final project report on underlying principles, examples and...

Defra RE0246 Local Level Rural Proofing Project

1

Final Project Report by Rural Innovation on Underlying Principles, Examples and Practitioner's Needs relating to Best Practice in the Design and Delivery of Rural Services

April 2012 Hindle R, Wilson B & Annibal I Publication Version Primary Author: Ivan Annibal Reviewed by: Brian Wilson & Rob Hindle


2

Index Page 1. Introduction 3 2. Methodology 3 3. Findings from Literature and Policy Review 4 4. Outcomes of the Call for Evidence 6 5. User Group Triangulation 10 6. User Group Conclusions 13 7. Local Level Rural Proofing Resources 14 8. Dissemination Plan 15 9. Steering Group Input into the Design Process 17 10. Conclusion 17 Appendices 1. Respondents to the Call for Evidence 20 2. Policy Drivers and Underlying Principles 21 3. Responses from the Call for Evidence Mapped Across the Underlying Principles 24 4. Dissemination Plan 26 5. Peer to Peer Mentoring Programme 34


3

1. Introduction This report has been produced for the Project Steering Group as a final report. The specification for the study produced by the Rural Communities Policy Unit (the RCPU) in Defra and the submission from Rural Innovation which led to our appointment are both available on the Defra Research website. This document should be read in conjunction with the Interim Report for the project which summarised progress in respect of the policy and literature review and the call for evidence. That is also available on the Defra Research website. The purpose of this paper is to share with the Steering Group the findings from the work, and specifically our analysis and conclusions around:

1. Examples of local service design and delivery in rural areas which can objectively be considered as good practice; 2. What it is about those examples of good practice that constitutes common underlying principles; 3. The needs of local practitioners for practical advice and support on the design and delivery of services in rural areas.

The commission also required:

4. The design of good practice resources that add value locally and which gain traction with local practitioners; 5. Development of a carefully thought-through dissemination plan.

Details of these resources and the dissemination plan are set out in this report. 2. Methodology Our methodology has focused on a review of existing and emerging policy; a review of literature on rural proofing and good practice in rural service design; and an extensive call for evidence from practitioners and those involved in rural service design and delivery across England1. We have triangulated the findings from these evidence gathering activities with a representative User Group. We then used this learning and the insights acquired to support the development of a series of local level rural proofing resources and a dissemination plan. These project outputs were produced in consultation with the Steering Group. Policy Review The desktop review of current and emerging policy assessed the likely impact of policy on the design and delivery of rural services across three

1 Full details of our methodology can be found in the EVID2 form submitted in response to Defra's research specification.


4

main themes: a) localism and community action; b) deficit reduction and economic growth; and c) sustainability and carbon reduction. The findings of the review are set out in full in a paper that has already been submitted to the Client Group and is available on the Defra website. Literature Review The desktop review of literature sought to identify evidence of “underlying principles” of good practice in the design and delivery of rural services. The review focused on evidence of good practice and exemplars of rural proofing produced over the last five years. The list of documents to be reviewed was agreed with the project Steering Group. The findings of the review are set out in full in a paper that has already been submitted to the Client Group and is available on the Defra website. Call for Evidence The third strand of this research was a call for evidence from rural practitioners involved in the design and delivery of rural services and representatives of organisations that have an interest in the outputs and outcomes arising from rural services. A list of the organisations that responded is provided as Appendix One. User Group Triangulation The fourth strand of the research has been to triangulate the findings of the policy and literature review and the call for evidence with a representative panel of individuals from the public sector and representatives from key service user organisations. This involved a detailed and structured meeting to test the emerging findings from the research followed by an iterative dialogue, which has involved asking the group to test and comment on draft outputs and outcomes from the research as they have emerged. Steering Group Engagement The final strand of the work has involved testing the outcomes of the research and the User Group triangulation with the project Steering Group. The Steering Group has comprised staff from Defra alongside key infrastructure bodies including: Acre, NALC, County Councils Network, LGA and CRC. 3. Findings from the Policy and Literature Review Findings from the Policy Review The policy review found that the policy developments considered were influenced by a combination of the coalition government's programmes and, of course, by the economic context and state of public finances. It identified that the shape and focus of emerging policy represents a radical and wide-ranging shift in the context for rural service design and delivery. It includes policy drivers which can be characterised as focusing on:

Defra RE0246 Local Level Rural Proofing Project Localisation: decisions about service design, commissioning and delivery

made closer to and in association with users; Personalisation: further encouragement for bespoke and locally-specific

service delivery approaches; Collaboration: a loosening of organisational boundaries, with scope for

more integrated service delivery and a focus on place; Open Access: opportunities for new entrant service providers from

outside the statutory sector; Volunteering: a desire to leverage the capacity and resources of local

people or organisations; and Growth: an emphasis on development to better meet local economic and

housing needs. Findings from the Literature Review The aim of this review was to identify evidence of “underlying principles” of good practice in the design and delivery of rural services. We define these "underlying principles" as something that could be applied to the design or delivery of any local service and which would improve the outcomes for rural people, communities or businesses. To be useful in the context of this project an underlying principle needs to be locally delivered, to be rurally focused and to deliver benefits to service users. Figure One: Key Elements of the Definition of an Underlying Principle

Source: Brian Wilson Associates Evidence offered within the literature and case studies reviewed suggested that 18 discrete approaches / actions might be considered to be valuable underlying principles of good practice in the design and delivery of rural services.

5


6

Most were evident from case study examples reviewed, though a couple arose only from discursive text in the literature. These underlying principles were logged for testing throughout the rest of the project methodology. The list of policy drivers and underlying principles is attached at Appendix Two. 4. Outcomes of the Call for Evidence A number of key sources were used to develop the distribution list for the call for evidence. These included the RCAN network, the Rural Services Network and key informants identified by Steering Group members. The responses from the Call for Evidence have been captured within an online form and, where based on telephone interviews or provided by members of the RCAN network, in a narrative within Microsoft Word documents2. We have carried out analysis of the response3 to the Call for Evidence at a number of levels. Firstly we have "mapped" the responses against a framework which enables us to assess how comprehensive the response has been in terms of: the type of organisations that the respondents are involved with; the geographical distribution of respondents; the spread across different types of rurality of the respondents; the local socio economic context4; and, the type of services cited within peoples responses.

