Neasp final report april 2016

THE NEASP EVALUATION APRIL 2016 Dr Victoria Armstrong

Funded by:

Partnership working: the ‘lifelines’ project and its legacy

Contents 1. Background to the NEASP and the ‘Lifelines’ Project.........................................................................2 1.1. Introduction to the evaluation: what is the NEASP and who are its partners?...........................2 1.2 The ‘Lifelines’ project...................................................................................................................4 2. The evaluation: methods and approach............................................................................................7 2.1. Purpose of the evaluation...........................................................................................................7 2.2 Method of evaluation..................................................................................................................7 3. Before ‘Lifelines’ and partner expectations.......................................................................................9 3.1 Establishing experiences of NEASP to date: what’s working well and what isn’t.........................9 3.2 Thoughts on the future of the partnership................................................................................11 3.3 Thinking about the ‘Lifelines’ project.........................................................................................13 3.4 Summary of findings..................................................................................................................14 4. Working together and the delivery of ‘Lifelines’..............................................................................15 4.1 My experiences of the workshops and feedback from the artists of Fitzrovia Noir...................15 4.2 Staff photovoice: charting a journey..........................................................................................18 4.3 Summary of findings..................................................................................................................31 5. Reflections and revisiting the outcomes..........................................................................................33 5.1 Individual reflections on the project and the NEASP.................................................................33 5.2 Revisiting the project outcomes and designing collaborative group work.................................36 5.3 Group reflections.......................................................................................................................37 5.4 Summary of findings..................................................................................................................40 6. Formulating the future and concluding comments..........................................................................41 6.1 Thinking about the future together...........................................................................................41 6.2 The evaluation process and the outcomes................................................................................46 6.3 Recommendations for NEASP....................................................................................................48

1

1. Background to the NEASP and the ‘Lifelines’ Project 1.1. Introduction to the evaluation: what is the NEASP and who are its partners?

The NEASP is the North East Art Studios Partnership and currently involves the following 6 organisations: 

Arts4Wellbeing is a charity and registered company based in South Shields. Arts4Wellbeing has operated since 1994 under the former name of ‘South Tyneside Art Studio’ working with people with mental health needs, physical impairments, and learning disabilities. Access is free with a referral from a health professional. Arts4Wellbeing offer various activities including visual arts such as sketching, painting, printmaking, digital imaging, sculpting, crafts, along with some performing arts and life skills sessions. They also offer a range of projects, exhibition opportunities, events and trips. For more information see: http://www.arts4wellbeing.org.uk/ https://www.facebook.com/pages/Arts-4-Wellbeing/120190298014489



Bill Quay Art Studio is a recently established Community Interest Company (formerly Farmyard Arts) and based in Gateshead. Bill Quay Art Studio is volunteer run with a small but growing group of members offering a programme of creative activity.



Chilli Studios is a charity and registered company based in the heart of Newcastle with around 170 active members. Chilli studios began in 2004 under the name NAGAS (Newcastle and Gateshead Art Studio) with the aim of providing creative-based services for people with mental health problems. Its aims include promoting social inclusion, encouraging social interaction, building resilience, developing skills and ability, and enabling potential. Chilli studios provide a range of activities from printmaking, ceramics, watercolours, creative writing, to music composition. For further information see: www.chillistudios.co.uk https://www.facebook.com/pages/Nagas-Newcastle-And-Gateshead-ArtStudio/168119953279317 https://twitter.com/ChilliStudios



North Tyneside Art Studio (NTAS) is based in North Shields and is the contracting organisation project managing the Lifelines project and this evaluation. NTAS is a charity and registered company with around 80 to 100 active service users who benefit from free access with a referral from a Community Mental Health Team or GP. NTAS have 3 part-time members of staff, along with a number of volunteers and sessional artists providing a range of art-related facilities and activities. For further information see: www.northtynesideartstudio.org.uk www.facebook.com/NorthTynesideArtStudio

2

https://twitter.com/ntartstudio 

Phoenix Art Group is based in Stockton on Tees. It is a small constituted group which meets in a local community centre each Saturday morning. Phoenix Art Group is led by a volunteer artist who involves other artists/crafts people as required. This is a peer led group, constituted as an unincorporated society. The group meets every Saturday and is supported by a volunteer artist who manages the fundraising and networking. For a small attendance fee members of the group access support from the lead artist along with the use of any equipment/materials available We also provide a platform for the training and skills support for students and professionals with interests in health care and the arts and working with people with mental ill health.



