|
| Path: NIACE Home Page > Projects > R&D > Voluntary Sector > LSC Final Report |
See also: Regional Reports
The Final Report and Recommendations of the joint NIACE/WEA Regional Seminars
Published: May 2000
| Although the series of seminars was funded by the DfEE, the views and recommendations in this report arise largely from the meetings themselves and are therefore independent of the Department which has yet to consider them. |
|
This Report summarises the main issues arising from a series of nine regional seminars for the voluntary sector delivered between February and March 2000 on behalf of the DfEE by NIACE and the WEA. It also offers a series of recommendations for future action that are founded largely on issues arising from discussion at these events and which have been correlated with more recent government proposals and policy developments. The proposals are intended to ensure that voluntary and community organisations are able to engage positively with the emerging planning and funding framework for adult learning.
The broad aims of the meetings were:
 | to ensure that a cross-section of voluntary and community bodies are informed about the emerging Learning and Skills Council (LSC) and the opportunities and challenges that will arise from the new structures and processes. |
| to identify issues and support needs that will affect the capacity of the sector to engage with the Local Learning and Skills Councils (LLSCs). |
| to explore the potential contribution of the sector to widening participation in learning and the creation of a culture of lifelong learning. |
| to consolidate regional and sub-regional sector networking. |
| to ensure that the work of the LLSCs and other key bodies is informed by the diverse perspectives of voluntary sector organisations. |
The programme struck a balance between dissemination of information and discussion and comment by participants. An explanatory leaflet outlining the new structures was distributed in advance to all delegates along with other background information. The issues raised throughout each meeting were recorded carefully and incorporated into reports for each event. These have been submitted to the DfEE and circulated to all participants. Copies of the leaflet and the reports are also available either in hard copy or in electronic format from both NIACE and the WEA.
The series brought together a broad range of national, regional and local organisations offering a mix of levels of engagement with adult learning and different funding regimes. This included training agencies, educational charities, welfare organisations, and community action groups. The Government Offices of the Regions (GORs) were also represented at most events and their contributions both during and after the seminars were most helpful. For example, in the North East, the Government Office responded swiftly and positively to concern expressed by delegates that they were unaware of the parallel consultation events being organised by the GORs. Immediate steps were taken, with the co-operation of NIACE/WEA, to send out a separate mailing to all delegates who were able to fill remaining places. The Government Office in the South West has also asked for help in a similar exercise.
In total, 578 people registered to attend the seminars which were mostly heavily oversubscribed. In view of this and of the significance of the issues under discussion there was a strong desire amongst participants to ensure that the information offered through the series was available more widely. To help in this process, an electronic version of the series leaflet was emailed to delegates for wider circulation, along with a contact list for each meeting.
All participants were encouraged to complete an evaluation form assessing the quality and usefulness of the events and many of their observations and ideas have been incorporated into the recommendations in the final section of this report. As part of this process delegates were asked to rate their event on a simple scale between ‘very good’ and ‘very poor’. The outcome overall was: 82 very good, 160 good, 31 satisfactory and 1 poor. In their comments delegates referred particularly to the value and quality of the discussions and undoubtedly the potent mixture of perspectives and experience at each event generated some rich debates about the work of the sector.
The series has galvanised interest in the proposed LLSCs and enthusiasm for the potential role of the voluntary sector within them. There is a clear desire to sustain the momentum created by the meetings and to ensure the full engagement of voluntary and community organisations with the developing post-16 framework. However, as the issues and recommendations offered below clearly demonstrate, there is also significant concern about access for voluntary and community organisations to the new structures and widespread scepticism about the extent to which patterns of disadvantage will actually change. Of course, this must pose challenges for the sector in terms of how it perceives, changes and presents itself but LLSCs and other key bodies such as Local Learning Partnerships (LLPs) must also recognise and respond to the charge that more powerful organisations will usually find ways of reinventing and protecting their histories and privileges.
Unedited lists of participants’ opinions were presented in the regional reports for each event. The following account synthesises the key issues raised over the whole series.
