Case Study
Answer Project
About the organisation
The Answer project (Addressing Needs and Serving Whitburn Elderly Residents) was
founded in 1994. Its main purpose has been to provide:


Day care facilities to older people, with a specialist interest in serving people with
dementia, in which it differs from other voluntary day care centres in West Lothian,
Housing support to vulnerable older people living in their own homes. It also runs a
domestic cleaning service.
The project has a strong connection to a local Pentecostal church in its origins and through
most of its directors. It values its independence as a local voluntary organisation which is
not part of any wider council-wide or national structure.
It opened Answer House in 2006, a purpose built building which it owns debt free. It
employs three part time workers and is very dependent on twenty volunteers. Day care is
provided three days a week, including unusually Saturday, for around 12 people a day.
The service is valued by West Lothian Council, which provides an annual grant of £11,442 for
day care services. The Council recognises that this does not provide support equivalent to
that given to other organisations. This is partly a legacy of Answer having originally received
direct funding from the former Scottish Office. The Council then provided a period of
funding from the Reshaping Care for Older People Change Fund in recognition of this gap
and of the innovative, money saving services provided.
But this was not a longer term solution. Answer needs £70,000 annually for the day care
services to survive. The rest of the money comes from some client fees, cafe sales, solar
power, office rentals, donations, and trusts. The Housing Support service to 34 people is
separately funded through Housing Benefit. But the basis for any funding for that service
will change to tendering within the next two years.
Application and initial assessment
In applying to Supporting Communities, the group said that it wanted “an independent
viewpoint on the group, mainly with regards to long term sustainability – where do we go
from here?” There was also a mention of a need to update its Memorandum and Articles,
but this was not pursued during the support programme.
The project is judged by the support worker to be in the ‘Advanced’ category of Supporting
Communities groups.
In initial discussion it was recognised that there were both internal and external issues to be
addressed. Internally, the founder of the organisation was still its clear leader as Chair,
represented it to other partners and carried out many other roles, even cutting the grass
outside the building. He recognised a need to prepare the way for him to step back by
recruiting more directors etc.
Externally it was agreed that a review was needed to look at changes in the service and
funding environment, which offered both threats, as noted, but also the opportunity to
work with partners on a more equitable basis.
Support provided
Following the initial meeting with the Chair of the Answer project, the SCDC support worker
facilitated a Visioning and Review Day.
This Day, involving the staff and some of the Board members, reviewed the key points of the
project’s journey to date, and the positive and negative factors it currently faced. It
identified a ‘vision’, which included: more integrated delivery of services, improved quality
of care, new services e.g. respite care, secure and sustainable funding, including sufficient
referrals, and a stronger voice in ‘Optima’ the West Lothian consortium of five voluntary
sector day care providers, which is involved in allocating cases to providers.
It was recognised that there was a possible conflict between the project finding its own
resources or acting as part of the consortium. The Chair represents the project and
negotiates with the partners – it was recognised that the capacity of staff to take on such
roles required to be built. .
The three priorities identified for a strategic direction were:



Voice and influence (in the consortium and over the allocation of clients)
Opportunities arising from Self Directed Support.
Preparation for tendering of the Housing Support Service.
A second joint session was then held to look at ‘unpacking’ the three strategic priorities and
how to move forward. A third session was planned to look more specifically at the
implications of the new financial model for day care, of Self Directed Support, and of a
possible Public Service Partnership with other voluntary sector partners to deliver Housing
Support (an alternative approach being piloted in West Lothian).
But at this point the pressure of the changes that the project was facing became too much
to proceed calmly with a strategic review. Important decisions were being taken which
would affect the two main strands of work, dementia day care and Housing Support. The
capacity building process was “a little hijacked by events”. The project “felt we had to put it
on hold and see what came out of the (Council–wide) review”.
West Lothian Council was in the process of reshaping day care services on a contractual
basis and there was a danger that there would be no special recognition or funding for work
with dementia sufferers, which was not seen centrally as requiring a separate service. Other
providers were now taking people with dementia. At the same time the project faced a
cash flow crisis, with urgent donations needed to guarantee its survival, and a loss of some
Directors.
Alternative approaches to offering support were suggested: assistance with staff capacity
building or further 1 to 1 support to the Chair. But there was a considerable delay in making
any further progress. The support worker held further meetings with the Chair and gave
‘arm’s length’ support with developing the Public Service Partnership. As the initial
Supporting Communities programme drew to close the project was still hoping for at least
one more support session, but this had yet to be arranged.
Others involved
Although the project clearly works closely with a range of partners and is being drawn
increasingly into working with other providers, it is very self-contained and independent in
attitude and has received little or no other ‘capacity building’ support. It has received
training from West Lothian Council’s business support service, and it finds the Carers of
West Lothian group a helpful source of advice.
Progress made
The support worker found that he always received good engagement and feedback in all
types of sessions. The project has found the support received very good in helping “to get
our heads round what is happening”. It was “very helpful to sit down for brain storming”
and look systematically at the project’s past, present and future. The suggestions for action
that the support worker made were felt to be good, and he helpfully researched the
experience of organisations elsewhere.
Although the project says that there was “no major output” from the support, “it helped us
to look at ourselves and see where all the weaknesses and strengths were”. “We have not
seen the way through yet, but it was good to get someone from outside with an objective
view”. “It would be very helpful to have someone like that available long term” – they are
on the lookout for volunteers who might fulfil such a role.
