Big Lottery Fund Research Issue 35 - Early indications of sustainability at the Big Lottery Fund
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Big Lottery Fund Research Issue 35 Early indications of sustainability at the Big Lottery Fund
Title Early indications of sustainability at
the Big Lottery Fund
Code ISSN 1744-4756 (Print)
and ISSN 1744-4764 (Online)
Further copies available from:
Email enquiries@biglotteryfund.org.uk
Phone 0845 410 20 30
Textphone 0845 039 02 04
Ourwebsite www.biglotteryfund.org.uk
Accessibility
Alsoavailable upon request in other formats including large print.
Our equality principles
Promoting accessibility; valuing cultural diversity; promoting participation;
promoting equality of opportunity; promoting inclusive communities;
reducing disadvantage and exclusion. Please visit our website for more
information.
We care about the environment
The Big Lottery Fund in Wales is working towards sustainable development
and the use of sutainable resources.
Our mission
We are committed to bringing real improvements to communities and the
lives of people most in need.
Our values
We have identified seven values that underpin our work: fairness;
accessibility; strategic focus; involving people; innovation; enabling;
additional to government.
The Big Lottery Fund is committed to valuing diversity and promoting
equality of opportunity, both as a grantmaker and employer. The Big
Lottery Fund will aim to adopt an inclusive approach to ensure grant
applicants and recipients, stakeholders, job applicants and employees are
treated fairly.
Big Lottery Fund is the joint operating name of the New Opportunities
Fund and the National Lottery Charities Board (which made grants under
the name of Community Fund).
©Big Lottery Fund, February 2007
Written by Stacy Sharman
2
Contents Executive summary 2 Introduction 4 Factors that influence sustainability 9 Planning 10 Delivery 16 Interacting with the external environment 24 Supporting sustainability 28 Conclusions & recommendations 40 Key success factors for sustainable projects 40 Issues for BIG in supporting sustainability 41 Recommendations 44 Appendix 1: Research approach 45
Executive summary
This research aims to help the Big Lottery BIG and other funders have taken different
Fund understand the early indications of approaches to supporting sustainability.
progress towards sustainability within its Planning for sustainability and providing
projects and programmes. It investigates intensive support to grant holders are both
approaches followed by BIG and others to areas in which BIG, and others, have
promote sustainability and provides experience. Balancing the risk of investment
practical recommendations around in relation to sustainability is a challenge for
developing an approach to sustainability. funders. Measuring change is an important
issue, both in terms of deciding what to
Sustainability was initially defined as the
measure and how to measure it.
continuation of the benefits and/or
activities of projects once BIG funding has To develop its approach to sustainability, it
ended. Sustainability is not simply about was recommended that the Big Lottery
the continuation of projects or services Fund should consider
post-Lottery funding. It can also be about
Establishing a broad, common definition
lasting improvements in partnership
of sustainability – This definition
working, long-term impacts on beneficiary
should capture sustainability and other
behaviour or attitude or increased capacity
'legacy' effects in the broadest sense
for organisations and individuals.
and be sufficiently flexible to be applied
Sustainability is influenced by factors in across the range of BIG programmes.
planning, delivery and interaction with the
Improving the information base –
external environment. Early planning for
Sustainability should be explicitly
sustainability is essential, as are
included in the remit of every evaluation
determining end of grant strategies,
that BIG commissions. Further research
including planning for mainstreaming. In
to establish which projects and their
delivery, capturing and using knowledge
outcomes have successfully been
generated by projects and programmes,
sustained and how this has been
capacity building and management are
achieved would provide learning and
factors that play a role. Achieving a good fit
opportunities for replication elsewhere.
with national and local strategies and
improving partnership working are key Promoting and supporting sustainability
activities when interacting with the – The development of a framework is
external environment. proposed to promote and support
sustainability throughout the funding
cycle. A series of measures is
suggested, beginning at the programme
planning stage, moving through
application and delivery stages, ending
at project and programme completion.
2
Introduction
This report presents the findings of a short identify the emerging impacts of these
study commissioned by Big Lottery Fund approaches – in terms of any early
(BIG) into the approaches taken by BIG indicators of sustainability reported in
(and its predecessors the New existing evaluation reports
Opportunities Fund and Community Fund)
develop an understanding of the key
to promote the sustainability of grant
circumstances and factors associated
funded activities and benefits. GHK
with effective project sustainability –
Consulting were commissioned to carry out
including project, programme and
the research and this report is our short
external factors, as well as the
version of the findings. The full report is
circumstances where sustainability is
available on our website at
less desirable
www.biglotteryfund.org.uk
explore the steps taken by BIG to
Aims of the study
support and enhance the sustainability
The aims of the study were to:
of projects funded by it – and identify
assess how effective BIG's approach to further steps which could be taken
sustainability to date appears to be in
examine the approaches followed by
relation to projects and programmes
other grant-making bodies which have
inform decision-making at BIG about the been found to be effective, to allow
contribution it can make towards learning from steps taken elsewhere.
encouraging sustainable benefits and/or
The study was designed to examine early
activities of our projects and
indicators of sustainability rather than to
programmes, identifying good practice
assess evidence of the achievement of
and developing new ways of
sustainability. It was intended to inform a
encouraging sustainability.
future large-scale study into the impacts of
More specifically, the requirements were BIG funding and their sustainability that
for the study to: would include direct contact with projects.
