March 2014

1. The Strategic Funding Partnership model
2. Evaluating the Strategic Funding Partnership model
3. The Framework for Evaluating the Quality of Services and Organisations
4. A framework to support the evaluation of the Strategic Funding Partnership model
5. Key quality indicators for reviewing the Strategic Funding Partnership model
6. How will Education Scotland evaluate the Strategic Funding Partnership model?
7. Building Capacity for Continuous Improvement
8. Themed groupings of organisations
Appendix 1 Strategic Funding Partnerships
1

A Strategic Funding Partnership (SFP) is an agreement between the Scottish
Government and a third sector organisation. The agreement is focused on the delivery of one or more Scottish Government outcomes, where the organisation is uniquely placed to assist with delivery and improve outcomes for children, young people, adults, families and communities.
In March 2013, funding of £20 million through the Third Sector Early Intervention
Fund was announced by Scottish Government. This funding replaced the previous
Headquarter Grants. As a result of overbids to the Third Sector Early Intervention fund in April 2013, the Minister for Children and Young People, Aileen Campbell, announced significant additional funding to be made available over two years to fund an assigned number of organisations through SFPs. This funding was to strengthen the work of young people’s organisations working across Scotland, in areas such as adoption, vulnerable families, child health, literacy, bereavement counselling and parental support. Further additional monies were also allocated over two years to
Education Scotland in their role as policy lead for Adult Learning to support the establishment of SFPs with nine national organisations identified by Ministers.
Forty-six organisations received support through these SFPs to enhance or develop work focused on supporting the needs of children, young people, adults, families and communities.
Scottish Government officials worked with 36 and Education Scotland with the remaining nine national voluntary organisations during spring 2013 to determine the outcomes each are expected to deliver and to agree the SFP funding that each would receive. Each organisation has a linked official with a monitoring role. The agreed outcomes shaped the work of each organisation to meet Scottish
Government outcomes. It should be noted that actual agreements and monitoring activities are different both within Scottish Government, and between Scottish
Government and Education Scotland. This has resulted in more than one ‘model’ being applied.
SFP arrangements provide an opportunity to encourage organisations to work together more coherently where this will deliver better services for children, families and communities, and deliver better value for money.
As part of the allocation of the funding package it was agreed that HM Inspectors from Education Scotland would carry out an independent evaluation of the
‘model’ of
SFPs. Working with the funded organisations and colleagues in Scottish
Government, HM Inspectors will undertake an evaluation of the model of funding through a SFP from April to June 2014. The interim findings of this evaluative activity will be presented to the Minister. HM Inspectors may continue with further evaluative activity thereafter. No individual organisations will be evaluated as part of the evaluation of the funding model from April to June 2014.
2

This framework is designed to support HM Inspectors from Education Scotland to carry out this work. Organisations within SFPs may also find it useful to assist them as part of their own self-evaluation. It will help organisations to reflect on what difference being part of a SFP has made to their performance and to help them identify priorities for future action.
This document should be read along with the Education Scotland resource How good is our third sector organisation?
It focuses on impact and outcomes as the main aim of self-evaluation is to improve outcomes for children, young people, adults, families and communities.
This document is based on the Framework for Evaluating the Quality of Services and
Organisations (known as the Overarching Framework ). This framework is the basis for many models for evaluation across the public and third sector. These include local authorities, public services who now work together under the auspices of the
Care Inspectorate and some charitable organisations.
The Overarching Framework provides a systematic structure for self-evaluation . It is firmly based on the principle that the most effective way of improving standards of service is to use a combination of rigorous evidence-based self-evaluation alongside independent external inspection.
The Overarching Framework is generic. It does not assume a particular organisational structure, type or size. It can be used in its entirety, or selected and adapted so that key Quality Indicators (QIs) and sub-elements reflect the purpose of individual organisations, and meet the specific needs of their stakeholders. Adapted
QIs can also be used selectively for external scrutiny or validation. The framework or its adaptations can also be used in conjunction with a number of other quality models and awards, for example, the Public Service Improvement Framework
(PSIF), Investors in People, Customer Service Excellence Award and ISO 9001
(British Assessment Bureau). It can be used by individual services, but will have particular value where provision across partnerships is being evaluated.
The framework can also be used thematically by extracting key QIs or elements for a specific purpose. This document is looking specifically at the model of funding for
Strategic Funding Partnerships and therefore focuses on the quality indicators most relevant to this review.
The Overarching Framework is organised under six high-level themes which enable systematic evaluation of the quality of services across ten inter-related key areas.
The six high-level themes focus first on the demonstrable outcomes and impact of the organisation or service, and then look at the key areas which contribute to these.
3