Participants welcomed the intention to ensure voluntary sector engagement with the LSC framework at national, regional and sub-regional levels. It was argued strongly however, that realisation of this ambition depends upon the capacity of LLSCs to work constructively with the small and local nature of many sector organisations. In view of this, participants felt that LLSCs should establish and maintain:
| procedures that recognise, value and accommodate the diversity of voluntary sector organisations and which are informed by their views through direct membership of LLSCs and through the work of LLSC staff designated to liase with the sector. |
| positive action practices to ensure equality of access for voluntary and community organisations from within the minority ethnic communities, systems to monitor levels of engagement, and processes to respond to evidence of under-representation. |
| practical support mechanisms for individuals who become actively involved with LLSCs and LLPs, such as dependant care, travel expenses, paid cover for leave taken etc. |
| effective channels of communication to ensure that all actual and potential voluntary and community sector providers are informed of LLSC aims, priorities, resources and activities. |
| networks that bring together voluntary sector bodies in order to encourage mutual support and a sense of unity. |
| mechanisms that ensure voluntary organisations have proper access to all strategic bodies including Local Authorities (LAs) and LLPs. |
| a culture of openness and accountability through public meetings and the wide dissemination of decisions. |
| practices that ensure that the views of non-learners are included in planning, delivery and evaluation of learning provision. |
| flexible arrangements that allow for existing effective partnership activity to continue into the new framework and which avoid undermining useful current practice. |
Participants welcomed the Government's recognition of the central role of voluntary organisations in the delivery of learning opportunities for people at risk of exclusion from the post-16 education framework. In particular, proposals to simplify the funding regime, to ensure direct access to LSC funds, to ease routes into European money, and to provide additional resources to meet the needs of disadvantaged learners were all seen as major advances. However, it was contended that if voluntary and community organisations are to realise their full potential as providers LLSCs must address certain capacity, status and resource issues. Participants argued that there should be:
| a realistic culture of collaboration between providers that seriously challenges inequitable patterns of competition for funds and that supports the more frequent use of voluntary organisations as lead bodies. |
| support for the often high development and revenue costs of much community-based provision. |
| realistic planning time scales that recognise the resource limitations of many voluntary organisations. |
| mid to long-term funding agreements as a means of sustaining small organisations. |
| recognition of the limited administrative capacity of small organisations and of the need to set reporting requirements appropriately for the size and nature of providers. |
| the need for financial and practical support systems to be established that help develop the skills of staff and volunteers involved in community-based learning. |
Government proposals for systems to assure the quality of post-16 learning generated considerable debate throughout the seminar series. Although participants felt confident of the quality of much community-based provision, there was an appreciation that improving standards was a central issue for providers in all sectors. However, concerns were expressed that new quality assurance requirements might be inappropriate to the resources available to smaller voluntary organisations and to the nature of the informal and community-based provision that many of them offer. It was felt that government should work closely with the voluntary sector to develop quality assurance standards and an inspection framework that:
| reflect the diverse circumstances of the panoply of organisations that will fall within the OFSTED and ALI remit. |
| create a supportive and collaborative environment within which objective judgements about provision can be made. |
| allow for broad interpretations of learning gain, including collective as well as individual benefit, and a correspondingly broad range of evidence. |
| avoid unnecessary or inappropriate administrative burdens on organisations with limited resources. |
| avoid undermining or constraining the flexibility, creativity and responsiveness that characterises much voluntary sector provision. |
A number of recommendations have emerged through the series and underpinning most of them are concerns over capacity. This issue is both internal and external to the sector. It includes both the capacity of voluntary and community bodies to engage with the new structures and to fulfil their potential as providers of learning, and also the capacity of key bodies within the new structures (LLSCs, LAs, LLPs, GORs) to recognise and work with the sector. The following recommendations address both facets.
There is a real danger that people from under-represented groups will be further excluded because of barriers around dependant care, travel, and the cost to them (or to their organisation) of time taken away from work to fulfil Board duties. Individuals should be reimbursed but equally there needs to be some mechanism for minimising the drain on smaller organisations of covering for absent staff. Although it is clear that people are eligible for membership as individuals and not as representatives, it is their sector/organisational experience that distinguishes the value of their contribution.