identify the approaches followed to
support project sustainability –
including the programme and project-
level factors which influence the
likelihood of sustainability, and if
differences in approaches exist by
programme and country
4
Background The Big Lottery Fund is a non-departmental
BIG was created in 2004 by the merger of body public body distributing Lottery funds.
the New Opportunities Fund and the It makes short-term grants to specific projects
Community Fund, and is responsible for rather than organisations, although in some
distributing half of all National Lottery good cases organisations are set up purely to deliver
cause funding across the UK. It has made the grant. Short-term funding previously
more than £6 billion available to initiatives meant three years but recently BIG has moved
with national, regional and local partners towards providing funding for up to five years. In
from the public, voluntary, charity and many cases, projects receive funding from a
private sectors, with a further £2.3 billion number of sources, of which BIG is one.
to be distributed between 2006 and 2009. These circumstances have an impact on
BIG has a particular focus on combating sustainability issues because in some cases it
disadvantage and improving the quality of can be difficult to identify exactly the parts
life in communities, by supporting of the project that have been funded by the
appropriate, effective and sustainable BIG grant. Therefore it becomes problematic
responses to identified need. to attribute the continuation of any activity or
benefit to one particular source of funding.
In fulfilling its objectives, BIG must consider
These difficulties exist even where it is clear
both the need to support innovation (and
which elements have been funded by whom
the accompanying risk of failure) and the
because sustainability is not simply about the
sustainability of the investments it makes.
continuation of a project but other more
Given the range of policy and practical
intangible outcomes (see below for
areas covered by BIG's programmes, a wide
definitions).
range of potential approaches to supporting
sustainability are possible, including measures BIG's interest in sustainability in all senses lies in
such as the requirement for match funding, the continuation of project activities and
encouragement of partnership working, benefits post-Lottery funding. The notion of
provision of networking opportunities and sustainability was one of the New Opportunities
learning events, and the contracting out of Fund values and is reflected in BIG's values also,
programme-specific support packages. In for example in involving people and working
addition, the opportunity exists for previous with communities to effect lasting change. BIG
practice and experience to influence steps has recently adopted an outcomes funding
taken in the new programmes. approach where the emphasis is on the impact
and difference made through its funding, rather
than the services or activities delivered.
Applicants are expected to identify the outcomes
they want to achieve through their projects and
BIG funding can be seen as one component in
progress towards a longer-term aim.
5
Introduction
Research approach
The study was based on a review of
programme evaluation and other research
reports commissioned by BIG. This was
enhanced through a series of interviews
with BIG staff and a sample of other grant
funding agencies and others involved in
supporting the charitable sector in the UK
and USA.
A full description of the research approach
is given in Appendix 1.
It is important to recognise some of the
limitations of this method relating to the
document review, not least the reliance on
reported findings. Coverage of
sustainability was variable between reports
as a result of the following:
sustainability was not an explicit focus
of every evaluation or research
document
final evaluation reports were normally
produced at the end of the funding
period which meant that evidence of
actual sustainability was limited
evaluations were based on a sample of
projects rather than a comprehensive
programme audit and this meant that
sustainability was discussed at a project
rather than programme level
the extent to which different aspects of
sustainability were explored was limited
and reports rarely described the
breadth of 'legacy' effects that might
have been expected.
6
Defining Sustainability
At the outset, sustainability was defined as
'the continuation of the benefits and/or
activities of projects once BIG funding has
ended'. This broad definition included a
range of potential benefits, dependent on
the nature, objectives and context of the
projects in question. These included:
the continued use of facilities provided
as part of capital investment projects
new services developed and delivered
as a result of BIG funding
the use of skills developed among
project beneficiaries and project staff
the establishment of new or
strengthening of existing partnerships
and other collaborative working
arrangements
sustained behavioural change among
individuals
contributing to the body of knowledge
of effective approaches to meeting a
range of needs – even if this knowledge
was not utilised immediately.
7
Introduction
While sustainability was most commonly Sustainability through infrastructures,
defined by BIG staff in terms of continuation of for example as a result of social
service delivery, it is important to recognise that enterprise or the creation of employment
this is not the only possible outcome. Early opportunities such as Scottish Land
indications of the achievement of sustainability Fund, CALL ICT and TYS programmes.
covered a wide range of outcomes that can
Sustainability through alignment
be grouped into the following seven categories:
with local priorities/national policy
Sustainability of an approach/concept which usually focuses on getting the
trialled through a programme as service or idea funded by a statutory
opposed to sustainability of the body, as with Green Spaces and
programme itself, as with Healthy Living Sustainable Communities (GSSC),
Centres (HLCs) and Do it 4 Real. Activities for Young People (AYP) and
Out of School Hours Childcare
Sustainability of partnerships, either
(OOSHC) programmes.
for continued delivery of a service or as
an end in itself. Here, the emphasis is on Sustainability through long-term
the development and/or improvement impacts on attitude/behaviour, usually
of multi-agency working in addressing targeted on improving social or health-
social issues such as in the Out of related behaviours as with Splash Extra,
School Hours Learning (OOSHL), CALL AYP, Positive Activities for Young People
ICT Content and Activities for Young (PAYP), Do it 4 Real programmes.
