A Manual For Learning Evaluation and Planning in Community Learning and Development

LEAP
A manual for Learning Evaluation and Planning

in Community Learning and Development
Revised Edition
LEAP
A manual for Learning Evaluation and Planning

in Community Learning and Development
Revised Edition
The Scottish Government, Edinburgh 2007
LEAP
The text of this revised LEAP manual was developed by the Scottish Community Development Centre.
We would like to acknowledge the invaluable contributions of the many practitioners and managers who
offered advice and suggestions. Thank you for your time and insights.
Crown copyright 2007

ISBN: 978-0-7559-5517-6
The Scottish Government
St Andrews House
Edinburgh
EH1 3DG
Produced for the Scottish Government by RR Donnelley B52956 11/07
Published by the Scottish Government, November, 2007
Further copies are available from
Blackwells Bookshop
53 South Bridge
Edinburgh
EH1 1YS
The text pages of this document are printed on recycled paper and are 100% recyclable
LEAP A MANUAL FOR LEARNING EVALUATION AND PLANNING IN COMMUNITY LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Contents
Preface
iv
Section 1: Introducing LEAP

1
i.
what is the LEAP framework?
ii.
key steps in the LEAP approach
iii. principles underpinning LEAP
iv. why LEAP may be useful
v. applying LEAP at different levels
vi. context of the revised LEAP
vii. LEAP and other CLD tools
Section 2: Exploring the principles of LEAP
14
i.
a need-led approach
14
ii.
building on strengths of the participants
17
iii. being change and outcome-focused
20
iv. a participatory and partnership approach
22
v. promoting continuous learning and improvement
25
Section 3: Understanding the steps in the LEAP cycle
27
Step 1: agreeing outcomes what difference do we want to make?
28
Step 2: identifying indicators how will we know we made a difference?
30
Step 3: action planning how will we go about making the difference?
34
Step 4: monitoring how are we making sure it is happening?
39
Step 5: evaluation have we made a difference, what are the lessons we have learned?
41
iii
LEAP
Preface
This manual revises the original Learning, Evaluation and Planning (LEAP) published in 1999. It sets LEAP
in the context of current policy and practice. It is presented in three sections:

This section:
Considers:
i. what is the LEAP framework?
Introduces:
ii. the key steps in planning and evaluation.
iii. the underpinning principles of the approach.
Explains:
iv. why LEAP may be useful to community learning and development (CLD) practitioners and planners.
v. the different levels at which LEAP can be applied.
vi. the context of this revised edition.
vii. the relationship between LEAP and other important CLD tools.

This section examines in more detail key principles that underpin both LEAP and CLD:
i. being need led.
ii. building on capacity and developing assets.
iii. being change and outcome focused.
iv. adopting a participatory approach and building partnerships.
v. promoting continuous learning and improvement.
Section 3: Understanding the steps in the LEAP cycle

This section explores what is involved in each step in the LEAP cycle:
i. agreeing outcomes what difference do we want to make?
ii. identifying indicators how will we know we made a difference?
iii. action planning how will we go about making a difference?
iv. monitoring how will we make sure it is happening?
v. evaluation have we made a difference, what are the lessons we have learned?
Worked Examples: Applying LEAP to real-life situations

Alongside the manual, weve also published a separate document that provides five illustrative examples of
LEAP in use. The examples are set in a fictitious place in Scotland but reflect experience of real examples.
The first three illustrations relate to project level practice in each of the three national priorities for CLD set out
in Working and Learning Together to Build Stronger Communities1.
The fourth illustration focuses on operational development and management of a programme of CLD work.
The final example illustrates use of LEAP at strategic management and policy development level.
All the illustrations are written to a common format that reflects the key steps set out in section 3. Focus on
the examples that relate most closely to the way that you might use LEAP.
The LEAP online learning materials

Learning materials that provide an interactive introduction to the LEAP model, its key steps and underlying
principles, are now available online. They are illustrated with video clips from people who use LEAP. You
can use them in conjunction with the manual for your own learning or when developing the use of LEAP
with others. The materials can be accessed online at: http://leap.scdc.org.uk.
Using the LEAP Manual

This manual is designed to assist you to plan and evaluate practice in a participatory manner. How you
use it will depend on the role you are playing and the level of experience you already have. This is a
detailed exploration of the LEAP model. Shorter introductory explanations are available in LEAP step by
step and in the online learning tool. These may be particularly useful for those coming to LEAP for the first
time2.
However the manual can be used flexibly and you can focus on sections which are most relevant to you at
the moment, for example:
If you are completely new to the LEAP approach we suggest that you start by reading section 1 and think
about how these ideas would apply to work you are doing. To understand better how it works, it may then
be helpful to move straight to the case study in the Worked Examples document that illustrates using LEAP
in the context most closely related to your own. (The first three case examples look at local practice in
relation to the national CLD priorities: adult learning, youth work and capacity building respectively. If you
focus on management or strategic development you will probably find cases 4 or 5 more relevant.) After
considering an example it may then be helpful to return to section 2 to think in more depth about the
underlying principles before you actually apply the model. For those that are new to LEAP the online learning
materials will be particularly helpful in providing a home tutorial that explains and illustrates the basics.
1
Working and Learning Together to Build Stronger Communities (WALT) Scottish Executive Guidance on Community
Learning and Development (2003)
Details of how to get hold of these are online at http://leap.scdc.org.uk
iv
LEAP
If you are familiar with the principles of LEAP but using it for the first time you are likely to want guidance on
how to develop your work at each stage. Here section 3 is of key importance and you should focus on the
particular stage of your work. It may be helpful to compare what you are doing with the appropriate stage
description in the most relevant Worked Example. The reality of applying the model will no doubt throw up
challenges that relate to underlying principles, so use the material in section 2 for reference.
If you are already using LEAP the benefit of the revised manual will primarily lie in the fact that it explains LEAP
in the context of current policy and other relevant self evaluation tools and frameworks. The relationship
between these and LEAP is explained at the end of section 1 but you may find the case studies in the
Worked Examples document particularly useful in illustrating practice in the context of current policy and
related tools and frameworks. Even when you are experienced in using LEAP it can be useful to refer to
particular parts of sections 2 and 3 to refresh your thinking about the principles and issues involved.
LEAP is commonly used in partnership with others. If you are introducing others to it, abstract the parts of
the text that are most relevant to their experience and focus and use the online learning materials to
introduce others to the steps and principles.

i. What is the LEAP framework?
LEAP stands for Learning, Evaluation and Planning.
It is a framework that supports us to plan more effectively; identify and evidence the changes that we hope
to make; learn from our experiences and work in partnership with one another. LEAP is an approach to
planning and evaluation that is outcome-focused, participatory and learning-based. It is a tool to aid more
effective practice. By enabling clear analysis of needs, planning, implementation and review of action, it
assists partners and participants to achieve the changes that they seek.
The framework was developed by the Scottish Community Development Centre and is designed to be a
useful tool in all aspects of project, programme and policy development, planning and management. It can
be used in different contexts and by people working in different sectors. It encourages us to ask critical
questions about our work and to ensure that all those involved are working to the same agenda. The LEAP
framework emphasises self-evaluation, encouraging a shared responsibility for planning and evaluation
throughout a project or programme.
LEAP is equally applicable to all areas of CLD practice taking account of the interests of everyone who is
involved. It seeks to support their personal and shared learning and empowerment, focusing attention on
key questions that it is in everyones interests to answer.
Here are the questions:
What is the need?

What difference do we want to make?
How will we know we made a difference?
How will we go about making the difference?
what resources will we use?

what methods will we use?
in what ways will we use them?
How are we making sure it is happening?

Have we made a difference?
What are the lessons we have learned?
What will we need to do now?
vi
LEAP
This logical sequence of questions, and how to get answers to them, is at the heart of LEAP and is used
as the framework for each of the case examples in the Worked Examples document. In the LEAP process
diagram (below) it is presented as a series of steps that respond to an identified need and develop into a
continuous cycle of problem identification, planning, action, reflection, evaluation and learning.
The straightforward questions that LEAP poses should be a normal part of everyday practice. The answer
to the question: what is LEAP? is that it is a way of thinking that leads to better practice.
How you use this manual will depend on who you are and what you want to apply LEAP to. If you are using
LEAP you will be involved in a logical set of steps, each of which requires attention to particular issues. The
five step cycle is very straightforward and can be understood very quickly. Complexity lies not in the model
but in the work that it is applied to. In other words answering the trigger questions that LEAP poses requires
thoughtful reflection on the needs, circumstances, resources and methods of action that are open to you.
To keep it as straightforward as possible focus on what you need to think about in the stage that you are
involved with.
ii. Key steps in the LEAP approach

The cycle of learning steps that the LEAP diagram describes recognises that the approach can only be
helpful if there is clarity about the focus of attention. What is the need? is a question that has to be answered
first. The answer has to be one that the participants recognise and want to address and one that is consistent
with the purposes and principles of CLD.
Having defined and agreed what it is that is causing concern and having checked its compatibility with the
principles and priorities, the five-step LEAP cycle can be applied.
Step 1: What difference do we want to make?: To do something about the identified need we must have
a clear view of the difference that we want to make. LEAP invites us to imagine or envision a different
and better state of affairs. Often in community learning and development, the need is something that
lots of people share in common, so they should all share in defining the vision of change in order to be
satisfied by the results that are sought.
Step 2: How will we know we made a difference?: Defining the need and knowing what difference it is
intended to make might seem like all we need to have sorted out before we plan and take action, but
there is another vital step that is often missed out. The question how will we know we made a difference?
is an essential one. As we take action we will need to collect evidence about what is happening. The
evidence we will collect needs to enable us to later answer the question: are we making a difference?
So to make sure that we collect relevant evidence we need to have thought about what our criteria for
success will be. Defining this at the start enables us to focus on collecting evidence that matters.
LEAP Process Diagram
WHAT IS THE
NEED?
STEP 1
OUTCOME
INDICATORS
How will we know
whether we made the
difference?
Did we make the

difference?
EVALUATION
STEP 2
OUTCOMES
What difference do we
want to make?
What will we need to
do now?
STEP 5
What have we
learned?
STEP 3
INPUTS
OUTPUTS
What methods will we

use?
PROCESSES
What resources
will we use?
How will we use the

resources and
methods?
STEP 4
HOW WILL WE GO
ABOUT IT?
OUTPUT
MONITORING
How are we making

sure it is happening?
LEAP
Step 3: How will we go about making the difference?: We are now ready to plan our action. To do that
we need to know what is available to us to do so the resources. These will be people, equipment,
budgets, ideas, energy, motivation and many other things. The resources are the strengths that we and
those we work with in communities bring to problem solving. To make use of resources we need to have
skills and methods of practice that we can use well like: training, group work, negotiation, communication,
research or guidance. We will need to make choices about what methods are likely to be most effective.
But no method is effective if we lack the resources to put it into practice. The balance of methods and
resources determines what we can actually do. So to answer the question how will we go about making
the difference? there are three related questions that have to be answered what resources will we use,
what methods will we use, and in what ways will we use them?
Step 4: How are we making sure it is happening?: Action can now be taken, but the best laid plans can
be undermined by poor implementation. An action plan needs to be clear about who will do what and
when, and it needs to be monitored to see that everyone meets their commitments to do what they
said they would do, when they said that they would do it. This is the reason for the question: how will
we make sure it is happening?.
Step 5: Have we made a difference and what are the lessons we have learned? If, by monitoring the
action plan, we know that the plan has been implemented, we can then ask the question: have we
made a difference?. The differences that we will be looking for are the ones that everyone who has an
interest agreed on at the beginning. But we will only know if the differences have been made if we have
some evidence. This is when having asked the question at step 2: how will we know we have made a
difference? becomes so valuable. By collecting evidence through the process of our action we are
now able to use it to make a judgement and decide what the lessons are that have been learned. It is
rare for everything that we set out to do to be achieved because there will be many obstacles to change.
So, looking at the action and its results we will be likely to be asking ourselves what worked and why,
what would we do again, and what would we do differently?
From step 5 back to step 1 renewing the cycle: What will we need to do now?: In Step 5 we will also
be asking another set of questions. In the light of the difference that we have made, is the need met
and no further action required, are there aspects of the need that still need to be addressed, have we
identified new needs that we were not previously aware of? All of which enable us to answer the question:
what do we need to do now? When we come to answer the question and begin to plan a new cycle of
activity, we are better equipped because we are more knowledgeable about what works and what does
not. Where we have been successful, we can be more confident about our skills and abilities, where
we have not been successful we will know that we need to do things differently and will be better able
to prepare ourselves for future action.
The steps and key questions summarised here are explored in depth in section 3.
iii. Principles underpinning LEAP

LEAP planning and evaluation framework is based on the principles and values that underpin a community
learning and development approach to change. These emphasise: empowerment, participation, inclusion,
self determination and partnership.3 From this basis the LEAP framework adopts an explicit set of principles
that support good planning and evaluation practice:
Planning should be a need led process it should set out to respond to the experiences, ambitions
and concerns of communities and target issues of inequality and social justice.
Planning should seek to build on the capacity and develop the assets of individuals, groups and
communities.
Planning and evaluation should be change or outcome focused it should aim to achieve real and
measurable change in the quality of personal and community life.
Planning and evaluation should be participatory it should involve all those with an interest in the
desired change, particularly communities and service users that are intended to benefit.
Planning and evaluation should be concerned with building partnerships it should build and develop
relationships between agencies and with community stakeholders.
Planning and evaluation should be concerned with learning and continuous improvement it should
promote understanding of change by capturing and reflecting on as much of the process as possible
and using the lessons learned to guide future action. It should highlight the learning that results.
These key principles are explored in depth in section 2.
iv. Why LEAP may be useful

LEAP is not just a model for planning and evaluation but also a guide to best practice in CLD. By ensuring
that planning, implementation, evaluation and reflection are conducted well it provides a framework for
delivering best practice in all three national priorities for CLD.
In relation to work with young people, LEAP supports Moving Forward: a strategy for improving young
peoples chance through youth work, which states that providers of youth work must work by:
listening to and responding to, what young people want from youth work and goes on to say that it is
important that youth workers: understand the importance of evaluation and outcome delivery and
implement it in their work as a matter of course.
In the context of literacies and adult learning, LEAP provides a framework to respond to the HMIE
report: Adult Literacy and Numeracy in Scotland (2005), which, referring to local authority literacies work,
comments: There was insufficient consultation with learners about future programme planning and
they were unsure about their role in evaluation and consultation.
Working and Learning Together to Build Stronger Communities (WALT) Scottish Executive Guidance on Community
Learning and Development (2003)
LEAP
In the context of capacity building, LEAP provides a model to respond to the call in Working and
Learning Together for any public agency with an interest in building community capacity to join the
Community Learning and Development Partnership at strategic level and invest in local action planning
and delivery.
In all three contexts, LEAP will help us to:
focus our work clearly;

ensure that our work is purposeful and relevant to participants;
work with other stakeholders;
develop action plans that match resources, methods and actions to our purposes;
monitor the implementation of our plans;
learn what works and what does not;
address issues of inclusion and targeting by identifying clearly who benefits from our work;
build evidence collection into our ongoing practice; and
build a body of evidence on which we can draw for the purpose of self-evaluation at individual, team,
agency or partnership levels.
As a consequence of all of these things:
Our work and the work of our agency will be more:
effective
fair.
We will be better able to explain:
efficient
what we do
how we do it
why we do it
what benefits arise from it.
We will be able to do so in the confidence that:
the focus of our work relates to relevant and evidenced needs

the evaluation of our work has been conducted with the participants and our partners
the lessons from action inform priorities and approaches to the development of our practice.
Overall we will have established a way of working that is securely based in the principles of CLD because
LEAP is a framework that both reflects the principles that underpin CLD and supports the process of building
them into practice. This is vital in itself, but the evidence of delivery of high quality, need-led services will
provide evidence to meet the requirements of quality assurance processes including HMIE inspections
and Best Value reviews.
v. Applying LEAP at different levels

LEAP can be applied at different levels of complexity. This can be looked at in three ways:
The number of people that we are working with.

We might apply the cycle to work that a single worker does with just one person or with a group of
people or, at more complex levels, we might apply it to the work of a team or a whole organisation or a
partnership of organisations.
The dimensions of the need that we are setting out to tackle.

We might want to apply LEAP to something relatively straightforward like finding a suitable meeting place
for a group of adult learners or we might be trying to address something highly complicated like the
breakdown of social cohesion in a community.
The level of operation we are engaging with.

Our focus might be on direct work with young people, adult learners or community members at local
project/practice level. It might relate to the way that a range of different actions are conducted to meet
the needs of many individuals, groups or communities at the programme/operational management
level. Or it might focus on the overall strategy for supporting projects and programmes and focus at the
policy/strategic planning level.4
Exactly the same steps and questions apply whatever the level of complexity at which LEAP is applied.
At all levels it is necessary to keep sight of the basic, core questions that need to be answered at each
step. This is demonstrated in the case studies in the Worked Examples document that illustrate work with
individuals, groups, communities, organisations and partnerships.
Describing different levels of complexity also indicates that the time period over which a LEAP cycle might
run is variable. It may be from a matter of a few weeks to several years.
The LEAP web site contains some case studies of work at each of these levels, for example:
Project: East End Health Action: http://leap.scdc.org.uk/case-studies/East%20End%20Health%20Action/
Programme: Volunteer Centres: http://leap.scdc.org.uk/uploads/vds_leap_case_study.doc
Policy: National Standards for Community Engagement: http://leap.scdc.org.uk/uploads/
a_20case_20study_20__20developing_20the_20national_20standards_20for_20community_20engagement.pdf
LEAP
Differences in complexity mean that the way we use LEAP varies. For many tasks, for example organising a
meeting, it may simply involve the mental process of applying the key questions. Though not written up
into formal statements of the outcomes we are looking for, the indicators to assess them or the resource,
methods and actions to be used, the way of thinking will assist purposeful and reflective practice. On the
other hand, where the task is longer term, more complex and involves a range of participants, it becomes
more necessary to produce formal plans and records.
To describe the LEAP cycle in the previous section we focused on responding to just one need. In reality
even at the level of the individual worker, let alone that of a team or an agency, different pieces of work are
being conducted simultaneously. Each will have different demands and timescales yet the LEAP framework
can be applied to them all. There is likely to be a number of different strategic initiatives that are underway.
These will have different time scales and characteristics. Within such strategies there will be many
components. Both the whole and the parts can be planned and evaluated using the LEAP framework.
Within an agency, therefore, the LEAP framework will potentially be in use at many different levels by
individual workers, groups and teams and those they engage with.
This table illustrates types of work that might simultaneously be drawing on LEAP at project, programme
and policy levels and across the three national CLD priorities.
Level/Priority
Young people
Adult learners
Communities
Project
Developing a drop in centre for Establishing an individual

young people.
learning plan.
Organising a community
conference on a regeneration
outcome agreement.
Programme
Enabling the voices of young

people to be heard in
community planning.
Planning a literacies
partnership programme.
Planning and delivering a

capacity building programme
for community leaders.
Policy
Conducting a consultation on
national youth strategy.
Establishing a literacies policy Developing and disseminating

using a social practices model. national community
engagement standards.
vi. Context of the revised LEAP

LEAP was first published in 1999 as a participatory planning and evaluation tool for community learning and
development. It was seen as relevant to anyone adopting this approach in any context. This revised version
builds on the original and on extensive experience of applying it, not only in CLD, but also across a range
of other related fields. It reasserts principles that have consistently underpinned community learning and
development but recognises that these have been advanced and developed in policy and guidance such
as Working and Learning Together5 and How Good is Our Community Learning and Development? 2.6
Both of these recognise that CLD is a way of working that is adopted in many sectors and frequently through
working in partnership. In particular the new LEAP encourages integrated use of the outcomes of CLD that
have been highlighted in Learning Connections publication: Delivering Change.7
5
WALT: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2003/01/16208/17068
HGOCLD2: http://www.hmie.gov.uk/documents/publication/cldfull.pdf
Delivering Change: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/learningconnections
http://www.communitiesscotland.gov.uk/stellent/groups/public/documents/webpages/lccs_017262.pdf
The new LEAP is therefore presented with:
reference to contemporary policy and practice

attention to the lessons learned from experience
commitment to enabling it to be used in conjunction with other guidance and frameworks.
The new LEAP for CLD takes account of the development and application of the framework in related
practice disciplines including health, volunteering, green-space and as a tool in partnership working
including community planning. It refers to common core LEAP materials covering all disciplines, including
an e-learning package (available online at http://leap.scdc.org.uk). It also takes full account of other tools
that have been developed to support best practice in CLD.
vii. LEAP and other CLD tools

The text cross-refers to 3 other significant tools that have been designed and developed to support best
practice in CLD. These are:
How Good is our Community Learning and Development? 2

Delivering Change understanding the outcomes of community learning and development
National Standards for Community Engagement
People often ask:
Why do we have these different tools?