The second level of analysis has been focused at teasing out underlying principles and "mapping" those against the eighteen potential underlying principles identified within the Literature Review. We have reviewed the information submitted for examples of good practice which might be used to promote those principles associated with effective design and delivery of rural services. Finally, we have assessed the responses to identify evidence around local practitioner's needs for support, guidance and training. Our analysis has also included an element of "gap analysis" to identify areas where the response has been limited and areas where examples of the application of underlying principles or examples good practice appear to be limited.

2 This primary evidence will be made available to the client for their retention. 3 This analysis was carried out at the earliest opportunity following the close of the Call for Evidence between the 25th and 28th February. 4 Using the rank of the local authority within the Multiple Index of Deprivation as a proxy.


7

Analysis of the Call for Evidence Areas of Service It is apparent from the analysis that key services such as transport, health, education and housing are well covered. It is interesting to note that areas such as broadband, waste, crime, culture / libraries, fuel poverty, economic development and independent living have also been cited. It is notable that no reference has been offered to services normally operated on a wholly commercial basis by the private sector delivery (such as pubs, shops, post offices etc.) or to another key service relevant to rural areas, planning. It is arguable that private sector services fall outside the scope for this work; it is after all unlikely that the RCPU will want to create guidance and support around the design and delivery of purely private sector services – that is a matter for the owner / operator of these services. The RCPU may well be interested in supporting different models of retaining and delivering these services based on localism and community involvement. We suggest that this role is already well covered by organisations such as the Plunkett Foundation and the Rural Community Action Network; it is therefore questionable whether we should seek to add to the resources and materials available as part of this project. The omission of any reference to planning is interesting and suggests that it is not seen as quite the same sort of public service as the others referenced. It is of course hugely important to sustainable growth in rural areas and after discussion with the Steering Group has been included in the portfolio of resources produced. Underlying Principles and Fit with Literature Review Our overall conclusion is that the responses to the Call for Evidence provide a very good fit with the list of policy drivers and underlying principles identified by the literature review. The evidence suggests little that is additional and the material received corroborates and strengthens that earlier work. Policy Drivers The new evidence gathered contains many comments and quite a few service examples which align strongly with five of the policy drivers, namely those on devolution, personalisation, collaboration, volunteering and thriving. Limited evidence has been offered which sits within the policy driver identified around "open access" i.e. opportunities for new entrant providers from outside the statutory sector. This omission may not be too surprising given that this model of public service delivery is at a relatively early stage


8

of development; although finding further rural delivery examples would be useful for the project. It is further noted that wholly commercial services (delivered without any intervention from the public sector) do not fit well with any of these thematic policy drivers e.g. a mobile butchers shop. Since the drivers are based on Government policy this is to be expected, though it begs a wider question about the application of rural proofing in a commercial environment. Underlying Principles We have mapped the evidence provided across the eighteen underlying principles identified from the Literature Review5. This was done by considering all examples that were cited in any descriptive depth in the call for evidence returns against a chart summarising the 18 principles to see: whether they mapped onto the chart i.e. confirmed the drivers and draft underlying principles; or whether they suggested changes/additions to them. This analysis shows that just over half of the references relate to five principles. Ranked in order of the number of references made these are: taking a user focused approach to design tackling geographical challenges by harnessing rural strengths using evidence to understand local circumstances and unit costs of

delivery designing service solutions to maximise the use of existing assets collaboration beyond boundaries of individual services and territories

The next five principles account for 30% of references: starting from first principles; needs based service design reducing or spreading fixed costs through use of technology, volunteering

and collaboration focusing specific efforts on hard to reach groups targeting geographical gaps in delivery taking account of a broad range of outcomes when assessing value for

money The remaining eight principles attract 17% of references between them: factoring broad sustainability outcomes as design objectives an overt and upfront commitment to equity and proportionate outcomes designing flexible models which can adapt to local circumstances monitoring at low levels of geography

5 A table showing the outcome of this analysis is included as Appendix Three.


9

testing innovation in local pilots before committing to it (enabling innovation by "de-risking" it)

offering a portfolio of delivery solutions to meet varying needs considering urban / rural inter-dependencies targeting gaps in delivery through contractual terms

Additional Underlying Principles A few other comments were made in the responses in addition to references and experience which can be used to confirm the underlying principles identified from the Literature Review. We have considered these to determine whether they introduce any new underlying principles. Our conclusion is that they do not; our analysis is set out in more detail in the Interim Report. Examples of Good Practice The Call for Evidence generated a very significant list of examples of good practice. Following a dialogue with both the User Group and the Steering Group, a small focused number of these examples, where they provide examples of the application of the key principles underpinning good design and delivery, have been included in the resources generated through the project. Evidence of Practitioner’s Need for Support The areas raised by respondents to the Call for Evidence are set out in the table below: How To

Good Practice

Direct Support

Guidance and training on "How To" do things, specifically: talk to service users develop and use networks use of social and digital media in

service design & delivery apply for funding access and use evidence produce a community profile assess service user requirements assess value for money or cost /

benefit analysis engage and recruit volunteers get the best of delivery partners engage and communicate with

communities use of social and digital media in

engagement with communities

Access to materials setting out good practice and related examples specifically focused on: case studies to

demonstrate good design / delivery

case studies on the use of evidence

templates for design templates for rural

proofing templates for service

delivery contracts with SMEs, community and not for profit organisations

Access to personal advice access to expert

mentor / advisor access to peers

for mutual support and advice

access to evidence (central repository) with help to use and apply

access to community profiles


10

The proposed areas of support were tested with both the User Group and the Steering Group. A very strong steer from both groups suggested that the most important approach to addressing needs were: 1. The development of a peer to peer support process 2. Creation of a portal which operates as a central repository for information and guidance More detail of the debate and rationale around our approach is set out further on in this report. 5. User Group Triangulation A User Group comprising a representative sample of local authorities and representatives from interest group organisations (Age UK and the Citizen's Advice Bureau) was held in Birmingham on 8 March 2012. The role of the Group was to discuss the outcomes of the "Call for Evidence" and to consider what resources might most usefully be developed to support the process of local level rural proofing. Attendees were: Ivan Annibal (Rural Innovation team), Sam Rule (RCPU Defra), Louise Driver (Leicestershire Rural Partnership), Gordon Jones (Defra National Rural Proofing Drafting Team), Dave Melling (Bradford MBC), Ruth Rose (Age UK), James Anthony Edwards (Shropshire Council), Brian Wilson (Rural Innovation team), Lois Dale (Shropshire Council), Colin Walker (East Riding of Yorkshire Council), Hugo Perks (CAB) and Rob Hindle (Rural Innovation team). The User Group followed a number of structured discussions which provided a triangulation of the underlying principles inherent in good design and delivery established as part of the literature and policy review. Their views in relation to each of the 18 principles are set out below. 1. An overt and upfront commitment from service designers to provide fair and equitable treatment for users and to achieve proportionate outcomes in rural and urban places There was significant support for this principle, although the Group felt that it should not be seen in any way as justifying "special pleading" for rural places. It was also felt that the addition of "inclusive" alongside "fair and equitable" would strengthen the principle. 2. Approaches to service design which seek to address the fundamental challenges of rural delivery (sparsity, distance, etc) by harnessing and enhancing typical strengths within rural communities (social capital, self-reliance, etc)


