Supporting Communities Fund: evaluation

6. Partnership working

Given the fact that partnership working played such a key role in administering the SCF, the follow-up survey also asked CAOs about their experience of working in partnership with funded organisations to disburse the funds. Although CAOs were not asked in this question to comment on their experience of working in partnership with the IFPs, many organisations took the opportunity to do so. Further, organisations were not specifically asked to comment on their experiences of partnership working in their monitoring forms. However, as elsewhere in this report, where comments were made on this topic, these responses are reported alongside analysis from the survey.

Of the 161 organisations that made up the analysis sample, 121 organisations provided a response relating to partnership working. Of these, the majority (60%) stated that their experience of partnership working had been positive, while a fifth (20%) identified specific challenges. Thirty-nine percent of the organisations discussed their experiences of the process of setting up and delivering the partnership.

6.1 Positive partnerships

6.1.1 Funded organisations

Organisations' experiences of working in partnership to deliver the SCF were generally positive. Although many of the organisations chose to elaborate on the specific factors that contributed to their positive experience of partnership working, several organisations did not and made generally positive comments, as illustrated in the following quotations:

"We have an excellent relationship with partners in our locality." (Community anchor organisation, North Lanarkshire)

"It was very productive and beneficial to groups, we already had a strong relationship so no challenges." (Community anchor organisation, Clackmannanshire)

Those organisations that provided more detailed answers felt the support they received through partnership working in terms of coordination, skill sharing and resources had been key to delivering their projects and in reaching the number of people they had. Smaller organisations in particular, highlighted that in working in partnership with other organisations they were able to access skills and resources they would not have been able otherwise and this allowed them to extend their reach. For example, one organisation felt that due to the number of partners involved and the range of services offered, they were able to achieve comprehensive coverage across the community:

"Our partnership was extremely productive. Due to the range of partners around the (virtual) table, we covered the community from cradle to grave. The inclusion of third sector, private and public sectors […] all working together offered a huge range of support. Our experience of partnership working has been enhanced as result of taking part in the SCF Programme. We believe we have had extremely productive partnerships , with very little in the way of challenges." (Community anchor organisation, South Lanarkshire)

Some organisations formed new partnerships with funded organisations through the SCF process to help them disburse the funding but many of the organisations used the partnerships and relationships already present in their work and within the community. As a result, these organisations were able to draw on existing relationships to deliver their projects, allowing them to reach as many people as possible in a short amount of time. For example, one organisation working in Perth highlighted the agility of their response as a result of working with organisations already embedded in the community, where they were able to take joint decisions to tackle issues quickly. This organisation described the process of working with local funded organisations as "liberating" after finding it difficult to link in with some authorities within their local area to develop their application.

6.1.2 Intermediary funding partners

Several organisations also commented on their positive relationships with the IFPs, highlighting the support that they had provided and noting that their leadership during the response had been key to delivering their projects. For example, one organisation highlighted the flexibility and quick decision making their IFP had demonstrated in the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic which allowed them to successfully deliver their response.

6.2 Challenges

Although the majority of organisations found partnership working to be a positive experience, a fifth of organisations that commented on this topic encountered specific challenges that made their experience of partnership working more difficult. Challenges experienced by organisations relating to partnership working included difficulties in working with the local authority, working remotely, coordination, local bureaucracy (where organisations found localised systems and processes frustrating) and a lack of support at some stages of the project.

Just under a quarter of the organisations identifying challenges highlighted difficulties in working with their local authority. These challenges related to the speed of the local authority response, difficulties relating to communication and differing approaches to service delivery. For example, one organisation identified a certain level of frustration across the third sector when it came to sharing information and resources with the local authority. This organisation expressed a perception that the systems used by the local authority did not have the flexibility required to recognise or respond quickly enough to need. Another organisation felt the partnership generally worked well but reported issues around processes and a "top-down approach" when working with the local authority.

However, it was noted by other organisations that a delayed response by local authorities could be due to the additional administrative requirements that they had to meet.