The Artrium is based in Hartlepool and offers person centred social care services for people with learning disabilities, mental health and other needs. Their activities include crafts, clay work, model making, jewellery, creative writing, origami, painting and drawing. The Artrium offer a choice of packages to people who would like to join, and members pay a monthly or annual fee. The Artrium also runs a retail outlet in the local shopping centre offering projects, trips and exhibition opportunities. For further information see: http://theartrium.org.uk/

All of the studios involved in the partnership provide creative spaces and regular activities predominately for adults with ‘mental ill-health’, but also provide services for people with physical impairments and learning disabilities. NEASP studio partners all retain the common principles of using art and creativity to improve the quality of life and wellbeing of their service users. Their services are people-focused, participatory, creative, and challenging. All the groups provide a base / space for Students and professionals in health care and the arts to develop their skills and knowledge around mental health and the benefits the arts provides through engagement.

Since 2012 NEASP have been building their partnership through a programme of meetings with, and visits to, the other studios in the partnership; these activities were funded by the Northern Rock Foundation. The current project (see below and 1.2) is funded by the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation with the aim of taking the partnership a step further, particularly in terms of collaboration, by delivering a joint project and considering collaborative and commissioning opportunities for the future.

The Esmée Fairbairn Foundation funded the NEASP for a programme of partnership development which was to involve the delivery of an ambitious, responsive and collaborative creative project. It was intended that the key partnership development outcomes (see 2.1) would flow naturally from the discussions and practicalities of planning and delivering the creative work. Delivery of the creative project took place between June 2015 and March 2016.

The project brief referred to the following reasons for developing the NEASP: 

To share skills and best practice. For example, referral procedures, communication, fundraising and/or evaluation.

3



To share evaluations and evaluative processes. The rationale behind this being that a shared/combined approach could be a powerful tool that works for the benefit of all studios, for example with advocacy, fundraising, profile (local, regional and national).



To support service delivery. For example, by creating a wider variety of opportunities for service users. Studios could share artists or come together to purchase services at a reduced individual cost. The studios could potentially afford to be more ambitious and risk taking if working together, benefiting from economies of scale, and minimizing risk to any one organisation or individual.



To provide peer support. The studios have only small teams of staff or volunteers and so widening this out to create a supportive ‘community’ could be beneficial for individuals staff members’ continuous professional development.



To enable the partnership and the partners to be more strategic. The studios rightly focus their resources on their service users on the day to day running of each studio. However, this leaves little time to be outward looking or to influence local, regional or national strategies. A partnership of art studios could represent each other/share tasks or events/develop lead ‘roles’.

However, the project brief also identified many challenges facing the NEASP. For example: 

Geography – the partnership covers a large geographical area, meaning meetings and visits are difficult to arrange.



Capacity – individual studios have minimal staffing and are already very busy.



Scale – there’s a significant diversity in studios size and priorities.

The idea behind the commissioned project was for me 1, as the evaluator, to be embedded in the organisation and delivery of the creative project. As a result of interviews, observations, and exploratory exercises with the partners between June 2015 and March 2016, this report assists to identify in more depth the challenges NEASP faces, along with how these challenges may be confronted. The following subsection briefly introduces the creative delivery component of the evaluation project.