People (AYP) in Northern Ireland
Given the broad range of sustainability
programmes. This was probably the
outcomes that are associated with BIG's
most common and in many ways the
funding programmes, it is not surprising
most powerful, sustainable outcome.
that there is a wide range of potential
Sustainability through building capacity 'sustainability routes' through which these
within organisations/community networks, outcomes could be reached. The means of
particularly as an important precursor delivering sustainability will not only
to delivering a programme's objectives, depend on the programme in question but
such as with the Scottish Land Fund, the local environment where it is based.
Transforming your Space (TYS) and
The report now looks at the findings of the
Countryside Communities programmes.
research, firstly at factors that influence
Sustainability of a product/service/ sustainability and secondly at supporting
programme through further funding sustainability.
and/or integration into the statutory
sector, which under-pinned the OOSHL
and Reducing the burden of CHD,
Stroke and Cancer programmes.
8Factors that influence sustainability
A number of factors emerged that
appeared to have an influence on the early
indications of the sustainability of activities
and benefits of projects and programmes.
Sustainability is not simply considered in
terms of continuation of activities post-
Lottery funding but across the range of
outcomes outlined above.
The factors can be grouped into three
categories: planning, delivery and
interacting with the external environment.
Factors that are important in planning are:
early consideration
determining end of grant strategies
planning for mainstreaming.
Factors that are important in delivery are:
capturing and using knowledge
capacity building
management and business planning
performance management.
Factors that are important in interacting
with the external environment:
fit with local and national strategies
improving partnerships.
The factors are presented in turn below.
Throughout the following sections, positive
indicators are discussed together with
potential barriers.
9Planning
Early consideration The early planning which took place in this
A key factor influencing sustainability was programme was linked both to the
the early consideration of and planning for imperative to incorporate sustainability
sustainability. This process would involve issues from the outset and to the fact that
making decisions about what the goals are the programme was testing an approach to
in relation to sustainability, whether it is the sustaining communities. Putting in place a
intention to sustain the project as a whole monitoring system was a key part of the
or simply elements of it. The outcomes for planning process, as this would allow the
sustainability would also need to be effectiveness of both the programme and
considered, whether these go beyond the approach to be assessed.
continuation of activities to sustainability
The Reducing the burden of Coronary Heart
through building capacity or long-term
Disease (CHD), Stroke and Cancer
impacts on behaviour for example. The
programme illustrates an approach to
issue is likely to be complicated where BIG
sustainability that was designed to promote
is a part-funder of a project because of the
integration of services into the statutory
difficulties in attributing sustainability
sector, in this case the NHS. The aims of the
outcomes to any one pot of funding.
programme were to reduce the risk of
Projects that aimed to develop a chronic heart disease, stroke and cancer
sustainable product, service or approach and improve access to high quality services
through further funding or integration into and facilities. The fact that most projects
the statutory sector best demonstrate the have been successfully embedded into
importance of focusing on sustainability existing health care structures reflects the
issues from the outset. Early consideration extent to which activities developed by
meant that projects and stakeholders projects and the programme aims were
incorporated sustainability into their aligned from the start.
planning and focused on the need to devise
longer-term strategies. For example, Fair
Share is an initiative targeted on the
development of sustainable communities
and the voluntary sector.
10Reducing the burden of CHD, Conversely, a failure to plan represents a
Stroke and Cancer significant threat and it was evident from
Successful approaches to sustainability programme evaluations that sustainability
can already be picked up from the was not always addressed from the outset.
This may be explained by a number of
earliest of project activities, where
factors including a lack of awareness or
potentially sustainable working understanding of the issues and time
practices and/or infrastructures were pressures. In the Out of School Hours
already emerging. The focus across the Learning (OOSHL) programme, a number of
three countries (Scotland, Northern projects found that sustainability was more
Ireland and Wales) where the of an issue from the mid-point of their
programme operates has been on: grants and in some cases, it was never
considered. According to the evaluators,
Increasing service capacity through many grant holders did not have an
early moves to improve co- appropriate understanding of planning and
ordination, standardising referral how it would fit with future survival.
processes and the involvement of Time pressures in the initial set-up of
the voluntary sector. projects and programmes can have a
negative impact, denying sufficient time
Improving and maintaining quality
for planning and compromising delivery.
standards by ensuring equal access In CALL: Digital for example, complex and
to 'user friendly' information, ambitious outcomes were expected within
agreeing the use of specified clinical a very tight timescale. The planning of
guidelines, and introducing training activities in a relatively unrealistic
initiatives. timeframe had, perhaps, already doomed
the outcomes before delivery had started.
Developing and nurturing A lack of time may not only damage
partnership arrangements between planning and prospects. Too much time in
service providers, between users the lead-in phase prior to delivery meant
and providers and between that some Out of School Hours Childcare
(OOSHC) projects were set up under
community groups.
different circumstances than those under
which they had been planned. This had a
knock-on effect in terms of the demand
not matching what was expected and the
loss of supportive parents. Ultimately, this
meant that levels of take-up of services
were not as high as predicted.