Are they compatible?
Which should we be using for what?
Are we expected to use them all?
The diagram below sets LEAP alongside these other tools. It illustrates that in the context of CLD all of them
relate to a common purpose, achieving effective practice, and a common core of policy that is set out in the
Working and Learning Together (WALT) guidance.8 The guidance sets out the national priorities for CLD as:
Achievement through learning for adults.

Achievement through learning for young people.
Achievement through building community capacity.
In the case of the National Standards this is not the only relevant policy to which the tool relates. It provides guidance on all
aspects of public policy in which community engagement is central. These are brought together, particularly, in the contexts
of community planning, community regeneration and health improvement. Nonetheless, the WALT guidance emphasises
a key role for CLD in supporting community engagement.
LEAP
All of the tools address the achievement of these priorities by supporting those involved in CLD to plan
and evaluate in a way that involves the people they aim to support and that provides them with evidence
of what is working well and what is not. They build on commitment in the WALT guidance that states:
Quality assurance and improvement depend on thorough and organised self-evaluation of the
quality and outcomes of the main areas of work. Effective self-evaluation by partners should be an
ongoing process.
WALT is based on a commitment to:
ensuring the engagement of communities and a wide range of agencies in the development of CLD
strategies and plans.
enable communities to have a real influence over the planning, delivery and quality of mainstream services,
as well as specific initiatives such as those aimed at achieving community regeneration and social inclusion.
In this context, each of the tools performs a distinct but related function:
How Good is our CLD? 2 (HGIOCLD? 2)
This is simultaneously an organisational self evaluation framework and the framework for inspection of CLD by
Her Majestys Inspectorate of Education (HMIE). Increasingly inspection relates to partnership-based practice
involving both statutory and voluntary sector contributors. It describes evaluation as being dependent on:
shared understanding within and across service providers and stakeholders of what constitute high
quality outcomes and processes.
HGIOCLD? 2 invites assessment against 6 levels of performance (unsatisfactory to excellent) in relation to
six high-level questions:
What key outcomes have we achieved?

What impact have we had in meeting the needs of our stakeholders?
How good is our delivery of key processes?
How good is our management?
How good is our leadership?
What is our capacity for improvement?
HGIOCLD? 2 refers directly to the contributory role of LEAP. To answer the searching questions posed in
HGIOCLD? 2, good planning and effective evaluation, which produces quality evidence is essential. Good
evidence comes from practice that involves all stakeholders in deciding what constitutes success and
how it should be measured. HGIOCLD? 2 states:
LEAP was developed to assist partners in CLD to plan and evaluate their work. When embedded in
the planning process LEAP will provide evidence to support self-evaluation and external evaluation...
this publication can be used within CLD partnerships particularly if they are using the LEAP model.
The most important overlap between HGIOCLD? 2 and LEAP relates to their shared concern with ensuring
that practice positively impacts on individuals and communities that are the focus of CLD activity. In this
respect, key areas 2.1 and 4.1 under the heading: How well do we meet the needs of our stakeholders
are especially relevant.
Key area 2.1 focuses on impact on the participants and looks for:
Quantitative and qualitative data that demonstrates the extent to which learners are:
Included and participating

Achieving and attaining
Progressing
Extent to which participants report that their educational experiences enable them to become:
Successful learners, confident individuals, responsible citizens and effective contributors

Safe, nurtured, healthy, achieving, active, respected and responsible, and included
Key area 4.1 focuses on impact on the local community and looks for:
Quantitative and qualitative data, together with reports from community groups, that demonstrates the
extent to which community groups have:
Confident skilled and active community members

Active and influential roles in local and wider decision making
Developed local services, where appropriate, in response to priority needs
Effective planning, management and evaluation arrangements
Ensured that they are inclusive and value social and cultural diversity
Productive networks and relationships with other agencies and organisations
Using LEAP will provide sources of evidence in relation to these criteria for assessing impact. The Worked
Examples document illustrates that practice can draw directly on these statements when setting outcomes.
Whilst LEAP should be seen as a way of working that enables evidence to be gathered that informs
self-evaluation and inspection, it is equally important to recognise that the capacity to implement LEAP
plans that address personal and community needs reflects the quality of what HGIOCLD? 2 terms: delivery
of key processes, management and leadership. In other words an organisation or partnership that evaluates
itself, or is externally inspected, and is at the weaker end of the scale will be much less likely to use LEAP
effectively than one at the stronger end. In other words the quality of organisational performance is a strong
indicator of potential to use LEAP well.
10
11
LEAP
Delivering change understanding the outcomes of community learning and development

This is published by Learning Connections. It provides a menu of outcomes relating to the national CLD
priorities that have been tested with CLD participants and practitioners. It states:
We cant talk about outcomes in this field without recognising that ultimately its the outcomes that
participants want to achieve that are most important.
It provides outcomes statements that can be used to measure performance and which can be readily
used in the LEAP model. Referring to the example outcomes provided in the previous version of LEAP for
CLD it states:
Our framework aims to more comprehensively set out those outcomes. This would give someone who
is using LEAP a quick and easy list of outcomes that might result.
In setting out CLD outcomes, Delivering Change adopts the same approach as the original LEAP.
Outcomes are identified for two core areas of practice:
personal development
community capacity building.
The framework, which has built on the original LEAP and other sources, has been subject to wide consultation
with CLD workers and participants. They have endorsed its accuracy in reflecting realities of practice.
These outcome statements have therefore been adopted in place of those in the original LEAP material.
However it is important to be clear that the relevance of any statement of potential outcomes needs to be
considered in relation to realities of practice and adapted and developed accordingly.
In addition Delivering Change has identified what are termed wider outcomes of CLD. These correspond
closely to the broader quality of life outcomes identified in the original LEAP. The new LEAP recommends
application of the wider outcome statements.
The listing of personal development, community capacity building and wider outcomes from Delivering
Change is presented as appendix 1. The Worked Examples document draws on them:
The National Standards for Community Engagement (2005)
The National Standards and their associated support materials promote best practice in engaging
communities and include standards both for planning and evaluation that commit users to: monitor and
evaluate whether the engagement achieves its purposes. Community engagement is an important aspect
of CLD work highlighted in the WALT guidance particularly as a key contribution to the wider processes of
community planning. The standards illuminate what is involved in achieving effective community
involvement in community planning as required under section 15.1 of the Local Government Scotland Act
(2003). There are ten standards and each is accompanied by a set of performance indicators that can be
used within the LEAP framework in relation to this aspect of CLD process. A guidance note on the
relationship between LEAP and the National Standards for Community Engagement is available at:
www.http://leap.scdc.org.uk/resources-downloads/Download%20documents/
How Good is Our

Community Learning
and Development? 2
Delivering
Change
understanding
the outcomes
of community
learning and
development
Effective
Practice
LEAP learning
evaluation and
planning
National Standards
for Community
Engagement
Communities Scotland
standards and performance
indicators endorsed by the
Scottish Executive, CoSLA
and national agencies
SCDC framework
for integrated
participatory
outcome planning
and evaluation
LE
A
R
R
E
TH
Learning
Connections
statement of
outcomes
sought through
CLD
NG
NI
G
IN
HMIE self evaluation and

inspection framework
for CLD
ND
WO
RK
In addition to the three other tools that are specifically designed to be relevant to CLD, LEAP can also be used
alongside a range of other planning and evaluation tools such as the Big Picture (http://www.thebigpic.org.uk/),
EFQM or Balanced Scorecard (http://www.q-excellence.de/default_e.htm?gclid=
CIqju5L0oIkCFUxrMAodr1uzQA). A guidance note on the relationship of LEAP to these and other tools is
available at: www.http://leap.scdc.org.uk/resources-downloads/Download%20documents/
12
13
T
O
G
E
LEAP
Introducing section 2:
You should now have a broad idea of what LEAP is, what it can be used for, how this might benefit you
and how it relates to other CLD tools. In this section we look at the key underlying principles:
being need led;

building on capacity and developing assets;
being change and outcome focused;
adopting a participatory approach and building partnerships; and
promoting continuous learning and improvement.
i. A need-led approach
In section 1, we summarised the need led approach. In this section we explore it in more depth.
It is vital that we are clear about the needs we are trying to tackle:
to provide the focus for planning change.

to ensure that we know what we will measure progress against.
In CLD, as each of the Worked Examples illustrates, before we start to do anything, we have to ask ourselves
what is the need (or needs) that we are trying to tackle? These could relate to any age or social group and
any aspect of community life (e.g. health, housing, safety, learning, environment, leisure, culture).
It sounds logical and obvious where else would anyone start except by identifying what it is they want to
make a difference to? But what seems obvious is not always what people do. Particularly when organisations
are planning, they often start by thinking about what they have available to them, like: staff, buildings,
equipment or knowledge, and what they can do with them. We call this resource-led planning.
Because they have invested in these resources, they think about making sure they are used without
necessarily asking whether this would be a relevant and valuable thing to do. This is about as logical as
saying: because I own a passport I am going abroad. Of course if you want to go abroad a passport
would be essential but you wouldnt use its existence as your reason for going!
LEAP challenges this way of thinking. It is not saying resources are not important, they are essential. It is
saying that resources are only useful in terms of their capacity to do something about needs that people
really experience and want to do something about.
So the LEAP approach rejects planning which starts with what resources are available, develops a plan to
use them and then takes action to implement it. LEAP promotes need led practice that first investigates
what the issues are, then envisions what successful changes would look like, develops plans to achieve
them, identifies resources that are needed to implement the plan and then takes action.
Not
RESOURCE
PLAN
ACT
But
INVESTIGATE
ENVISION
PLAN
RESOURCE
ACT
This is the basic principle, but need led planning is a bit more complicated than this. We need to:
Clarify exactly what the need is.

Be clear about whose needs are being addressed.
Recognise that there is more than one way of thinking about what a need is.
Consider all the dimensions of what the need is about.
Clarifying the needs

All of us sometimes feel uneasy, unhappy or even angry but we are not necessarily clear what it is that
makes us feel this way. Until we have worked that out we cant focus any energy we may have for positive
purposes. Feeling a need for change but lacking focus and, as a result, any outlet for that energy, tends to
make us frustrated and depressed rather than energetic and active. We are much more likely to be motivated
to take action when we are clear what needs to change and why. Any effort to achieve change therefore
requires clarity about the needs or issues to be tackled.
14
15
LEAP
Being need led emphasises the importance of an analytical approach. No assumptions are made about
what is going on and what is important to people. Rather the process starts with systematic investigation.
Whose needs?
In CLD we are committed to working with people, groups or communities who experience a need they
are our primary stakeholders. But, as the WALT guidance makes clear, in CLD we are also committed to
principles of equity and social justice and therefore need to target our resources. If we are going to be
need led we have to think about whose needs we are going to pay attention to and why. In doing so we
often have to take account not just of local but also regional or national priorities. We have to be sure that
the way we use our resources would promote fairness and justice.
It is for this reason that we have to be concerned with different levels of intervention. Whilst at project level we
will focus on the experience of particular individuals, groups or communities, we have to be confident that
what we set out to do with them is consistent with a wider analysis of need that informs overall programmes
and determines the overriding policy priorities. Best practice in using LEAP requires consistency between
all three levels. If the LEAP approach informs the CLD strategy, CLD plans and local project action, this can
be achieved.
Different ways of thinking about needs
People are motivated to act on things that matter to them but this may not be in the interests of others.
What people feel is a need is important and we have to help people to express their concerns. But, it will be
obvious that just responding to what people tell us they feel is not a satisfactory way of working. We also
need to think about what the implications of responding to their views would be. This is when we make use
of other ways of thinking about needs. In particular how do the concerns of this person, group or community
compare with those of others? Should they be seen as a priority? When we look at the needs people
express we may also want to take account of agreed standards, or norms, that have been set (for example
for literacy levels, housing conditions, an adequate diet, or environmental protection). We will want to
address those needs that illustrate shortfalls against such standards.
So, while the starting point for participants is what they tell us they feel, we must be equally concerned with
comparison with others and agreed standards. The latter will be primary influences in formulating CLD
strategies. A need led approach involves thinking about all three types of approach.
The dimensions of the need
Understanding what a need really involves requires thought not only about the circumstances that are
immediately apparent but also what lies behind them. It also requires consideration of the attitudes of other
people towards the need.
For example, if we identify a lack of adequate after-school child care provision as a need, we should
immediately start to think about the character of the need itself and the attitudes of those people and
institutions that might be relevant to it. In other words the need is not just lack of child care but all the factors
that have led to and sustained this need. It is not just the people who experience the need that we should
think about but it is also the people who can support activity to bring about change, those who might work in
partnership with them and equally those who might actively resist attempts to achieve change.9 Building a
picture of the dimensions of the need will be crucial to working effectively on step 1 defining the
difference we want to make. Each of the Worked Examples considers the dimensions of the need on
which it is focused.
ii. Building on strengths of the participants

Sometimes a need led approach is criticised because it is thought that it creates a negative label. We look
at what is wrong, not what is right in a community. Building on the latter is often called an asset-based
approach. Though LEAP starts by saying we have to investigate what the needs are that require action, it
equally recognises that achieving change depends on building on and using peoples strengths and abilities.
Need led and asset-based approaches are necessary companions. As was suggested in the discussion of
the dimension of needs, it is not just the people who experience the need that we should think about but
also the people who can support activity to bring about change, those who might work in partnership with
them and equally those who might actively resist attempts to achieve change.
The following framework can assist us and those we work with to think about the strengths and resources
that might be available to address needs. Understanding strengths in relation to what we are trying to
tackle helps us to be realistic and clear about what kind of difference we should aim for.
The framework invites us to think about the need in relation to three key factors:
Motivation this focuses on what may stimulate people enthusiastically to address the need.
Capacity this focuses on the ability that people have to address it.
Opportunity this focuses on the context of the need and factors that improve the chance of doing
something about it.
The framework considers each of these areas from the perspective of four key groups of people that are
likely, in CLD work, to be involved in addressing any need:
The worker and or his/her agency this is the person and/or organisation that supports and promotes
action for change.
The community participant(s) this is the individual, group or community that is experiencing the need.
In the language of systems theory these are called the client, change agent, action and target systems.
16
17
LEAP
Other potential partners this consists of all others who may be interested in, concerned about, and
willing to be party to action relating to the need.
The targets for change these are the people/organisations that need to be influenced in order for the
change to be achieved. It may contain several different groups of people.
We need to think not only about the motivation, capacity and opportunities of each of these groups but the
interaction between them. This is necessary because, to achieve any change, the first three groups will
need to work together to influence those in the fourth.
The framework is not comprehensive but suggests the sorts of things it may be helpful to think about in
relation to each group. For the first three groups the focus is on what will encourage their involvement, but
for the targets the focus is on why and how they might resist change and what might lead them to change
their stance.
The following are particularly important influences under each heading:
Motivation:
The degree to which a need or problem offends cherished values or is seen as having priority from a
particular value stance.
The policy and legislative framework that determines the focus of agencies and workers.
The potential for wider benefits from being involved.
Capacity:
Available human and material resources.

Level of and ability to use power and authority.
Belief in the potential for change (frequently influenced by past experience).
Confidence and trust.
Opportunity:
Events/crises that heighten perception of need for change.

New resources.
Recognition of mutual interest.
Positive attitudes to build on.
Weaknesses of the target system or willingness to consider change.
This table identifies the kinds of factors that may be important to look at for each of the interest groups in
relation to their motivation, capacity and opportunity.
System
Worker/Agency
Factor
Community Participant
Other potential
partners
Targets for change
Motivation
1. Match with
professional values
and purposes
2. Match with policy
priorities
3. Legal obligations
4. Importance relative
to other opportunities
5. Match with personal
interest and values
1. Potential to achieve
aspirations
2. Threat to values from
outside group or community
3. Threat to values from within
group or community
4. Desire to escape
discomfort
5. Perception of possibility that
a difference could be made
6. Cost/benefit assessment of
value of potential change
1. Match to values and

purposes
2. Match with policy
priorities
3. Meeting legal
obligations
4. Potential benefits of
collaboration
5. Achieving trade offs
6. Cost/benefit of
involvement
Not initially motivated or

negatively motivated to
resist change:
1. Different values
2. Different priorities/
purposes
3. Threat to power/
authority
4. Indifference/
ignorance
Capacity
1. Human resources
Knowledge
Understanding
Skills
time
energy
1. Human resources
knowledge
understanding
skills
time
energy
1. Human resources
Knowledge
understanding
skills
time
energy
Resistance capacity:
2. Material resources
budgets
buildings
equipment
budgets
buildings
equipment
budgets
buildings
equipment
3. Power or authority
3. Impact of previous
experience on belief in
potential for change
including:
Self confidence
Confidence/trust in others
3. Power or authority
budgets
buildings
equipment
4. Belief in potential for

change
3. Counter power or
authority
4. Belief in potential for

change
1. Human resources
Knowledge
understanding
skills
time
energy
Opportunity 1. Specific events or

crises
2. New resources
3. Attitudes/abilities of
community
4. Attitudes/abilities of
other potential
partners
5. Profile/acceptability
of work or agency
6. Weakness or
responsiveness of
target for change
1. Specific events or crises

1. Availability of
resources through
2. New resources
partnership with lead
3. Availability of and attitudes/
agency and/or
abilities of worker/agency
community
4. Attitudes/abilities of other
2.
Pursuit of shared
potential partners
purposes
with lead
5. Weakness or
agency
and/or
responsiveness of target for
community
change
3. Potential to achieve
influence on partners
4. Potential to use
partnership to achieve
own purposes
From the standpoint

of the other parties
opportunities to be
exploited include:
1. Internal value
contradictions
2. Weaknesses in
power/authority base
3. Possibility of
trade offs
4. Openness to
negotiation/
consideration of
alternatives
5. Resource changes
The Worked Examples document provides illustrations of this framework in practice.
18
19
LEAP
iii. Being change and outcome-focused10

As the three national priorities in the WALT guidance make clear, CLD is a change activity.
In other words it sets out to make a difference to things that cause concern to the people who are involved.
LEAP is a framework that is designed to enable positive planned change to be made to the needs that
have been identified. It has adopted an outcome focus because the primary purpose of CLD is to enable
a real, measurable, difference to be made to the quality of personal and community lives.
Outcome-focused planning is driven by commitment to make a difference. The differences which are
sought form the basis for action plans. Outcome focused evaluation is the process of assessing how
successful the action plan has been in making a difference. A focus on outcomes is essentially a focus
on results. It is about planning for change in response to an identified need or issue. For the purposes of
reliable evaluation, the connection between the need identified, the action taken and the outcome
achieved should always be clear. Following the LEAP steps, set out in section 3, enables you to do this.
In LEAP the evaluation is asking what the effectiveness and efficiency was of a specific action plan in
addressing need and achieving desirable outcomes.
Outcomes reflect the wider reasons why we promote community learning and development. They focus
on the effects and benefits which it can have in peoples lives. Without a vision of the outcomes CLD lacks
purposeful direction. Achieving, with your partners, a shared vision of outcomes is therefore a precondition
for planning good practice.
Equally it is essential for evaluation. Yet, ironically, a weakness of much planning is lack of clarity of vision
and many so called evaluations simply describe the action that has been taken, rather than assessing the
results. For example, if the identified need is to address inequalities in health, the action taken may be a
community health fair. However this is not an end in itself but a means to an end improved health. What
the evaluation needs to address is whether this has made a contribution towards better health. The community
health fair is run because it may enable people to think about and do things which may benefit the quality
of individual or community life. For example they may become aware of the links between poverty and ill
health, they may become interested in the development of a Healthy Living Centre, they may become
more personally aware of issues surrounding drug misuse or motivated to form a community group to
tackle drug problems in the community.
Such outcomes are the reason why a health fair may be organised. But there is no guarantee that people
will participate or, if they do, that it will necessarily lead to the outcomes which were sought. In other words
agencies and workers do not control outcomes and they may be different from their expectations.
Nonetheless they need to know what the outcomes are because they cannot presume that the actions
they take necessarily achieve what they want.
10
For further discussion see: Delivering Change Understanding the outcomes of community learning and development
Learning Connections (2007)
The example also illustrates another important feature of outcomes. Whilst it may be stimulating to have
utopian visions of change, in the real world the changes we seek have to be realistic, though not without
ambition. Participants have to believe they can be achieved and they have to be achievable. However,
horizons and capacity for change grow with achievement. The initial outcome of a health fair may simply be
heightened awareness of health issues and inequalities. This is a desirable and worthwhile outcome but in
turn needs to lead to further aspirations, for example to have a direct impact on risk factors in community
health such as drug misuse.
In other words outcomes lead to identification of further potential outcomes, thus, over time, there may be
chains of outcomes that have more and more impact on the identified need. However, the plans and actions
that address these outcomes may involve new partners and may develop quite independently of the initial
CLD activity. This is entirely positive but this ripple effect is more and more difficult to evaluate in terms of
the contribution of CLD practice as it becomes more remote and subject to more and more new influences.
The LEAP approach to outcome-focused planning and evaluation is also based on the understanding that
the process of participatory outcome-focused planning and evaluation can be an important driver of
change itself. The level of stakeholder deliberation and dialogue that is required to effectively vision and
agree outcomes is necessarily a process of building relationships, sharing power, accommodating and
valuing diversity, understanding different perspectives and reaching consensus. It frequently requires
transparently conducted diplomacy and negotiation.
In the LEAP framework it follows then that outcome-focused evaluation must be a process of shared
assessment that enables partners to celebrate mutual achievement and reflect on ways of addressing
ineffective or inefficient practice. The approach set out in the LEAP framework describes evaluation as an
important learning, development and empowerment tool.
Since LEAP was first published, commitment to outcome-focused planning has become a defining
characteristic of policy for social justice, health equalities and regeneration. Funding is increasingly tied to
outcome agreements, for example in the requirement for Regeneration Outcome Agreements or the Big
Lottery Fund shift from grant-making to investing in outcomes.
In the specific context of CLD, in response to the commitment of WALT to be able to assess more thoroughly
the contribution of CLD to achieving outcomes, Learning Connections has developed a menu of potential
outcomes of CLD in its publication: Delivering change understanding the outcomes of community
learning and development. In common with LEAP this document defines outcomes as: the changes that
come about as result of us taking actions.
20
21
LEAP
iv. A participatory and partnership approach

CLD is a participatory activity. The achievement of change (whether for individuals, groups or communities)
involves people working together. As the discussion of needs has shown, different people have different
roles and interests. Each has a stake in what happens either as contributor to, or beneficiary of, change.
LEAP describes these people as stakeholders. They are the people with an interest in what is being done.
The active stakeholders will include:
Participants as individuals and groups.