What key outcomes have we achieved?
1. Key performance outcomes
1.1 Improvement in performance
1.2 Adherence to statutory principles and fulfilment of statutory duties
What is our capacity for improvement?
10. Capacity for improvement
Global judgement based on evidence of all key areas, in particular, outcomes, impact and leadership
How well do we meet the needs of our stakeholders?
2. Impact on service users
2.1 Impact on service users
3. Impact on staff
3.1 Impact on staff
4. Impact on the community
4.1 Impact on the local community
4.2 Impact on the wider community
How good is our delivery of key processes?
5. Delivery of key processes
5.1 Delivering services
5.2 Developing, managing and improving relationships with service users and other stakeholders
5.3 Inclusion, equality and fairness
How good is our operational management?
6. Operational management
6.1 Policy review and development
6.2 Participation of service users and other stakeholders
6.3 Planning of key processes
7. Staffing
7.1 Management and deployment of staff
7.2 Career-long professional learning
8. Partnerships and resources
8.1 Partnership working
8.2 Financial management
8.3 Resource management
8.4 Knowledge and information management
How good is our strategic leadership?
9. Strategic leadership
9.1 Vision, values and aims
9.2 Leadership and direction
9.3 Leading people and developing partnerships
9.4 Leadership of innovation, change and improvement
9.5 Securing improvement of quality and impact of services
4

This document focuses on a few key quality indicators developed from the
Overarching Framework that may be used to evaluate the SFP model. This document should be read alongside the Education Scotland resource How good is our third sector organisation?
The quality indicators highlighted in the document will help identify strengths in the funding model and signpost areas for improvement. HM Inspectors will use these quality indicators when carrying out the external evaluation of the model. The external and independent evaluation will focus on the impact of the model of the
SFPs as a whole and will not review individual organisations. The use of shared quality indicators supports a partnership approach to evaluation where internal and external reviews have a shared language and agenda.
The following QIs will form the main focus for reviewing the SFP model. Under each
QI there is a range of information to help guide the understanding and use of it.
However, the information contained there should be taken only as an illustration. It is not a prescriptive list or a complete set of everything that can or should be considered under each QI. The first section gives more information on the QI and what it is intended to broadly cover. The second section is an illustration of what a very good example could look like. The final section provides challenge questions which can be used to help organisations, partners and reviewers evaluate aspects of the QI.
5

What key outcomes have Strategic Funding Partnerships achieved?
1.1 Improvement in performance
This indicator relates to knowing how the service or organisation is improving. This includes looking at how performance has changed since the model of SFP funding was introduced and how well it compares to previous funding models.
Themes

Performance in relation to key purposes.

Meeting strategic priorities, aims and objectives.

Delivering the agreed outcomes as per funding agreements.

Performance data and measures showing change.
Evidence of demonstrable outcomes will include but are not limited to:

data which shows change;

data which provides indications of the success of a service or organisation in maintaining or improving the quality of the service it provides;

data which shows the success of this funding model in comparison to other models of funding performance against outcomes from strategic and operational plans including evidence of achievement of targets; and

information about the achievement of the outcomes defined in the partnership funding agreement.
Illustration of very good

Performance information clearly demonstrates improvement against national priorities and planned outcomes as established in the partnership funding agreement.

Outcomes in the partnership agreement are being met and in some cases are being exceeded.