11Planning
Determining end of grant But most projects had succeeded in their
strategies aim of reaching groups that had previously
been excluded or marginalised by standard
End of grant strategies are plans that detail cancer services. Even projects where the
a project's options for the future after intention had never been that they should
funding ends. In the past, BIG has used the survive post-Lottery funding left a legacy
terms 'exit strategy' and 'sustainability plan' in terms of products and partnership
to mean the post-Lottery future of projects. working. Translated materials, cancer
Exit strategy referred to project closure and directories of local services and improved
sustainability plan to continuation. In practice, partnerships between sectors and
the two terms could be used interchangeably. professionals are examples of the
BIG would expect both exit strategies and sustainability outcomes that were achieved
sustainability plans to be written during the in this programme.
delivery of the project, normally one or two
years before funding ended. Having However, there were indications that
strategies or plans in place supports projects may well lack an understanding of
sustainability as it can influence project what an 'exit strategy' is. In some
development and highlight key factors in programmes, for example Fair Share and
achieving the project's desired objectives, Transforming Waste (TW), the absence of
whether these are around continuation or exit strategies was recorded. The lack of
closure. Without an appropriate strategy or exit strategies meant that early
plan designed to leave something in place consideration was not given to what
when the project or programme ends, there needed to be measured and monitored
is the risk that knowledge and good throughout the life of a project to provide
practice will be lost. evidence to support continuation or to
assess the impact of a project. It also
In some situations, exit strategies did inform meant that project activity and
the vision that guided project development. development were not directed by a clear
In the Living with Cancer programme, picture of where the project wanted to be
schemes working with black and ethnic at the end of their funding, thereby
minority groups varied considerably: some undermining the potential for sustainability.
were of a very limited duration and
designed to produce a specific output, such
as a single piece of information; others
were funded for three years and then
closed and others were mainstreamed.
12Requiring grant holders to produce exit
strategies or sustainability plans does not
always solve this problem, as was the case
in TW. Projects that saw their services as
finite provision and did not intend to be
self-sustaining produced plans that were
not felt to be realistic or feasible because
they were not felt to reflect what would
really happen. While not every project will
be sustained, there was no evidence of how
these projects planned to measure their
key success factors. Even where projects
do not intend to continue, collecting
evidence of success or otherwise is still
important as it enables projects to assess
their impact. The confusion and uncertainty
around sustainability plans and planning in
general undermines the chances of success,
whether for continuation or assessing impact.
In some cases projects, rather than
programmes, found it easier to talk in terms
of 'exit routes' rather than sustainability. For
example where OOSHL provision involved
coaching in a particular sport, the projects
would be informing participants about how
they could develop their skills further through
joining local sports clubs that ran youth sections.
The same was also true for music, dance and
drama activities. Some projects that had used
non-school sites, such as environmental
centres, thought that the initial exposure of
young people to these locations would
encourage them to make use of the facility
as individuals in the future. This meant that
on OOSHL, as elsewhere, while the
intentions were clear, the ways in which
these would be measured were not.
13Planning
Planning for mainstreaming It should be recognised that not every
The most common 'exit route' was project will want to pursue the
mainstreaming. Mainstreaming is the term mainstreaming option. Many voluntary and
generally used to describe the process of community sector organisations value their
transferring policy, good practice or independence and feel that their ability to
activity into the core of mainstream service meet the needs of their users would be
provision. The term 'mainstreaming' has compromised by such a move. For projects
been used by BIG to mean obtaining that consider mainstreaming to be a
statutory funding following the end of the desirable option, understanding and
Lottery grant. However, one of the communicating good practice to mainstream
principles of Lottery funding is that it providers is the first step in developing a
should be additional to statutory provision. mainstreaming approach. But before being
The expectation that projects that were able to communicate evidence of what works,
deemed to be additional at the outset projects must first understand what it is
should seek to obtain mainstream, statutory that works and how it can be transferred or
funding at the end of the grant clearly creates replicated. Where full-scale sustainability is
tensions. Often projects can demonstrate unlikely, this process can help to identify
that they are meeting previously unmet the parts of the projects that work and
needs and in doing so are providing services which are worth mainstreaming.
that are highly valued by beneficiaries. Over
Many different approaches to mainstreaming
time, these services become essential and
emerged, even within the same programme.
are considered important enough to
On the OOSHL programme, the intention in
warrant mainstream funding.
Blaenau Gwent was for summer schemes to
While there is value in ensuring that funding be included in the LEA's School Improvement
programmes are aligned with statutory Plan alongside moves towards obtaining
provision, as seen above in the Reducing accreditation through the National Youth
the burden of CHD, Stroke and Cancer Agency. In other cases school budgets were
programme, this is unlikely to be sufficient seen as a route into mainstream activities,
to enable the transfer. Activities such as while elsewhere this was perceived as
networking, disseminating progress and making a scheme potentially vulnerable if
achievements to influencers including there were unforeseen demands from the
statutory agencies and engaging with main school curriculum. There were also
national and local government priorities differences between projects in their
(see below) can help the transition into mainstreaming objectives. For example in
mainstream funding. Transforming Your Space (TYS), these
varied from who might maintain
playground equipment to maintaining
community participation in the long-term.