One of the key tasks of the proposed outreach teams would be to help identify and consolidate the learning elements of existing sector activities in order to bridge into crucial ‘first steps’ provision. Such expertise is around within the sector but not in sufficient quantities – making it available and readily identifiable within all LLSC areas would have a major impact on the perspectives and skills of voluntary bodies.
LLSCs and LLPs should account for their response to the voluntary sector and be required to demonstrate not only the extent of sector membership and active participation in their decision making but also the scale and character of measures taken to secure sector perspectives. This should be augmented by a requirement for LLSC Boards to ensure that one of their members has a designated responsibility to support the development of the LLSCs engagement with the sector. The National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal proposes that GORs should ‘police’ Community Learning Partnerships in relation to, amongst other things, the extent to which they fulfil their responsibility to involve the community (NSNR: Appendix D). That duty could be extended to include the work of LLPs.
The complexity and diversity of the voluntary sector make the processes of accessing LLSC funding, of informing and reporting on LLSC work and of engaging with other key bodies particularly problematic. A level of coherence within and between regions and sub-regions is essential and although some areas have substantial networks and consortia in place, others are notably less well organised. Furthermore, even the most subtle of existing matrices will need support to ensure that they are focussing properly on the new arrangements and are developing appropriately.
Support for infrastructure would also help to secure the "Undertaking by Government" in its Compact with the sector to "pay particular regard to the concept of strategic funding, ensuring the continued capacity of voluntary and community organisations to respond to Government initiatives." Considered more broadly, effective co-ordination of the diverse contributions of the sector could play a significant role in achieving the government’s objective of an integrated and sustainable approach to community regeneration and secure a much-needed stronger presence for community and voluntary organisations in that process. It should also complement the proposed new responsibility for GORs to co-ordinate and influence any regional activity that impacts upon deprived neighbourhoods (NSNR:Key Idea 23).
There is no merit in creating unnecessary new bodies and, with appropriate resources, the Forum might develop out of existing structures. However, there is a perceived need for a broad-based coalition of interested agencies that could provide a national site for strategic discussions around learning and training issues. The Forum would report and make recommendations to the national Adult Learning Committee of the LSC and be a source of intelligence for the proposed Whitehall Department, Unit or Joint Ministerial Group (NSNR: Key Idea 22) and a wider circle of appropriate bodies and services such as ALI/OFSTED, LLSCs, LLPs, LAs, Connexions, the Guidance Council, the Active Community Unit and the proposed National Centre for Neighbourhood Renewal (NSNR: Key Ideas 13 & 29). Its membership would be drawn from a range of organisations, including the LLSCs (to ensure the inclusion of more local perspectives) and key players such as NACVS, NCVO, VSNTO, PAOLO, NIACE and WEA.
The ‘Newsletter’ would also detail appropriate resources and disseminate key findings and proposals from the 'National Voluntary Sector Forum'. Distribution would be either electronically or as hard copy to national bodies, regional and sub-regional networks and via email 'trees' of local voluntary and community organisations. The 'Newsletter' would be a key source of information for the emerging infrastructure supporting the involvement of voluntary bodies with the new framework.
The PAT Skills Report highlights the need for better training for FE professionals to equip them to tackle the particular problems of deprived areas (NSNR: Key Idea 1). This recommendation should extend to voluntary sector staff and activists to help them obtain the skills needed to meet the requirements of LLSCs and the challenges of their central role in relation to ‘first rung’ provision and other key regeneration initiatives such as the proposed Neighbourhood Learning Centres.
Training needs must be addressed at both national and local levels to allow organisations equal access to support opportunities and to ensure coherent approaches. The VSNTO, PAOLO and the Adult Learning Committee should undertake to co-ordinate and monitor training and other staff/activist development strategies. Correspondence with parallel activity by FENTO would help to encourage cross-sectoral work in the field and the development of progression routes for learners. Links should also be established with the proposed National Centre for Neighbourhood Renewal which would have responsibility for developing strategies for improving the training of public sector professionals and practitioners working in deprived areas, in order to ensure that these are informed by voluntary sector approaches.