11

There was strong support for this principle allied to a concern that it is not a straightforward process to assume that the "strengths" within rural communities will always arise organically without some form of third party support/community development. The word “typical” should therefore be removed. 3. Finding ways to spread or reduce the fixed costs of service delivery, so as to mitigate increased unit costs of delivery arising from distance/time and lost economies of scale (the rural premium). This may involve organisations collaborating, services co-locating, the use of ICT, volunteer input or various other approaches This principle was supported without any additional comment. 4. Taking into account a broad range of potential outcomes (economic, social and environmental) when assessing options for rural delivery (beyond unit cost or "value for money") This principle was acknowledged as being particularly important. Some members of the User Group cautioned against drawing things too broadly to avoid outcomes becoming unfocused and diffuse, whilst accepting the general principle. 5. Taking a "user focused" approach to design; involving rural communities in the early stage of needs assessment service planning and then involving them in shaping appropriate local solutions This was acknowledged as important and was confirmed as one of the most highly cited examples of good practice in the call for evidence. There were some comments from the User Group about the need to ensure the views of individuals arising from consultation activities are triangulated to check that they are not only opinions about what "would be good" but statements of positive intent. The example of communities demanding the preservation of local services which they then don't actually patronise - for example bus services and local shops - was put forward in relation to this aspect of the discussion. 6. Starting this dialogue with rural communities from first principles, asking what their needs are and how they wish to use services, rather than simply adjusting current service models This principle was supported without any additional comment. 7. Investing in understanding local circumstances and the impact of geography on service costs and use, in order to inform the design of evidence-based solutions This principle was supported without any additional comment.


12

8. Considering urban-rural inter-dependencies and the scope to maximise the benefits for rural communities arising from them This principle was accepted. The importance of thinking about the functionality of settlements rather than applying a mono-chrome rural or urban label was indicated as important. The Group also identified that the interface between metropolitan and rural areas may provide a special context for rural policy - in the context of managing the interface of very different places. The relationship between Sheffield City Council and the Peak District National Park was given as a positive example. 9. Designing sufficient flexibility into delivery models, so they can be adapted to local circumstance or opportunity This principle was supported - the potential to build a rural component into public sector procurement activities arose as a particular area of potential interest and action in this context. 10. Offering a portfolio of delivery solutions to meet the varying needs and circumstances of rural users This principle was supported without any additional comment. 11. Targeting geographical gaps in delivery so that services are readily accessible to more (potential) users, especially those in remoter or more isolated locations This principle was supported with the caveat that focusing resources on need is as important as focusing resources on geography. There was also an interesting debate about how the recession was striking, because of the effects of rurality, in particular ways (e.g. through heating oil costs and the seizing up of the house building industry) at the sustainability of rural places. 12. Focusing particular effort (and perhaps financial support) at those groups who find it hardest to access existing services. This may involve tailored solutions for individuals This principle was supported. A number of User Group members identified that the provision of services to the vulnerable elderly was a particular priority from their perspectives. 13. Service commissioners seeking to avoid spatial gaps in provision by including incentives or penalties within contracts to avoid market failure among providers It was acknowledged that this was an important principle. User Group members, however, suggested that good contract planning and letting


13

should tackle spatial challenges effectively in many cases rather than vice versa. 14. Factoring in broad outcomes which enhance the future sustainability of rural communities as design objectives or within the criteria for assessing "return on investment” This principle was accepted, but there was a feeling that it was similar in nature to principle 4 above. 15. Recording and monitoring at lower or local levels of geography (commensurate with local delivery) and reviewing the outputs regularly to seek further rural service enhancements This principle was identified as very important, but it was acknowledged that in practice rural service providers find it hard to do effectively. This is often because of the large scale nature of many of their management information systems, which may not be designed with a significant spatial component. 16. Designing solutions to increase the use of existing assets within rural areas (e.g. buildings, land and transport) in order to enhance their viability This principle was accepted without any further comment. 17. Looking to collaborate beyond the boundaries of individual services, so additional outcomes may arise This principle was accepted - there was general consensus that the last two words should change to "are delivered". 18. Testing innovative approaches in small areas (as pilots) in order to gain sufficient evidence, learning and support for their mainstream use. A cross cutting method of enabling and "de-risking" innovation This principle was accepted -there was general consensus that the word “innovative” should be removed. The definitively revised underlying principles are attached at Appendix Two. 6. User Group Conclusions We set out 7 key questions in the Interim Report about the development of the resources to support rural proofing. Discussions with the User Group produced the following responses: 1. Do the underlying principles provide a useful means of contextualising the proposed local rural proofing resources? - Yes


14

2. Are some services more important than others and should we discriminate on that basis? - There was a strong feeling that all services are equally valid in the context of the development of the tools. 3. Should we concentrate on underlying principles or the replication of demonstrable good practice? Whilst there were no grounds on the basis of the User Group discussions to discount good practice examples, there was a strong feeling that there are many accessible examples already and the real added value was around concentrating on the principles. 4. Which underlying principles should we concentrate on? Those that are best or those that are least well understood? - The User Group did not feel it was appropriate to differentiate on this basis and had a clear view that the 18 principles were robust and important as a group. 5. How many of the identified needs should we seek to address? Is there some straightforward means of tackling a number of needs effectively through a "killer app"? - The User Group felt that organised peer to peer mentoring, supplemented by written support materials available electronically, was by far the most effective means of tackling the challenges underlying this project. 6. Should a range of different user resources be developed to support different elements of the potential help required by stakeholders? - The User Group agreed that this was an important design feature. 7. Should we think about targeting specific approaches at specific groups ?- The User Group felt that any resources needed to be generically applicable, but could be usefully flavoured to take account of the focus and interest of certain key sectors. This was further developed as a theme at the Project Steering Group on 16 March and more detail in relation to their views follows. The key practitioners to target were identified as those mid-range officers in local authorities and other public sector bodies charged with drafting policy. It was acknowledged, however, that Chief Executive buy-in was also important if the value of rural proofing is to become substantively embedded in local organisations. 7. Local Level Rural Proofing Resources Based on the discussion with the User Group and the outcome of their responses to the presentation of the issues, the consultants took a recommendation to the Steering Group, which was subsequently agreed, to produce the set of local level rural proofing resources listed below. LLRP Resource #1 A headline statement explaining what rural proofing is and setting out the benefits that it offers to local policy makers, service designers, commissioners and deliverers. (Word document converted into pdf for download)