Outcomes have improved since becoming part of a SFP.
Challenge questions

What measures of outcomes do you use?

What changes do they reveal?

What targets have you achieved or not achieved? Why not?

Can you describe your successes?

How well do you use data to report about your work?

How well are you using the funding to improve outcomes?

How have outcomes changed since the introduction of the SFP model? How do you know?

How does this SFP model and its monitoring compare with other models of funding that you may be or may have been receiving?
Is it better or worse?
6

How effectively does the Strategic Funding Partnership model support and improve partnership working?
8.1 Partnership working
This indicator refers to the role of the SFP in promoting and encouraging effective partnership working. How effective is the SFP model in bringing together key partners at a strategic level? It can also be used by organisations to consider their roles and engagement in other appropriate funding partnerships.
Themes

Clarity of joint purposes and aims to improve outcomes.

Partnership funding agreements which improve the links between national outcomes and service delivery.

Partnership roles and responsibilities.

Partnerships between organisations.
Evidence of demonstrable outcomes will include but are not limited to:

qualitative evidence of partnership working including feedback from all partners involved;

partnership agreements that are clear, staff work to and are regularly reviewed and evaluated;

evidence gathered from discussion with senior staff that they are clear about their roles and contribution to the partnership; and arrangements between organisations which ensure gaps are identified and duplication is minimised.
Illustration of very good

The funding agreement sets a clear framework in which joint working is well established and results in the engagement of all key partners within the SFP.

Consultation and communication between organisations and the monitoring officers which is regular, structured, supportive and efficient.

The SFP model is actively supporting planning, delivering, monitoring and evaluating.
 Partners’ roles and responsibilities are clearly communicated and well understood.

Time spent together (monitoring officers and senior staff) is highly valued and purposeful.

Organisations work together to coordinate provision.
Challenge questions

How clearly have the purposes and aims of the SFP been communicated and shared?

How useful and clear are the partnership agreements and monitoring documents of the SFP?
7


How effective are the meetings between you and monitoring officers?

How clear and well understood are the roles and responsibilities of senior staff and monitoring officers?

How effectively do we work together across agencies and disciplines to reduce duplication and avoid gaps in provision?
8

How effective is the strategic leadership within the Strategic Funding
Partnership model?
9.4 Leadership of innovation, change and improvement
This indicator is concerned with the effectiveness of the strategic leadership within the funding partnership model in delivering quality, excellence and continuous improvement. A key component is the need for senior staff and monitoring officers within the partnership to provide challenge to continuously improve the quality of provision by setting demanding, but realistic performance targets and by providing high level support to assist the achievement of these. This indicator also looks at the capacity of the partnership to encourage and support innovative, creative and effect practices which bring about positive outcomes in service users lives.
Themes

Support and challenge.

Creativity, innovation and step change.

Continuous improvement.
Evidence of demonstrable outcomes will include but is not limited to:

data demonstrating progress against performance targets and outcomes set out in the SFP agreement;

quantitative data and qualitative information showing the monitoring process of the SFP is systematic, effective and supportive;

evidence of leaders across the SFP supporting staff to adapt processes in
 light of changing circumstances including importing sector leading innovation and addressing challenges in new ways; and records of risk management processes.
Illustration of very good

The partnership, principally through monitoring officers, actively and systematically takes a leading role in ensuring appropriate support and challenge. Monitoring officers and senior staff set demanding performance targets, challenge funded organisations to improve their performance, monitor performance, support continuous improvement and the pursuit of excellence.

The partnership, principally through monitoring officers, have themselves, and have supported the funded organisations, to have a very good strategic overview of what constitutes best practice. The partnership welcomes and supports creativity and innovation. Monitoring officers and senior officers encourage organisations to enhance the quality of service provision.

The partnership applies the principles and practices of risk management to proposed changes and innovations.

Innovative and excellent practice is recognised by monitoring officers and have led to improved outcomes for service users and their families.

