Rationales for Place-based Approaches in Scotland

The aim of this paper is to remove the confusion surrounding what place-based approaches are, the rationales behind their use, the development of this approach to public service reform in Scotland and the future challenges presented by austerity and welfare reform. Key arguments presented in this paper: The rationales driving the emergence of new place-based approaches at the neighbourhood level include: o The Civic – in the need for higher quality, more responsive services and for communities to deliver more services for themselves o The Joined-up - in the need for improved coordination and more integrated services o The Political – in the pressure to devolve more power over resources to front-line staff and the public o The Economic – in the idea that innovation through place-based approaches can lead to new preventive measures and improved performance As the pressure on CPPs to deliver outcomes increases, place-based approaches are becoming a catchall for a wide range of policy objectives with the risk of overload. Place-based approaches are currently being tested by Community Planning Partnerships as a vehicle for cost cutting, prevention and asset-based community development. These new features of place-based approaches are aspirational, rather than approaches that have been fully developed and embedded. They remain a key area of innovation. The complexity of place-based approaches means that there is a risk that local practitioners and policy makers become distracted away from the challenges of austerity and welfare reform. In low-income neighbourhoods, there is a need for the expansion of welfare services to support mental health, realistic assessments of capacity within communities, and the basic provision of neighbourhood services to enable community development

Intergroup relations in a super-diverse neighbourhood: the dynamics of population composition, context and community

There is now an extensive literature demonstrating that experiences of migration and diversity differ significantly between and across local geographies. Three broad explanations for differences in local outcomes have been put forward (Robinson, 2010): first, population composition – the characteristics of individuals living in the neighbourhood; second, context – the social and physical environment; and third, community – socio-cultural histories and collective identities. Few studies examine the linkages between all three explanations and their relative importance. This article applies all three explanations to intergroup relations in a super-diverse context. It draws on data from a mixed methods case study of a neighbourhood in Glasgow, Scotland where long-term white and ethnic minority communities reside alongside Central and Eastern European migrants, refugees and other recent arrivals. The evidence comprises local statistics and documentary evidence, participant observation and qualitative and walk-along interviews with residents and local organisations. The findings highlight the different ways in which people respond to super-diversity, and the importance of the neighbourhood context and the material conditions for intergroup relations. The article thus demonstrates the ambiguities that arise from applying the dynamics of population composition, context and community to neighbourhood analysis, with implications for the study of neighbourhoods more widely

What Works in Community Profiling? Initial reflections from the WWS Project in West Dunbartonshire

This paper discusses the experience of WWS, Glasgow Centre for Population Health and the West Dunbartonshire Community Planning Team in developing community profiles for the purposes of place-based working. The key learning points from this paper are: With new legislation in Scotland driving a renewed emphasis on place-based working, both Community Planning Partnerships and Health & Social Care Partnerships will need to be able to work more flexibly with data at a range of small area geographies, and in response to different thematic areas of public service reform. A lack of capacity to work in this way could be a barrier to collaboration between services and partnerships and to the potential for turning evidence into action. For some CPPs, community profiling - a process that involves bringing local data together in a concise, accessible, presentation style- will require investment in a new technological infrastructure; in-house training for staff with some level of analytical ability and/or recruitment of staff with specialist analytic skills; and specialist support to develop the capacity of staff to interpret and make sense of local data so that it is more accessible and meaningful to local partners and communities. In the context of the Community Empowerment Act 2015, community profiling could be used to promote greater openness and transparency between service providers and communities, to highlight differences – and often inequalities - and to provoke discussion and responses

Wider benefits of education: skills, higher education and civic engagement

In this paper we do the following: First we describe the remit and programme of the University of London’s Wider Benefits of Learning Research Centre, which studies the noneconomic effects of learning, at individual but also collective level. We set out a theoretical framework for our programme, organised around three ‘capitals’: human capital, social capital, and identity capital. After that we report results drawn from two large-scale longitudinal datasets. We use the data collected in the 1958 cohort study at ages 33 and 42 to assess the wider benefits of participating in any form of education over the period 33 to 42. This focusses on four clusters of outcomes: health; wellbeing; social attitudes; and political involvement. Additionally, we trace a variety of relationships, and discuss the issues involved in establishing causality. Our conclusion is that education is not so much an option for government but an absolute pre-requisite for the promotion of personal well-being and a cohesive society. (DIPF/Orig.)Zu Beginn wird das Wider Benefits of Learning Research Centre der Universität London vorgestellt, das sich mit den nicht-ökonomischen Effekten des Lernens und der Bildung auf individueller und kollektiver Ebene beschäftigt. Nach einer Erläuterung des theoretischen Rahmens der Studien, der auf den drei Konzepten Humankapital, Soziales Kapital und Identitätskapital beruht, werden die Ergebnisse zweier britischer Longitudinalstudien (Beginn: 1958 bzw. 1970) vorgestellt. Insbesondere werden die Folgen der Teilhabe an Bildung in den Bereichen Gesundheit, Wohlbefinden, soziale Einstellungen und politisches Involvement differenziert aufgezeigt. Die Schlussfolgerung lautet: Regierungen sollten wissen, dass Bildung nicht einfach eine Möglichkeit, sondern eine unabdingbare Voraussetzung für die Förderung von persönlichem Wohlbefinden und einer kohäsiven Gesellschaft ist. (DIPF/Orig.

"Challenge Current Practice and Assumptions! Make waves!!” : What Works Scotland Collaborative Learning Event 23 & 24 February 2016 Queens Hotel, Perth

No abstract available