1.2 The ‘Lifelines’ project My role was to evaluate the partnership and how they worked together, rather than to evaluate the creative project itself and its impact on the members/service users involved. Whilst the creative element of the project has been monitored and evaluated separately by the partners, it is important to briefly outline what the ‘Lifelines’ project entailed.

The NEASP selected a community interest company directed by Garry Hunter called ‘Fitzrovia Noir’ (http://www.fitzrovianoir.com/ and https://vimeo.com/113396401) to work with the studio partners.

The project saw specific artists from the Fitzrovia Noir collective working with members/service users 1 I was recently awarded a doctorate in Applied Social Sciences from Durham University and have a strong background in researching with, and evaluating, third sector projects. Particularly projects working with people who experience madness and distress.

4

in a particular studio. The artists also visited other studios in the NEASP to encourage collaborations between the studios. Details of the artists working in each studio for the Lifelines project included: Arts4wellbeing Garry Hunter grew up on Biddick Hall Estate in South Shields. He worked as an exhibition printer at Tynecolour photographic laboratories in the early 1980s, a stone’s throw from Arts4wellbeing. Garry introduced some traditional film based practices using large format cameras and Polaroid, where the group chose an exotic destination represented by flight.

Bill Quay Chewing Gum Man Ben Wilsons’ grandfather was a sea captain from Middlesborough. Ben’s recent paintings on discarded gum include the Human Nature Festival in Leeds and a series of personal portraits of the Dembry family in Cleadon, South Shields. Ben has already made a gum painting there featuring a participant’s car and he expanded the theme to celebrate upcycling. Ben visited and worked with members of all of the studios in the NEASP. Chilli Studios Cityzen Kane AKA David Evans was born in Nigeria, while his father was working in mining, then spending his formative years as a teenager in Darlington. He develops his own recipes for materials to mold often complex 3D ‘ancient alien’ installations and led workshops on creating a group artwork of individually designed tiles installed on a wall outside Chilli Studios.

North Tyneside Art Studio Tom Chadwin grew up in Rosneath, Agyll, Scotland and studied glassmaking at the University of Sunderland. He was a key contributor to the three month Street Art Heroes project across nine wards in Sunderland and South Shields in autumn 2014. For Lifelines Tom researched the history of rail travel in the immediate area which fed into the creation of glass based artworks made collaboratively with the participants at NTAS. Phoenix Art Group Matthew Kolakowski has taught in every sector from primary to higher education and his Memento adult and community learning module developed into a big European partnership. He shared his skills of making waste cardboard into suitcase sculptures that represent an icon from the golden age of travel, but also poignantly links to issues of forced and economic migration. The original model for the suitcase is the one that his father took with him on RAF missions in World War Two, after Poland was invaded.

The Artrium Bee Taylor leads the workshop programme at Bivouac on the Swinton Estate in North Yorkshire where her alternative 12 Days of Christmas sculptural trail using found materials was installed in the forest. Her work encapsulates ceramics, glass and ephemera. Bee made use of the Artrium kiln to demonstrate glass-making techniques, where participants explored the maritime heritage of

5

Hartlepool and learned how to make their own pieces. She is also advising on ceramics to the studio users.

The work created by members/service users in the studios was brought together into a fantastic Lifelines installation which began at The Bridge Gallery, Tynemouth Station on 1st Dec 15 and ran until 10th Jan 16. The installation will be touring throughout the North East in during 2016.

Overall the lifelines project, as a creative endeavour, has been exceptionally well received and featured on ‘Made in Tyne and Wear’ (see https://vimeo.com/148330720). Images, along with further information about the Lifelines project itself, are available on the NEASP blog (http://www.neasp.org.uk/). The remainder of this report will predominantly focus on, consider, and evaluate, how the NEASP works together with reference to the Lifelines project, future projects, and strategy.

