6.4. Commonly Identified Challenges

6.4. Commonly Identified Challenges

There are several common barriers that are observed both nationally in policy design and local service delivery that are seen to impede the effectiveness of delivery. This section will outline those most commonly identified through evidence collation:

• Number of Competing Priorities • Reporting Requirements • Collaborative Working • Crisis Response to “Hot Topics”/World Events • Data & Intelligence Sharing • Funding Flexibility • Resources

6.4.1. Number of Competing Priorities

The priority outcomes and actions set out in the CRS do not represent the totality of priorities held at a national and local level. It has been communicated that the number of priorities that currently exist can often have notable resource implications for delivery and can act as a strategic barrier to progressing recovery. CPPs highlighted a feeling of disconnect between local and national recovery plans that arises in part due to their requirement to develop improvement plans based on community engagement, alongside the priorities identified in national strategies.

“There is understandably a myriad of strategies and delivery plans that Councils and Partners have to deliver against to achieve successful outcomes.” – Feedback from one CPIB member

Through engagement with Scottish Government policy areas it was noted that there is wide strategic risk due to the plethora of interventions, changes and pilots and pathway projects which make prioritisation more complex. It is felt within Scottish Government as well as in local delivery that mapping and understanding the interdependencies and integration of national and local actions would be invaluable to maximise impact and allow prioritisation.

The prioritisation of outcomes and actions at a local level is made more complex by the requirement on CPPs to develop their LOIPs based on community engagement and understanding of local needs – a legislative duty. This report has evidenced that the outcomes and actions identified through this local development do not always align with those cited nationally.

The three outcomes in the CRS were jointly agreed by Local Government through COSLA and Scottish Government. Through gathering evidence from both spheres of government it can be seen that both experience competing priorities alongside those outcomes identified in the CRS. This can be seen to be a barrier to the improvement of the CRS outcomes as additional priorities result in a diffusion of resources acting on the outcomes both nationally and locally.

6.4.2. Reporting Requirements

With a complex landscape of sometimes competing priorities and funding arrangements comes a plethora of reporting requirements. It has been noted by most CPPs that reporting requirements pose a substantial burden on staff, with many raising the issue that information is gathered in a multitude of ways via a range of requests. This is often handed to them by Scottish Government, but there was recognition from a small number of CPP colleagues that they themselves can pass similar requirements on to their partner organisations. It was noted that sometimes there is conflict at different levels in terms of reporting requirements, generating frustration when duplicate information is requested. Reporting is thought of as being proportional in some areas but there is a broad desire to have this reduced.

6.4.3. Collaborative Working

Through engaging with Scottish Government policy teams, it was noted that, while colleagues are keen to collaborate with other policy areas across Scottish Government, it can be difficult to make connections and have a holistic view of ongoing policy development across policy areas. Policy teams in some areas such as Child Poverty are making progress through mapping the various policy commitments across Government and linking in with those teams. However, colleagues continue to work towards a more joined-up policy approach across the organisation. Similarly, learning from cross-boundary local authority/CPP working and best practices is welcomed from strategic partners who work across localities.

6.4.4. Crisis Response to “Hot Topics”/World Events

Partially a question of resources and funding, the breadth of responsibility on some individuals mean the there is little overhead capacity in local teams such that when “Hot Topics” or world events require a response, other duties are temporarily de-prioritised. Not only was this reported to impact on existing work, but it further reduces any dedicated capacity for change and transformation work required for long term, strategic change and taking more time to deliver person-centred services.

Since the publication of the CRS, there have been several such events requiring a crisis response, some of which are outlined here:

Cost of Living The national landscape has changed significantly in a strikingly short period of time and it was felt that the CRS did not reflect current trends or issues. When the CRS was published in October 2021, the “cost of living crisis” was not seen to be in the public consciousness (Figure 7). However, this now weighs heavily on resources and is a key influence on decision making.

The cost of living crisis is a key priority and cost of living crisis groups have been set up to make rapid responses to challenging faced by local communities. There is clear recognition that there are now a whole new group of people that were reasonably financially secure and very stable now facing these issues; making those in danger of in-work poverty a key focus for across multiple CPP areas.

Figure 7: Relative Interest Over Time on Google for “Cost of Living Crisis” in the UK over the past 12 months. Numbers represent search interest relative to the highest point on the chart for the given region and time. A value of 100 is the peak popularity for the term. A value of 50 means that the term is half as popular. A score of 0 means there was not enough data for this term.

100 Relative Interest Over Time on Google for ‘Cost of Living Crisis in the UK

80

60

40

20

0

22/08/21 05/11/21 19/01/21 04/04/21 18/06/21

Resettlement Schemes Another prominent recent example is the Ukrainian resettlement scheme, which is a priority with a significant impact on local resources. For most policy and local areas, they do not have experience in dealing with such high numbers of people resettling in such a short period of time. However, all areas reported that they dealing with this as an urgent priority, remembering that these are people that have been displaced from a conflict situation and are working tirelessly ‘behind the scenes’ to ensure they are supported. Local areas continue to support displaced people from across the world, relying on existing resettlement processes scaled to support everyone making Scotland their home. It was noted by many CPPs that this has become a focus for them, necessitating de-prioritisation of other work.