National training activities should be underpinned by targeted funds and supported by accessible, basic training materials directed towards voluntary sector bodies engaged in the development and delivery of adult learning. These would be founded on effective practice and theory in community-based and informal learning and would be supported by regional and sub-regional workshops and/or distance learning packages.
This would signal a proper recognition of sector bodies as providers of adult learning and offer a means of addressing the capacity building issues inherent in that role, particularly in relation to the emerging quality assurance framework.
Quality thresholds are not solely about recognising the virtue of high standards; they become an access issue when they underpin funding allocations, particularly for organisations with limited resources for staff development. There is a significant possibility that without external funding voluntary bodies will become excluded from the table because they lack the capacity to meet LSC criteria. This would not only defeat the stated intention of the Prospectus to open up the field to new providers from amongst voluntary organisations, it would also suppress the capacity of the sector to fulfil its acknowledged potential as a key provider for disadvantaged communities and major force behind the regeneration of depressed neighbourhoods (NSNR: Chapter 6).
OFSTED and the new Adult Learning Inspectorate (ALI) should work with the Adult Learning Committee and practitioners to develop a regime that uses a range of evidence to evaluate learning gain and which acknowledges the importance of process as well as outcomes. A reductive overemphasis on simple output measures will undervalue such provision and may well force providers to abandon creative and imaginative options in favour of more 'formal' and accredited programmes that may be inappropriate to the learners concerned.
The first funding consultation document is unclear about the status of voluntary sector consortia as intermediary bodies. Not only does this need clarification but there should also be an explicit recognition that this role is more than a convenient financial mechanism for easing the flow of LLSC funds to smaller organisations.
Such arrangements would strengthen possibilities for coherent decision making within the sector and the development of models of democratic practice that could inform the wider work of the Councils. Devolved responsibility for quality assurance would have significant capacity building consequences as the necessary skills are nurtured within the sector to enable larger organisations to help smaller bodies meet required standards. These contingent benefits would obtain appropriate recognition and resourcing through opportunities for consortia to apply to the proposed 'Voluntary Sector Standards Fund'.
Appropriate links should be established between the Active Community Unit and the LSC to ensure the universal adoption of best practice in relation to funding allocations. Consideration should be given to the recommendation of payment of voluntary sector organisations in advance, rather than in arrears, and the provision of support for development workers in priority areas (NSNR: p.69).
The funding terrain should be viewed as wide and linking with other initiatives such as Health Action Zones and New Deal and voluntary bodies should be recognised as part of the SME sector. Above all, LLSCs must be alert to the widespread and deeply held concern within the sector about unequal competition for limited funds between voluntary organisations and more substantial and experienced providers. As the PAT Skills Report observed "where local voluntary and community structures do exist, their effectiveness is significantly hampered by the funding and regulatory environment in the public sector, which is not well adapted to the needs of small organisations and which can make it difficult for them to cross the necessary threshold to become providers of learning".
These members of staff would contribute specialist knowledge and guidance to the work of other employees and to the overall engagement of the LLSCs with voluntary and community organisations. Their work would complement the contributions of the LLSC Board member who held the brief to support the work of LLSCs with the sector.
Their remit would include monitoring the allocation of LLSC funds to sector providers to underpin the development of benchmarks for spending on or through community organisations (see NSNR: Principle 2, Recommendation 14). This would help to redress the current imbalance in differential spending on disadvantaged areas which is significantly less in the field of education than for most other types of public expenditure – identified as a desirable strategic objective for LLSCs by the PAT Skills Report. It would also help to target funding towards more local rather than wider area initiatives increasing the LLSC’s flexibility and responsiveness to the particular needs of deprived neighbourhoods.
Michael Freeston (WEA)
Cheryl Turner (NIACE)
May 2000