Workers and managers in CLD agencies.
Partners in other agencies.
There will also be a wider set of people who have an interest. These include:
The wider community that is affected by change.

Agencies that provide resources.
Policy makers.
Because CLD is about achieving change through working with people on the needs that they experience,
the participants should be seen as the primary stakeholders. Involving community stakeholders must not
be a token gesture. It should reflect an active commitment to principles of positive partnership and
engagement. In applying the LEAP model we therefore draw attention to established principles of good
practice and recommend their use in particular, the National Standards for Community Engagement.11
The standards were developed from the experience of communities and set out a simple guide to how
to work in a participatory manner. They recognise that partners have different interests, motivations and
perspectives and that there will therefore be need for negotiation over:
11
priorities;
commitment of resources;
time scales; and
methods of working.
Available on the Communities Scotland website at:

http://www.communitiesscotland.gov.uk/stellent/groups/public/documents/webpages/lccs_008411.pdf
They also recognise and address differences in power and access to resources, in order to ensure equality
of opportunity to contribute and influence. In particular they recognise that those who are members of
excluded groups may have particular difficulties placed in the way of their participation barriers of language,
physical access or cost for example. The underlying commitment of CLD to a participatory approach should
alert us to the need to invest in compensatory support to overcome such barriers.
As the discussion of need has shown, individual and community needs are the starting point but there are
other factors that influence what CLD agencies and their partners will give attention to. In the light of this, if
collaboration is to be a reality, those with an interest and who wish to do so, should work together to agree:
What should be achieved.

How it should be done.
How it should be evaluated.
An organisation that is committed to participatory principles is not hierarchical with power invested in a small
elite group that issues directives to operational staff who deliver a service that is not open to question or
influence of those who use it. It does not look like this:
Policy
Makers
Managers
Staff
Users/Community
22
23
LEAP
ers/comm
s
u
un
ice
v
er nt-line worke it
o
rs
r
g
a
e
n
r
F Ma
s
m
il cy ake
rs
Po
A participatory organisation looks more like this:
In this type of organisation there is still a commitment to a structure that ensures that there is authority to
manage and direct resources but the processes by which policy is established reflects a continuing
dialogue between stakeholders. Because this is a model which is need-led, the ultimate beneficiaries
the service users and community are a primary source of intelligence. The response to their experience
is designed around their need, formulated with their involvement and that of the staff who work with them,
as well as their managers.
LEAP is designed to be used in this kind of relationship. It enables planning and evaluation that is genuinely
participatory. LEAP is based on the understanding that a process of shared planning is the foundation for
effective continuing partnership between agencies and between agencies and the communities they work
with. For this to be the case stakeholders must be involved at all stages from visioning and agreeing outcomes
to evaluating impact and reviewing lessons.
v. Promoting continuous learning and improvement

The combination of the words learning and development in the title of an occupation focused on community
change is a description of its core characteristics. Development implies change, growth and improvement
and the basis for its achievement is the acquisition of awareness, understanding, skills and knowledge
for effective action. LEAP embraces learning and development. It promotes effective participatory,
outcome-focused planning, action and evaluation in order to achieve purposeful change, but also
recognises that it is essential to learn from the experience and to apply the lessons to future practice.
A learning-based approach to planning and evaluation is based on the understanding that planning and
evaluation serve a particular function in learning about and working for change. If we prioritise learning,
then planning becomes a process of understanding a current situation or issue in as complete a way as
possible, understanding and learning about different perspectives and priorities to come to agreement
about what needs to change and developing a plan of action to achieve that change.
Similarly evaluation becomes a process of learning about what success means from different
perspectives, what is considered to be evidence and the value that is placed on different kinds of
evidence and evaluation methods. To maximise learning the approach is necessarily one of collaborative
self-evaluation between stakeholders.
Learning-based planning and evaluation must be outcome-focused (see principle 3). In order to maximise
the learning we can gain from our work we must first be clear about what we are trying to achieve and
about our criteria for success. We also need to have a clear understanding of why the action we take might
lead to the intended changes (the outcomes). If we dont have this level of clarity we are limited in relation
to what we can learn through evaluation.
Evaluation should explore the extent to which we have achieved the change we hoped to see and provide
us with some understanding of whether change resulted from the action we took. If change did not occur
we should be able to discern something about why not. If negative or positive outcomes resulted other
than those we planned for it is equally important that we try to understand how these are connected to the
actions we have taken. In terms of learning, the unexpected is often as interesting and important as what
was planned. While it is not always possible to firmly establish cause and effect, we should always be able
to learn from an evaluation and use that learning to inform what we do next.
The emphasis, then, is not just on learning but on continuous learning. It is for this reason that LEAP is
presented as a cycle of steps in which the experience of one cycle of planning, action and evaluation
feeds into new cycles of activity. Development is a continuous process and learning should constantly be
feeding into it. The adoption of the LEAP approach enables this seamless relationship between learning
and development to be accomplished.
24
25
LEAP
The LEAP framework is based on the understanding that a commitment to learning is a key principle of
good practice not just for individual practitioners but for the partnerships of stakeholders that address
change and for the organisations that promote it. Hence LEAP is a model for the development of learning
organisations and systems. In such settings learning is not restricted to the immediate participants in
particular initiatives but shared for the potential benefit of everyone.
Attention therefore needs to be given to feeding back and sharing lessons. This will apply at group, team,
organisational and partnership levels. By capturing the lessons of innovative practice, for example, through
case studies and reports, it can contribute to the sum of practice wisdom well beyond the local context. If
we are involved in planning and delivering change that has an impact for other people, we have a
responsibility to act as reflective practitioners in learning organisations and systems. This can make sure
that everyone benefits from attention to learning from action.
The LEAP framework sets out the key steps necessary for learning-based planning and evaluation. It raises
key questions that we should consider in order to maximise shared learning that can be applied to more
effective future practice.
Section 3: Understanding the steps in the

LEAP cycle
Introduction
In this section each of the steps in the LEAP process, introduced in section 1, is reviewed to illuminate the
character of the tasks involved. The five key steps address how we will respond to the need we have
identified. Each step has a trigger question:
Step 1: What difference do we want to make?

Step 2: How will we know we made a difference?
Step 3: How will we go about making the difference?
What resources will we use?

What methods will we use?
In what ways will we use them?
Step 4: How are we making sure it is happening?

Step 5: Have we made the difference?

Throughout the steps the principles set out in the previous sections should be apparent in the manner in
which each one is conducted:
Being need-led: Before embarking on the cycle thorough analysis should have been conducted of the
needs to be addressed and the interested stakeholders should have been engaged. These prior
actions ensure that the principles of need led and participatory practice are in place. They need to be
sustained throughout.
Being change and outcome-focused: Once involved in the cycle, the focus on outcomes or differences
to be achieved should constantly underpin practice.
Building on capacity and developing assets: In considering what are achievable outcomes at the action
plan stage, particular attention should be given to building on and maximising the capacities and assets
of the participants.
Adopting a participatory approach and building partnerships: At all stages attention needs to be given
to ensuring that the stakeholders are party to the process of agreeing and delivering both the plan and
the evaluation.
Promoting continuous learning and improvement: Learning from action should be an explicit goal.
Learning will ultimately depend on evidence. Setting criteria for judging progress and collecting good
data are therefore essential ingredients for learning from action and need to be in place throughout.
26
27
LEAP
Step 1: Agreeing outcomes what difference do we want to make?

STEP 1
OUTCOME
What difference do
we want to make?
Summary of Step 1:
Identify community need/concerns.

Assemble the stakeholders.
Establish a vision of what needs to change.
Describe the vision as a series of outcomes.
Once an understanding of the nature and dimensions of the need or needs to be tackled has been
established (see section 2, part i), the LEAP planning and evaluation cycle gets underway. Step 1 starts
by giving attention not to the need but to what participants would like to see result from action for change.
The cycle therefore begins from a positive perspective on what a better state of affairs would look like.
In other words what should be the outcome or result of the work that will be done.
Step 1 is about what participants want to achieve. What is needed is a leap of imagination to the future in
which they envision how different things should be. An important feature of this stage in terms of CLD is
that the focus is on the differences that the participants want for themselves, their group, community or
agency. At this stage they are not saying anything about what they might need to do to achieve that
difference that comes later.
We have already recognised that different stakeholders have different interests (see section 2, part ii). If they
are to work effectively with one another all their interests have to be met. This will only be possible if their
interests, and outcomes that they define in relation to them, are not mutually contradictory. In other words,
as the stories in the Worked Examples illustrate, different stakeholders can collaborate and seek and value
different outcomes provided that they are compatible.
The outcomes should be drawn from the aspirations of the participants. This is essential because it is
doing something about their experience that may motivate them to get involved. In relation to needs that
people are experiencing, the initial task of the CLD worker is to encourage people to imagine a future state
of affairs that they believe would be worth pursuing.
In the context of CLD these outcomes will normally relate to personal development, community capacity
and to the wider quality of life that people experience. As was noted in the discussion of LEAP and other
tools (see section 1, part vii), to stimulate thinking about potential outcomes Learning Connections has
produced Delivering change understanding the outcomes of community learning and development.
The outcomes from this document are reprinted in appendix 1 of the worked example booklet and it may
be helpful to refer them to assist in identifying appropriate outcomes.
Similarly it may be helpful to refer to the qualitative indicators and indicative themes set out in HGIOCLD? 2
(especially key areas 2.1 and 4.1). However neither document should simply be treated as a ready made
source of outcome statements. Rather they should be used as a means of stimulating discussion with the
participants of the outcomes that they think are desirable, relevant and realistic in their particular circumstances.
It is important to remember that people who have had major and sustained problems to deal with in their
lives tend to have lower expectations of what it will be possible to achieve. This is not a reflection of their
ability or potential but a rational response to their experiences. It is important therefore that the vision of
change is one that they believe is realistic and achievable. If it is not, the result may actually be that
motivation is lost.
This sometimes means initially focusing on lower level changes than might ultimately be desirable. If the
initial changes are successfully achieved, confidence and aspirations will grow and it will be possible to
move onto higher levels, not because these are imposed by workers but because of growth in the
confidence, aspirations and abilities of the participants. This is why the LEAP model presents a continuous
cycle of learning and action.
Recognising the level of expectation of change is not only relevant for community participants but also for
other stakeholders. For example moving into partnership working requires confidence and mutual trust to
be built. Belief in the potential of partnerships can grow with learning from experience of the capabilities of
other partners and the partnership as a whole.
Like LEAP, Delivering Change is clear that: its the outcomes that participants want to achieve that are
most important. Looking at the outcomes suggested by the document for CLD practice it will be obvious
to experienced practitioners that pursing the outcomes identified by the participants will also enable the
wider outcomes of CLD to be reached. The outcomes set out in the Worked Examples would also meet
the requirements of key parts of the HGIOCLD? 2 framework, in particular key area 2: Impact on service
users and key area 4: Impact on the community.
Nonetheless, it is worth noting that the kinds of outcomes that are sought by the participants tend to be
different in nature from those that are identified by those that work with them. Participants will usually have a
more specific vision of the difference that they want to see because their motivation relates to resolving a
need that they directly experience.
28
29
LEAP
Those that work with them will be more interested in changes in capacity that occur in the process of
achieving the specific resolution because these will increase the likelihood of self-sustaining ability for
effective action that can be transferred in the future to new needs. Commonly participants identify what
are termed end outcomes and those that work with them identify process outcomes.
It is important not only to acknowledge that different participants will potentially seek different outcomes
but also to be clear about which outcomes will be commonly agreed as the criteria for measuring success.
In step 2 this will be relevant to identifying an appropriate range of indicators that will become the focus for
collecting evidence in steps 3 and 4.
It is also worth noting that some participants may wish to assess outcomes which are peculiar to their
particular interests and not agreed as the common basis for judging success. If they wish to do so it is
their responsibility to go on to identify indicators and collect relevant evidence (for further discussion of
outcome-based practice see section 2, part iii).
Step 2: Identifying Indicators how will we know we made a difference?

STEP 2
OUTCOME
INDICATORS
How will we know
we made a
difference?
Summary of Step 2:
Together with other stakeholders, identify potential indicators that will provide evidence for
measuring whether outcomes are achieved.
Agree which indicators will be adopted.

Think about how to build the process of collecting evidence into practice and procedures.
Step 2 is one that often gets forgotten. It somehow seems illogical to ask how we will know we have made
a difference before we have actually done anything. Unfortunately it is often only when it is too late that the
reason becomes clear. We get to the end of a piece of work and realise that, because we did not establish
the criteria for success, we have not been collecting any evidence to tell us whether what we have been
doing has been worthwhile and what has changed relative to conditions when we started our work.
As a result we find it very difficult to learn any useful lessons from our experience. Without good evidence
and clear baselines, retrospective attempts to make sense of what happened are highly unreliable, potentially
misleading and therefore dangerous. (See section 2, part v for further discussion of continuous learning
and improvement.)
So, before deciding what to do to achieve the outcomes set in step 1, we need to pause and reflect on how
we will judge success. At the end of the process we will not just be interested in whether the outcomes
occurred but, because we are trying to evaluate the benefits and impact of our actions, we will want to
know if it is these actions that have influenced them.
It is sometimes difficult to prove conclusively that actions we take are the cause of changes we seek. This
is because many other things could be going on that would potentially also have an effect. For example, an
improvement in the level of drug dealing in a community could be the result of a wide variety of influences.
So what we will want to know is whether the actions we have taken with other participants have been
influential in any positive changes that occur.
To do this, ideally we would have some measures that could show direct effects that were caused by the
actions of the participants. More often we will need to rely on criteria that suggest that there may be a causal
connection. We call these indicators. To be confident that any changes are related to our actions we will
usually need to collect evidence in relation to several indicators.
We want to make this task as easy as possible so that it does not distract us from effort to achieve the
change. On the other hand we do want to know whether what we have done has been effective or not.
Since this will improve our later performance, the time taken to set criteria and collect evidence should be
seen as an investment in effectiveness, not a cost.
Two further questions therefore need to be addressed:
what sorts of indicators could we use; and

how will we collect useful evidence efficiently as part of our work?
Suitable indicators
Because the way in which activity develops is often unpredictable we will need to think broadly about the
kind of information that will provide convincing evidence that outcomes are being achieved. It is important
to take this broad view rather than commit ourselves in advance to specific indicators which might turn out
not to be relevant. For example, in literacies work, an outcome like improved skills in English could be
illustrated in a variety of different ways depending on the contexts in which it was set. So, what we need to
have done is consider the sorts of things that could provide evidence of this outcome. This approach is
adopted in the Worked Examples.
30
31
LEAP
Many of the outcomes of CLD that focus on personal development and community capacity will be identifiable
in the way that people behave. For instance, in relation to personal development both HGIOCLD? 2 and
Delivering Change refer to greater confidence as an outcome. In advance it may sometimes be possible
to identify specific circumstances in which the outcome may be tested, for example, in speaking in a
public context. Where there is such specificity the circumstances in which an indicator will be applied can
be planned in advance.
However more commonly the opportunities to demonstrate the outcome may not be predictable. We must
therefore be open to using indicators of such an outcome in many potential circumstances. The strength
of our conviction of achievement will be reinforced by consistent evidence of the same outcome in several
different contexts.
Collecting useful evidence
What we are interested in is evidence of change and progress. We can only know if something has changed
if we knew where we were to start with. All evidence that is used needs to be assessed against a baseline
which records the situation as it is before action is taken. This is why so much attention has been given to
discussion of a need-led approach.
The baseline information should look at two things:
what the need is; and

assessment of the potential for change.
This is because what has to be changed is not just the need itself but the capacity of those involved to do
something about it. We cant use the LEAP approach unless we have recorded the baseline in both
these ways. As the previous section illustrated, indicators will relate to both.
Once the baseline is established and activity commences, evidence will start to become available. For CLD
workers the evidence will generally emerge in the process of the work that they and the other stakeholders
are doing. They will be observing and recording changes through their participation in the change effort
and drawing on the observations and records that are kept by others. HGIOCLD? 212 describes four main
sources of evidence which apply equally to LEAP. These are:
12
performance data;
relevant documentation;
stakeholders views and feedback; and
direct observations of practice.
HGIOCLD? 2 page 5 6.
The evidence needs to be recorded and verified, but many indicators do not require any special investigation
to identify evidence. Simply maintaining and using good records of what happens, will supply what is
required. For example:
Minutes of meetings.
Reports of events (e.g. a community conference).
Personal learning plans.
Diary records.
Applications for funding.
Crime statistics.
Examination performance records.
Newsletters.
Web pages.
In a participatory model like LEAP, records have to be publicly available to be used for evaluative purposes.
The indications of change that they suggest should also be corroborated from other sources. The more
sources providing evidence of the same outcomes the stronger the case will be.
Whilst some outcomes will be self evident (for example, whether there is an increase in a specified skill,
such as book keeping, or not) others will be more open to challenge. For example, a common outcome
that is sought is a growth in self-confidence. Single instances might suggest a change of this kind but it
would be the cumulative evidence of more confident behaviours in a range of settings that would provide
convincing evidence of this change.
Evidence of some changes will require some special enquiry. For example it might be necessary to conduct
a survey of opinion about the perceptions that people have of safety in a community and whether it is
improving. But it is worth remembering that perception can be misleading, we may feel safer but not be safer.
So how perceptions match up with more objective evidence, for example from crime statistics, is important.
The main message, then, is that evidence arises from the process of the work. LEAP is not about turning
CLD workers or participants into researchers but encouraging them to make use of the direct insights their
activity gives them and to build up, over time, evidence about what is happening. We need to plan how all
those involved in the action will collect and record the evidence. This takes us on to the action planning
step into which the process of data collection will need to be integrated.
32
33
LEAP
Step 3: Action planning how will we go about making the difference?