15

LLRP Resource #2 An "insight" paper containing examples of local level rural proofing in practice. The paper shares and explains the key findings of the work around policy drivers and the underlying principles found within effective and successful rural service design and delivery. (Word document for conversion to pdf with some design elements) LLRP Resource #3 A briefing note in slide pack form providing easy access to the findings of the work and promoting the benefits and practice of local level rural proofing to practitioners and stakeholders. (Slide pack produced in PowerPoint and converted into pdf for download) LLRP #4 Copy for a single web page and documents for download (resources #1 to #3) which can be provided to partners and stakeholders for inclusion on their websites and for inclusion in the Defra website. 8. Dissemination Plan A preferred approach to disseminating findings from the work and promoting take up and use of the local level rural proofing resources was developed in discussion with the User Group and subsequently with the Steering Group. Target Audiences The target audience for each of the resources which have been developed was discussed. It was agreed that the principles established by the User Group – set out in response to question 7 in section 6 above should be followed, namely: “The key practitioners to target were identified as those mid-range officers in local authorities and other public sector bodies charged with drafting policy. It was acknowledged also however that Chief Executive buy-in was also important if the value of rural proofing is to become substantively embedded in local organisations.” This was deemed to be particularly important in relation to the statement about the importance of rural proofing and the “insight paper”. The key audience for the “briefing note” and related resources was identified as potential informants and influencers across the Defra stakeholder network. Dissemination Approaches An approach to dissemination which taps into the huge potential of peer to peer recommendation and “word of mouth” transmission was identified as being the most effective means of creating engagement with the resources. Immediate A number of key opportunities to start this process off and then sustain its momentum have been identified, as follows:

Promotion of the outcome of the project and resources produced as part of the launch by RCPU of the Rural Policy Statement.


16

Presentation of the briefing note (resource #3) as a workshop,

seminar or conference paper at as many events and within as many network meetings (e.g. LGA Rural Commission, SoLACE, other professional networks) as possible over the next 6 to 9 months.

Implementation of a network marketing strategy, commencing with a

series of "briefings" to Defra stakeholders on the outcomes of the work and introducing / selling the resources available for their adoption, use and further dissemination across their own and other key networks.

Medium Term A significant number of responses to the questions about support materials from the Call for Evidence referenced the importance of peer support and the sharing of good practice. This view was a common feature all categories of respondent. Triangulation discussions at the User Group provided the opportunity for this aspect of dissemination and practical interaction with the resources to come out even more strongly. A number of User Group members had been involved with mentoring and peer support programmes previously. They cited the very significant benefits for both mentors and mentees arising from such activities in the context of the establishment and embedding of good practice. A range of examples of successful peer to peer support programmes were identified, with the Local Government Improvement and Development “Rural Excellence Programme” which ran from 2004-5 to 2008-9 being referenced as a particularly potent example of this concept in action6. Further discussions with the Steering Group confirmed support for an emphasis on peer to peer networking within the dissemination. Information on these discussions is provided in Section 9 below. A second persistent theme arising from the Call for Evidence and the discussions at the User Group was the importance of the availability of a single portal for the retention and access of resources, interaction amongst interested parties and scope for individuals to raise issues and areas of challenge for support. The full dissemination plan arising from the project is attached at Appendix Four.

6 References to the operation of this programme can still be found at http://www.idea.gov.uk/idk/core/page.do?pageId=689771

http://www.idea.gov.uk/idk/core/page.do?pageId=689771


17

9. Steering Group Input into the Design Process The Steering Group met on 16 March 2012 to consider the findings arising from the User Group and offer their own views on the proposed approach to the development of the local rural proofing resources and the dissemination of good practice. The Steering Group participants at that meeting were: Justin Martin (Defra RCPU), Tony Williamson (Defra RCPU), Brian Wilson (Rural Innovation Team), Rob Hindle (Rural Innovation), Penny Bramwell (Defra RCPU), Ivan Annibal (Rural Innovation Team), Sam Rule (Defra RCPU), Nick Chase (ACRE), Victoria Pymm (NALC) and Gordon Jones (Defra RCPU). The Steering Group supported the work findings to date in relation to both the validation of the principles and the development of the resources. They proposed a modest number of nuanced changes which have been incorporated into the design of the local resources. They included:

1. The value of thinking through a simplified exposition of the 18 principles for "lay-people".

2. The value of producing the slide pack in a brand neutral and "vanilla" format to enable partners and key infrastructure organisations (such as NALC and ACRE) to incorporate it as their own content on their websites.

3. A view that whilst traditional case studies may not be the way forward there is value in including a small number of practice examples within the resource pack.

4. A strong recognition that the peer to peer mentoring process is a powerful means of dissemination and embedding of the resources. The Steering Group asked the consultants to consider a specification for a peer to peer mentoring model; this is attached at Appendix Five.

5. A strong indication that the term "rural proofing" will be retained across Whitehall and wider as the "industry" description for this activity.

6. An emphasis on the importance of ensuring that the local level resources are developed in sequence and are closely aligned with the refresh of the national rural proofing work.

7. The need for a well developed and timed dissemination plan to tie in with the launch of the RCPU Rural Policy Statement and any linked Ministerial Statement.