According to the support worker the project has made progress towards three of the
Supporting Communities programme outcomes:
2. Community organisations have an increased understanding of what action can be taken
to address issues affecting them.
6. Community organisations have increased ability to influence local decision-making
processes
7. Community organisations are better able to co-produce local solutions.
Lessons learned
Locally: It appears that the project, although it has a long track record and an independent
minded approach, has learnt something about the value of independent advice and about
the need for a strategic approach to planning.
Provision of important services by community groups is difficult to fit into wider decisionmaking structures. Agencies may favour local, independent, diversified provision in
principle but may in practice support more standardised approaches, whether because of
procurement rules or for administrative convenience.
Programme: Many of the principles of capacity building and strategic planning for
community organisations are applicable even in a social enterprise operating in a complex
funding and partnership environment that is specific to its field of work.
Events can very easily divert a small organisation from any capacity building process. In
particular the pressure of the contemporary contract based funding environment disrupts
both participation in the programme and the process of strategic planning.
Outcomes and Impact
A range of desired outcomes were defined in the logic model. In order to judge progress
made towards each of these, we have relied on the judgements of the team members who
led the support for each group, obtained at the end of the programme (Table 4)
Table 4
Number and percentage of supported organisations making progress with
each outcome
Outcome
1. Community organisations have improved
access to advice, guidance, tools and support
that improves their effectiveness
2. Community organisations have an increased
understanding of what action can be taken to
address issues affecting them
3. Community organisations are more effective
in how they organise themselves and what they
do
4. Community organisations and their members
have greater confidence in their own skills and
ability to achieve their group purpose
5. Community organisations are able to
recognise and draw on community strengths
and assets
6. Community organisations have increased
ability to influence local decision-making
processes
7. Community organisations are better able to
co-produce local solutions
Progress with at least one outcome
No outcomes achieved
Total number of groups engaging = 58
Number of
organisations
that made
progress with
outcome
% of all groups
engaging with
programme
15
25.9%
19
32.8%
20
34.5%
17
29.3%
5
8.6%
5
8.6%
1
1.7%
48
10
83.8%
17.2%
The results highlight the overall success of Supporting Communities in helping community
organisations to grow their capacity. 48 out of the 58 groups that engaged with the
programme (83.8%) were supported to make progress with one outcome or more (which
represents 67.6% of all initial registrations).
The most frequently achieved outcomes, each specifically recognised as having been
achieved by around one third of those engaging, were those associated with understanding
the group’s potential and capacity (2) and organising effectively (3). The next two most
commonly achieved outcomes were outcome 4 (greater confidence in their own skills and
ability) and outcome 1 (improved access to advice, guidance, tools and support).
More advanced outcomes were achieved with fewer organisations. Outcome 5 (recognising
and drawing on community strengths and assets) and outcome 6 (increased ability to
influence local decision-making processes) were each met by five organisations, and only
one organisation (the Answer Project – see case study) could confidently be described as
being better able to co-produce local solutions (outcome 7).
These outcomes were, in the logic model, associated with different initial levels of capacity –
1and 2, Entry level; 3-5, Intermediate; 6 and 7, Advanced.
In fact, as shown in Table 5 and Figure 1, most of the outcomes were achieved by some
groups at all levels.
Table 5
Outcomes progressed by initial ‘level’ of group
Level
Entry
Intermediate
Advanced
Figure 4
N
%
N
%
N
%
Outcome
None
1
4
7
18%
32%
5
6
23%
27%
1
2
7%
14%
2
6
27%
7
32%
4
29%
3
9
41%
7
32%
4
29%
4
6
27%
7
32%
4
29%
% progressing each outcome by initial ‘level’ of group
5
0
0%
1
5%
4
29%
6
2
9%
0
0%
3
21%
7
0
0%
0
0%
1
7%
Little difference is apparent between the experience of groups at ‘entry’ and ‘intermediate’
levels.
There is however a clearer difference between the minority of ‘advanced’ groups and the
rest. Although the ‘lower’ level outcomes often had a continuing relevance for them, they
were distinguished by their far greater likelihood of progressing on outcomes 6 and 7, which
broadly relate to wider impacts, and were expected to be ‘Advanced level’ outcomes, but
also on outcome 5. This was not classified as ‘Advanced’, but by referring to ‘recognising
and drawing on community strengths and assets’ it implies that a group has moved beyond
building its own organisational strength and vision. Seven of the 14 ‘Advanced’ groups (50%)
were reported to have progressed on at least one of these three outcomes. Only one of
these groups was linked to none of the outcomes, a lower proportion than amongst the
other groups.
Community groups are not the delivery arms of public bodies, but the case for the links
between capacity building and wider outcomes has to be made. In the current phase of the
programme the offer to become involved was a very open one, and all groups could
obviously not be considered to be directly involved in community regeneration. But, as we
have seen, all were involved in improving the quality of life or tackling disadvantage.
It is not realistic to expect that a few days of external support, however skilled and
experienced, will have a significant discernible short term effect on groups’ ability to
influence external outcomes. But what does emerge is that even this limited support can
enhance the basic capacities – organisational, motivational etc. - that are necessary
preconditions of achieving a wider impact.