Scottish Compact Baseline Review

Listen

Scottish Compact Baseline Review

CHAPTER EIGHT: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

INTRODUCTION

8.1 The Compact was published in 1998. Since then, for whatever reason, there has been limited progress in monitoring and evaluation. It could now be argued, with some justification, that the Scottish Compact lags behind those elsewhere in the United Kingdom. This is not just a reflection of monitoring and evaluation progress but also of other factors, for example the lack of an action plan and the type of high level political commitment that seems to be characteristic of implementation in England, Northern Ireland and Wales. There is also very limited Baseline information that would illustrate the state of sector-government relations in 1998. The Compact itself, despite the establishment of the Parliament, has not been updated (unlike the situation in Wales) whilst the Good Practice Guides do not reflect the concept of a partnership.

8.2 All of these factors mean that to simply produce a series of recommendations addressed at monitoring and evaluation would be very misleading given that the Compact seems, certainly in comparison with progress elsewhere, to be partially developed. Accordingly this Chapter makes a number of Recommendations, several of which are about setting up structures and processes. Were these to be established, then monitoring and evaluation would be far simpler as there would be more specific actions to keep track of.

8.3 The Recommendations are structured as follows: first a number of general ones are made; these are followed by ones specifically related to monitoring, as outlined in Chapter 7, including suggestions for manipulating and modifying existing datasets; then the baseline is considered; finally evaluation is dealt with.

GENERAL COMPACT RECOMMENDATIONS

8.4 The Compact was published in 1998, before the Parliament was established. Although revisions are apparently underway nothing has, as yet, been published. The Good Practice Guides, although not so dated, suffer from being very one sided as does SCVO's guidance to the sector. Accordingly it is recommended that:-

Recommendation 1

  • The Compact be updated and revised.

Recommendation 2

  • The Good Practice Guides be updated and revised.

The contents of both should reflect the fact that the Compact is a partnership, involving government and the community and voluntary sectors. As such the Guides should identify the commitments of both government and the sector and need to be joint Executive-SCVO documents. It may be that, rather than revising them all at the same time, they should be rewritten as specific policy areas develop, as long as this is not used as an excuse for avoiding taking action.

8.5 The profile of the Compact should be raised by associating it more publicly with senior politicians, as is the case in England and Wales. Accordingly it is recommended that:-

Recommendation 3

  • There is an Annual Meeting between the sector, senior politicians, civil servants and senior management from agencies and NDPBs.

It might be possible that such a meeting could be set up by rebadging existing meetings and initiatives under the Compact title and extending the list of invitees.

8.6 Compact implementation seems to be very permissive. Although an implementation strategy is in the process of being developed, it is recommended that a more systematic approach be taken. Accordingly it is suggested that:-

Recommendation 4

  • An Annual Action Plan be drawn up by the Executive and the sector. This will contain specific actions that are to be implemented, along with details of the timescales and the organisations responsible for implementation.

Recommendation 5

  • The Annual Meeting discuss progress in implementing the Plan. This then forms part of the basis for the formulation of the next year's Plan.

Recommendation 6

  • The government parties to the Compact are required to produce plans which detail how they propose to go about meeting their Compact commitments. Such plans need to be specific and to be phased so that they can be monitored.

It could be argued that it would be more effective, and avoid creating another layer of bureaucracy, if the implementation of the Compact were to come about through its inclusion in existing plans. Whilst acknowledging this, it is felt that, in the short term, if the Compact is to be given priority within government, it needs the higher profile that the requirement to produce a specific implementation plan will bring.

Recommendation 7

  • The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations draw up a plan which outlines how the sector should go about meeting its Compact commitments. This plan needs to be specific and phased so that it can be monitored.

Recommendation 8

  • Within government (including agencies and NDPBs) key individuals be identified who will be the main contact point for information about the Compact.

Recommendation 9

  • Within government (including agencies and NDPBs) key individuals be identified who will be responsible for ensuring that the Compact is implemented.