10. Conclusion The Objectives of this project were:


18

1. To gather examples of local service design and delivery in rural areas which can objectively be considered as good practice; 2. To identify, in a structured way, what about those examples of good practice constitutes common underlying principles; 3. To assess the needs of local practitioners for practical advice and support on the design and delivery of services in rural areas; 4. To design good practice resources which add value locally and which gain traction with local practitioners; 5. To generate those resources, along with a carefully thought-through dissemination plan. Our approach has unearthed evidence of wide and comprehensive thinking across England about the challenges of delivering rural services at the local level. We have identified through a literature and policy review 6 policy drivers and 18 principles underlying good practice in service design and delivery in England. These have been triangulated against the call for evidence and in direct dialogue with a User Group made up of practitioners from service design, commissioning and delivery bodies together with representatives from service user groups. We have collected a comprehensive breakdown of the practical support and advice requirements of local practitioners through a wide ranging call for evidence and again validated the response through a dialogue with both the User Group and Steering Group for the Project. The local level rural proofing resources required by the clients have been developed in association with the User Group and Steering Group and will be disseminated effectively through implementation of a well worked dissemination plan. Key Learning Points The objectives of the projects have been met. A number of key learning points have also emerged from our work; these are set out below. Key learning points:

• There is scope to generate collective agreement around a simple statement explaining what local level rural proofing is and why it is important.

• There are two key audiences for the dissemination of support about the implementation of effective rural proofing – executives in public sector bodies with responsibility for the development and implementation of public services and stakeholder bodies in the parish, voluntary, community and private sectors with an interest in the delivery of public services.

• Effective rural proofing is achieved by focusing on outcomes rather than simply implementing some form of process.


19

• The underlying principles of good service design and delivery identified through the research are visible across the good practice put forward by respondents to the Call for Evidence.

• There is widespread interest in and demand for support on rural proofing from practitioners involved in the delivery and scrutiny of local level public services in rural areas.

• Awareness and understanding of the principles and practice of rural proofing could be substantially enhanced by the creation of a single point of reference offering examples of successful rural proofing, access to research and enabling peer to peer networking.

• There are a number of ways of disseminating local level rural proofing resources. Web and hard copy materials have a role to play, but the most potent means of distribution and embedding an approach to rural proofing within the culture and capacity of organisations would be via peer to peer networking and a mentoring programme.

• The outcomes of this project need to be presented in a way that ensures they are closely aligned to and form a part of other work by RCPU on rural proofing. This includes guidance to other government departments and the refreshed Rural Health Toolkit.

Ends


20

Appendix One: Respondents to the Call for Evidence • Bath and North East Somerset • Bedfordshire Rural Community Council • Berkshire Rural Community Council • Bradford Metropolitan Borough Council • Breckland District Council • Broadland District Council • Buckinghamshire Rural Community Council • North Warwickshire District Council • Cheshire Community Council • Cheshire West & Chester Council • Chichester District Council • Colton Parish Council, Cumbria • Commission for Rural Communities • Cornwall Council • Cornwall Development Company • Cornwall Rural Community Council • Cumbria NHS • Diocese of Canterbury • Diocese of Exeter • Diocese of Liverpool • Durham Rural Community Council • East Devon District Council • East Lindsey District Council • East Riding of Yorkshire Council • Eden District Council • St Edmundsbury DC • Essex County Council • Essex Rural Community Council • Fern UK • Forest of Dean District Council • Gloucestershire Rural Community Council • Hastoe Group • Herefordshire Council x2 • Involve Yorkshire & Humber • Katarsis Ventures • Leicestershire Housing Enabler • Lincolnshire County Council x3 • Lindsey Action Zone • Malvern Hills District Council • Methodist Church

• Mind • Monmouthshire Council • National Farmers Union x2 • New Perspective Theatre Company • Newark and Sherwood District Council • Norfolk County Council

• North Yorkshire County Council • One East Midlands • Oxfordshire Rural Community Council • PRA Consultancy Services • Ribble Valley District Council • Roy Bentham Limited • Rural Action Cumbria • Rural Action East • Rural Community Action Nottinghamshire x2 • Rural Development Initiatives • Severn Vale Housing • Shropshire Council • Shropshire Rural Housing • Somerset County Council • South Hams District Council • South Kesteven District Council • South Lakeland District Council • South Oxfordshire District Council • South Somerset District Council • Suffolk County Council • SPARSE • Stratford on Avon District Council • Stroud District Council • Suffolk ACRE • Surrey Community Action • Tees Valley Rural Community Council • UKAFA • University of Aberdeen • University of Gloucestershire • West Midlands RCAN • Wiltshire Rural Community Council


21

Appendix 2: Policy Drivers and Underlying Principles

Policy Drivers

Localisation – decisions about service design, commissioning and delivery being taken closer to and engaging with service users;

Personalisation – further encouragement for bespoke and locally-specific service delivery approaches;

Collaboration – a loosening of organisational boundaries, with scope for more integrated service delivery that has a focus on place;

Open access – greater opportunities for new service providers to enter the market from outside the statutory sector;

Volunteering – a desire to leverage the capacity and resources of local people and organisations; and

Growth – an emphasis upon development which better meets economic and housing needs.

Underlying principles which are strategic and cross-cutting 1 Making an upfront

commitment An overt and upfront commitment from service designers to provide fair, inclusive and equitable treatment for users and to achieve proportionate outcomes in rural and urban places.

2 Seeking broad outcomes

Factoring in broad outcomes which enhance the future sustainability of rural communities as design objectives or within the criteria for assessing return on investment.

3 Understanding geography

Investing in understanding local circumstances and the impact of geography on service costs and use, in order to inform the design of evidence-based solutions.

Underlying principles relating mostly to service design 4 Harnessing rural

strengths Approaches to service design which seek to address the fundamental challenges of rural delivery (sparsity, distance, etc) by harnessing and enhancing strengths within rural communities (social capital, self-reliance, etc).

5 Reducing fixed costs Finding ways to spread or reduce the fixed costs of service delivery, so as to mitigate increased unit costs of delivery arising from distance/time costs and lost economies of scale (the rural premium). This may involve joint-working by organisations, services co-locating, the use of


22

ICT, volunteer input or various other approaches. 6 Accounting for a

range of outcomes Taking into account a broad range of potential outcomes (economic, social and environmental) when assessing options for rural delivery (beyond unit cost or value for money).

7 Taking a user focused approach

Taking a user focused approach to design; involving rural communities in the early stage of needs assessment service planning and then involving them in shaping appropriate local solutions.

8 Starting from first principles

Starting the dialogue with rural communities from first principles, asking what their needs are and how they wish to use services rather than simply adjusting current service models.

9 Considering settlement inter-dependencies

Considering settlement (including urban-rural) inter-dependencies and the scope to maximise the benefits for rural communities arising from them.

10 Designing in flexibility

Designing sufficient flexibility into delivery models, so they can be adapted to local circumstance or opportunity.

11 Using existing assets Designing solutions to increase the use of existing assets within rural areas (e.g. buildings, land and transport) in order to enhance their viability.