STEP 3
INPUTS
What resources
will we use?
OUTPUTS
How will we use the
resources and
methods?
PROCESSES
What methods will
we use?
HOW WILL WE
GO ABOUT IT?
Summary of Step 3
Remind yourself of what you are trying to achieve.

Identify the resource you will need.
Identify the methods you will use.
Identify who will deliver what specific outputs where and when.
Make sure you have the resources that you need.
Make sure your actions match the principles of the methods you have chosen.
Check that your actions are likely to succeed in achieving your desired outcomes and
reconsider if necessary.
Check that you have built the means of collecting evidence in to your action plan.
We now know what we are trying to achieve and we have a good idea of the sort of indicators we need to
collect evidence about. But we still have to work out exactly how, with the participation of all the relevant
stakeholders, we are going to achieve the change (for further discussion of partnership and participation
see section 2, part iv). The starting point for an effective action plan is a review of the intended outcomes.
In relation to these, quite simply, we need to think about:
what will need to be done;

by whom;
when;
in what way; and
what we need to have available to be able to do it.
To work this out we need to involve all the active participants in answering three key questions:
What resources will we use? the inputs.

What methods will we use? the processes.
In what ways will we use them? the actions or outputs.
It doesnt really matter which of these questions we start with but in the end the answers to all three must
complement each other. For example it would be no use deciding to use methods that we didnt have the
time, funds, equipment or skills for. Similarly it would be of no benefit to identify lots of resources that were
not relevant to the activities we planned.
1. Inputs/resources
When we think about resources we are thinking about the ingredients that we will need to use to take
effective action. These are the capacities and assets on which we need to build. We call them inputs
because they are literally the things that we put in to the process of change.
So what sorts of things are we talking about?
Money/budgets.
Facilities, e.g. meeting rooms, conference venues, sports grounds, catering.
Equipment, e.g. video camera, transport, display boards, computer.
Learning resources, e.g. audio-visual presentations, books, training packs, how to guides.
People with:
Time;
Energy, commitment and motivation;
Relevant skills;
Relevant knowledge;
Relevant experience;
Ideas and imagination; and
Authority to take action.
Policies and guidance that enable the action we want to take.
34
35
LEAP
We not only need to think about what resources we may need but where they will come from. As we are
talking about a participatory and partnership based approach to planning and evaluation (see section 2,
part iv) the resources might come from any of the stakeholders including:
The community participants young people, adults, community groups and organisations.
The CLD agency and its staff.
Other active partner agencies.
External agencies, e.g. funders or policy makers.
The range and level of resources that may be needed to take action to achieve an outcome will depend on:
how complex the desired outcome is; and

how we want to go about it.
It is not possible to simply answer the resources question and move neatly on to methods and actions.
In practice what happens is that as we start to think about these other questions we refine our idea about
what resources we really need. So we will inevitably return to the resources question.
2. Processes/methods
It is important to think in broad terms about the style or types of action that we will take. In this question we
are not interested in exactly who will do what or when but in thinking through the sort of approach that is
likely to be most effective and most efficient. In choosing the methods we draw on the theories of change
in CLD that reflect its underlying values of inclusive participation, equalities, empowerment and partnership.
Methods relate to things like:
Training.
Network development.
Community organising.
Action research.
Marketing.
Information provision.
Advocacy.
Campaigning.
Visioning.
Within these broad headings there will be specific techniques that might be appropriate for example:
Planning for Real.

Future Search.
World Caf.
Community Appraisal.
Open Space.
Participatory Drama.
Such methods are reviewed in publications such as the Scottish Centre for Regenerations Community
Engagement: How to guide.13
Achieving complex outcomes is likely to require the use of a range of methods and specific techniques.
Identifying the kinds of methods that might be most suitable does not necessarily mean that we can use
them we need to be sure that the motivation, capacity and opportunity would be available to allow us to
use them (for further discussion see section 2, part ii).
3. Output and actions
Action plans commonly fall down because we are not precise about who will be committed to doing what,
when and where. Having looked at methods and techniques, we may have a good idea of how we will go
about things but the devil is often in the detail.
It may seem self evident but it is vital that the action plan actually sets out:
the actions that will be taken;

precisely who is responsible for taking them; and
when and where they should happen.
Of course it will only be possible to take these actions if we have the resources to do so. If we dont have
the resources we either need to find them or adopt a different plan of action. Carrying on regardless is a
recipe for disaster.
Similarly, we may have identified actions to be taken but we need to be sure that these actions will enable
us to apply the methods that we think are appropriate. How we go about things is not accidental but
designed to deliver benefits.
13
http://www.ce.communitiesscotland.gov.uk/stellent/groups/public/documents/webpages/scrcs_006693.hcsp
36
37
LEAP
In CLD we use participatory methods because the theory of our practice, derived from evidence, tells us
that establishing agreement rather than imposing solutions is more likely lead to valued and sustainable
change (see section 2, parts iv and v). We need to check that the actions we will take will reflect the methods
and underlying principles of CLD set out, for example, in the Working and Learning Together guidance as:
empowerment, participation, inclusion and equal opportunity, self-determination and partnership (see
section 1, part iii).
Sometimes action plans may present fine words about using methods that reflect the values of CLD but,
in practice, corners are cut and lip service is paid to them.
4. Will it work? from Step 3 back to Step 1
The action plan has to be capable of delivering the change we set out to achieve. The sum of all the actions
needs to be assessed to see whether it is likely to do this. In other words will the outputs that we will deliver
achieve the outcomes that we have set?
Of course no-one can be certain that their plans will work, even the best laid plans can be derailed by
unforeseen or unforeseeable circumstances. But the stakeholders do need to have confidence in what they
intend to do. Doubts will undermine motivation and commitment. It is therefore wise to ask the question:
what could go wrong? The approach can be strengthened to cover weak areas and it is possible to put in
place contingency plans that could be brought into operation if anticipated difficulties actually arose.
But there is another possibility that needs to be considered. Have we been over-ambitious? Do we really
have the capacity to achieve the outcome that we set? Vision needs to be tempered by realism. By all
means be ambitious but dont set unachievable targets.
If the conclusion is that the outcomes cannot be achieved we should go back to Step 1. This is prudent
and mature, not defeatist. Ultimately the intended outcome may be achievable but there may be a series
of interim outcomes that need to be addressed first. The journey starts with the first step!
5. Collecting the evidence
In Step 2 we identified the sorts of indicators that would tell us if the outcomes were being achieved and
recognised that we would have to have records to provide evidence. We noted that these could well be
things that we would need to do anyway (like writing up conference reports, or preparing and reviewing
learning plans). In Step 3, as a final part of the action plan, we should review it to see:
What sorts of records will be produced in the process of the work that will be likely to offer evidence
that illuminates indicators of change.
Whether these records will be adequate or need to be supplemented in some way.
Step 4: Monitoring how are we making sure it is happening?

STEP 4
OUTPUT
MONITORING
How are we
making sure it
is happening?
Summary of Step 4.
Agree who is responsible for monitoring.

Agree how all contributors will be held to account for delivering their contribution.
Agree what evidence will convince you that the plan is being implemented.
Record evidence of action and its impact.
Chase progress as necessary.
As the saying goes: the road to ruin is paved with good intentions. Action plans are only useful if they are
implemented.
Because CLD is complex implementation usually involves many people working together. All the parts of
the plan have to be in place for it to be successful. So we need to know whether everyone is meeting the
commitments that they have made, at the time they agreed and in the way that they agreed to do them.
Monitoring the implementation of the action plan involves checking these things:
Whether the specified actions are being taken.

Whether the resources are in place that are needed to support these actions.
Whether the resources are adequate for the task.
Whether the sum of the methods of practice adopted amount to a coherent whole, enabling everything
necessary to be addressed.
Each of these points is in the present tense. This is because monitoring is about what should be happening
and responding if it is not.
However, the task of output monitoring is not just about whether things have been done, it is also about:
how well they have been done; and

recording evidence of impact they may have had.
38
39
LEAP
It is not sufficient, therefore, to rely on simple reports that activities have taken place. We need to know if the
experience of these actions was positive or not. This is where the indicators come in. We need to record
evidence of the kind that we identified in Step 2.
Recording needs to address the following questions:
Are we doing what we said we would do?
This should be quite straightforward. The plan will have set out what should happen and when.
Those responsible for delivery should ensure that brief reports indicating completion of the tasks
and any issues that have arisen are supplied to the monitoring co-ordinator.
Are we getting the stakeholders involved?
Reports of actions taken should record who has participated and whether there are any stakeholders
who were expected to be involved who did not participate. Absence of expected participants needs
to be followed up.
Are the stakeholders able to participate well?
In relation to events it will be normal to use brief questionnaires to asses satisfaction with what has
been done. Records of feedback from the stakeholders about their experience can be used to
monitor the quality of implementation. Observations of the lead party can also be recorded for
events and for other actions involved in implementing the plan.
Is the engagement system working well?
Observation is an important source of understanding but should be corroborated by comment from

all those directly involved. It should be normal practice to keep asking questions which provide
insight into satisfaction with the overall process of the implementation of the plan. For example, are
participants satisfied that they are fully informed about what is going on and that they have had
opportunity to contribute as fully as they would wish?
Are we learning as we go along?
Learning requires shared reflection between the participants. It is important to record what is being
learned from different activities as we go along, as this can enable adjustments to direction. This is
called formative assessment of evaluation. Evidence gathered in this way can ultimately contribute
to the overall evaluation of the action once complete this is called summative evaluation.
Here is a simple example of what might be recorded in a monitoring process. A group of young people
are becoming involved in a youth forum and have confidence building sessions to help them to talk to
councillors and officials. Monitoring questions would be:
Was this done?

Did it prepare them properly?
Do observations and views of participants about subsequent actions provide evidence of greater
confidence?
Monitoring therefore has to capture the perceptions that participants have of how well the action has been
taken and whether it is contributing to achieving the desired outcomes. The insights gained from effective
monitoring of quality enable necessary adjustments and changes to be made to the action plan. Ultimately
the records provide the basis for the work in Step 5.
Step 4 is probably the simplest to describe but implementing it is usually the most extended part of the
process because it is actually about seeing the action through and this is likely to be over months or,
potentially, years.
Step 5: Evaluation have we made a difference, what are the lessons we

have learned?
STEP 5
EVALUATION
Did we make the
difference?
What have we
learned?
Bring all the evidence together.

Analyse it.
Involve the stakeholders in judging the meaning of the evidence.
Ask these questions:
How far have we achieved the outcomes we set?

Have there been any other outcomes?
If further action is needed, return to step one.
Step 5 completes the LEAP cycle. It is about ensuring that we are learning from what we are doing (see
section 2, part v.)
It takes place once the action plan has been fully implemented. It is the point at which we make judgements
about what we have been doing and whether it has been beneficial. To complete Step 5 satisfactorily all
other steps must have been completed.
40
41
LEAP
We need to be clear what it was we were trying to achieve (Step 1). We need to have identified indicators that
we can use to judge progress (Step 2). We need to have developed an appropriate action plan (Step 3)
and to know we have implemented it (Step 4). Within the action plan we need to have established how we
will collect evidence about progress and to have built this into our monitoring.
Step 5 begins by pulling together the evidence. Whilst this should have been recorded as part of the
monitoring procedure it is worth checking with all the stakeholders whether they have any additional evidence
relating to indicators of the intended outcomes. Once this evidence is assembled we need to make sense
of it. What does it tell us about progress that has been made?
But we would make a big mistake if we only asked whether the outcomes we set had been achieved there
are invariably other outcomes that result from actions we take. These can be positive or negative. The
stakeholders need to identify what these are because they will provide important lessons for future action.
It is also important to remind ourselves that the outcomes set at Step1 are often not measurable in absolute
terms. For example if we say we are looking for increased confidence or self-esteem there is no absolute
measure of what this looks like. Our evaluation is often therefore focused on progress made or distance
travelled. It is often helpful to think in terms of whether there has been sufficient progress to enable the
participants to do the things that they need to do.
Different stakeholders may have different views about what has been achieved. This may be because they
prioritise different outcomes or because they make different judgements about the same outcomes.
Clearly this can present difficulties in moving forward but open exploration of differences is healthy.

This document is also available on the Scottish Government
website: www.scotland.gov.uk
This document is available in alternative formats on request
RR Donnelley B52956 11/07
Blackwells Bookshop
53 South Bridge
Edinburgh
EH1 1YS
Telephone orders and enquiries
0131 622 8283 or 0131 622 8258
Fax orders
0131 557 8149
Email orders
business.edinburgh@blackwell.co.uk
LEAP
Worked Examples:
Applying LEAP to real-life situations
Revised Edition
LEAP
Worked Examples:
Applying LEAP to real-life situations
Revised Edition
The Scottish Government, Edinburgh 2007
LEAP

ISBN: 978-0-7559-5517-6
The Scottish Government
St Andrews House
Edinburgh
EH1 3DG
Produced for the Scottish Government by RR Donnelley B52956 11/07
Published by the Scottish Government, November, 2007
Blackwells Bookshop
53 South Bridge
Edinburgh
EH1 1YS
The text pages of this document are printed on recycled paper and are 100% recyclable
LEAP WORKED EXAMPLES: APPLYING LEAP TO REAL-LIFE SITUATIONS
Contents
Introduction
1. Youth work the Northside Team
2
5
2. Adult learning Marias story
12
3. Capacity building Northside Womens Group story
19
4. Programme/operational management level example
27
5. Policy/strategic management level example
38
Appendix 1: Outcomes of CLD from Delivering Change
48
ii
LEAP
Introduction
In this document the practice of LEAP is illustrated in relation to a number of levels:
project/practice;
programme/operational management; and
policy/strategic management level activity.
All the illustrations are set in the city of Strathinver with particular reference to the Northside neighbourhood.
Three project/practice level examples illustrate a LEAP approach to each of the national CLD priorities set
out in the WALT guidance:
1. The story of the Northside team, illustrates achieving change through work with young people.
2. The story of Maria, and her experience in an adult literacies programme, illustrates achieving change
through learning for adults.
3. Northside Womens Group illustrates achievement of change through capacity building.
Each story is related to the others to illustrate the potential interplay between the three priority areas.
The fourth example focuses on a LEAP approach to planning and evaluating a programme of CLD activity.
It relates to the role of CLD working with local community planning partners to instigate an initiative to respond
to a shared concern about the needs of recently arrived economic migrants and refugees who have become
a significant part of the population of Northside.
The final example moves to the application of LEAP at policy and strategic level. It focuses on policy review
and planning for an integrated, inter-agency approach to effective support for community organisations
across Strathinver.
Each example is set out using a common format that describes the need (see section 2, part i of the LEAP
manual), identifies the stakeholders (see section 2, parts ii and iv), explores the outcomes and associated
indicators (see section 3, parts i and ii and section 2, part ii), summarises the action plan (see section 3,
part iii) and the monitoring arrangements for its implementation (see section 3, part iv), and finishes with a
review of the evidence and lessons from evaluation (see sections 3, part v and section 2, part v).
The Context
1. CLD and Community Planning:
The CLD team which is a significant contributor to all the examples is part of Strathinver Community Service
Department. The department also includes: libraries, museums, leisure and sport, arts and information
services. Strathinver Council has committed itself strongly to community planning and the Community
Services Director is a member of the Corporate Management Team that seeks to present an integrated
Council contribution to this partnership.
The CLD team has a strong working relationship with the Northside Area Regeneration and Community
Planning Officer, who is employed within the Chief Executives department of the Strathinver Council but
accountable to the Strathinver Community Planning Partnership Co-ordinator. CLD is seen as a key
contributor to local community planning and develops its work in line with priorities set within the Strathinver
Community Plan.
Partnership and collaborative practice is therefore a defining characteristic of the way that the team works.
Other statutory partners have increasingly recognised that the principles of participatory governance
reflected in community planning require them to develop their practice, adopting CLD approaches within
their wider repertoires of intervention.
It is recognised that the sum of the partnership working collaboratively has the potential to have far greater
impact than the parts working alone. Apart from the CLD team key partners involved in the Northside
Partnership are: the range of Council departments delivering services in the area (Community Services,
Housing, Social Work, Education, Planning and Transport, Environmental Health and Trading Standards);
Northside College; Northside NHS Health Improvement Team, Strathinver Police and Fire Services.
Voluntary sector involvement is from Strathinver Voluntary Action Council and Volunteer Centre and
Strathinver Housing Association both of which have active involvement in Northside. Community partners
are represented through the Northside Community Forum (which also operates as the Public Partnership
Forum in relation to health issues and is built on a former Tenants and Residents Forum), Northside Adult
Learners Forum and Northside Youth Forum.
LEAP
2. Strathinver and Northside

Strathinver is a port and resort city of 155,000 people in an attractive location. It grew up around its port
services, resort facilities, ship building and textile manufacturing much of which has been in decline for
30 years. Economic diversification has been based around computer manufacture, call centres and retail
shopping development and regeneration of tourism. The last has been particularly significant as Strathinver
has seen major investment as part of its regeneration programme in a hotel, marina, golf course and multiactivity commercial leisure complex.
The Strathinver Council and Community Planning Partnership area is significantly larger than the city alone
as it takes in a substantial rural hinterland with several commuter villages close by, but it also reaches out
to a series of remote glens.
Northside is a large post war estate built on the edges of the city as a slum clearance programme in the
1960s. It is a regeneration area with a population of 25,000 people. It consists of a mixture of high rise flats,
tenement, and back and front door houses. The hub of the area is a rather bleak, windswept shopping
mall that also contains a local community services centre (managed though the Community Service
Department but not by the CLD team) which houses meeting facilities, a community caf, youth drop-in
centre, library, local learning centre and a gym.
Northside suffers from a range of social, economic and health problems. Unemployment is high, poverty is
common, housing conditions are relatively poor, associated ill health is apparent, educational performance
and access to further and higher education is low, drug misuse is fuelling criminality and community safety
is a significant issue. The area is already physically detached from the city and transport costs are high.
All these factors reinforce the negative image of the area.
The following table indicates socio-economic characteristics of Strathinver, Northside and Scotland as a whole:
Strathinver
Northside
Scotland
Unemployment
7%
15%
6%
No formal qualifications
34%
47%
33%
Long term illness or disability
21%
27%
20%
Access to personal transport
70%
40%
74%
Dependent children with no working parent
15%
25%
15%
Project/practice level stories

1 Youth work the Northside Team
The need (see LEAP manual section 2, part i)
The Northside Team is an informal group of 13-15 year old young people who live in the Northside district
of Strathinver. They are keen on skateboarding and BMX riding but have been getting into trouble with the
police for doing this in their favourite gathering place at the local shopping mall and for being generally
rowdy. They feel they are being hounded.
They dont want to be in trouble and would like things to change. By speaking to the outreach youth worker
they express the needs that they feel. But their perceived needs are only part of what needs to be considered
before a decision is taken to work with them.
The role of the outreach worker is to help implement a childrens services plan that emphasises the
importance of protecting the safety of children and of taking a preventive approach to anti-social behaviour.
Evidence from the police indicates that youth crime, particularly related to under age drinking and drug
misuse, is growing. From this perspective there is a recognised need to protect young people and the
statistics also show that the risks are higher in Northside than elsewhere in the town.
This represents a combination of expressed, normative and comparative need that justifies targeting resources
on this group. In addition the motivation shown by the group, and the fact that working with them would be
consistent with the intent of policy, suggest that there will be strengths to build on.
The stakeholders (see section 2, parts ii and iv)
By stating their wish to do something about their situation, the Northside Team are the primary stakeholders.
If a response is to be made they need the support of the outreach youth worker who, in turn, needs the
support of his CLD team and its managers. They too are stakeholders. But they know that responding to
the needs that have been identified will ultimately need wider collaboration with others (for example the
Strathinver police, planners and sports and arts team). They are not yet actively involved but in the long run
they may be.
Though not immediately involved, a range of policy makers concerned with children, young people and
regeneration has created the conditions in which it is possible for the CLD team and others to work with the
Northside Team. These policy makers are also potential stakeholders because they have an active interest
in actions taken to fulfil policy objectives and may need to be persuaded to make available new resources.
LEAP
Stakeholder analysis (see framework in LEAP manual section 2, part ii.)