Resettlement projects have also impacted policy areas; not limited to resource but also funding and policy changes. Teams within Scottish Government have been created to enable the Super Sponsorship Scheme is deliverable through Local Authorities, with support from CoSLA and key third sector organisations (for instance Scottish Refugee Council). This enablement presents itself as additional funding to support the resettlement through UK Government sponsored individual payments and host Local Authority support. Various stakeholders including Department for Work and Pensions are working with Local Authorities and Social Security Scotland to ensure processes are in place to expedite access to National Insurance numbers; helping with employment and / or benefit allocation.

Resource Spending Review The resource spending review offers a framework for establishing priorities within which partners and Scottish Government can plan for the future. For the first time in over a decade it provides Scottish Government and partners with multi-year spending parameters. The resources spending review takes account of the world-wide economic volatilities due in part to those challenges highlighted in previous sections.

As an event internal to Scottish Government, the recent resource spending review has given a challenge to some policy teams on how they prioritise action and funding in a more resource constrained environment. It does, however offer a platform on which the conversation on how best to navigate the challenging financial position whilst also transforming and improving public service to make sure the people and communities receive the support now and in the future.

6.4.5. Data & Intelligence Sharing

As there is an increasing requirement to deliver more of services in collaboration with partners, across local authorities, NHS, or organisations from the voluntary or private sector, evidence is clear that the absence of common platform for secure data sharing hinders the legitimate exchange of intelligence and/or information.

For more national data sets there are other issues in play. The lack of a single, national, secure and agreed platform for storage is a significant hindrance. This gap has caused the creation of various solutions acceptable to some while not others. Stakeholders suggested that agreement at CPIB level in conjunction with partners and Scottish Government would be required to develop considerations of a shared platform.

Sharing of statistical data to support a range of CPP reports that include the LOIPs, local authority plans, CPP Groups and Community Justice is commonplace. However, a broad cultural and behavioural barrier is risk aversion to sharing data, with individuals defaulting to not sharing data to ensure that they are not in breach of any legislation. An additional reported challenge is the lack of analytical resource available which is reflected across many partners in some areas.

6.4.6. Funding Flexibility

Policy areas have identified funding flexibility as a key enabler and blocker to delivering CRS and Programme for Government commitments, as evidenced in section 5.2.

Limitations around multi-year settlements requires policy areas to undertake significant additional work annually to agree year-by-year funding options; with some key projects unable to secure final year funding. That said, this has driven some positive reprioritisation for certain priorities providing a deliverable that ensures a person-centred approach and for instance, sustainable jobs for the future through focusing on the core requirements or redefining of capital projects with those seeking additional third-party finance support. Other areas have taken the challenging decision to pause progress in order to explore alternative routes and partnerships to enable delivery.

Policies with specific target groups, such as children and young people have deliverables that are demand-led, budgets have been set based on projections with regular monitoring to flag any challenges with delivery.

Statutory community planning partners (including the local authority, NHS board, HSCP, Police Scotland, SFRS, enterprise agency, etc) have both the power and statutory responsibility to resource the work of CPPs. Section 14(3) of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 requires statutory partners to “contribute such funds, staff and other resources as the community planning partnership considers appropriate” for improving local outcomes and securing community participation in community planning. However, it was reported that the lack of truly devolved funding for CPPs to trial tests of change or to design services differently also provides challenges, with many services only managing to contribute ‘in kind’ by providing resource time or use of buildings.

It was highlighted that funding in relation to actions included in the CRS comes to Local Government with challenging conditions and reporting requirements attached, which local authorities have highlighted as often being time consuming and bureaucratic, and which can have implications on delivery (see section 6.4.2 above).

In addition, while the resource spending review aims to provide a long-term plan, focusing on delivering outcomes that will improve the lives of the people of Scotland over the next 3 years, the indication in the resource spending review that there will be no increase to Local Government’s core funding in the next 3 years has caused concern to be raised locally about the implications of this challenging financial landscape in terms of the delivery of a range of policies, including commitments set out in the CRS.

6.4.7. Resources

Suspension of services during the pandemic allowed flexibility of resources to support other services, however now services have opened back up, these resources are returning to the “day jobs”, leaving crucial services under resourced.

Resource support from national partners is inconsistent across CPP areas, compounded with knowledge gaps/skills deficit as a result of stakeholders retiring or moving on, has added significant pressures to CPP areas.

Current demands on all organisations mean that the flexibility to personalise and mould service provision was reported to be very challenging. Observations suggest some services are increasingly stretched as demand exceeds capacity across partnership arrangements.

Policy colleagues also highlighted that they are often working in small teams and at full capacity, making it difficult to take on additional responsibilities such as contributing to tracking documents (see section 6.4.2 above). This was expanded on by teams who work directly with funding applications, such as colleagues from the Just Transition Fund and the Green Jobs Fund, who dedicate substantial time and effort to reviewing applications, with applicants often bidding for a number of funds until they are successful.