities Scotland, 2004)

The Community Learning and Development Approach(A starter paper for the "This is Serious Fun Too" conference; Fraser Patrick, Centre fore Research in CLD, University of Dundee, 2007)

Chapter 2: Creating a Vibrant Profession

Contents

References

Creating a Vibrant Profession

Empowered to Practice(Scottish Executive, 2003)

Strengthening Standards

A Learning Culture for the CLD Sector in Scotland(CLD Standards Council, 2011)

Chapter 3: Rethinking Literacies

Contents

References

Rethinking Literacies

Adult Literacy and Numeracy in Scotland(Scottish Executive, 2001)

The Adult Literacy and Numeracy Wheel(Extracts from Adult Literacy and Numeracy Curriculum Framework for Scotland, Scottish Executive, 2005)

Evaluation of the Scottish Adult Literacy and Numeracy Strategy for the Scottish Executive (summary)

Chapter 4: From Engagement to Empowerment

Contents

References

From Engagement to Empowerment

National Standards for Community Engagement(Communities Scotland/Scottish Executive, 2005)

Are We Being Served? The Glasgow Disability Alliance toolkit to implement the National Standards for Community Engagement

Joint Commitment to Community Empowerment(CoSLA/Scottish Government letter, 2008)

Chapter 5: Youth Work: Still Holding Value?

Contents

References

Youth Work: Still Holding Value?

Statement on the Nature and Purpose of Youth Work(Scottish Executive, 2007)

Moving Forward: A Strategy for Improving Young People's Chances Through Youth Work (Extracts)(Scottish Executive, 2007)

Are we really moving forward?

Our ambitions for improving the life chances of young people in Scotland: National Youth Work Strategy 2014-2019(Scottish Government, 2014)

Scottish Youth Work: same, but different(Howard Sercombe, Jim Sweeney, Ted Milburn, Marcus Liddell, Rory McLeod, Phil Denning, Glasgow 2014)

Chapter 6: Learning to Improve

Contents

References

Learning To Improve

How Good is Our CLD? 2 (Extracts)(HM Inspectorate of Education, 2006)

Delivering Change(Communities Scotland, 2007)

LEAP Manual(Extract from revised version, Scottish Community Development Centre for Scottish Government, 2008)

Chapter 7: Purpose, Ethics and Competence

Contents

References

Purpose, Ethics and Competence

Reclaiming Social Purpose: Framing the Discussion(Ian Martin, from Reclaiming Purpose in Community Education, 2008)

Competent Practice: Using the CLD Competences to Reflect, Develop and Progress(CLD Standards Council, 2009)

CLD Code of Ethics(CLD Standards Council, 2010)

Chapter 8: Communities Leading Change

Contents

References

Communities Leading Change

Developing Local Organisations (Alistair Hunter, in Journeying Together: Growing Youth Work and Youth Workers in Local Communities, 2010)

A Charter for Rural Communities (Extracts from The Final Report of the Carnegie Commission for Rural Community Development, 2007)

Capacity building for activism: Learning from the past for the future (By Lynn McCabe; from Community Empowerment: Critical Perspectives from Scotland, edited Emejulu and Shaw, 2010)

Chapter 9: Learning Communities and a Learning Society

Contents

References

Learning Communities and A Learning Society

Learning, Knowledge and Development(By Lyn Tett, from Community Education, Learning and Development, 2010)

Adult Education in Scotland: Past and Present(By Ian Martin and Jim Crowther, Concept journal, 2010)

Learning in Scotland's Communities(HM Inspectorate of Education, 2011)

Advancing Scotland as a Learning Society: A Community Learning and Development Contribution(The Standards Council for Community Learning and Development for Scotland, November 2011)

Chapter 10: Promoting Partnerships for Change

Contents

References

Promoting Partnerships for Change

CLD in Dundee – Making a Strategic Impact(from Making an Impact, CLD Case Studies, Scottish Government, 2010)

Partnership in action: A personal reflection(By Stuart Fairweather, from Community Empowerment: Critical Perspectives from Scotland, Edited Emejulu and Shaw, 2010)

Strategic Guidance for Community Planning Partnerships: Community Learning and Development(Scottish Government, 2012)

Chapter 11: Looking Forward to Change

Contents

References

Realities and Ambitions: Looking Forward to Change

Community Learning and Development in Scottish Local Authorities 2013(By Peter Taylor; CLD Managers Scotland, 2013)

The Requirements for Community Learning and Development (Scotland) Regulations, 2013

Standing at the Crossroads - What Future for Youth Work?(By Ian Fyfe and Stuart Moir; in Youth work at the Crossroads, Concept, 2013)

Adult Learning in Scotland - Statement of Ambition(Scottish Government/Education Scotland, 2014)

Community Development - Everyone's Business?(Alan Barr, for Scottish Community Development Centre, Community Development Alliance Scotland, Scottish Community Development Network, 2014)