System Outreach Youth
Worker/Agency
Factor
Motivation
The Northside Team
Other potential
partners
Targets for change
Personal and agency

Frustration about being
commitment to social hassled by the police.
inclusion and targeting Wanting better facilities.
youth work support.
Escape from boredom.
Congruence with
Vision of a difference that
national youth strategy
could be made.
and childrens service
plan priorities.
Community arts worker: Motivation to resist

Personal and agency
change:
values.
Planners:
Benefit of collaboration. do not see project as
a priority.
Police:
Awareness of risk to
young people.
Parents:
Greater safety.
Reduced anti-social
behaviour and risk of
drugs offences.
Purposeful activity.
Adults in the community:

Punitive and negative
attitudes to young
people.
Councillors:
tight budget constraints.
Local press:
Negative reporting
about young people
and anti-social
behaviour.
Capacity
Skills and experience of Energy.

detached youth work. Enthusiasm.
Access to drop in
Time.
centre in town.
(But limited knowledge,
Operational support
experience, confidence and
budget.
trust.)
Equipment, e.g.
minibus, computer.
Community arts worker:

skills and knowledge;
access to arts
resources and
equipment.
Council control of
public funds.
Police:
Time of community
police officer.
Power of the press to

mould public opinion.
Parents:
Time, experience of
young people.
Managerial and policy

support.
Responsibility for
planning regulations
and advice.
Expression of negative
public attitudes.
Confidence about the

potential of young
people.
Opportunity Potential for support
from the community
arts worker.
Interest of Communities
Committee in targeted
youth work following
youth work strategy
consultation.
Already being known to
the Northside Team.
Knowing the outreach worker.
Access to arts budget.

Policing with the
community policy.
Setting up of womens
group in Northside.
Contradiction between
Communities
Committee policy and
Council funding
constraints.
Neutrality of the
planning officers.
Potential to get good
newspaper stories
about young people
doing things for
themselves.
Agreeing outcomes the difference the stakeholders wanted to make (see section 3, parts i and ii
and section 2, part ii)
The young people are agreed on quite specific outcomes somewhere in the neighbourhood where they
can gather and have fun in peace preferably a proper skate park.
The outreach worker, his team and manager are influenced by the intended outcomes of CLD work with
young people as set out in Delivering Change and section 2.1 of HGIOCLD? 2. They are interested in the
self-confidence of the young people, their self-expectation, self responsibility, increased ability to come up
with ideas and solutions and capacity to work with adults. As partners in developing the childrens service
plan, like other agency staff and policy makers, they share a desire to achieve outcomes for children that
make them; safe, healthy, achieving, active, included, respected and responsible.
Other potential stakeholders, like the police, may bring a desire to achieve additional, often more specific,
outcomes such as reduced complaints about young people, reduced public disorder and levels of
youth crime.
Outcomes and outcome indicators
The young people want this outcome:
These are potential indicators of success:
A facility is established that enables them to meet and
somewhere in town where they can gather and have fun

in peace.
Outcomes identified by other stakeholders:
enjoy themselves.
There are no complaints to the police about their

behaviour.
Self-confidence.
Increased expectations of themselves and each other. These are potential indicators of success:
Increased responsibility for themselves and their actions. The group members speak confidently to adults, e.g.
they take their issues to the Councillors surgery.
Increased ability to come up with ideas and solutions.
The young people recognise that they need to acquire
Working together and with adults.
skills and seek to do so.
That they are safe, healthy, achieving, active, included, The direction of activity is driven by realistic ideas coming
respected and responsible.
from the young people.
Adults with whom the young people come into contact

report favourably on their maturity.
Anti-social behaviour and substance misuse do not

become problems for these young people.
LEAP
Action planning (see LEAP manual section 3, part iii)

The initial action plan is drawn up at a first formal meeting with the Northside team in the youth drop-in
centre in town. The meeting follows informal street-based contact between the young people and the
outreach youth worker, which has identified the desired outcomes of the young people and demonstrated
that these are compatible with the outcomes sought by the youth work team.
Inputs/resources
Processes/methods Outputs/specific actions
Time
Youth worker/team
Outreach and
organisation
The outreach worker will meet with the group in the

youth drop-in centre in town to help them to think about
what is involved in taking action and decide how they
want to proceed.
Week 1
Investigation
The outreach youth worker will support the group to find Weeks 2-5
out about skate-parks, what they cost, where they can
be located, who would need to be persuaded to provide
the funds, who might be able to help them to develop a
good campaign, etc. The investigation would include a
seeing is believing visit to Southtown to meet young
people who have successfully campaigned for a
skate-park there.
Capacity building for

campaigning and
negotiation
With the help of the outreach worker and the support of Weeks 6-12
the community arts worker, who has agreed to be
involved, the group will think about what is involved in an
imaginative campaign. Together they will work out whose
support they will need, what sorts of communication are
likely to be most effective with different sorts of people,
etc. Arts workshops will be used to design leaflets and
posters.
Campaigning
Leaflets and posters will be distributed, a petition will be Weeks 12organised. Contact will be made and meetings sought onwards
with: the youth forum, community police officers, the
Planning Department, the local councillor, the chair of
the Communities Committee of the Council, the
Community Safety Forum, and local community groups.
Confidence building
Sessions using drama and role play will be provided by

the community arts worker to rehearse speaking to the
people they want to influence. Mock up art work will be
tested.
Weeks 12-20
Reflection and
learning
No formal process will be used but throughout, in

consultation with the group, the outreach worker will
record progress and encourage the group to think
about what has worked, what has not and why.
Throughout
Meeting place
The Northside
Team members
Community arts
worker
Arts resources
Police
Councillor/s
Planners
Funders
Youth forum
Community groups
Community Safety
Forum
Northside teams plan in brief
What resources will we

use?
Outreach youth work

use?
What actions will we

take?
How will we go about it?
Northside Team
Contacting key people
Drama and role play
Preparation of publicity
Planning for campaign
Information gathering
about skate parks
Meeting with Northside

Team
Campaigning
Investigation
Police
Confidence building
Youth worker/team
Councillors
Reflection
Capacity building
Planners
Learning
Arts worker/resources
Funders
Youth forum
Meetings with officials

and councillors
Recording and
reviewing progress
What
difference
do we want?
Self-confidence
Relating to adults
Health & safety
Achieving
Included
Responsible
Recreation opportunities
How will we know?
Reduced complaints
Access to facilities
Representing selves
Seeking skills
Good response
from adults
What is the need?
Trouble with police
Feeling hounded
Lack of recreational
opportunities
Untapped potential
At risk drink,
drugs, crime
Disengaged/detached
Anti-social behaviour
LEAP
Monitoring (see LEAP manual section 3, part iv)

Though several other people are potentially involved the pivotal role in the action plan falls to the youth
outreach worker. It is therefore agreed that all other contributors, including the young people themselves,
will report to him on agreed actions and how they have gone. To enable him to monitor progress he uses a
pictorial wall chart prepared with members of the Team that sets out the action plan with key tasks and
dates for their completion. This is displayed publicly on a wall in the drop-in centre and provides a visible
and shared record of what is happening.
Evaluation (see section 3, part v and section 2, part v)
This review focuses on the evaluation of the action plan that the Team were party to drawing up. To conduct
their evaluation of progress at the end of this stage the stakeholders who have been actively involved meet
at the drop-in centre. The participants include several members of the Northside Team, the outreach youth
worker and the community arts worker. Though other people, such as the police, planners, councillors, the
Youth Forum and the Community Safety Forum have a potential stake in the activities, up to this stage the
action plan has treated them as targets to influence rather than as partners. Part of the evaluation is to
assess whether others are now willing to be part of the active stakeholder group.
They begin by reviewing their pictorial wall chart. For the most part they agree that the plan has been put into
action but they note that the timescales have slipped a bit and that some of the members of the team who
had said they would come on the visit to Southtown did not turn up. This group has been very negative
saying that the idea of a campaign is a waste of time and that no-one will listen to them anyway.
Though this has been discouraging to the others, who have been subject to derogatory comments and
a degree of ridicule, they have stayed involved. The records show a core group of eight young people
have been consistently involved. The primary reason they give for this is that the visit to Southtown and the
contacts they have made with the Youth Forum have convinced them that young people can take action
and that it is possible to get the kind of facility they are looking for. However they also comment that they
have enjoyed the arts and drama workshops, are proud of the posters and leaflet they have created and
surprised that the people they had wanted to lobby have been willing to talk to them.
In particular they are impressed that the Chair of the Communities Committee has invited them to come
and present their case for a skate park at the committee. They have met with the chair and vice chair of the
Youth Forum which has gone on to discuss their campaign and give it support. As a result of their posters
and leaflets they have also been contacted by the Northside Womens group who have said they will
support them in their campaign. They are wary that the Youth Forum and the Womens group might steal
their thunder but have decided to work with them.
In terms of the outcome they had set for themselves the Northside Team members believe they have made
some progress toward getting a skate park. Though they have been warned by the councillor and the
planning department that there is no money currently available for their project, they feel they are being
treated seriously and being listened to. They still fear that they might be being patronised by the adults
they are in contact with. They think the Youth Forum is made up of swots and are ambivalent about being
associated with them. Though it was not an outcome they stated, they acknowledge that being involved in
the campaign has made them feel more positive about themselves and more confident.
Outcomes sought by the outreach worker, the community arts worker and by policy makers and managers
concerned with childrens services are also in evidence. Though there is disappointment that not all
members of the Northside Team have become involved, for those that have there is evidence both in the
behaviour of the young people, and in the feedback from adults they have been in contact with, that
self-confidence, self-esteem and self-responsibility have grown. It is clear that they are learning to work
with adults and negotiate their ideas; the young people are achieving, active, socially included and
involved in local democracy.
There are also some outcomes that had not been anticipated. On the positive side, several of the young
people have enjoyed the arts workshops so much that they have become involved in a wider community
arts project that is producing murals for public buildings in Northside.
On the negative side the split in the Northside Team is raising fears of bullying of those who have become
involved by those who have not. As an expression of their disaffection the latter group also seems more
prone to anti-social behaviour and potentially to be more at risk from the drug dealers. Another unexpected
outcome is that the experience of contact with the Youth Forum has led to discussion in the CLD team about
how representative of typical young people the Youth Forum is and whether this issue needs to be addressed.
Though the primary outcome from the point of view of the Northside Team remains to be achieved, at the
end of this stage of the action plan all active stakeholders are satisfied by progress but aware that they
need to reflect on the experience to decide what they should be doing next, both to progress work on their
desired outcomes and to address negative outcomes that have emerged. As they move back to step 1
and the question what will we need to do now? they are aware that there are new stakeholders who will
potentially be involved and new forms action to be resourced.
10
11
LEAP
2. Adult learning Marias story

Maria, age 45, is a UK citizen who originally came to Northside as a refugee from Chile with her husband
but he has died. She is now a socially isolated lone parent with two children (Graciella aged 4 and Pablo
aged 13). She has been unable to find employment since the electronics factory she worked in as a manual
worker closed down two years ago. She is dependent on benefits and is on medication for depression.
Maria has been assessed as eligible for literacies support. English is her second language, and she still
has difficulty communicating effectively in it. She is particularly worried about Pablo who seems to spend a
lot of time with a group of young people in the local shopping mall. Maria attends a community health fair,
organised in collaboration with the Community Mental Health Team, where she talks to workers on the adult
literacies stall. The fair has enabled her felt needs to be expressed The workers recognise her concerns as
ones that are priorities to be addressed in the literacies partnership strategy in which statistical evidence
indicates a high level of literacy difficulties in Northside.
The strategy is based on the social practices model of literacy work and seeks to respond to literacy and
numeracy needs with a focus on helping people to achieve social benefits. As in the Northside Teams
story Marias expressed needs are compatible with priorities defined using normative criteria. In addition
Marias particular circumstances reflect a wider range of needs of refugee and migrant communities in
Northside that are currently being assessed by the Northside Partnership (see example 4).
Maria is of course the primary stakeholder but, as in the Northside Teams story and for the same reasons,
workers, agency managers and policy makers/resource providers involved in the literacies partnership all
have a potential stake in the response that is made. The Community Mental Health Team also has a stake
in that it has encouraged Maria to address her literacy needs as part of its response to her depression.
Stakeholder analysis (see framework in section 2, part ii)

System
Literacies team
Factor
Maria
Motivation
Desire for better health.
Personal and agency

commitment to social
practices model of
literacies.
Fit with national
literacies strategy and
local CLD priorities.
Desire for social connection

and ability to communicate.
Fulfilment of her potential.
Escape from poverty.
Concerns about welfare of
her children.
Awareness of risk for

Maria and her children. Vision of a different quality
of life.
Capacity
Skills and experience of Time.

literacies work.
Coping skills already
Access to literacies
demonstrated in managing
resources including
extremely demanding life
operational support
circumstances.
budget, equipment,
But initial capacity likely to be
e.g. computers.
affected by lack of
support.
confidence, self esteem,

depression.
Other potential
partners
Health:
Support to Maria in
achieving health
improvements.
Child care:
Providing nursery
support service for
priority groups in
Northside.
Community Mental
Health Team:
Skills and experience in
working with women
with depression.
Targets for change

In this case there is no
immediate resistance to
change coming from
external sources though
there is concern that if
Maria is to fulfil her
ambitions she could
encounter discriminatory
attitudes and
behaviours, e.g. from
potential employers.
Not yet apparent.
Childcare:
Payment for service for
Graciella.
Confidence about the

potential of adult
learners.
Community Mental
Opportunity Marias own motivation Positive support and
for change.
encouragement from literacies Health Team:
team and health worker
Potential of relationship
Potential for support
with Literacies team
from the Community
Access to funded service.
established through
Mental Health team.
health fair and shared
Emerging interest in
support for Maria
refugee communities
in Northside (see
example 4).
Not yet apparent.
12
13
LEAP
Agreeing outcomes the difference the stakeholders wanted to make (see LEAP manual section 3,
parts i and ii and section 2, part ii)
The outcomes that Maria wants are that she will have new skills, including language, to enable her to get a
job, provide for her children, lead a more fulfilling social life and be free of depression. As these are totally
consistent with the purposes of the literacies programme these outcomes are shared by the literacies
workers, their manager and other members of the literacies partnership. The outcomes are also consistent
with Learning Connections adult learning outcome statements and the HIGIOCLD? 2 emphasis on
successful learners, confident individuals, responsible citizens and effective contributors.
Specific agencies within the literacies partnership may have a particular emphasis, for example Job Centre
Plus on employability outcomes, but such priorities are perfectly compatible with the wider range of
outcomes sought.
Maria wants these outcomes:
To acquire new employability skills.

To improve her English.
To provide for her children.
To be more socially involved.
To experience better mental health.
Maria achieves vocational qualifications.

She gets a skilled job.
Maria writes a successful job application.
She participates in group discussions in English.
Maria assists her children with homework and reports
Other stakeholders have identified these outcomes:
Successful learning.
Individual confidence.
Responsible citizenship.
Effective contributor.
that they do better at school.
She can afford to take her children on holiday.

Maria joins in social activity in the community.
Maria comes off tranquilisers.
She is optimistic about the future.
The same indicators as those relating to Marias outcomes
would also provide evidence in relation to other
stakeholders outcomes.
The Action Plan (see section 3, part iii)

The action plan for Maria assumes that there is a wider literacies programme and strategy within which the
specific responses to her needs are developed. However it also recognises that the needs that Maria presents
may be ones that affect others and that the action plan should include attention to newly emerging needs
that might require development of new features of the literacies programme. If it becomes clear that Marias
experience indicates similar needs in the community it is likely that a new LEAP process will emerge that
sets down outcomes for wider work, relevant progress indicators and an action plan.
Inputs/resources Processes/methods Outputs/specific actions
Time
Literacies
programme
co-ordinator.
Information/publicity.
An information pack about adult learning/literacy

opportunities will be sent immediately to Maria by
the programme co-ordinator.
Immediate
Maria.
Outreach work.
The programme co-ordinator will arrange to meet Maria

at her home to discuss options that could help her
achieve her ambitions.
By week 2
Literacy tutoring.
If appropriate, the programme co-ordinators will match

Maria with a volunteer tutor and a programme of literacy
support will be planned with her for a specified period
drawing on the learning resources of the local literacies
programme.
By week 4
Confidence building.
In the process of the literacies programme volunteer

tutors will encourage participants to support one another
and arrange specific joint events and activities in the
Northside learning centre. The volunteer tutor will identify
opportunities for Maria to use her new skills to positively
reinforce the progress she is making.
Throughout
The programme co-ordinators will arrange child care

support for her younger child to enable Maria to
participate in learning and will make enquiries about
potential financial support with travel costs.
Throughout
Literacies volunteer
tutor.
Child care support.
Learning materials.
Equipment to
support learning.
Travel costs.
Peer support.
Support from other
professionals, e.g.
mental health
Securing resources.
services, childrens
teachers, refugee
support agency.
By week 4
Counselling/guidance. A date will be set 3 months after commencing tutoring,
for a review between Maria, the programme co-ordinator
and the volunteer tutor of Marias progress in achieving
her aims. Guidance will be offered at that time about
further learning opportunities and other ways that she can
make progress in meeting her needs, in particular
information about community resources and activities
that might be helpful to her.
Referral to other
services.
Progress reviews between the tutor and the programme

co-ordinator will consider whether referral to other
agencies could be helpful, e.g. to Northside Association
for Mental Health or the careers service. This will be
discussed with Maria and where appropriate referral will
be made.
Week 16
Networking and
resource
development.
The programme co-coordinator will review wider supports

for refugee families and report on development of
literacies services for refugees including potential for
collaboration with specialist refugee agencies.
4 weekly
Week 1- 8
14
15
LEAP
Outreach work
Publicity

use?
Learning plan
Interview with Maria
Information pack

take?
Provide for children
Adequate income
Literacy skills
Job
Marias plan in brief
Tutoring
Child care package

use?
Confidence building
Tutorials
What
difference
do we want?
Maria
Securing resources
Review meeting
Learning materials
Child care
Literacies co-ordinator/
tutor
Counselling
Equipment
Social activity
Support of children
Employment
Employment applications
How will we know?
Good mental health
Social networks
Guidance
Travel costs
Referral
Networking
Records of progress
Guidance on further
learning
Peer support
Support from other
professionals, e.g.
mental health, refugee
agency
Confidence
Qualifications
Optimism
What is the need?
Refugee status
Social isolation
Skills for employment
Poverty
Mental health
Benefits
Language skills
Parenting role
Lack of confidence