Underlying principles relating mostly to service commissioning and delivery 12 Offering a portfolio

of solutions Offering a portfolio of delivery solutions to meet the varying needs and circumstances of rural areas.

13 Targeting spatial gaps in provision

Targeting geographic gaps in delivery so that services are readily accessible to more (potential) users, especially those in remoter or more isolated locations.

14 Focusing on hard-to-reach groups

Focusing particular effort (and perhaps financial support) at those groups who find it hardest to access existing services. This may involve tailored solutions for individuals.

15 Using incentives or penalties in contracts

Service commissioners seeking to avoid spatial gaps in provision by including incentives or penalties within contracts, to avoid market failure among providers.

16 Seeking collaborative approaches

Looking to collaborate beyond boundaries of individual services or perhaps across administrative boundaries, so that additional outcomes are delivered.


23

17 Testing approaches before mainstreaming

Testing new delivery approaches in small areas (as pilots) in order to gain sufficient evidence, learning and support for their mainstream use.

18 Monitoring at local levels

Recording and monitoring at lower or local levels of geography (commensurate with local delivery) and reviewing the outputs regularly to seek further rural service enhancements.


24

Appendix Three: Responses from the Call for Evidence Mapped Across the

Underlying Principles Note 1: the descriptions of underlying principles below are the draft ones used at the time of the Call for Evidence. Their final wording is shown in Appendix Two. Note 2: the policy drivers which are the best fit with the underlying principles are noted beside their descriptions below and shown in brackets e.g. (Personalisation). What makes or is important for good design and delivery of rural services?

Percentage of Responses

Taking a "user focused" approach to design; involving rural communities in the early stage of needs assessment service planning and then involving them in shaping appropriate local solutions. (Personalisation)

13%

Approaches to service design which seek to address the fundamental challenges of rural delivery (sparsity, distance, etc) by harnessing and enhancing typical strengths within rural communities (social capital, self-reliance, etc). (Devolution; Volunteering)

12%

Investing in understanding local circumstances and the impact of geography on service costs and use, in order to inform the design of evidence-based solutions. (Devolution; Personalisation)

10%

Designing solutions to increase the use of existing assets within rural areas (e.g. buildings, land and transport) in order to enhance their viability. (Thriving)

9%

Looking to collaborate beyond the boundaries of individual services, so additional outcomes may arise. (Collaboration)

9%

Starting this dialogue with rural communities from first principles, asking what their needs are and how they wish to use services rather than simply adjusting current service models. (Devolution; Personalisation)

8%

Finding ways to spread or reduce the fixed costs of service delivery, so as to mitigate increased unit costs of delivery arising from distance/time and lost economies of scale (the rural premium). This may involve organisations collaborating, services co-locating, the use of ICT, volunteer input or various other approaches. (Collaboration; Volunteering; Open Access)

7%

Focusing particular effort (and perhaps financial support) at those groups who find it hardest to access existing services. This may involve tailored solutions for individuals. (Personalisation)

6%

Targeting geographical gaps in delivery so that services are readily accessible to more (potential) users, especially those in remoter or more isolated locations. (Personalisation)

5%

Taking into account a broad range of potential outcomes 5%


25

What makes or is important for good design and delivery of rural services?

Percentage of Responses

(economic, social and environmental) when assessing options for rural delivery (beyond unit cost or "value for money"). (Thriving) Factoring in broad outcomes which enhance the future sustainability of rural communities as design objectives or within the criteria for assessing "return on investment". (Thriving)

4%

An overt and upfront commitment from service designers to provide fair and equitable treatment for users and to achieve proportionate outcomes in rural and urban places. (Cross Cutting Design Objective)

3%

Designing sufficient flexibility into delivery models, so they can be adapted to local circumstance or opportunity. (Personalisation; Open Access)

3%

Recording and monitoring at lower or local levels of geography (commensurate with local delivery) and reviewing the outputs regularly to seek further rural service enhancements. (Devolution)

2%

Testing innovative approaches in small areas (as pilots) in order to gain sufficient evidence, learning and support for their mainstream use. (Cross cutting method of enabling and "de-risking" innovation)

2%

Offering a portfolio of delivery solutions to meet the varying needs and circumstances of rural users. (Personalisation)

1%

Considering urban-rural inter-dependencies and the scope to maximise the benefits for rural communities arising from them. (Collaboration)

1%

Service commissioners seeking to avoid spatial gaps in provision by including incentives or penalties within contracts to avoid market failure among providers. (Cross cutting means of gaps in service delivery)

1%


26

Appendix Four: Dissemination Plan

Introduction

This Plan sets out the approach to ensuring that the resources developed under the RCPU local level rural proofing initiative are comprehensively and effectively disseminated. The development of these local resources is being undertaken in parallel with a refresh of the national guidance. This dissemination plan will need to be coordinated with the dissemination activities planned for the new material arising from the national exercise.

The Message

A clear statement encapsulating the benefit of local rural proofing has been agreed and this is the starting point of the dissemination plan.

It is:

Rural Proofing is a means to achieve equally effective and successful outcomes for communities, businesses and individuals from policy and in the design and delivery of publicly funded services, regardless of their size or location.

This statement can be "unpacked" as follows:

Effective Rural Proofing will help to optimise the outcomes your organisation achieves from its policies or services by improving delivery approaches in rural areas.

Effective Rural Proofing will help to ensure that all your communities and neighbourhoods (in the territory) benefit from policies or services regardless of their size or geographical location.

Effective Rural Proofing supports a local focus to policy making, service design and commissioning. It ensures that design takes full account of and responds to the unavoidable impact that differences related to "place" have on cost, access and outcomes.

Effective Rural Proofing improves outcomes across all types of areas and from all services. It is just as powerful in responding to different levels of rurality as it is for use in mixed rural - urban areas.

Effective Rural Proofing does all this because: • it designs out unintended gaps in service accessibility

• it ensures that you take best advantage of all available local resources and assets

• it identifies opportunities to work collaboratively with communities and neighbourhoods

• it demonstrates your commitment to provide fair access to all, and

it embeds good practice into the heart of your organisation.


27

The Audience

We have identified two key audiences for the local level rural proofing resources produced from this commission. These audiences include executives and officers in the public sector responsible for the development and implementation of policy at the local level, including Chief Executives to ensure full corporate buy-in.

A second audience is those organisations at the most local level of government (Parish and Town Councils), and those voluntary and community organisations with a direct interest in public service delivery.