It may be that the individuals needed to implement Recommendations 8 and 9 will be the same person in some parts of the Executive, agencies or NDPBs. Elsewhere it may be that 2 different individuals are needed as it is particularly important that those responsible for implementation have the requisite seniority.

MONITORING

8.7 The above Recommendations will have an impact upon monitoring in that they have inherent in them both elements of monitoring and the notion of incorporating feedback into the Compact implementation process. Specific monitoring recommendations are now given.

Recommendation 10

  • A number of direct and indirect monitoring indicators should be derived from the Direct Funding Database and the Consultation Registration and Evaluation System (as detailed in Tables 7.1 and 7.2).

Recommendation 11

  • To facilitate the use of these 2 sources consideration should be given to:-
  • Collecting additional funding information covering: the percentage of grant applications determined within 3 months; the percentage of applications approved; and the percentage of approved applications with which no problems are subsequently experienced; and
  • Modifying the Consultation Evaluation Form by: adding an additional question which asks if any changes were made to policy as a result of consultation with the sector; and listing SCVO as one of the specified external organisations consulted.

Recommendation 12

  • There should be an Annual Compact Monitoring Survey.

Recommendation 13

  • The survey should be distributed and analysed electronically.

The survey will be distributed to the named individuals who have responsibility for ensuring that the Compact is implemented within government (Recommendations 8 and 9). Within the sector the recipient will be the Workforce Panel contact (see Recommendation 16).

Recommendation 14

  • The survey should be symmetrical, that is it should ask essentially the same questions of the sector and government.

Recommendation 15

  • The survey of the sector should be based upon a representative sample.

The need for a representative sample is considered in Paragraphs 6.9 to 6.12. It is recommended that any sample should reflect the sector in a number of dimensions, in particular: the size (number of employees and income) and type (national, regional, local and umbrella groups) of organisations; key activities; and spatial distribution.

Recommendation 16

  • The Executive should work with SCVO to see if its Workforce Panel could be used as the sample framework.

The Panel is in the process of being set up and its composition is, as yet, not confirmed. However the intention is that it will include a cross-section of the sector as suggested in Recommendation 15.

Recommendation 17

  • The survey of government Departments, Divisions, agencies and NDPBs that are parties to the Compact should be a census.

It may be that some of the Executive's Divisions have purely an internal focus. If this is the case then they can be excluded from the census as long as there is certainty that their activities do not impact upon the sector.

Recommendation 18

  • The survey should be augmented by the use of 3 Focus Groups that would be convened every 2 years. The groups would cover: rural, urban and small town/suburban Scotland. Alternatively they could be convened along thematic lines: for example specific client groups. Members would be invited from voluntary groups, and the government sector, operating within the locality or covering the specific theme areas.

BASELINE

8.8 Much of the information that could be used to devise a baseline has problems associated with it. Accordingly it is recommended that:-

Recommendation 19

  • The Baseline is derived from the responses to the first Annual Compact Monitoring Survey (Paragraphs 7.9 to 7.15 and 8.7, (Recommendation 12)) supplemented by the indicators outlined in Tables 7.1 and 7.2 and contextual information obtained from other sources (see Paragraph 7.25).

EVALUATION

8.9 It is argued that formulating a separate evaluation framework is now of limited importance as the suggested monitoring approach blends formative and summative evaluation. Accordingly it is recommended that:-

Recommendation 20

  • Evaluation is based on surveys and a series of interviews which analyse the processes operating within a sample of government bodies and voluntary sector organisations. This would then be augmented by case studies of good and bad practices. The sample frame would be derived from that used for the Annual Compact Monitoring Survey.

Recommendation 21

  • Whilst the Compact is still being mainstreamed by government, evaluation should take place every 3 years. Once it is well established then every 5 years would seem to be sufficient.

Page updated: Wednesday, April 05, 2006