3.1 Leadership and co-ordination
Staff in most authorities had a clear vision of the purpose of community learning. They subscribed to the principles and values underpinning community learning and development. Local authorities that made a priority of community empowerment regarded community learning strategies and plans as an important means to further this aim. However, development of community learning strategies and plans had been inhibited in some authorities by decreasing resources for community learning and development and by continuing service reviews. Also, senior officers in a few authorities perceived community learning strategies and plans to be an unnecessary imposition by the Scottish Executive.
Chief Executives in some authorities were very supportive of the Community Learning Strategy. They ensured it had effective linkages with the community plan and relevant corporate policies. Such strong support from the Chief Executive and/or senior authority managers was a very positive factor in promoting a corporate approach to development of the community learning strategy and community learning plans.
The Chief Executives of all authorities visited by HM Inspectors had delegated responsibility for the co-ordination of community learning strategies to a senior officer of the council or a senior manager of the service responsible for community learning and development. Such staff were generally well motivated and supportive of community learning and development. They were important in promoting the involvement of other services of the authority and also external organisations, agencies and groups. The effectiveness of the delegated responsibility depended on the extent to which the officer was enabled to focus on the task. For example, HM Inspectors reported in that one case:
The authority had recently appointed an officer whose primary role was to co-ordinate the implementation of the CLS and CLPs. The pace of development had increased markedly since his appointment.
However, some lead officers could not allocate sufficient time to work effectively
on the initiative, which was often an additional responsibility on top of an
already heavy workload.
In one authority, an officer was responsible for co-ordinating five of the authority's
community learning plans, for which no allowance had been made in his existing
workload.
Lead officers with dedicated time were a crucial factor in effective planning and co-ordination of community learning strategies and plans.
Most councils had established clear lines of accountability and direct reporting arrangements for officers co-ordinating community learning strategies. A few community learning partnerships had adopted innovatory approaches to co-ordination. These included co-ordination by a staff member of an authority service other than the primary provider of community learning and development, or co-ordination by partners from the voluntary sector or the local further education college. HM Inspectors noted that in one example of the wider approach to partnerships:
The authority had established a CLP co-ordinating group for the town as a whole, and was in the process of developing ten local CLPs. Members of the co-ordinating group were taking on the responsibility for chairing planning groups as the development progressed. Planning group chairs included staff from the CES, the local further education college and the voluntary sector.
Lead officers and members of partnerships generally enjoyed good relationships. In some partnerships, relationships were very good. However, in more than a few cases, partners did not build upon the harmonious context to produce demonstrable outcomes such as shared ownership of plans or to good progress in developing them.
3.2 Strategic planning
CLP priorities were generally aligned with those of the community learning
strategy. However, their alignment with community plans was less consistent,
and minimal in some cases.
A positive relationship between community planning and community learning
plans was inhibited by the slow pace of development of one or both initiatives
in most authorities. However, some local authorities had established
effective linkage between community plans and CLPs, for example, where HM
Inspectors noted that:
The partnership had carried out a community consultation exercise, whose results made it possible to align priorities identified in the course of the exercise with the strategic goals of the community plan. The authority saw the CLP as a base on which to build locality plans, which would devolve implementation of its community plan to local communities. Key personnel played a constructive role across the range of relevant initiatives. For example, the new community school integration manager was a member of the SIP management board and the CLP planning group which would contribute to long-term planning and service delivery in the area.
Local authorities should ensure appropriate linkage between community learning plans and community plans.
Almost all partnerships had yet to develop flexible arrangements that would support their strategic planning and also accommodate the planning and budgetary cycles of individual partner organisations. Adjustments to improve co-ordination in planning were proving problematic, particularly for the local authority partner, for which community learning and development was a small part of its overall business.
3.3 Promoting partnership
The partnerships established by most local authorities had an appropriate range of members. In a few authorities, the department responsible for economic development had recognised the potential of the CLP process and had given it active support. The housing department of one authority had realised the benefits of a community learning approach to aspects of its work and was a particularly active contributor to the partnership. However, many partnerships did not include or did nor fully involve important services of the authority itself. Authorities should support partnerships in taking steps to include important services such as social work and schools as members. However, any new community school project located within the area of a CLP was almost always represented as a full partner. Most new community schools located in CLP areas played a positive role in partnerships.
In some areas, benefits were gained when authorities integrated community learning partnerships into other planning structures, such as social inclusion partnerships (SIPs). Such direct linkage with a SIP provided the partnerships with a clear focus and brought in partners whose objectives fitted well with the purpose of the CLP. Almost all partnerships commendably included organisations such as health care trusts, whose primary role was not educational.
In general, community groups had limited engagement in the CLP process. This reduced the ability of the partnership to adopt a broad-based approach to addressing community needs. However, there were examples of good practice, particularly linked to the contribution of the voluntary sector. In one example, HM Inspectors found that:
The partnership had a positive impact on working with the voluntary sector. Organisations and volunteers felt that they were more valued and more effective because of a new relationship between them and the authority. Community learning had developed from a simple provision model to one that worked with individuals and communities to identify and meet learning needs and the skills and experience they could contribute to their communities.
In some cases, partnerships went beyond the local area. However, some national voluntary providers of community learning and development were experiencing considerable difficulty in contributing to large numbers of CLP planning and strategy groups.
Most partnerships were committed to joint training and development. Almost all local authority staff who were co-ordinating community learning strategies had attended training in the use of the LEAP planning and evaluation system. In a few cases, staff of voluntary organisations and learning providers had also attended this training. Some partnerships had been able to use LEAP in the planning process. However, in other cases LEAP could not be used because the training had been offered at too late a stage in planning.