This second audience is important because it has a key role in supporting service design and in holding service delivery organisations to account in terms of the effective performance of their functions. It also, along with private sector organisations holding public service delivery contracts, is likely to be a direct deliverer of certain services.

Ownership of the Message & Rural Proofing Resources

The RCPU has commissioned this project and paid for the creation of the rural proofing resources. Whilst it has a role to play in promoting rural proofing to other government departments (and to organisations wholly funded or "owned" by central government such as Ofgem) it does not have a mandate to make recommendations about the way local government and independently constituted bodies go about their business. It therefore needs to find another method to promote and disseminate the outputs from this project.

Work with the practitioners and representatives of service users within the project User Group identified that the most powerful form of promotion and dissemination was via peer to peer engagement and networking. The ideal scenario therefore would be for partner organisations involved in the project via the Steering Group - LGA, NALC, ACRE, CRC, RSN, CTA and the Rural Coalition - to take "ownership" of the resource produced and to promote and disseminate them to their members (and beyond) via their national and local networks.

Branding of the Rural Proofing Resources

If the approach suggested above is taken up then the resources could carry the branding of the partner organisations. This could be done collectively - including all logos on each document, or individually, with each organisation disseminating a standardised version of the resources carrying its own logo.

In the case of the web copy it is envisaged that this would be incorporated within the website of individual organisations and therefore sit within their branding and presentation format.


28

If it were considered to be appropriate it would be possible to include a comment on each of the resources that this is one of a series of resources produced from an RCPU funded project delivered by Rural Innovation.

Approach to Dissemination

There are four core rationale which shape approaches to dissemination. They are to:

Raise awareness – let others know what you are doing

Inform – educate the target audience

Engage – get input/feedback from the target audience

Promote – ‘sell’ your outputs and results

Options for Dissemination In this case the dissemination plan is essentially about informing and promoting. There are a number of approaches which can be used to generate maximum effect in relation to each of the above rationale and those which are often deemed to be most useful in terms of informing and promoting are:

Method Purpose Opportunity

Institution newsletters

Inform Stakeholders within the public sector including "trade press" publications - for example in terms of Local Government, the Municipal Journal - should be approached with copy. Key networks including NHS and local authority bodies e.g. the County Councils Network and Rural Services Network, should be approached to disseminate the key messages set out above via their usual communication channels. They could also use the web copy provided to direct interested third parties to the resources, to any online portal developed for rural proofing and to the rural proofing area in Defra's website.


29

Partner websites Inform

Promote

We have produced a series of local level rural proofing resources as outputs from this project. These have been produced without any branding and with a neutral pallet and format so that sponsoring partners - NALC, ACRE, LGA, CRC, Rural Coalition, RSN etc - can apply their own branding and post on their websites. As many organisations as possible that have an infrastructure role in relation to the target audiences set out above should be approached and encouraged to promote and post these resources on their websites on that basis.

Programme / cluster meetings

Inform

Promote

All of the infrastructure organisations within the audiences set out above have internal networking meetings and meet in a small number of fora, for example the Rural Coalition. A series of briefings promoting the resources developed by the project should be offered and delivered to these organisations.

Conference presentations

Promote There are a number of high profile opportunities to showcase the local rural proofing resources - the most significant is the release of the Defra Rural Policy Statement (potentially May 2012). In addition there are a number of key national conferences where a presentation of the outcome from the project and the resources could be undertaken. These include the LGA Annual Conference on 26 June 2012 and Rural Commission on 12 September 2012. At both of these events there is scope to field a Minister to promote the rural proofing resources. Other relevant annual and high profile conferences will be held by the infrastructure organisations linked to the identified audiences. They should also be targeted as part of the dissemination process.


30

Journal articles & Rural Briefings

Inform A number of key infrastructure bodies and universities with a strong rural engagement now produce "light" journals which provide a deeper opportunity to communicate the message around the local proofing resources than the approaches set out above. They should be contacted to scope out the potential to help showcase the resources and the theoretical process through which they were developed. Key examples include RuSource, the Countryside Research Institute at the University of Gloucestershire and the Centre for Rural Economy at the University of Newcastle.

Practice Insights Inform Insights into the practical application of underlying principles of good practice rural service design and delivery are included in the rural proofing resources. These insights focus on libraries, planning, access to services and transport. In addition to forming a key component of the resources these Practice Insights could be offered to thematic organisations within these sectors (for example Community Transport Association, RTPI and Planning Advisory Service) to support further dissemination of the outcomes of the project.

Reports and other documents

Inform Many individual stakeholder organisations within the target audiences feature regular reports on the development of relevant resources by Government Departments. It would be a straightforward process to contact all the constituents within Local Government, the NHS, Fire and Police organisations and to ask infrastructure bodies such as ACRE to contact their members, with a view to encouraging them to run features about the resources in their report cycles.

Recommended Activities The approach that the consultant team recommends is based on a combination of headline promotion and a complementary network and "pyramid" marketing approach. Headline Promotion The RCPU should include reference to the local level rural proofing project and the resources produced in the announcement of the Rural Policy Statement. The RCPU should then seek to include reference to the resources in any key note speeches


31

given by the Rural Affairs Minister (or any of the unit’s senior team). The RCPU might also focus a future Ministerial visit on one of the Practice Insights showcased within the Insights Paper. Network Marketing The focus of this approach is to give the resources to partner organisations and let them promote and disseminate them via their own channels. In the first instance the team at the RCPU should join with colleagues from the Project Steering Group and present the outcomes of the project and the resources produced to a core group of representatives from "stakeholder organisations". The RCPU might offer a half day "training and familiarisation" session to lead representatives from each organisation. They should then ask each organisation to help disseminate and promote the resources within their networks through their own channels. The RCPU should also ask each organisation to encourage people at local level within the organisation to promote and disseminate the resources amongst their own local networks and via day to day contact with their peers. Structured Testing Members of the User Group have expressed an interest in testing the application of the resources in their local areas. Consequently there is scope to develop a number of "field trials" to showcase the resources in action, should these offers of testing be taken up. Investing in an Ongoing Rural Proofing Resource The approach to dissemination and promotion recommended above requires little in the way of funding for implementation. It should be possible to achieve effective dissemination of the resources produced by the project at very little cost beyond the time and efforts of people in the RCPU and across the Defra stakeholder network. This approach will raise awareness of rural proofing at a local level and support take up of the resources produced. It will not provide a central and single point of reference for rural proofing, or provide the range of examples and support which practitioners identified as important during the call for evidence. The best way to do this would be to invest in the creation of a shared and interactive rural proofing network. This could be done in much the same way that Locality has created an online resource to promote and support asset transfer (http://atu.org.uk/). This resource would comprise a managed website that would be the central point of reference for queries and investigations around rural proofing. It would provide access to research, to practice examples and critically to practitioners with experience and those ready to mentor and support their peers. The website would be targeted at officers and members from local government and at people from the voluntary and community sector. It would provide information on how to secure effective and successful outcomes from rural service delivery, and how to