14There was also evidence of national An alternative approach was to
variations, as in the Activities for Young complement mainstream delivery and
People (AYP) initiative. This programme assist mainstream services to meet their
was targeted at young people to support targets. This was achieved by projects that
life transitions and to help them re-engage created a niche for themselves by acquiring
with education, careers and guidance specialist knowledge about specific client
systems. Activities and practices in groups or techniques. In some cases, there
Northern Ireland and Wales were found to will be high levels of service integration
be more likely to be mainstreamed than between projects and mainstream
those in England. Although this was mainly providers, including joint planning and
due to services being more flexible and management arrangements and even
tailored to local needs in these countries, pooling of resources to meet joint aims. As
the fact that England already had an a result, there is the potential to drive a
established local infrastructure and demand for which projects have the
services in place through another agency specialist skills to respond. In the Palliative
(Connexions) was no doubt significant. Care programme, the integration of
mainstream and specialist services proved
And neither was mainstreaming always a
to be key to encouraging sustainability. BIG
linear process. In Northern Ireland
funding had prompted a considerable
Barnardo's had been working with 11
diversification of services, with new
schools in Belfast on OOSHL projects. Both
services reaching new client groups using
Barnardo's and school staff made the
fresh approaches to delivery. This meant
suggestion that the provision should be
that projects were able to tailor services to
'mainstreamed' in some way, so that it
local conditions, meeting hitherto unmet or
would become an entitlement for all young
under-served categories of need.
people. Senior scheme staff lobbied the
Department of Education in Northern
Ireland to adopt the scheme and the
Minister of Education seemed to recognise
the potential when he agreed to sustain the
provision until longer-term funding was
found. The scheme was re-launched in
September 2002 under its new name
'Learning Together'. At that time,
Barnardo's applied to the Children's Fund
for three years of funding, but when they
were unsuccessful they continued to look
for other sources.
15Delivery
Capturing and using knowledge Taking a broader perspective, it is
Delivering any grant scheme generates important to recognise that however good
knowledge and learning and the effective a service might be, it is unlikely to be
use of this knowledge was found to sustained if it is not visible. Regular
support sustainability. Ensuring the dissemination of materials and
distribution of ideas, good practice and presentations to partners and other
acquired knowledge throughout the funded agencies helps to raise and maintain
organisation was essential. When this did awareness of a successful project,
not happen, there was the risk of losing approach, programme and/or outcome.
knowledge. This was the case in the Better And the earlier a project comes to the
Off programme where much of the attention of national and local policy
knowledge resided with individual staff audiences, the more time there is to lobby
members, resulting in a great deal of re- for support.
learning when new staff were appointed.
Working with leaders from across the
There were very few examples where
community and building support of broad
projects made conscious decisions to
constituencies can also contribute to the
counter this.
future survival of projects. Fair Share, for
Knowledge distribution is not only example, was well publicised through the
important within individual organisations. local press and television covering visits
The CALL ICT Content evaluation from the local MP and others. Similarly the
recommended that a network be importance of local champions of childcare
developed to support projects and enable for OOSHC projects located in areas of
the effective transfer of expertise and disadvantage was particularly significant.
experience not only between organisations These clubs were very unlikely to reach a
but also across programmes and sectors. position of sustainability on fees alone and
However, this did not happen in the CALL required the support of a local champion
ICT Learning Centres programme. This who had the skills, including the ability to
programme offered grant holders the identify and write bids, to pursue different
opportunity to test more flexible learning funding streams.
and community engagement opportunities
Strategic partnerships can also raise the
in order to demonstrate their potential for
profile of projects and help with
mainstreaming. At the end of the funding
mainstreaming, as where local authority
period however, many projects were still
staff were able to convince elected
unable to fund flexible, proactive learning,
members that OOSHL activities were
just as they had been at the start of the
contributing to the achievement of local
programme.
authority objectives.
16In addition to projects' dissemination of Capacity building
progress and awareness-raising, the Capacity building refers to a range of
presence of some form of additional processes that help a project, organisation
validation further supported claims for or a community to work more effectively
continuation. While this could be provided and confidently to reach its goals. At a
by evaluation, it was also linked to project level this might involve training for
increased motivation to achieve and staff, volunteers or beneficiaries and at an
become exemplars of good practice. For organisational level for example, it could
example, where OOSHL projects received mean helping a group to develop new
Quality in Study Support (QiSS) status, it systems of fundraising or management.
proved that they were carrying out their The issue of capacity building is critical to
functions efficiently and effectively. The continuation both in terms of whether
fact that they could also play a role in capacity has been built during the project
nationally recognised bodies such as the but also whether it is used and maintained
Extended Schools Forum and ContinYou afterwards. Capacity building is important
strengthened this view. Although Ofsted in all projects but particularly for innovative
inspections found that the quality of projects and where community
provision for out-of-hours activities was organisations are central to the delivery of
good in four out of five schools, it pointed services. Having a critical mass of staff
to ways in which it could be strengthened. and/or volunteers to develop supportive
In recommending that schemes could relationships and contribute diverse skills
improve their activities, it sent the and new knowledge was fundamental to
message that the activities were worth sustainability, as found in the Community
sustaining, albeit in a more robust form. Fund's evaluation of Grants to Large and
Medium sized projects.
In Do it 4 Real, capacity building across
organisations was one approach to
ensuring that projects continued from year
to year. Youth Hostel Association (YHA)
staff reported that their involvement with
Do it 4 Real had a positive impact on the
organisation and on themselves.
17Delivery
It helped the YHA to raise their profile,
particularly with young people who would
not normally have considered becoming
involved with the organisation. Staff
reported that they had developed skills and
techniques in dealing with difficulties such
as inappropriate behaviour, challenging
attitudes and prejudices. They also felt that
they had gained personally from taking part
in the programme, particularly in building
the confidence required to provide high
quality pastoral care and guidance,
sometimes in difficult circumstances.