The partnership funders lead and manage change effectively and strategically by prioritising and focusing on a manageable number of high priority initiatives and communicating them effectively to service providers.
9

Challenge questions

How well do you support and challenge and service providers to continuously improve?

How well do you use research, examples of best practice, self-evaluation and other reviews to enhance the quality of service provision?

How well do you take account of risk in proposed changes and innovations?

How well do you manage change and innovation to secure progress in a manageable number of high priority initiatives? How do you know?

How well does the partnership lead quality improvement?

How well do you build capacity for improvement? How do you know?
10

How effective is the strategic leadership within the Strategic Funding
Partnership model?
9.5 Securing improvement of quality and impact of services
This indicator relates to how well the SFP model secures improvement in services. It relates to how well the model of funding supports and enhances organisations’ capacity to self-evaluate, be innovative and contribute to national and local outcomes. It relates to how well organisations understand Scottish Government priorities and their contribution to them. This includes how SFPs apply the findings of self-evaluation to bring about and secure improvement. It examines the rigour, robustness and consistency of monitoring arrangements.
Themes

Quality of information and data from senior staff, monitoring officers and policy leads.

Arrangements for monitoring, reflective practice and self-evaluation.

Joint planning for improvement and monitoring of progress.
Evidence of demonstrable outcomes will include but is not limited to:

qualitative information and quantitative data from senior staff, monitoring officers and policy leads;

information from funded organisations showing systematic self-evaluation;

evidence demonstrating self-evaluation is present and informing joint planning; and

evidence from monitoring arrangements demonstrating a flexible and responsive approach to achieving national and local outcomes.
Illustration of very good

Providers use a variety of effective methods to gather feedback from service users and other stakeholders.

Staff in teams systematically evaluate the outcomes and impact of services they provide.

Staff reflect regularly on their practice and make improvements.

Self-evaluation is conducted at regular intervals using self-evaluation frameworks and improvements are made as a result.

Providers have effective arrangements to plan and implement service improvements.

Providers regularly use a range of effective methods to report progress to key stakeholders, including participants.
Challenge questions

How effective are your mechanisms to evaluate information from the people you work with and other stakeholders?

How well do you evaluate the outcomes of planned activities? How do you
11

know?

How do you ensure that the feedback you obtain from the people you work with and other stakeholders gives you the right information you need to improve?

What improvements have resulted from reflective practice and self-evaluation? Can you give examples?

What improvements have resulted from planning?

How do you ensure that the people you work with and other stakeholders are kept fully informed about improvements?

How often do you prepare monitoring reports and receive visits/telephone calls from monitoring officers? Is this about right/too much/too little?

What difference do monitoring officers make to helping you improve outcomes? Can you give examples of where this has been effective?
12

HM Inspectors working with partners will develop approaches to assist organisations to self-evaluate their activities.
HM Inspectors will work with partners to:

Produce and launch a framework to evaluate the SFP model;

Deliver an initial seminar for all funded organisations in November 2013;

Develop a self-evaluation framework to assist third sectors self-evaluate better;

Launch the new self-evaluation framework at a national seminar for all SPF organisations in March 2014;

Review evidence of progress, which will be generated through the SFP monitoring procedures set out in the initial agreement letters;

A nalysis of each organisation’s self-evaluation report and monitoring officer reports;

Meet with focus groups of senior officers (mainly chief executives and finance officers) from a sample of organisations and focus groups of monitoring officers;

It is likely these focus groups will be around thematic groupings groups
(please see section 8 for more information) or arranged by the ‘size’ of the organisations, based on staff numbers and, or turnover

Visit a sample of organisations from April to June 2014 to explore the overall effectiveness of the SFP model;

Offer on-going support f or self-evaluation for improvement from April 2014 to
March 2015;

Produce a high-level commentary report on the overall effectiveness of the
SFP model for submission to Ministers by the end of June.

The report will offer conclusions and recommendations about – for example: the effectiveness of the model, where it’s working well and where it could be improve d, who it’s most suitable for.