Once Maria has become active in the literacies programme, as with other learners, a learning plan is
established which reflects the agreed action plan. The plan is an open record shared between Maria, the
volunteer tutor and the literacies programme co-ordinator. It is used both to record actions that have been
taken and evidence of progress towards the agreed outcomes for Maria.
In Marias story step 5 is built in to the review meeting that was set for week sixteen of the action plan
between Maria, the volunteer tutor and the literacies co-ordinator. By this time Maria has been working
directly with the volunteer tutor for three months. The learning plan provides a primary source of information
for the evaluation. It records the outcomes that Maria said she was looking for, the elements of the action
plan and subsequent developments arising through the tutoring sessions she has had.
They begin the meeting by reviewing whether the action plan has actually been carried out. They are all
satisfied that it has. Maria has enjoyed the tutoring relationship. She has felt understood and valued. The
tutor has recorded evidence of improved capacity to understand English and communicate in writing
and orally. The tutor feels that Marias apparent literacy difficulty actually has as much to do with her
self-confidence as it does with her basic ability.
The tutor has spent time with Maria role-playing situations in which she has felt disadvantaged by her
language competence such as going to her childrens school open evenings, going to the job centre,
attending her local church. The lack of self-confidence has contributed to her social isolation.
In the process of their work the tutor has discovered that Maria has felt unable to properly support her children
in their school work because their use of English is much better than hers and this has spilled over into a
general lack of confidence as a parent, which is particularly worrying her in relation to Pablo who likes to
hang out with his mates in the local shopping mall.
In one of the joint student events in the literacies programme Maria has met a neighbour who has joined a
newly formed womens group in Northside. The neighbour has invited her to go along with her and she is
now a member of the group and, motivated to protect her son Pablo, she is particularly interested in the
Northside Team skate park campaign. Maria tends to be self-deprecating and to have lower expectations of
herself than appropriate for her abilities. The positive experience of the literacies programme encourages
her to be more positive about herself and think about the kind of work she would like to do. She expresses
an interest in social care work. With the support of her tutor she has arranged an interview with the careers
service. Overall she expresses much more optimism about her future.
16
17
LEAP
In terms of the outcomes Maria is seeking she feels that she has achieved some of them and is making
progress towards others. She has developed sufficient confidence to join the Northside Womens group
and in so doing feels she is doing something to support Pablo to become more responsible. Maria reports
that getting involved in the literacies programme and establishing social contact in her community has
made her feel more positive. She is also more confident that she can establish the skills she will need to
be employable and has taken action to identify what she needs to do.
From the point of view of the literacies programme the same evidence demonstrates progress that relates to
the overall outcomes set for the programme. Though Maria has not yet set out to achieve formal qualifications,
there is ample evidence of successful learning in her increasingly confident engagement with her neighbours
and community. Her self-esteem has benefited greatly by being confident enough to contribute to community
life by involvement in the womens group.
There are also some unanticipated outcomes. As part of the action plan the literacies co-ordinator agreed
to review the wider needs of refugees for literacies services. As a result she has been in discussion with
Northside Refugee Council and is planning a joint initiative with them to publicise literacies services. Maria
expresses interest in being involved in this.
In the light of the evaluation of progress made consideration is given to the question: what will we need to
do now?. Some of Marias outcomes remain unchanged but new ones are emerging. Similarly the
experience of working with Maria has resulted in recognition of wider needs of refugees and the literacies
team is embarking on a new LEAP cycle to address these.
3. Capacity building Northside Womens Group story

The womens group in Northside was formed after women in the area protested spontaneously about
discarded needles being found in the car park at the back of the shopping mall. They see this as a symptom
of the increasing risk from drug dealing and misuse in their community. They are particularly fearful of the
risks to their children not only from the drugs themselves but increasing violence and risk of being drawn
into criminality.
They have achieved publicity for their concerns in the local paper and have approached the CLD team for
support. On the basis of relevant statistical evidence of deprivation, Northside is within the worst 15% in the
country and already designated as a regeneration area. Crime statistics highlight drug misuse as a problem.
The community development worker recognises the relevance of the expressed need in the context of the
general problems of regeneration and the policy commitment to action in the area. He also knows that the
spontaneous action of the women will provide strengths on which to build and that being involved in these
issues will fit with policy priorities
The womens group is the primary stakeholder. As they are acting on an issue that others in the community
may have an interest in, potentially there could be other community stakeholders that emerge. As in the
other stories the worker, managers and policy makers have an established interest. These interests are not
limited to the CLD team but also potentially involve a range of other agencies that are involved in the
Northside regeneration partnership and the Strathinver community safety partnership (for example: health
improvement, Northside Housing Association, Strathinver police).
18
19
LEAP

System
CLD team
Factor
Womens Group
Motivation
Individual worker and

agency commitment to
building capacity of
community to address
local needs.
Capacity
Skills and experience of Time.

capacity building.
Energy.
Access to resources
Resilience in face of adversity.
including operational
Self-organisation skills.
support budget,
Communication skills in
equipment.
highlighting the threat.
Access to specialist
advice and support of Confidence/self belief to tackle
the threat.
Alcohol and Drugs
Action Team (ADAT).
Targets for change
Drug suppliers and

dealers:
To maintain power and
Fear of dangers to children
income, likely to be
and adults.
actively resistant and
Police:
Vision of a safe, attractive and
Fit with national CLD
Concern for community potentially threatening.
positive community.
priorities and Strathinver
safety.
Drug Users:
Enjoyment of working with
CLD strategy.
Likely to resist loss of
Need
to
tackle
drug
others to achieve change.
access to supply but
Commitment to tackling
crime.
may also be motivated
drug culture and its
Health:
by personal desire for
consequences for
Promotion of health
change.
community safety.
improvement.
Passive members of
Schools:
the community:
Safety for children.
May not wish to
Politicians:
challenge behaviour of
Commitment to tackle
neighbours or family
drug trade and misuse. members.
Other community
Resistant professionals
groups:
among potential
Shared concern about partners:
impact of drug trade.
Fear of the
consequences of the
(N.B. most of these
confrontational style of
come together in the
the Womens Group.
Community Safety
Forum)

support.
Belief in the potential of
the Womens group.
Anger about threat to safety

and welfare of children.
Other potential
partners
Alcohol and Drugs
Action Team:
Goal of tackling drug
misuse.
Each of the above

brings relevant
knowledge, skills and
resources that can
contribute to tackling the
issues.
Drug suppliers and

dealers:
Violence and threat
of violence.
Hold over drug users.
Resources to promote
and extend drugs
market.
Drug users:
Anti-social behaviour,
collusion with suppliers
and dealers.
Passive members of
the community:
Inaction.
Resistant professionals:
Use of professional
power and authority,
control of access to
resources.
Stakeholder analysis continued

System
CLD team
Factor
Womens group
Opportunity Shared interest of other Positive support from CLD

potential partners in
team.
tackling drug misuse. Interest expressed by other
Heightened sense of
potential partners.
crisis indicated by
Positive response from local
spontaneous protests. press.
High profile of the issues in
national and local policy.
Other potential
partners
For all agencies
interested in drug
misuse the potential to
work with a local driven
campaign.
Targets for change

Desire for change
among users.
Desire for change
among passive
community members.
Ability of Womens
Group to demonstrate
competence to resistant
professionals.
Agreeing outcomes the difference the stakeholders wanted to make (see LEAP manual section 3,
parts i and ii and section 2, part ii)
The womens group in Northside are highly motivated to achieve change and their vision of the outcome they
want is a safe community where their children are free of the risks of the drug trade and have opportunities
for enjoyable and worthwhile activities in an environment that will encourage them to become mature adults.
The community development worker, CLD team and their managers regard these as desirable outcomes
but they see them in a wider context that is informed by policy for their work. In line with HGIOCLD? 2 and
the Learning Connections CLD outcomes guidance they emphasise process outcomes for the group:
growth in confidence and skills, capacity to plan and take action together, widened community networks,
becoming more influential, accessing and using resources to achieve change and influence on policy and
practice of agencies working in the community.
Other agencies, for example those in the Strathinver community safety partnership, are interested in supporting
the womens group for other reasons. For example the health improvement team identify outcomes in
terms of reduced drug dependency, the police seek outcomes related to reduced crime and the housing
association seeks an improved image for the community.
20
21
LEAP

The women want these outcomes:
A safe community where their children are free of the
Recorded drug related crime reduces.

People say they feel safer walking in the neighbourhood
risks of the drug trade.
Opportunities for enjoyable and worthwhile activities for

young people.
at night.
Group collaborate with others, e.g. support to the
Northside Team campaign for a skate park helps them

to achieve their outcome.
Other stakeholder have identified these outcomes:
Growth in confidence and skills

Capacity to plan and take action together
Widened networks in the community
Become more influential
Access and use resources to achieve change.
Influence policy and practice of agencies working in
the community.
Improved image for the community.
Potential indicators of success
The group applies for and carries out a Community

Action Research Fund project.
The group supports the Northside Team campaign.

The group is invited to present its research findings to
the Alcohol and Drugs Action Team.
The group participates in the development of the Youth
Strategy and is invited to present a workshop based on

its research project.
The group lobbies the local councillor and MSP who

respond by agreeing to regular meetings with them.
The Action Plan (see section 3, part iii)

In the Northside womens group story the action plan also falls into stages. It can be confidently predicted
that stage 1 can be carried through because the inputs are committed. However stage 2 and 3 would
depend on further developments and commitments and are therefore more speculative.
In presenting outlines of the kind of content that could be included in action plans for Maria, the Northside
Team and the Womens Group, the following should be noted:
Action plans may in practice evolve in stages that are dependent on commitment of new inputs.
The inputs may come from a wide variety of sources but have to be securely committed before they
can form the basis for a plan.
The processes and methods reflect the overall practice theory and competences that underpin CLD
and should be familiar to all qualified workers.
The outputs are statements of actions that will be taken, the purpose of which is to make progress
towards the intended outcomes identified at step 1.
Responsibilities for delivering the outputs are clearly identified.

The timescales within which the outputs should be delivered are clearly identified.
Time
Stage 1:
Community
development
worker.
Stage 1:
Outreach.
Immediate
Womens group.
Acquiring resources.
Information.
The wider
community.
Alcohol and Drugs
Action Team
(ADAT).
Meeting place.
Stage 2:
All the above plus:
Scottish
Community Action
Research Fund
(SCARF).
Stage 2:
Capacity and
confidence building.
Investigation
Stage 1:
Community Development (CD) worker will meet with
womens group to discuss issues and actions.
CD worker will provide information about action that other Weeks 2-6
community organisations have taken about drug issues.
Alcohol and Drugs Action Team will be asked to provide
information about drug misuse and services and
ongoing advice.
Womens group, supported by CD worker, will apply to
SCARF for funding to carry out investigation into attitudes
to drug misuse in the community and local services and
actions that could be effective at community level.
Weeks 6-10
Stage 2:
CD worker will work with group to identify, audit and
where necessary develop specific skills they may need
to take action on the identified issues. If application to
SCARF is successful this will be supplemented by
specific research skills support from a research mentor
Weeks 6 onwards
The womens group will conduct its research project and Weeks 16-40
prepare a report on potential actions
Stage 3:
All of the above
plus:
Councillors.
Stage 3:
Campaign planning
MSP.
Networking and
resource
development
Police.
Campaigning
Community Safety
Forum.
Meetings arranged by group, discussion held, reports

distributed, lobbying conducted, etc.
Youth Forum.
Social Work
Department.
Health Board
health practitioners
Stage 3:
Using evidence gathered and supported by the CD
Weeks 40-44
worker the group will prepare a campaign plan including
identifying key influencers (e.g. MSP, Councillor, Divisional
Police Commander) considering how best to put over
information they have gathered, considering how to build
community support and involvement and how to engage
the interest of service providers, (e.g. Health Board and
Social Work).
Evaluation, reflection
and learning
Week 44 onwards
The group will develop and sustain contact, and where

Week 44 onwards
possible collaborate, with others with a shared interest in
the need, e.g. ADAT, Community Safety Forum, Northside
Youth Forum.
Evidence of progress against intended outcomes will be
recorded by group and CD worker and reviewed at the
end of each stage of the action plan.
Weeks 10, 40
and 6 monthly
thereafter
22
23
LEAP
Northside Womens Group plan in brief
SCARF
Meeting place
ADAT
Wider community
CD worker
Womens group

use?
Networking
Campaigning
Planning campaign
Investigation
Capacity building
Information gathering
Outreach

use?
Campaign plan
Research planning,
data collection, analysis,
dissemination
Programme of
development meetings
SCARF application
Information pack
Planning meeting

take?
Reduced drug related crime
How will we know?
influential group
Networks developed
for young people
Opportunities
Safe community
Councillors
Seeking resources
What
difference
do we want?
MSP
Review and learning
Influence on
Feeling of safety
Funding for investigation
Collaboration with others
Policy changes
Confident organised
Police
Contacting other
interested parties
Council Departments
Health Board
Monthly progress
reviews
policies
What is the need?
Drug misuse
Risks to children and adults
Safety
Crime
Health
Violence
Fear
Poverty
Regeneration
Responsive public services,

e.g. police, housing, etc.

The lead role in achieving change is taken by the womens group itself and it is agreed that they will
co-ordinate monitoring of the action plan. Supported by the community development worker they will do this
by using the minutes of their meetings to record all action points that would be required to implement the
action plan. At each meeting these actions will be reviewed to ensure that progress has been made on the
tasks identified. Any evidence of progress against the intended outcomes will be recorded in the minutes.
The womens group set out a three stage action plan that they agreed would be evaluated at the end of
each key stage, with a commitment to six monthly reviews thereafter. The evaluations of progress are based
on the records kept by the group and observations and records of other stakeholders.
At the end of the first stage the key stakeholders were the group, the community development workers
and a worker from the Alcohol and Drugs Action team that is providing advice and support. In stage 2 as
they were successful in getting funding for the community action research project, a worker from the fund
also became an active stakeholder.
As they move into stage 3, their campaign phase, they have established a collaborative relationship with
the Community Safety Forum and the Northside Youth Forum who also become active stakeholders. There
are other people they are still seeking to influence such as the MSP and councillor, the police, health board
and social work department. As yet they are not actively involved as stakeholders but as we shall see by
the end of stage 3 they too are on board.
By the end of stage 1 the womens group has not achieved any of the end outcomes it is seeking, however
they have established a positive working relationship with the community development worker and the ADAT
team member that has enabled them to acquire a better understanding of drugs issues and the kinds of
responses that community organisations can make.
They have also applied for funding to investigate attitudes to drug misuse in their community They
recognise that these are necessary preliminary actions and are satisfied that they are in a stronger position
to move forward. For the community development worker there is evidence of the process outcomes that
he is seeking. The group is demonstrating its continuing commitment to learning about drugs issues,
showing that it can access and use resources and beginning to show competence in planning and taking
action together.
By the end of stage 2 the womens group has still not achieved any of the end outcomes it is seeking,
however they have run a skills development programme with the support of the community development
worker, successfully obtained funding, developed their research skills and carried out a community led
research project.
24
25
LEAP
All of these things demonstrate that the process outcomes prioritised by the community development
worker are being achieved. The research fund officer is also able to identify the capacity building
outcomes that the programme seeks to achieve. The group is increasingly self-confident, well organised
and resourceful. The worker encourages them to recognise and value the process outcomes as these will
improve the chances of addressing the core problem of drug dealing and misuse.
Whilst the underlying problem remains, the women do feel that the activity has been worthwhile. They had
not set it as an outcome but the fact that they no longer feel helpless in relation to tackling the drug issue is
seen as valuable. They are also pleased that they have been able to provide support to the Northside
Team campaign for a skate park. Such collaboration directly with young people acting on their own behalf
is an unexpected outcome.
By the end of stage 3 of the action plan the group has established a good working relationship with the
MSP and the councillor who are both supporting their campaign. The MSP has raised questions about
drug policy in the Scottish Parliament. The group has also established a good working relationship with the
Northside Youth Forum, which is also raising the issues.
Prompted by the political support for the group, police, health board and social work department are all now
meeting regularly with the group. The group has also been invited to be represented on the community
safety forum and drug issues have been given high priority in its work as part of a Strathinver Community
Plan well-being theme.
An unexpected outcome is that several of the leaders of the group have become well known public figures,
regularly interviewed in the press and consulted by service agencies. But another unanticipated and negative
outcome is that they have also been threatened by drug dealers. Worrying as this is it does suggest to them
that they may be beginning to have some direct impact on the drugs trade. The threats have prompted
higher profile police action and residents are expressing the view that the streets feel safer. Police statistics
are beginning to show a decline in recorded drug crime in the area. By this stage, then, the group is
seeing direct evidence that its primary outcomes are beginning to be achieved. Worryingly, though, police
report increased drug related incidents in other neighbourhoods which may mean that the problem is
being displaced rather than being resolved.
As the group and the other active stakeholders look to further stages in their action and ask the question
what will we need to do now? they recognise that they need to retain attention on the original end outcomes
but widen the campaign to the whole of Strathinver. The network of stakeholders with commitment to the
outcomes originally formulated by the womens group is now extensive and involves policy, programme
and project levels. A new LEAP action plan is to be developed through the Community Safety Forum on
behalf of the Community Planning Partnership. Whilst the womens group welcome this they also fear loss
of their own identity and edge and decide that they also need a plan for their own independent actions.
4. Programme/operational management level example

Northside Partnership New Communities Initiative
At this level the focus is on the use of LEAP as a tool for planning and evaluation at team, organisational or
local partnership levels. For illustrative purposes the example will focus on the work of the Northside
community learning and development (CLD) team and its partners in the Northside Partnership. In it they
use LEAP to develop a co-ordinated approach to the needs of refugees, asylum seekers and economic
migrants in the area.
Northside has recently seen a significant demographic change with the arrival of approximately 1500 migrant
workers, asylum seekers and refugees in an area that has traditionally been predominantly made up of
indigenous white working-class residents.
Several factors have led to this change. Firstly the Scottish Government is encouraging in migration to
compensate for the decline of the Scottish population. Surplus housing stock particularly in the high rise
areas was used by the Council to house asylum seekers as part of a national dispersal programme. Many
of them have now acquired refugee status and remained in the community where family members have
been able to join them. The widening of the European Union which has led to internal economic migration
has attracted significant numbers of workers who are finding employment opportunities, particularly in the
resurgent tourism industry. They too have been able to benefit from the availability of surplus housing stock
in Northside.
The three groups are in many ways quite different but also have similarities. The refugees and asylum
seekers come from all parts of the world and many of them have had to deal with traumatic circumstances
which impinge on their health and ability to adapt to their new circumstances. Their journeys have been
enforced whilst those of the economic migrants have been by choice. The refugees enjoy a degree of
security that asylum seekers do not. The economic migrant workers are generally white, whilst refugees
and asylum seekers are frequently visibly more distinct because of their racial origins. Migrant workers are
often younger and single. Asylum seekers are also often on their own whereas the refugees are more likely
to be in family units.
Transience is a characteristic of all the groups. Refugees and asylum seekers frequently prefer to relocate to
areas where there are others from the same place of origin and the economic migrants do not necessarily
see their long-term future in Scotland. For nearly all of them English is a second language. However their
levels of educational qualification (though not necessarily recognised in the UK) are typically higher than for
the indigenous community.
26
27
LEAP
Whilst only a relatively small part of the overall population, these new arrivals have potentially much to
contribute to the local economy and community. However, there are needs to be addressed. Refugees and
asylum seekers in particular have been a focus of racism and discriminatory behaviour, and community
cohesion is under threat. The police have recorded several incidents of racially motivated attacks and a
racially-based gang fight has raised concern.
The local schools have been challenged by the increased number of children for whom English is not their
first language and there has been negative reaction from other parents. Youth workers are aware of heightened
tensions on the streets. Adult learning workers are experiencing new demands for ESOL support. Health
workers are aware of new health needs but also identify reluctance to use services. Local residents complain
that new job opportunities in the tourism industry have gone to economic migrants but fail to recognise that
they frequently lack the necessary skills for this market. Whilst the new arrivals are a focus for community
tension, it is apparent that there are no organised groups that represent the interests of these communities.
The stakeholders (see LEAP manual section 2, parts ii and iv)
In the light of these circumstances the Northside Partnership identified responding to the issues as a
priority. A working group of the partnership was charged with developing and implementing a coordinated
interagency plan of action. The group consisted of the Area CLD Officer (with a lead role in co-ordinating the
partnership), the Area Community Planning and Regeneration Officer, the NHS Public Health Practitioner, a
depute principal of Northside College, a police inspector, the Northside Voluntary Action Council Director,
Strathinver Community Relations Forum Director and two representatives from the Community Forum.
However at the start there were no organised groups representing the respective migrant communities.
It was recognised that they should be key stakeholders but were not yet able to be.

System
CLD Officer
Factor
New communities
of Northside
Motivation
Motivations yet to be All other agencies in the

investigated.
partnership share
common commitment to
equalities and social
cohesion policies.
Personal and agency

commitment to equalities
and promotion of
community cohesion.
National commitment to
target disadvantaged
communities including
ethnic minorities.
Some individuals, (e.g.