But it is also worth considering the
challenges involved in attempting to build
the capacity of organisations. For example,
the Fair Share programme was focused on
opening up access to Lottery funding for
disadvantaged communities and improving
their capacity to take advantage of the
money available. But it was found that
grants were sometimes too large for some
groups that did not want to employ
individuals or take on responsibility for a
major project. In the Countryside
Communities initiative, stakeholders
welcomed the focus on capacity building
within the voluntary sector but they did not
believe that sufficient additional resources
had been made available for this to be done
effectively.
Acquiring capital assets is another way of
promoting capacity building and
community development. The Scottish
Land Fund (SLF) is one of the clearest
examples of how sustainability was linked
to capital investment, as described below.
18The Scottish Land Fund
The Scottish Land Fund's aim was to contribute to sustainable development in rural
Scotland by assisting communities to acquire, develop and manage local land or land
assets. The fund, administered by Highlands and Islands Enterprise in partnership with
Scottish Enterprise could be used to support three types of projects:
Planning and preparation of bids to acquire or manage land and land assets.
Acquisition of land that could involve large areas of land on which communities
intend to undertake a range of management and development projects. It could also
involve smaller plots of land for environmental or recreational uses.
Land development projects that could include initiatives to develop land,
investment in management of natural resources, infrastructure developments to
meet local servicing needs, and the provision of facilities with clear economic and
social benefits.
19Delivery
Management and business The evaluation made it clear that it was not
planning enough to identify one type of local institution
The evaluation of the OOSHC programme and expect it to work in the same way in
refers to Gatenby's (1998) finding that each place. While local bodies, such as Local
management ability is a significant factor in Strategic Partnerships, local councils and
determining sustainability. This is voluntary groups will always need to be
supported by the evaluation's findings that contacted, their engagement and contribution
OOSHC clubs with a business plan were will vary, which will impact on the shape of
more likely to make a profit. The evaluation projects and the decisions they take.
concluded that a business orientation
In addition to flexibility in approach,
impacted on sustainability, as did a realistic
another important factor in management
approach to fee structures and collection.
was the ability to attract additional funding.
The need for ongoing assistance with
Sometimes the very fact that a Lottery
business planning and management was
grant had been received attracted in
also highlighted in OOSHC, and several
further funding, as was the case in the
other programmes. One childcare
Positive Activities for Young People (PAYP)
partnership commissioned a health check
and New Opportunities for Physical
of all its OOSHC provision which showed
Education and Sport (NOPES) programmes.
that the majority of clubs did not
But this approach did not work for some
understand what needed to be in place.
Healthy Living Centres (HLCs). Despite the
Project management and business planning grant mobilising additional resources at the
require review and adjustment. This means outset, including funding, premises and
that projects have to be able to adapt to seconded staff from partner agencies, this
changing circumstances and flexibility was did not continue at a level necessary to
found to be an important way of strengthening secure their future.
impact and ensuring continuation. This was
demonstrated in Better Off projects, where
almost a quarter had to change their
services in the first year to meet client needs.
Flexibility was also key at the programme
level, as identified in Fair Share, in relation
to making relationships at the local level.
20When some OOSHL schemes encountered Similarly, retention of staff was a challenge,
similar problems, it was suggested that particularly where the grant period was
they should establish a new organisation three years. In these circumstances, the
separate from the school in an effort to typical project took at least a year to set up,
become more distinct and therefore including staff recruitment, before starting
attractive to other funders. In other to deliver services. The second year was
circumstances, sustainability was focused on delivery but the third year was
synonymous with grant funding and taken up with continuation issues and at
fund-raising, especially in more deprived this point, staff were likely to leave.
areas. According to the OOSHC evaluation This not only reduces the impact of the
(round three), 60 per cent of clubs based in project but undermines the chances of
disadvantaged neighbourhoods were successfully sustaining activities. BIG has
submitting further grant funding now moved to making grants available for
applications compared with 38 per cent of up to five years in an attempt to alleviate
those with 'average catchments'. these problems. Retention issues did not
only affect paid staff but volunteers too. An
Despite the contribution to immediate
over dependence on volunteers can also be
security, additional funding was rarely the
a risk to sustainability as was the case in
only factor that influenced survival of
OOSHC. The originating committee
projects. One recurring challenge was the
members of one club were going to resign
recruitment and retention of staff.
because their children were about to move
Recruitment issues were common in the
to secondary schools. This meant that
initial stages of a programme where a large
without replacements the club would close,
number of posts were created in a very
despite having a waiting list.
short period of time. For example, in the
Palliative Care programme, 260 new
paediatric posts were created at the start
of the funding programme. It can also be
difficult to recruit staff with the
appropriate experience on short-term
contracts, particularly in the voluntary
sector. HLCs found themselves competing
for a limited pool of workers where the
alternatives offered better rates of pay and
more secure employment.
21Delivery
Performance management However, establishing indicators and collecting
Collecting evidence of effectiveness is not evidence is not always an easy task. The
only important for performance management team of PAYP was faced with
management but also for providing a difficult problem in developing an
evidence in support of the case for effective exit strategy. Sustainability would
continuation. Grant holders were required have to be assessed in terms of influencing
to provide information to BIG about their young people's attitudes and thereby
performance on an annual basis. This affecting their lives in the long-term. This
enabled BIG to monitor grantees' progress would mean judging success against soft
and helped fulfil its public accountability outcomes. Soft outcomes are results that
responsibilities. For projects, the ability to projects achieve but which cannot be
demonstrate the impact of services and measured by traditionally recognised
evidence achievements was essential to indicators, such as transitions into
make the case for continuation to employment or education. Any exit
influencers and potential funders. strategy would have to be based on the
needs of the individual engaged with the
The failure to collect evidence of
projects and would depend on evidence of
effectiveness, including establishing key
distance travelled, which programmes,
indicators of success, was a barrier to
such as PAYP, found difficult to accumulate.
sustainability. This was the case for HLCs.