http://atu.org.uk/


32

influence and enhance the design and delivery of rural services from a service user or community perspective. The resource would require some form of full time resource to provide active content management together with resources to design and build it, host it, produce the original content and collate useful documents and case study examples. The rural proofing portal could be backed up and enacted in practice by a peer to peer mentoring network. Peer to Peer Mentoring The Project User Group identified the most effective means of disseminating information as being through peer to peer mentoring and networking. We have developed a draft specification for the establishment of a rural proofing mentor network to offer practical peer to peer support to bodies wishing to improve their approach to service delivery. This specification is included as Appendix Five to this document. If such a programme is implemented it will provide an excellent opportunity for the rural proofing resources to be applied in a structured practical way which will build a significant network of good practice. This network will also provide scope to share learning and for the development of an ongoing means, through testing and feedback, to refine, improve and add to the rural proofing resources over time. Implementation The creation and initial operation of the portal and peer to peer network could form the basis of a commission to an external provider. This might be a stakeholder organisation, a consultant, or a mixture of both. Finance and resources to support the commission might be available from a variety of resources, including the RCPU, Local Government Improvement & Development, other government departments with an interest in joint working, localism, efficient service design and delivery and service equity, and from contributions from partner organisations. Indicative Programme We have set out an indicative dissemination programme timescale below: Activity May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr

Defra Statement

Partner website posts

Newsletters


33

Dedicated Briefings

Conferences

Programme/Cluster Meetings

Structured Testing

Publication of Project Outputs

Practice Insights

Journals

Rural Proofing Portal

Peer to Peer Network


34

Appendix Five: Peer to Peer Mentoring Programme

Focus The focus of this network is local authority and public service practitioners working at the local level and developing policy to undertake both statutory and discretionary activities. Significant demand for such a programme has been established from the local level rural proofing project undertaken for Defra. Purpose The aim of this network is to improve the outcomes for communities from the provision of public services in rural areas. Approach It seeks to do this by harnessing the capacity and know-how of practitioners in the public sector on the basis of peer support – matching individuals with expertise in key issues with those seeking support and inspiration around those issues. It aims to provide a low cost, high impact response to the challenges of service delivery by drawing on capacity within the public sector rather than seeking to bring in outside resources. It relies on participants’ host organisations being prepared to release their time for free in support of the organisation to which they are providing mentoring support. The justification for this is two-fold, firstly it represents a recognition that public services have a common context and culture which is strengthened by sharing knowledge and expertise, secondly it recognises that there are clear learning outcomes and personal development benefits for the individual providing the mentoring support to the mentored organisation (as well as vice versa). The mentoring could be delivered either on a one to one basis or on the basis of a team support approach. It should involve both employed staff and individuals involved in public governance i.e. Councillors, Members of Police Authorities, LEP Board members, etc. Operation This is a managed service, with an individual or organisation acting as the host body. Ideally this organisation should also manage the broader local level rural proofing resources developed for this project and the web-facility on which it will rely for promotion and communication. It involves recruiting mentors from public authorities who have something specific around high quality service planning to offer to their peers. Volunteers are


35

assessed as part of the initial mentoring process to identify their skills and the level of mentoring training they need. These individuals are then trained in groups in both mentoring skills and the use of the key resources developed by the Local Level Rural Proofing Project. Ideally the training runs over two days and involves a light touch application of these subject areas in pure terms, with the emphasis being put on contextualising the skills of the mentors in specific areas of service development, in the light of good practice in terms of mentoring and rural proofing. Once individuals have been trained their services, as part of the broader marketing of the local level rural proofing resources, are marketed across the public sector. This is done through established network bodies such as the Local Government Group. It also forms a discrete plank in the dissemination approach proposed for this project. Organisations wishing to access mentor expertise are asked to complete a structured proposal form setting out the challenge they are seeking to address and why. The organisation managing the mentoring service then works with the applicant through a telephone or face to face discussion to diagnose and clarify as strongly as possible the nature of the support required. A mentor or mentoring team is then recruited to seek to address the challenge. A detailed and costed programme of work, with the host authority only paying for travel and subsistence, is worked out with anticipated timescales and outputs/ outcomes. A separate contract is developed between the mentor(s) and the mentoring service organisation making the roles and responsibilities of those involved in the mentoring clear. This involves the establishment of a documented process for a structured dialogue during the mentoring engagement with the requesting body. It involves regular progress reports, development of a final report and participation in thematic mentor networking events, bringing together all mentors active within a given period to share outcomes and knowledge. Networking events will provide a means of capturing best practice and building a body of information and support which will supplement and refresh the initial local level rural proofing resources (insight paper, rural proofing statement, etc) developed through the initial RCPU project. Benefits In addition to providing applied support at low cost to public sector bodies, the mentoring programme will begin to bind its participants into a good practice network. It will also strengthen the bonds of mutuality within the local public sector.


36

Participating in the programme as a public body, mentor or mentee will have a pyramid effect on the growth of capacity within the sector. Initially it may be possible initially to support say 8 engagements, these will entail at least 8 mentors at least eight mentees and at least 16 public service bodies. Participants in the first programme have scope to develop a “fast track” based on their experience of the programme into becoming mentors and therefore after a second round there could be up to 16 mentors, 16 mentees and 32 public service bodies. The programme has the scope to grow very rapidly from there-on-in. With very low mentor costs and marginal costs linked to the development of each individual engagement it should be possible to support a substantial programme of knowledge transfer and service improvement around local level rural proofing in a relatively short period time. Headline Programme Costs There are a few simple headline costs associated with a peer support programme – indicatively they might comprise:

Host organisation – 1 FTE to run the service - £35,000 - £50,000 pa including on-costs – could be a service contract rather than paying for a post

Training of Mentors - £1,000 per mentor (including travel and subsistence for the training)

Web Facility and other resource set up - £5,000 2 Network events per year - £3,000 per event

final project report on underlying principles, examples and...

Documents