The Minister will use the findings in her discussions about the future direction of travel.
Aims
Organisations will:
Reflect on their current approaches to self-evaluation and consider ways of improving this further, building on existing strengths.
Develop an understanding of the planned independent evaluation of the SFP model to be undertaken by HM Inspectors in 2014.
13

Continue to improve outcomes and life chances for Scotland’s children, young people, families, adults and communities through:

revisiting a nd reviewing Scottish Governments’ plans for and expectations of organisations funded through SFPs;

developing knowledge and understanding of self-evaluation and how it supports improvement;

raising awareness of what others are doing through sharing self-evaluation practices.

Girlguiding Scotland
 The Boys’ Brigade

The Girls Brigade in Scotland

Scottish Youth Parliament

The Princes Trust

The Scout Association

Woodcraft Folk

YWCA Scotland

Scottish Association of Young Farmers Clubs

The Mentor Foundation UK (Mentor)

LGBT Youth Scotland

Article 12 in Scotland

Birthlink

Families Need Fathers Scotland

Family Service Unit Scotland

Fathers Network Scotland

Scottish Marriage Care

British Association for Adoption and Fostering, Scotland

Comann nam Pàrant (Nàiseanta)

Cruse Bereavement Care Scotland

National Day Nurseries Association

Parent Network Scotland

Partners in Advocacy

Relationships Scotland Core

Relationships Scotland Project
14


Genetic Alliance UK

Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland

Asthma UK Scotland

Capability Scotland

Care and Learning Alliance

Sleep Scotland

Hearts and Minds

Sense Scotland

Dyslexia Scotland

Lead Scotland

Learning Link Scotland
 Scotland’s Learning Partnership
 Workers’ Educational Association

Scottish Trades Union Congress (STUC)

Federation of City Farms and Community Gardens

Scottish Community Development Centre

Scottish Community Development Network

Scottish Environmental and Outdoor Education Centres Association

The Iona Community

John Muir Trust

Working On Wheels
15

Third Sector SFPs
Organisation
Article 12 in Scotland
Asthma UK Scotland
Birthlink
British Association for Adoption and Fostering, Scotland
Capability Scotland
Care and Learning Alliance (CALA)
Comann nam Pàrant (Nàiseanta)
Cruse Bereavement Care Scotland
Dyslexia Scotland
Families Need Fathers Scotland
Family Service Unit Scotland (Circle)
Fathers Network Scotland (FNS)
Genetic Alliance UK
Girlguiding Scotland
Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland
Hearts and Minds
John Muir Trust
Federation of City Farms and Community Gardens
Two year funding
110,000
97,000
20,000
150,000
85,000
65,000
120,000
80,000
(In region of)
110,000
215,000
140,000
82,000
190,000
85,000
110,000
25,000
35,000
20,000
16

Organisation
Lead Scotland
Learning Link Scotland
LGBT Youth Scotland
National Day Nurseries Association
Parent Network Scotland
Two year funding
285,000
130,000
150,000
73,000
200,000
Partners in Advocacy
Relationships Scotland Core
Relationships Scotland Project
Scotland's Learning Partnership
Scottish Association of Young Farmers Clubs
Scottish Community Development Centre (SCDC)
70,000
1,000,000
2,500,000
75,000
132,000
130,000
Scottish Community Development Network (SCDN) 30,000
Scottish Environmental and Outdoor Education Centres Association 140,000
Scottish Marriage Care
Scottish Trades Union Congress (STUC)
Scottish Youth Parliament
Sense Scotland
Sleep Scotland
The Boys' Brigade
The Girls Brigade in Scotland
The Iona Community
1,200,000
50,000
650,000
134,000
200,000
120,000
120,000
20,000
17

Organisation
The Mentor Foundation UK (Mentor)
Working On Wheels
The Prince’s Trust
The Scout Association
Woodcraft Folk
Workers' Educational Association
YWCA Scotland
Total:
Two year funding
175,000
90,000
296,000
120,000
35,000
580,000
150,000
10,594,000
18