6

2. The evaluation: methods and approach 2.1. Purpose of the evaluation The project brief stated that the freelance evaluator would focus on assessing partnership working between the studios, practical effectiveness, feasibility, future potential, identify shared priorities and recommend next steps. In particular, the brief stated that the evaluator was to review the progress and success of the creative project and partnership against 3 key outcomes: 1) Partnership – studios and their staff will better understand their value and role in the partnership, plus have the tools, systems and priorities to communicate, share, plan and work together more effectively.

2) Artistic Project – a closer community of art studios have developed, participated in, and celebrated, the value of creative activity on their service users wellbeing, through carefully planned activity, individual and collaborative work, which can be shared throughout health and art sectors.

3) Development - the art studios have strengthened their organisations and their shared voice, improving their knowledge of and involvement in national networks and quality frameworks, and devised priorities for future co-working.

2.2 Method of evaluation Multiple qualitative methods were employed at different stages of the evaluation process in order to respond to the project brief and holistically explore and evaluate NEASP and the Lifelines project.

The empirical work included: 1. An initial visit to each of the studios in the NEASP. During each visit I conducted confidential qualitative semi-structured interviews with staff at each of the organisations. The purpose of these interviews was to get to know the partners and to ascertain their experiences of the NEASP to date, along with the expectations for the creative project, and how they envisaged the direction of the partnership.

2. Visiting two of the studios (NTAS and Phoenix) whilst the Fitzrovia Noir artists were delivering their creative workshops. The purpose of these visits was for me to experience the creative delivery and meet some of the artists and members/service users involved in the project.

3. Asking staff at the NEASP organisations to keep a ‘photojournal’. I adapted the idea of a method commonly called ‘photovoice’ where participants in a project are asked to express their points of view by photographing scenes that they think are relevant to the topic. For this project I asked staff at the NEASP organisations to photographically capture their feelings towards NEASP with reference to the collaborative creative project, and also express their thoughts in relation to developing NEASP, particularly in terms of the future direction of the partnership. The photographs and accompanying blurbs (along with the other qualitative material I collected up until January 2016) provided material for me to structure the group discussion in February 2016.

7

4. Conversations and e-mail interviews with artists involved with the creative delivery of Lifelines. Including conversations and e-mail interviews with Garry Hunter, the cultural director of Fitzrovia Noir. The purpose of this was to ascertain the views and perspectives of stakeholders working with NEASP to identify strengths and weaknesses of the current partnership.

5. Post-project questionnaires with staff at the organisations in order to provide an opportunity to reflect on both the project and the partnership as a whole.

6. Taking into account all of the empirical material I had collected up until this point I facilitated a group work day in February 2016 in which all of the NEASP partners took part. The purpose of the day was to consider the key outcomes and reflect, as a group, on the creative delivery of the project on the morning, whilst the afternoon was spent considering the future more strategically via planning exercises.

The above is a brief overview of the methods I employed. Each method will be considered in more depth in relation to the empirical material collected and the resulting findings in each of the relevant sections below.

8

3. Before ‘Lifelines’ and partner expectations The findings in this section have been collated from the initial confidential individual semi-structured interviews I conducted with 10 staff members across the NEASP organisations at the beginning of the Lifelines project. At least one staff member/volunteer from each of the NEASP organisations is represented below.

The purpose of the interviews was to explore the partners’ experiences of the NEASP to date, consider what the partners felt worked well within the partnership, and to explore parts of the partnership which weren’t working so well. The comments below are anonymised because working this way provided the opportunity for staff to be as candid as they needed to be. These initial semistructured interviews also asked staff at the partner studios about their initial thoughts on the Lifelines project and the future direction of the partnership.

This was an important exercise as it provided me with the opportunity to better understand the challenges facing the partnership, along with its strengths. Doing so provides a record of how staff members were feeling before the project was delivered which will be compared with their later thoughts following the completion of the creative element of the project (see section 5). This comparison is useful for measuring the project against the 3 key outcomes referred to in 2.1.