While HLCs could demonstrate the A similar problem was encountered in the Do
contribution they were making to their local it 4 Real programme where the adoption of
communities, including improvements to broad aims created difficulties in monitoring
capacity building and social capital, these effectiveness and measuring impacts. Many
were not the kind of hard outcomes sought of the outcomes were related to perception,
by those holding health budgets. HLCs and as such, were difficult to measure. In the
further suffered from a general lack of end monitoring was confined to the targets set
agreement as to how the effectiveness of for providers: the total number of participants
HLCs could and should be measured. This and ensuring that 20 per cent of participants
left them unable to demonstrate what they came from low income groups. Across all BIG
were achieving according to objective programmes, there were few successful
criteria, which meant they were unlikely to attempts to prove effectiveness across
be funded by statutory commissioners. programmes and an over-reliance on soft
Strong beliefs held by staff in what they do evidence rather than more robust, systematic
and its impact, as found in a number of data. This may be partly due to the fact that
other evaluations, are unlikely to be evaluators were usually appointed once the
sufficient to convince potential funders. programme had started which meant that
the evaluation process was often laid on top
of, rather than integrated into, planning.
22Interacting with the external environment
Fit with local and national Furthermore, positive changes in policy,
government priorities such as the introduction of Working
The researchers found that there was a Families Tax Credit, do not always have the
relationship between the extent to which expected positive impact. In the case of
programmes fitted with national and local OOSHC, parental reluctance to access the
policies and the support, although not financial opportunities offered, together
guarantee, this afforded towards sustainability. with concerns over making payments in
A good example was the AYP programme in advance, meant the potential influence on
Northern Ireland (NI) and the fit with the possible fee incomes was reduced.
priorities of the NI Alternative Education
In some cases, there have been conflicting
Service and the Careers Service, as well as
priorities of national and local government,
other key policies which put planning for
with programmes and projects being
individual children at the centre. This
caught in the cross-fire and suffering as a
allowed the AYP schemes to gain a much
result. In Do it 4 Real for example,
higher profile as well as access to strategic
government policy direction at one point
planning and delivery partnerships across NI.
was to provide residential courses for a
But policy also shifts, evolves and is wide range of young people, based on the
moderated over time. A policy change or assumption that these were beneficial. In
re-alignment can have significant response, BIG expanded the Do it 4 Real
consequences for the survival of projects. programme and devised a range of
The OOSHC programme was influenced by outcomes that should result from young
policy developments such as Sure Start and people's participation in the programme.
Extended Schools. While positive in the However, the nature of the policy direction
sense of offering projects the opportunity and the short timescale for implementation
to engage with the new structures, it could meant that the rationale for the link between
also be negative as the new or revised the activities delivered and the desired
services had the potential to compete with outcomes had not been well developed.
BIG-funded projects.
As well as conflicting priorities between
Even where projects are making important national and local government, there are
contributions to certain objectives, they can also differences in policy that shape the
still be sidelined by policy objectives that context differently at the national level. In
emphasise different priorities. This was the Northern Ireland, the lack of an assembly
case with HLCs where key policy documents and clear policy positions and/or directions
have failed to mention HLCs. The evaluation limited the potential for projects to
suggested that the approach taken by HLCs influence or be influenced.
was too broad to fit within one policy area
and that there was the risk of them falling
between different policy agendas.
24The forthcoming restructuring as a result of Improving partnerships
the review of public administration will add The researchers found some clear evidence
to the uncertainty as it is likely to result in a of how robust partnerships contributed to
major shake-up in every statutory sustainability, principally in terms of making
organisation. A further challenge lies in the lasting improvements to the ways in which
make-up of the voluntary and community partners worked together. Therefore the
sector in Northern Ireland. This is a complex extent to which projects were able to
and highly fragmented sector that establish good working partnerships was an
combines organisations with UK-wide important factor in supporting
responsibilities with smaller organisations. sustainability. Partnerships were used in
Finally, many projects in Northern Ireland two different ways: those developed as an
are dependant upon grant funding for their essential part of service delivery and those
continued existence. This fact could restrict that were developed as a specific objective
projects' perceptions of sustainability to of the programme.
simply identifying partner sources of grant
Partnerships developed to assist service
funding for continuation.
delivery were a feature of the HLC
A similar grant dependency culture is also in programme. The programme was designed
evidence in Wales. Large parts of Wales are to improve health and reduce health
among the poorest in Europe and qualify inequalities through local community
for appropriate European Commission action. Based both in health and in local
funding. The money is expected to decline communities, HLCs were well positioned to
significantly, and as many voluntary contribute to discussions about the shape
organisations in Wales rely on European of future services and to the establishment
funding, this is seen as a significant threat to of a role within them. The evaluation
sustainability. Different issues are found in identified the key role that HLCs played
Scotland. A key challenge in Scotland relates both in bringing partners together and then
to the delays in setting budgets for local allowing partners to clarify future
authorities experienced by the Scottish boundaries and roles.
Executive because of the need to wait for
the annual Comprehensive Spending Review.