Being able to coordinate and communicate with partners while working virtually were also identified as issues. For one organisation, although they felt the partnership worked well overall, they felt that the organisations involved in the partnership were operating in a reactive manner and the ability to address this, and plan collectively, was limited due to meetings taking place over the phone or by online video conferencing. Similarly, another organisation found changes in staff or volunteer arrangements more difficult to navigate when communication was taking place remotely.

Several organisations mentioned difficulties around different organisations within the partnership seeking recognition. For example, one organisation highlighted a situation where organisations with overlapping remits were 'grappling' to be seen as the most significant provider of food parcels. This organisation expressed disappointment that what they perceived to be possessiveness and local politics had distracted from the success of the response. This sentiment was echoed by another organisation who initially found it difficult to reach some groups due to other organisations feeling a sense of 'ownership' over service users:

"Our biggest challenge was the age-old issue of 'possession' and 'ownership'. Some organisations were initially suspicious as to why we wanted to help 'their' people, things calmed down when we described a service whereby they would still engage with their own service users and just report back to us on levels of activity, in line with some funding provided via us as the anchor organisation." (Community anchor organisation, Glasgow City)

Other issues were each noted by one organisation in the sample. These related to difficulties in coordinating so many groups at once while supporting less experienced groups; issues around obtaining monitoring information from organisations; and, in one case, the organisation felt the low level of grant awarded was due to the fact that their partner had taken the lead on their application and submitted a poor request for funding.

6.3 Future of partnerships

The 117 organisations that responded to the follow-up survey were also asked if the partnerships established during the SCF funding process were continuing now the project has ended. Of the organisations that responded to the follow-up survey, 111 organisations responded to the question. Of these, the majority of organisations (87%) indicated that the partnership was continuing now that the project had been delivered, while 4% explicitly stated that the partnership was not continuing. The other responses to the questions (9%) did not specifically say whether the partnership was continuing or the response provided wasn't clear enough to be included in the analysis.

It is also important to note that a number of organisations that participated in the SCF funding process drew on partnerships that were already established.

6.4.1 Partnership continuing

Organisations that indicated the partnership was continuing tended to fall into two categories, those that were maintaining the partnership in a formal way such as through formal structures or governance and those that maintained the partnership in an informal way through continuing communication or exchange of information.

Other organisations did not specify the form in which the partnership was continuing but simply indicated they intended the partnership to continue.

Organisations that formalised the partnerships established during the SCF funding process did so using a number of methods, including partnership frameworks, shared vision documents and continued distribution of funding. In one case, two organisations involved in a partnership were considering merging.

Another organisation highlighted that they were currently working on a framework to allow the partnership to continue long term. They had established a steering group and sub-groups to guide the projects already in place, and were also drafting a memorandum of understanding.

Other organisations indicated that their partnerships were continuing in a less formalised way through the maintenance of communications and continuing to share information. Organisations that commented on this theme noted that their response to the Covid-19 pandemic had been stronger working together and they wanted to maintain these relationships for the benefit of the community going forward.

Many of the organisations were keen to strengthen the partnerships in ways that could make them sustainable over the longer term after the immediate needs arising from the pandemic had been addressed. These responses tended to be linked to instances where organisations had identified learning and insight related to community issues, which are discussed elsewhere in this report (see section 7.3.3). In this respect, the continuation of the partnership was often seen by organisations as important to allow them to address the emergent needs identified over the course of the funding period, such as the sharp increase in people suffering from poor mental health and food insecurity. For example, one organisation sought to strengthen the partnerships they had established by arranging a series of development sessions. This resulted in the production of a locality area plan which provided a focus for the partnership going forward.

A small number of organisations noted that their partnerships had already existed prior to applying to the SCF but their experience of the funding process had strengthened these relationships and they expected them to continue. Other organisations had applied to the Communities Recovery Fund (CRF) with the same partnership they had developed through the SCF process.

6.4.2 Partnership not continuing

Only 4 organisations explicitly stated that the partnership established during the SCF process was not continuing. One organisation indicated that they were bringing the partnership to an end but still intended to keep in touch with the organisations involved, while another highlighted that the partnership had developed into a new volunteer network.

One organisation noted that after the CEO of the IFP they worked with changed, the priorities of the partnership shifted, resulting in the relationship becoming one-sided. The organisation felt that the partnership was now more driven by profit rather than by the needs of the community, meaning that there was no urge to allocate staff time to strengthening the partnership. As a result, the partnership had ended. The final organisation indicated the partnership was not continuing but did not provide a specific reason for this decision.