Community Relations
Forum Director) have
strong personal
commitment to
anti-racism.
Commitment to building
partnership with agencies
involved in local community
planning.
Capacity
Support and commitment

of the Northside
Partnership.
Other partners
Capacity yet to be
investigated.
Previous experience of
co-ordinating working
groups.
Time committed within
workload.
Connections to voluntary
sector through Voluntary
Action Council.
Support of staff team

in Northside.
Specific knowledge, skills

and resources of
Community Relations
Forum Director.
Opportunity
Shared motivation of a
range of agencies to work
together in a new forum.
Not yet clear.
Among Staff of partner

agencies:
Discriminatory attitudes
and behaviours.
In the Northside
Community:
Discriminatory attitudes
and behaviours.
Fear of change.
Lack of interest in some
groups to engage with
wider community.
Time commitment agreed Among Staff of partner

through Northside
agencies:
Partnership.
Overt challenge to policy
Specific skills and
unlikely but capacity to
knowledge from relevant resist change through
professional roles.
passivity and covert
behaviour with potential
Resource support
particularly from Council, peer support.
Police and College.
Access to facilities,
equipment and budget.
Targets for change
In the Northside
Community:
Active criticism of attention
to new communities, e.g.
through local press;
potential links to far right
political campaigns;
sectarian and nationalist
divisions in and between
new communities.
Shared motivation of a
Exploitation of community
range of agencies to work tensions.
together in a new forum.
Opportunity to capitalise on
access to diverse
resources.
Opportunity to capitalise
on access to diverse
resources.
Potential of the new

communities to contribute
positively to Northside.
Potential of the new

communities to contribute
positively to Northside.
Agreeing outcomes the differences the stakeholders wanted to make (see section 3, parts i and ii
and section 2, part ii)
The stakeholders envisioned the difference they would like to see. Each had different priorities but it was
possible to identify a package of outcomes that everyone could agree on. The ultimate outcomes sought
were: a safe, healthy, socially cohesive, economically thriving community in which new arrivals would be
able to prosper as individuals and families and participate fully as equal and contributing members.
28
29
LEAP
To achieve this, intermediate outcomes were identified: elimination of racist behaviours and threats;
establishment of skills that enable individual refugees and migrants to participate fully and community
leaders effectively to represent community interests; establishment of strong social capital within the new
communities represented by their own organisations and strong social networks that are connected into
the community as a whole.
Initially, however, it was recognised that first stage key outcomes would need to be: establishment of
understanding of the aspirations, assets, needs and priorities of the new communities and how they
related to those of the wider community; and development of capacity for the communities to articulate
and represent their own interests.
Stage 1
Potential indicators
The new communities are engaged.
Members of the communities participate in events.

Reports based on reliable evidence illuminate
Needs and aspirations of new communities are known and

used to inform planning by agencies.
Communities are organised and able to represent
themselves effectively.
understanding and are reflected in policies and

practices of agencies.
There are representative organisations of self-identified

communities and interest groups.
These organisations are participating in planning for their

communities.
Stage 2
Racist behaviour has been eliminated.
Member of the community have the skills they need.
Community leaders have the skills that they need.
Strong social capital has been formed.
New community networks link with those of the existing
community.
Police report no racist incidents.

Community groups report positively on the absence of
threatening behaviours.
Participation in learning opportunities; qualifications

achieved; success in accessing job opportunities;
increased incomes.
The communities are well represented by their leaders

issues and concerns appear on agendas, they are given
serious attention, agency policies and practices indicate
responsiveness to community concerns.
There is an infrastructure of local self-help groups and
activities, people feel that their communities enable them

to meet their own needs, members of the community
are contributing to each others welfare in informal and
formal ways.
Established community structures including the
community forum, youth forum, adult learners forum

include representatives from the new communities.
Issues specific to their needs are given proper attention
and the representatives contribute to work on commonly
experienced concerns.
Stage 3
The new communities are:
Safe.
Healthy.
Socially cohesive.
Economically thriving.
Participating and contributing fully.
Crime statistics improve.

New residents feel safe.
Health statistics improve against baseline evidence.
Inter-communal threats and violence cease. Community
organisations act in the common interests of all. The
communities of Northside celebrate their own and each
others identity.
Employment statistics, patterns and type of employment

are more secure and adequately paid.
Member of the new communities have become equally

involved in community organisations, interest groups,
political parties.
The action plan (see LEAP manual section 3, part iii)

The action plan was built on CLD principles as all stakeholders believed that a participatory and empowering
approach would be essential if an appropriate response was to be made to the community needs. It was
therefore recognised that action planning would need to be developed through a series of LEAP cycles
relating to the staged outcomes they had identified.
It was agreed that all the agencies and community bodies which had contact with members of the new
communities would collaborate in an effort to establish a working dialogue with them. It was recognised
that they would themselves need to address their own competence for the task and need to be able also
to call on specialist external resources, for example, translators and interpreters.
The grid below sets out a summary of the action plan for stage 1 which focused on better understanding
of the needs of the communities and building their capacity for engagement. This plan represents the
overall work that the partnership would undertake. Many of the activities (for example the open day)
represented project level elements of the emerging overall programme and were subject in their own right
to specific LEAP plans to aid their conduct.
30
31
LEAP
Time
Stage 1
Area Community
Planning and
Regeneration
officer (ACPRO).
Agency capacity
building.
As preparation for the instigation of activity, a day seminar To be held at

will be organised by the Northside College community
week 10
links worker and CLD Capacity Building Team for staff of
local agencies and community leaders about rights,
circumstances and needs of asylum seekers, refugees
and migrant workers. The organisers will seek support
from specialist agencies (COLSA Consortium, Scottish
Refugee Council).
Outreach and street

work.
The CLD capacity building team will conduct a

programme of street based and house to house contact
with members of the new communities to find out more
about their priorities and concerns. The youth work team
will conduct a similar process of street based contact
with young people.
From week 10-16
Investigation/research. The ACPRO and Senior CLD officer (capacity building)

working with the Chief Executives Dept Research Team,
drawing on the insights from the street work, will prepare
a plan and tools for investigating needs of the new
communities. All front line workers in all agencies in
contact with members of the new communities will
participate in collection of data over a two week period
using these tools.
Preparation week
16 to 20, research
period 20-22
CLD Team.
Northside College
Community links
worker.
Public Health
Practitioners.
Community Police
Officers.
Chief Executives
Department
Research Team.
Voluntary Action
Council.
Training resources
and advice from:
Scottish Refugee
Council, COSLA
Refugee and
Asylum Seeker
Consortium.
Data analysis.
Analysis of data will be conducted by the CE Research

team
Providing and sharing The CLD capacity building team working with the
Voluntary Action Council and the Community Relations
information.
Forum will co-ordinate the organisations of an open day
Strathinver
event for members of the new communities in the
Community
Northside Community Centre at which all local services,
Relations Forum.
voluntary and community organisations will be asked to
provide information stalls about what they do. This event
Community Forum.
will incorporate an informal world caf session where
Youth Forum.
participants will be able to eat lunch around tables where
there will be themed discussions about issues such as
Adult Learning
health, learning, jobs, housing, arts, leisure, sport and
Forum.
recreation that draw on the research evidence.
Interpreters and
Based on contacts made through all of the above
Organisational
translation
members of the capacity building team will take a lead in
development.
services.
encouraging the formation of one or more community
group around area of common interest.
Knowledge exchange A further day seminar for the partnership agencies will be
organised by the capacity building team and Northside
and review.
College to share the knowledge gained from the
investigation and the open day/world caf event and
review its implications for further action.
Weeks 22-25
Planning from
week 10, event
held week 28
From week 10
onwards
Week 31
Capacity building
support to development
of new organisations
Open day event and

world caf
Data analysis by
research team
Investigation project by
front line staff
Outreach to establish
profile of community
needs
Agency preparatory day

seminar

take?
Northside New Communities Initiative stage 1 plan in brief

use?
Capacity building

use?
ACPRO
Outreach/street work
Knowledge exchange
and review
Organisational
development
Information sharing
Data analysis
Investigation/research
CLD team
College Comm links
worker
Public health practitioner
Community police
CE research team
Refugee Council
COSLA
Community relations
Community, youth and
adult learning forums
interpreters
What
difference
do we want?
Needs known
Aspirations known
Needs and aspirations
inform plans
New communities engaged
New communities organised
How will we know?

Community members participate
Social isolation
Skill development
Untapped potential
Organisation
Language
Poverty
Poor health
Insecurity
Racism
Social dislocation
What is the need?
Reports evidence understanding of needs

Policies and practices reflect needs
Organisations set up
and involved
Violence
Trauma
33
32
LEAP

The initial stage of the development programme was complex. It required the active collaboration of a wide
range of participants in a series of actions, each of which involved careful planning in its own right. Ensuring
that all elements of the programme were effectively conducted and integrated was essential.
To this end the partners agreed that the CLD Area Officer would take on a co-ordinating role on behalf of
all agencies and contributors. Each of the initiatives in the first stage had an identified leader and it was
agreed that these people would report directly to the CLD Area Officer and form a co-ordinating group that
would meet with her on a six weekly cycle to retain oversight of the action plan.
The stage 1 action plan was evaluated as the basis for the second round of LEAP planning. This was
conducted at two levels. At the first level, project leaders, working with the CLD Area Officer and appropriate
stakeholders, conducted evaluation of each of the initiatives that they were responsible for (i.e. the agency
capacity building/knowledge exchange, outreach and street work, investigation/research and data analysis,
open day, organisation building).
At the second level, the project leaders and the CLD Area Officer, meeting as a co-ordinating group,
considered the outcomes that had resulted from the sum of the activities as a programme. They drew on
the evidence of each of the elements of the programme and used this as the basis for an evaluative review
of progress with all the stakeholders, conducted as part of the week 31 knowledge exchange event.
Evaluation of specific elements of the programme revealed mixed success and some unexpected outcomes.
From the initial day seminar for agencies it became apparent that whilst the Northside Partnership was
presenting a common commitment to an effective response, some staff of some agencies were reluctant
to give the issues priority. Several who had been registered to attend did not do so or left the seminar early.
Resistance was mostly passive but it was felt that further actions could be undermined by lack of commitment.
More direct challenge to the initiative also surfaced at the seminar with representatives of the community
forum questioning why a specific initiative was being organised around the needs of newly arrived members
of the community when problems affecting many long-standing community members remained unresolved.
The street work by the capacity building and youth work teams had been aided by good summer weather
and both had been able to build up contacts. By being on the streets the workers had also become more
aware of the tensions that were in evidence. Unexpectedly they had discovered that there were not only
tensions between the indigenous and new communities but also different national groups within the
refugee and asylum seeker communities.
They had also found that their contacts had more commonly been with men and boys than women and
girls and feared that they were at risk of developing a partial understanding of community perspectives.
Generally, however, the contacts had reinforced prior perceptions of the issues that the communities were
experiencing (see needs section above).
Fortunately the weaknesses of the street work as a basis for understanding community needs were to a
degree compensated for by an investigatory research project which proved more successful in reaching
women in the communities. The research project had developed a simple questionnaire to be used in
contacts with members of the new communities by agency front-line staff over the designated two week
period. This focused on hopes, fears, positive and negative aspects of living in Northside.
Again the evidence reinforced the perceptions of the needs at the start of the programme (see needs
section above). A significant additional feature of the evidence was a very high level of confusion about
public service entitlements and how these are accessed. However it was acknowledged that the approach
had been flawed because it required community members to be in touch with agencies for there to be
opportunity to express themselves and it was already known that level of service take up was an issue.
Both the street-work and research project had revealed the frequency with which language was a barrier
to effective communication and the difficulty of accessing interpretation at the point when it was needed.
This difficulty was much greater for the refugee and asylum seeker community. Interpreting services were
available but advance notice was needed and more spontaneous exchange was often very limited in scope.
Children and young people often inadvertently became interpreters. Whilst in the informal street-based
contact this was not of so much concern, for more formal contacts that involved discussion of more
personal difficulties it was recognised as an important issue.
The street-work and research project had helped the open day to be widely publicised. All agencies had
participated as planned. Those representing agencies demonstrated a strong commitment to the purpose
of the event. Overall it was well attended with 350 people from the communities participating. 150 of them
had participated in the world caf event which had produced further important insights into the needs of
the new communities.
A positive but unanticipated aspect of the event was the opportunity it gave for agency staff to network with
one another at an event where information about what services provided was on display. Agency participants
frequently commented that they had learned much about the roles of other services and had made useful
contacts that could enable more collaborative practice not just in relation to the target group for the event
but in other areas of practice, for example, practical integration of childrens services.
34
35
LEAP
More negatively publicity for the event had elicited critical comments from some members of the wider
community. Letters had been published in the Strathinver Post complaining of preferential treatment for
migrants and lack of attention to the long-standing needs of Northside. One of the letters was signed by
an office bearer of the Community Forum resulting in a counter response from another. It was clear that the
initiative had created a split in the ranks of the forum that would need to be addressed.
Organisational development within the new communities of Northside had been fostered with the support
of the CLD capacity building team. Three meetings had been held of an informal group of community
representatives that was now in the process of constituting itself as a formal community organisation called
Kune, the Esperanto word for together. The participants were mainly men from the refugee and asylum
seeker communities though there was interest from all the newly arrived groups. The purpose of the group
would be to address commonly experienced needs and promote a positive role in the community as a whole.
The issues identified from the various elements of the programme were presented at the partnership
knowledge exchange event. Participants concluded that they had made reasonable progress in relation
to the outcomes set for stage 1 (namely that needs and aspirations of new communities are known and
used to inform planning by agencies and the new communities are organised and able to represent
themselves effectively).
They felt that though their methods of engaging the community had not reached everyone, they had a much
better understanding of the experience of these communities. However they had also learned a great deal
about the difficulty they would have in making effective responses. These difficulties related to an emerging
recognition of the need to improve professional skills, develop responsive and cultural sensitive practice
and acquire new resources such as readily available interpreters.
However the need to do these things was not universally acknowledged. As a result some participants felt
the responses of some agencies had revealed latent institutional racism, as well as discriminatory attitudes
on the part of some staff. This was a significant source of tension.
The problem was also reflected in the wider community responses to the special initiative. While some of
the negativity seemed to be overtly racist, it was widely recognised that the community as a whole had
major problems that should not seem to be overshadowed by action to address the needs of a minority.
It was agreed that much more attention needed to be given to a strategic approach that demonstrably
addressed the overall needs of the community. Without this there was a fear that the initiative, far from
promoting community cohesion, could actually undermine it. At the same time the majority view was that
a more overtly anti-racist stance was required on the part of all agencies and groups in the community.
The emergence of Kune as a potential vehicle for the participation of the new communities was generally
welcomed. Given the tensions in the community it was felt that support for its development needed to
encourage links with existing mechanisms for community representation, especially the Community Forum.
The evaluation of progress at stage 1 led into a review by the Northside Partnership of the outcomes that
were set for stages 2 and 3. All of these remained valid indeed the need for them was reinforced.
Elimination of racist behaviour remained central, however the assumption that racism was a community
and not an agency problem had been challenged.
Developing the individual skills of community members through adult learning opportunities was still a
priority and the need for specific skill development for emerging community leaders was apparent. The
building of social capital remained an important concern but how far this should be treated as distinct from
the social capital of Northside as a whole needed to be addressed.
Working links between the new and old communities of Northside remained a desirable outcome but
the dimension of inter-community tension had become more apparent and would need to be addressed.
The long term outcome of stage three that the new communities are: safe, healthy, socially cohesive,
economically thriving and participating and contributing fully remained unchanged but there was emerging
recognition that unless this was true for all members of the Northside community it would be unachievable
for part of it. With this in mind the New Communities Initiative would need to be developed in a much
more integrated way with strategic regeneration of Northside as a whole.
With these issues in mind a new LEAP planning and evaluation cycle commenced.
36
37
LEAP
5. Policy/strategic management level example

Building strong community infrastructure for Strathinver
Strathinver Council and its community planning partners, in line with the requirements of the relevant
legislation and guidance, adopted a commitment to participation of communities in the planning and
delivery of all services. In the conduct of this approach it became apparent that from the perspective of
community participants the integration of support services to community and local voluntary organisations
was not as effective as it could be.
The following problems were reported: duplication of roles between agencies; gaps in support in particular
areas and to particular types of group; inconsistency in attitudes to the independent authority of community
groups; lack of integration of budgets to provide most effective support; short-term funding strategies; need
for more effective community engagement methods; poor overall co-ordination of activities; inconsistent
and confused approach to capacity building.
The partners decided that a participatory review of policy and practice was needed that fully involved those
that the services were intended to benefit. It was recognised that within Strathinver those agencies with the
competences to conduct the review were also service providers. There were therefore potential issues
relating to objectivity, especially if one organisation conducted the review.
They therefore chose to bring together a consortium of senior representatives of lead agencies who would
plan and conduct the work involving representation from three city-wide community groups and employing
external consultants. The lead officers were drawn from the Community Service department CLD team, the
Chief Executives department Community Planning and Regeneration division, the Strathinver Voluntary
Action Council and the Strathinver Housing Association. Community representation was from the Strathinver
Community Regeneration Forum, the Strathinver Community Care Forum and the Strathinver Tenants and
Residents Federation.
Together they successfully applied for funding to enable them to conduct a review with the assistance of
external consultants, who would facilitate community engagement and undertake desk research. The grant
would be paid to the Voluntary Action Council which would employ the consultants.
Consideration was given to which services should provide support to local organisations, what forms this
should take and how it could best be structured. Though ultimate decision-making authority in relation to
recommendations from the review was retained by each agency, they would take advice from a procedure
in which community organisations were at the heart and which was conducted collaboratively between
statutory and voluntary sector agencies.

In practice the initial stakeholders were the organising group. They comprised the agencies for which
community support was a primary role and the three council-wide community representative structures.
Though they were the initial stakeholders they were charged with developing a review process that would
enable a wide range of others to be actively engaged. The wider stakeholders in the review potentially
included all the agencies that provided or could provide supports to community and local voluntary
organisations and all of those that used or could use the services on offer.
A range of other service providers was identified who either provided some community support as part
of their wider functions or for whom such activity in Strathinver was part of commitment across a wider
geographical area. The first group was made up of agencies that provide support that relates to their
specific functions and responsibilities: NHS Strathinver (health improvement), Strathinver Police (crime
prevention and community safety), Strathinver Fire Service (community safety) and from the council; Social
Work (care services) and Housing (tenant involvement). The second group included two national voluntary
organisations that have local community capacity building projects. All of these were potential stakeholders
The number of community organisations that could potentially have been considered stakeholders was
uncertain as a complete mapping of such groups was not in place. Even if only those that were in
membership of the Voluntary Action Council and those that had already had direct support from the
agencies were concerned, there were over 250 local organisations with an active interest. These included
neighbourhood community regeneration forums, tenants and residents associations, community
enterprises, community arts and recreation groups, organisations of and for young people, older people,
black and minority ethnic groups, health and care service users, and disabled people, amongst others.
No single body represented all these interests. At the start they were all potential stakeholders and the
review was open to their participation but not all of them chose to exercise their stake.
Though external consultants were to assist the review process they did not have a direct interest in the
outcomes of the focus of the engagement and were not therefore stakeholders but facilitators.
38
39
LEAP
Stakeholder analysis (see framework in section 2 part ii)

System Core Agency Partnership
members (CLD,
Community Planning,
Vol Action, Housing
Assoc.)
Factor
Motivation
More effective community

support.
More efficient use of
support resources.
Maximising benefits of role
of community sector.
Commitment to principles
of vibrant civil society.
Fulfilment of national and
local policy objectives.
Core Community
Partnership
members (Regen
Forum, Care Forum,
Tenants and
Wider partners agency
Residents Fed.)
and community
Targets for change
Increased capacity for Agency:
the community sector. Clarity about support
systems.
Improvement of
support system e.g.
sustainable funding,
better community
engagement.
Integration of specific
support schemes with
wider programmes.
The primary targets for

change were the core and
wider partner agencies
themselves. Motivation to
resist change would
therefore be internal to the
members of the
partnership and could
come, for example, from
fear of loss of control over
resources, distrust of
potential partners, negative
attitudes to community
empowerment.
Use of countervailing
power or influence by
senior staff or elected
members to subvert the
process.
Synergy from
collaborative planning.
Greater influence for

the community sector. Community:
Resolution of specific Access to appropriate
deficiencies of the
sustainable support in a
support system.
straightforward manner.
Commitment to the
value of voluntary
action.
Capacity
Skills, knowledge and

experience of supporting
the community sector,
leading and conducting
participatory policy reviews.
Established
experience of
engagement with the
agencies leading the
review.
Agency:
Skills, knowledge and
experience of specific
aspects of community
support.
Commitment of time and

resources for the review
process and employment
of consultants.
Communication and
negotiation skills.
Established links through Token commitment to

Community Planning.
respond to
recommendations.
Community:
Strong networking
relationships with
Front line experience and
Previous positive
range of groups in the knowledge.
experience of collaboration community sector.
with partners.
Access to expenses
to support
participation.
Opportunity
Funding.
Shared recognition
between agencies of the
need to address the
issues.
Willingness of lead
community bodies to
participate.
Legislation and guidance
emphasising importance of
supporting community
sector.
Commitment of
partners to a
participatory approach
to the review.
Agency and community:

Specific policy guidance
relating to community
involvement.
Chance to establish
commitment to best
practice.
Community:
Use of National
Standards for
Community Engagement
and other best practice
guidance.
Use of National
Standards for
Community
Engagement and
other best practice
guidance.
Unwillingness to release or
share resources.
Lack of staff commitment
to culture of community
partnership and
participation.
Tight spending restrictions.
Lack of binding legislation
relating to performance in
community support and
engagement.
Agreeing outcomes the differences the stakeholders wanted to make (see LEAP manual section
3, parts i and ii and section 2, part ii)
The outcomes identified here reflect the reasons why the Community Planning Partnership supported a review
and the initial visioning exercise conducted by the lead consortium. It was anticipated that as the review
developed a wider range of stakeholders would become engaged and be able to influence its direction.
Outcomes were identified at two levels. Firstly the consortium was concerned that the review itself should
result in a positive working relationship between the stakeholders that built up trust and capacity to work
together effectively. However these outcomes were seen only as assisting the development of policy and
practice that, once implemented, would lead to direct improvements in the conduct of support to
community groups.
At this second level, the key outcomes sought were that community organisations in Strathinver should: be
fully aware of the support and resources available to community groups; be able to access appropriate
support and resources to enable them to contribute effectively to community well-being; be engaged
effectively; experience a consistent and integrated approach from agencies; feel that their independence
was respected and valued; be recognised for their substantial role in meeting the needs of and representing
the communities of Strathinver.
The consortium identified an overarching outcome which was that support agencies would have developed
the ability to maximise the role and potential of the community sector in Strathinver to the benefit of residents.
Outcomes and Outcome Indicators
Outcomes
Potential indicators:
First level
First level
The process of the review would establish:
Increased willingness to participate.