25Interacting with the external environment
The Better Off programme in Scotland was Partnerships and networks are often
an example of how improved multi-agency considered a cornerstone of successful
working was seen to be key to achieving community development and are generally
sustainable and holistic services to people viewed by rural stakeholders as an
affected by substance misuse. The effective means of implementing
programme was developed and delivered in community projects and achieving shared
partnership with Scotland's Drugs Action goals. The important contribution that local
Team network that then helped to facilitate communities can make to sustainable
future work. The evaluators concluded that activities and infrastructures was
in many cases the legacy was likely to be a emphasised by the TYS programme, but
more integrated approach to project also applied to other environment-focused
development, with some stakeholders programmes. The Countryside
believing that mainstreaming the ethos of Communities initiative also highlighted
Better Off was more important than the partnership working as the determining
survival of individual projects. factor required to establish and maintain
sustainable communities in rural areas.
Time is needed to build partnerships and
the CALL programmes produced some of Although partnerships were critical in rural
the most successful partnerships because areas, there were challenges associated
they were allowed to develop through with location. Despite the fact that Better
negotiation before the partnership Off projects were successful in attracting
structure was finalised. Partnerships clients in rural areas and the biggest
created in haste can be vulnerable, as increases in new clients entering treatment
shown by those developed in the AYP were within more rural areas, it was still
programme in England and the newly disproportionately difficult to get these
created Connexions service. Where new projects integrated into strategic and
services are still negotiating their delivery partnerships. A rural location was a
relationships with partners or where groups significant threat to some projects, bringing
feel pressurised into working with challenges such as higher transport costs
organisations not of their own choosing, and difficulties in attracting sufficient
with different objectives and cultures, numbers of users. Similarly, projects
there is the potential threat to sustainability located in disadvantaged areas also faced
from a real or perceived lack of ownership. difficulties, as in OOSHC where
A related issue is the incompatibility of unemployed parents did not need the
funding cycles, where differences in the consistent childcare on offer.
length of funding between partners makes
it difficult to achieve shared buy-in to
sustainability.
26Although clubs provided part-time care,
they relied on a majority of parents paying
full fees or they would need another source
of income. In deprived locations, as in rural
areas, there was a high dependency on
grants and time-limited public funding,
which meant that sustainability was
defined almost solely in terms of the ability
to attract continuation funding.
Location was not the only challenge to
developing partnership working. One of the
biggest threats was the almost continuous
re-structuring and re-alignment of
services in some sectors. This impacted on
a personal level, where individuals were
uncertain about their agencies' future, but
also on the willingness and ability of
agencies to commit to and sustain
partnerships. Programmes within the
health sector particularly, such as HLCs and
Living with Cancer, experienced and were
affected by these issues.
27Supporting sustainability
As well as identifying the factors that Although sustainability is rarely, if ever, in
appear to influence early indicators of the gift of any one agency1, there are clear
sustainability, the research also explored opportunities for BIG to influence the
the contribution that BIG could make, as a potential for sustainability to be achieved.
funder, to support sustainability. To answer A range of approaches (not exhaustive)
this question, the researchers drew on the that BIG has taken to date is discussed
approaches taken by BIG to date and also below, alongside examples from other
the experience of other funders. funders. They are presented in six broad
categories of supporting sustainability:
It is important to recognise that many of
the challenges and barriers to sustainability a focused approach to planning
are beyond the direct influence of BIG (and
support to grantees
other funders), including project capacity
and capabilities and the sector of time for sustainability
recipients. In addition, the range of
balanced approach to risk
programmes and grant holders supported
by BIG makes generalisation across rigorous approach to measuring change
approaches difficult. However some
choosing the right indicators.
common themes emerged from the
analysis of approaches that BIG has taken
to date:
Projects were considered to be aware of
the importance of the requirement to
be sustainable, although there could be
a lack of clarity in terms of their roles
and responsibilities.
There was not one consistent approach
followed by BIG and there were
differences between programmes and
countries.
BIG's approach to sustainability
sometimes lacked clarity but developed
over time. In most cases, approaches
were developed in response to need or
where resources permitted.
1
Leat, D and Kumar, S (2006) Investing in our programmes -
maximising the impact of grant making. London: Big Lottery Fund
28A focused approach to planning Whilst raising awareness of sustainability at
Planning is an important factor in terms of the outset, for example at the application
influencing sustainability and BIG has stage, was important, it was also
supported this by adopting a planning recognised that too much 'crystal ball
approach in three phases: initial awareness gazing' at such an early stage can annoy
raising, encouragement of project planning projects. Where sustainability issues had
and continued reinforcement of the been raised early on, it was felt that
importance of sustainability. following up on these issues during project
delivery and reinforcing key messages
Initial awareness raising was undertaken at
about considering sustainability was
the outset of programmes, to
essential. Sustainability plans are a common
communicate sustainability requirements.
way of achieving this and most
This process took several forms, starting
programmes required the production of
with reference to sustainability in
such plans. Sustainability plans were varied
programme materials, for example
in content and coverage and the example
application forms and guidance notes, and
below from the AYP programme in
in workshops to potential applicants. In
Northern Ireland illustrates the breadth of
some programmes, it also formed part of
sustainable benefits that could be
the application process, where potential
considered.
sustainability routes or initial sustainability
plans were required. In the CALL
programmes, for example, applicants were
required to describe their potential future
funding options, and the training needed to
support continued delivery.
29You can also read