6.4.3 Help to maintain the partnership

In addition to asking organisations that responded to the follow-up survey whether the partnership was continuing, the survey also asked organisations what would help them maintain the partnership going forward. Of those organisations that responded to the survey, 96 organisations provided a response to this question.

All of the organisations that responded to the question had provided a response to the question on whether the partnership was continuing. Two of the organisations that indicated the partnership was not continuing also provided an answer to this question. One of these organisations indicated that more funding support would have allowed them to continue the partnership, while the other organisation was concerned that the partnership was now being driven by profit, as previously mentioned.

Organisations where the partnership was continuing identified a number of factors that would help them maintain the partnership going forward. These included more funding, more ways to maintain communication and improve engagement, better coordination, increased capacity and further insight into community issues.

The majority of organisations responding to the question of what would help them maintain the partnership felt that further funding would be helpful, be that further funding generally, core funding or funding to provide more support to the community. Many of the organisations felt that although SCF funding had provided them with the support to establish and maintain the partnership, more sustainable funding over the longer term was needed to maintain the partnership going forward. These comments tended to be closely linked to comments relating to emerging priorities, which are discussed in Chapter 6, where organisations felt that although SCF had addressed immediate and emergency needs within their communities, more sustained solutions were needed. For example, one organisation felt that:

"Multi year funding [is needed] so that Anchor organisations can widen their remit, have other income sources, which will allow them to provide a much more comprehensive package of supports for smaller groups and organisations, so that Covid recovery and economic recovery can be assisted by those orgs which know best what the emerging needs to local people are. This approach aligns well with some of the priorities set in the Scottish Government Social Enterprise National strategy 2016-2026. By supporting/resourcing anchor organisations properly, who are well established, are key service providers and are local people, we have a much more effective mechanism in getting people engaged to support recovery and growth and build community resilience again." (Community anchor organisation, North Lanarkshire)

Several organisations felt that further funding was needed to continue to effectively develop the relationships and joint working arrangements they had established. While others felt that being given more opportunities to apply for funding jointly would further cement relationships and encourage collaborative working.

A number of CAOs felt that further funding to cover core operating costs was needed to help them maintain their relationships with funded organisations. These comments tended to focus on the fact that anchor organisations could not be expected to maintain the partnerships with smaller organisations without further investment and resources to provide longer term security. One organisation noted that without more investment in core funding they simply did not have the staff capacity to maintain the relationships with partners.

A small number of organisations highlighted the need for further funding support to invest in the community. Organisations that commented on this theme recognised the benefits delivered in the community using SCF funding and wanted further funding to continue their projects or similar funding (for example specialising in small grants) to be made available to address ongoing community need.

Several organisations felt improving communication and better engagement with partner organisations would help them to maintain the partnership going forward. For some, this involved being supported to facilitate people in lead roles, while continuing to meet and discuss common interests and needs. Other organisations expressed the hope that the funded organisations would continue to engage in dialogue with them now the project had ended. Organisations expressing this view wanted to be kept informed of the benefits delivered through the funding and to establish if the funded organisations needed continued support. For example, one organisation was unsure how long contact with funded organisations should be maintained but felt that continued communication was a positive:

"I'm not sure. I would think from the public sector point of view, ongoing contact would be good to ensure that their investment is maximised. Maybe that's contact every 3-6 months, don't really know." (Community anchor organisation, Highland)

A number of the organisations felt that they would need to increase organisational capacity to maintain the partnership going forward, either in terms of recruiting more staff or taking on more volunteers. Almost all the organisations identifying a need for further funding to increase capacity wanted to hire additional staff to specifically focus on developing the partnership and build on the relationships established through the SCF funding process. One organisation felt that there was a degree of volunteer fatigue and more funding was needed to support the volunteer effort.

Other ways to maintain the partnership going forward were each noted by two or fewer organisations. These organisations identified training on how to deliver and manage community projects; more guidance around funding and longer-term community strategies; feedback from funded organisations; and establishing common goals as ways that the partnership could be supported.