Confidence expressed by stakeholders about the
Trust between stakeholders.

Effective joint working relationships.
conduct of joint work.
Willingness to address controversial issues and deal

with them constructively and openly.
Second level
Second level
Community organisations in Strathinver should:
Records of level and appropriateness of requests
Be fully aware of the support and resources available to

community groups.
Be able to access appropriate support and resources to

enable them to contribute effectively to community
well-being.
Be engaged effectively.
Experience a consistent and integrated approach from
agencies.
for support.
Take-up of available support.

Satisfaction level with: funding application procedures;
speed of grant assessment; level of funding; length of
funding period; ease of monitoring and accountability
procedures.
Satisfaction with accessibility and usefulness of capacity

building support.
Feel that their independence was respected and valued. Satisfaction with collaboration between support agencies.
Celebration of the contribution of community groups.
Be recognised for their substantial role in meeting the
needs of and representing the communities of
Satisfaction with engagement methods and positive
Strathinver.
attitudes of elected members and officials towards

community groups.
40
41
LEAP
The action plan (see section 3, part iii)

The action plan developed by the consortium was in effect a LEAP plan for the conduct of community
engagement relating to reviewing the support needs of the community sector and the way that partner
agencies could most effectively respond to them.
They were already familiar with, and using, the National Standards for Community Engagement and
prepared the plan in the light of the standards and best practice indicators. They recognised: that the plan
would need to enable all the potential stakeholders to participate if they chose to do so; that appropriate
supports would therefore need to be in place; that the methods would need to be varied, accessible and
appropriate; that they would need to enable effective dialogue between the participants that was seen as
relevant from all perspectives; that there would need to be attention to the quality of the information about the
review, its conduct and the issues to be addressed; and that good means of feedback would be essential.
The consortium felt that the conduct of the review needed to be both in-depth and provide extensive
opportunity for participation. They therefore adopted a variety of engagement methods. It was also recognised
that the outcomes that had been identified would all be dependent on the development of an effective
policy that was adopted and implemented by all relevant agencies. It was agreed that the review should not
be rushed and it was therefore planned that it would be completed over a one year period with a further
commitment to evaluate the impact of the resulting policy and practice changes one year later. The main
elements of the plan were as follows:
Time
The consortium
lead members.
Recruitment.
The consortium will draw up a tender brief for the

consultants and recruit.
Week 1-6
Community
organisations.
Publicity.
Preparation, by the consortium, of a leaflet explaining the Week 6

purpose and conduct of the review to be distributed to all
known community organisations and inviting expressions
of interest in participating.
Desk research.
Mapping by the consultants of the current funding

programmes (level, purposes, eligibility conditions,
application procedures, etc), capacity building and other
supports provided by all agencies, statutory and
voluntary, across Strathinver.
Week 10-16
Community
engagement, action
research and data
analysis.
1. Focus groups to be conducted by the consultants in

partnership with consortium lead members in each
local community plan area (8) and on a partnership
wide basis with thematic groups: youth, older people,
LGBT, black and minority ethnic, disabled, health and
care, tenants, environmental, transport (9). Focus
groups to test knowledge of the current supports
identified through the mapping, distil the positive and
negative features of the support currently offered to
community organisations and envision alternatives..
Week 20-28
Support service
providers.
Funding.
External
consultants.
Meeting places
and facilities.
2. Citizens jury to be formed consisting of one

representative selected by the participants in each
focus group. Jury to be serviced by the external
consultants, and to draw on the focus group records
to identify core areas for evidence gathering. Jury will
have powers to call for evidence from all local services
providers and from experts in funding and capacity
building for the community sector.
Report preparation
and dissemination/
feedback.
Consultants to prepare interim report on findings of focus Week 30-32

groups and jury and work with the consortium lead
members to identify draft policy recommendations.
Report to be prepared in accessible format.
Review event.
Strathinver community conference to be organised by

consultants and consortium to enable broad based
discussion between members of community
organisations, voluntary and statutory agencies and
elected members.
Week 33-35
Policy proposals.
Final report with formal policy recommendations to be

prepared by the consortium for consideration by the
Strathinver Community Planning Partnership Board and
the individual partners.
Week 40
Co-ordination and
monitoring and
evaluation of policy
implementation.
Providing a satisfactory policy proposal is prepared that

is adopted by all partners, the consortium lead group will
establish a monitoring system for the implementation
process and evaluate its impact through a survey and
recall community conference.
Week 40-46
42
43
LEAP
Recruitment

use?
Leaflet
Tender brief

take?
Policy proposals
Review event
Report preparation and

dissemination
Final report and policy

recommendations
Community conference
Interim report
Citizens jury
Desk research
Mapping of support
services to community
Community engagement,
groups
action research and data
analysis
Focus groups
Publicity
Strathinver community support review: plan in brief

use?
The consortium lead
members
Community
organisations
Support service
providers
Funding from
Communities Scotland
External consultants
Meeting places and
facilities
Implementation
monitoring
Monitoring and
evaluation system
What
difference
do we want?:
Trust/confidence
Awareness of and access
to support
Effective engagement
Consistency & integration
Respect for independence
Recognition of role of groups
How will we know?:
Quality of working relationship
Level of requests for support
Take up of support
Satisfaction with funding
Methods of engagement,
collaboration
Celebration of role
What is the need?:
Duplication of support roles
Gaps in support
Poor agency attitudes
Short termism
Poor engagement
Lack of integrated approach
Inconsistency
Confused approach to capacity building

The purpose of establishing a consortium approach to the conduct of the review was to ensure that there
was a core group who could co-ordinate the involvement of all the key stakeholders in IT and in debate
about the findings of the review. However it was agreed that it was desirable that a named individual should
be designated the co-ordinator for the review process.
It was agreed that the Director for the Voluntary Action Council (VAC) should play this role. This reflected
recognition of well established contacts with all service providers and extensive networks within the community
sector. Given the employment of the external consultants through the VAC the director was also seen as the
operational manager for the consultancy. However the partnership basis of the review required a regular
cycle of progress monitoring meetings. Eight were scheduled on a six-weekly basis to be convened by
the VAC director. The option of further co-ordinating meetings at critical stages was retained.
Whilst they were able to review satisfaction with engagement in the policy review through feedback from
participants at the completion of each element of the process, the consortium recognised that the second
level outcomes that were sought could only be tested once the new policy was established and implemented.
This evaluation of impact was accomplished by a survey of perceptions of all the community groups and
agencies of how well the process was working and a stakeholder conference held one year after the new
policy was established. A special meeting of the consortium was held at the end of year two to review and
evaluate the whole process and consider what might now need to be done.
In terms of the process of the review the varied participatory approach was particularly welcomed by the
community organisations. They also welcomed the key lead role played by the voluntary sector in the
process and the use of independent consultants who were not associated with any of the support agencies.
Over 100 community groups and a total of 180 individuals directly contributed to focus groups and, though
this was felt to be satisfactory, concern was felt that this still represented a minority of known community groups.
The citizens jury process had been particularly influential with positive feedback from jury members and
witnesses about: the process of selection of jury members; the opportunity for in-depth exploration of
options; the chance to draw on knowledge and experience from outside as well as within Strathinver.
An unexpected outcome of the jury process was that members wanted to continue to play a monitoring
role to follow through the response made to their proposals.
While this was potentially beneficial it also raised some tensions with the members of the existing
representative structures for community groups across Strathinver who felt that their roles were being
usurped and that the jury was not properly accountable. The use of a community conference to critically
examine the ideas emerging for the jury was seen as valuable.
44
45
LEAP
Agencies were positive about the quality and realism of the proposals that emerged but community
representatives complained that the deliberations of the Community Planning Partnership board were
protracted and not always transparent, often seeming to be conducted beyond public scrutiny of the
community and voluntary sector representatives. Thus whilst trust and confidence had been built up through
the process of the review, at the final stage it was to some degree undermined by the way that the community
planning partners dealt with it.
The policy that emerged from the process involved the establishment of:
An integrated community engagement strategy including establishing a new civic forum representing
all neighbourhoods and interest communities that would act as the primary mechanism for partnership
wide engagement with community organisations.
An integrated community capacity building strategy.

An agreement by partners to report to the partnership on all financial support to community organisations.
The establishment of common procedures and requirements for applications for grants.
A common protocol for the assessment of grant applications.
A common protocol between agencies relating to terms and condition of funding to community groups,
including a commitment, when funding local groups to provide services, to move, wherever possible,
to a three year funding cycle with a review built in at the end of year two.
The establishment of an annual awards scheme to celebrate the most successful and innovative
community initiatives.
To facilitate the implementation of these changes the core support agencies that had formed the consortium
for the review (alongside representatives of the three Strathinver-wide community groups) agreed to
contribute, through staff secondments, to the establishment of a community support unit to be managed
by the partnership and located within the Chief Executives department. All partners agreed to work with
this unit. The unit was set up to:
Establish and support the new Civic Forum.

Co-ordinate and monitor the conduct of all formal engagement between service providers and community
groups (including a calendar of engagement activity and supporting collaboration in areas of common
interest).
Provide capacity building support for community engagement to agencies and community groups.
Monitor the overall demand for and allocation of support resources to community groups.
Monitor allocation of resources by neighbourhood, in line with indicators of need used in establishing
Regeneration Outcome Agreements.
Monitor allocation of resources by interest community.

Monitor the application the agreed protocol between agencies relating to terms and condition of funding
to community groups.
Manage the awards scheme.

Assess the experience of community organisations of the new policy.
Report to the Community Planning Partnership on performance and make recommendations for further
policy and practice changes.
In terms of the second level outcomes it was believed that these initiatives would have significant impact
on the quality and effectiveness of community support. The assessment at the end of the year, conducted
by the consortium, identified the following headlines:
Significant improvement in the co-ordination of funding to community organisations.

More coherence in the conduct of community engagement but some difficulty establishing the relationship
between the civic forum and other Strathinver wide community structures.
Need to extend the capacity building support to agencies to establish confident and skilled engagement
practice.
Need to focus capacity building for community leaders on those that were now involved in the
increasingly complex procedures.
Satisfaction among community groups that the support processes were becoming more transparent
and particularly that the complexities of different funding streams and procedures had been reduced.
Concern that the complexity of the task, and the propensity of agencies to operate without taking account
of the need to work collaboratively, had been underestimated.
Concern that whilst the unit had a co-ordinating role it lacked the authority to hold partners to account.
With these issues in mind the newly formed community support unit facilitated a new LEAP visioning and
planning exercise with the board of the Strathinver Community Planning Partnership.
46
47
LEAP
Appendix 1:
Outcomes of CLD from Delivering Change (Learning Connections, 2006)
CLD IS ABOUT PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT
1.
CLD supports people to become confident individuals.
Through being involved in CLD adults and young people:

1.1 Are more confident.
1.2 Feel better about themselves (increased self-esteem).
1.3 Expect to achieve more.
1.4 Are more able to do things for themselves.
1.5 Are more able to take responsibility for themselves and their actions.
1.6 Are more able to understand and discuss their own values and beliefs.
1.7 Are more able to understand and discuss their needs and aspirations.
2.
CLD supports people to become effective contributors.
Through being involved in CLD adults and young people are more able to:
2.1 Communicate with other people.
2.2 Solve problems and make decisions.
2.3 Work with others.
2.4 Form and develop good relationships.
2.5 Use their skills and experience to support and lead others.
3.
CLD supports people to become responsible citizens.
Through being involved in CLD adults and young people are:

3.1 More able to discuss and understand complex issues that affect their community, society and the
wider world.
3.2 More able to plan and take action on issues for their community, society and the wider world.
3.3 More able to make sure that their views and opinions are heard and taken on board.
3.4 More aware and understanding of different peoples experiences, abilities, backgrounds and beliefs.
3.5 Better able to get on with people with different experiences, abilities, backgrounds and beliefs.
4.
CLD supports people to become successful learners.
Through being involved in CLD adults and young people:

4.1
Have more belief in their ability to learn.
4.2
Are more motivated to learn.
4.3
Are more able to identify and understand what they need and want to learn.
4.4
Understand different ways to learn.
4.5
Are more able to choose ways of learning that suit them in different situations.
4.6
Are more able to take control of how and what they learn
4.7
Are more able to share their learning with others.
4.8
Are more able to use what they have learned in different situations in their lives.
4.9
Are more able to use ICT (e.g. computers).
4.10 Are more able to use their skills with numbers.
48
49
LEAP
CLD IS ABOUT BUILDING COMMUNITY CAPACITY

1.
CLD supports people to be confident, skilled and active community members.
Through involvement in CLD, adults and young people:

1.1 Are more confident about working with others in their community.
1.2 Have more skills and knowledge they can use in their community.
1.3 Are more able to use what they have learned in different situations in their community.
1.4 Are more able to see how things in their community can change for the better.
2.
CLD supports communities to be active and influential.
Through involvement in CLD, adults and young people are more able to:
2.1 Make links with others in their community and build working relationships with them.
2.2 Take action together on the issues that are important to them.
And community organisations:
2.3 Have more influence on the issues that are important to them.
3.
CLD supports community organisations to be resourced and to deliver services effectively.
Through support from CLD, community organisations become more able to:
3.1 Access resources (like meeting places, equipment and money) that allow them to work on the issues
they think are important.
3.2 Control assets that allow them to work on the issues they think are important.
3.3 Deliver services directly, where thats the most appropriate way of addressing an issue they think is
important.
4.
CLD supports effective planning, management and evaluation by community organisations.
Through support from CLD, community organisations are more able to:
4.1 Find out about and understand issues for the community.
4.2 Develop a plan of action on issues identified by the community.
4.3 Manage themselves well.
4.4 Learn lessons from what they do and act on them.
5.
CLD supports the development of inclusive community organisations
Through support from CLD, community organisations:

5.1 Are more aware of different cultures, backgrounds and beliefs within their community.
5.2 Value and use the positive contributions of people with a wide range of experiences, abilities,
backgrounds and beliefs.
5.3 Are more able to work well with other organisations representing people with different experiences,
abilities, backgrounds and beliefs.
6.
CLD supports productive networks and relationships
Through support from CLD, community organisations are more able to:
6.1 Make links with organisations from other communities and build working relationships with them.
6.2 Develop and keep working relationships with other organisations and services in their area
50
51
LEAP
Wider Outcomes of CLD

Outcomes related to economic activity and employment
These might include:
Improved employability;
Increased levels of employment;
Improved labour market position (e.g. getting a better paid or more skilled job);
Increased levels of activity in the social economy; and
Increased entrepreneurial and enterprising attitudes.
Outcomes related to learning and education

Improved performance at school;

Reduced levels of truancy and exclusion; and
Increased participation and progression in lifelong learning, including to further/higher education.
Outcomes related to democratic participation and engagement

Increased and more inclusive participation in democratic processes; and

Improved engagement between democratic representatives and communities.
Outcomes related to health

Improved health;
Higher levels of physical activity; and,
Improved support being available to community members.
Other wider outcomes of CLD

In addition to these, there are a range of other areas where the end outcomes of CLD can also be important.
These include:
Outcomes related to community safety such as reduced crime or fear of crime (including
anti-social behaviour).
Outcomes related to community cohesion and inclusion such as decreased discrimination and
increased celebration of identity and diversity.
Outcomes related to artistic, sporting and cultural participation.

Outcomes related to the physical and natural environment.
52
53

This document is also available on the Scottish Government
website: www.scotland.gov.uk
This document is available in alternative formats on request
RR Donnelley B52956 11/07
Blackwells Bookshop
53 South Bridge
Edinburgh
EH1 1YS
Telephone orders and enquiries
0131 622 8283 or 0131 622 8258
Fax orders
0131 557 8149
Email orders
business.edinburgh@blackwell.co.uk

A Manual For Learning Evaluation and Planning in Community Learning and Development

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

A Manual For Learning Evaluation and Planning in Community Learning and Development

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

LEAP

A manual for Learning Evaluation and Planning

A manual for Learning Evaluation and Planning

The Scottish Government, Edinburgh 2007

Crown copyright 2007

Section 1: Introducing LEAP

what is the LEAP framework?

key steps in the LEAP approach

iii. principles underpinning LEAP

iv. why LEAP may be useful

v. applying LEAP at different levels

vi. context of the revised LEAP

vii. LEAP and other CLD tools

Section 2: Exploring the principles of LEAP

building on strengths of the participants

iii. being change and outcome-focused

iv. a participatory and partnership approach

v. promoting continuous learning and improvement

Section 3: Understanding the steps in the LEAP cycle

Step 1: agreeing outcomes what difference do we want to make?

Step 2: identifying indicators how will we know we made a difference?

Step 3: action planning how will we go about making the difference?

Step 4: monitoring how are we making sure it is happening?

Section 1: Introducing LEAP

Section 2: Exploring the principles of LEAP

Section 3: Understanding the steps in the LEAP cycle

Worked Examples: Applying LEAP to real-life situations

The LEAP online learning materials

Using the LEAP Manual

Details of how to get hold of these are online at http://leap.scdc.org.uk

Section 1: Introducing LEAP

What is the need?

what resources will we use?

How are we making sure it is happening?

ii. Key steps in the LEAP approach

LEAP Process Diagram

Did we make the

What methods will we

How will we use the

How are we making

iii. Principles underpinning LEAP

These key principles are explored in depth in section 2.

iv. Why LEAP may be useful

In all three contexts, LEAP will help us to:

focus our work clearly;

As a consequence of all of these things:

Our work and the work of our agency will be more:

We will be better able to explain:

We will be able to do so in the confidence that:

the focus of our work relates to relevant and evidenced needs

v. Applying LEAP at different levels

The number of people that we are working with.

The dimensions of the need that we are setting out to tackle.

The level of operation we are engaging with.

Developing a drop in centre for Establishing an individual

Enabling the voices of young

Planning and delivering a

Establishing a literacies policy Developing and disseminating

vi. Context of the revised LEAP

Delivering Change: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/learningconnections

The new LEAP is therefore presented with:

reference to contemporary policy and practice

vii. LEAP and other CLD tools