3.1 Establishing experiences of NEASP to date: what’s working well and what isn’t In terms of what staff at the NEASP partner organisations felt worked well within the partnership, most cited it was the informality and the peer support which was particularly useful. For example: Informal things work better than those which sometimes come out of being around a table with an agenda…Mutual support and common ground when you have a conversation, and opportunities can come out of that.

Particularly in terms of informal advice: The communication between everyone, and people’s advice- informally.

And over half of the staff members I interviewed mentioned informal peer support being a distinctly positive aspect of the NEASP. For example: Support comes through very discreet and informal ways, like XXXX has always said I can ask for help, and XXXX has put in a lot, advising on funding...So the support has been mutual, informal, but we can air things at the tables, and know what other people are doing.

Many partners reported a keenness to be involved and share ideas: There is a keenness between the studios, we’ve all got different schedules, everyone attempts to get there… it’s good that everyone has pulled together for this project, apart from Sunderland who don’t want to be involved and it’s nice to see how other people work. It’s great to get some of the ideas, like some of their studios, like what they do, there’s lots of good ideas.

9

There was certainly an emphasis on individual personalities within the partnership: Any service is based around the personalities that run that service and we’re getting more familiar with those personalities and that gives us a stronger relationship to build on and opens up opportunities we can take.

A strong theme in terms of what worked well in the NEASP involved some understanding of shared principles which had potential to be a selling point to funders: Everyone is really nice, and have the same principles at heart, which is why Northern Rock thought we would be an ideal partnership, and so we can make arguments to funders…

However, there were elements of the partnership that staff at the partner organisations felt didn’t work so well. Many respondents attributed this to the different sizes, aims, and constitutions of the organisations: With smaller organisations there is a sense of them not being as good as the bigger ones. It is pointed out quite regularly, that they have less money, resources…Instead of saying can you share, it’s ‘I haven’t got’ and it’s defensive. I know there are capacity issues and differences between larger and smaller organisations, and strategic issues because we don’t all have same strategy, and some are not as interested in growth and there’s also difference in governance and quality of support but I don’t know how we work with that.

The different sizes of projects in the partnership were the biggest concern for most staff members I interviewed: The projects are different sizes and very individual and there are different aims for different projects which can get lost, and for some studios it can be geographically awkward. Also with administration, as someone who is not full time, I am not able to respond to e-mails in the same way full time studios do and things like this can be tricky.

Like in the example above, communication problems in terms of keeping up to date with e-mails and the capacity to keep on top of NEASP communications was highlighted by a few organisations. One particular staff member considered the viability of a co-ordinator role so that communication and making arrangements didn’t become the sole responsibility of one particular studio in the partnership. However, there were reservations attached this suggestion: We could do with a co-ordinator role, but I doubt the studios would go for that as they think money should be spent on them and the members.

Finally, a number of staff members felt that Sunderland Art Studio’s lack of involvement impacted negatively on the NEASP: It’s a shame that Sunderland haven’t taken up the opportunity, the guy who took over from who was running it before, he came to two of the Northern Rock meetings and decided he didn’t want to take part.

10

3.2 Thoughts on the future of the partnership Participants in this part of the evaluation were asked about how they wanted the future of the partnership to take shape, along with the challenges they foresaw. Many desired further creative opportunities which would increase the visibility of the NEASP, sharing opportunities, and provide the chance for different studios to take the lead: More creative opportunities shared across studios to extend our visibilities, and see some of the other studios taking lead roles on project development…I would like to see shared knowledge and to see cross border working where there aren’t geographical boundaries...

There’s the potential for so many things such as employing a book keeper across all studios, so everyone has a professional service for a decent price. We could also help each other out by sitting on recruitment panels…I don’t think there’s a limit.

A few staff members expressed the desire to do more collaborative creative projects and to develop the NEASP as something unique to the North East of England: Short projects with specific goals which are different to what members usually do, so it’s interesting and keeps it interesting, and the projects would be like markers in the year giving a sense of achievement, not the same in week in week out. And if we do pull this off <the lifelines project> it might just mean next time round, actually it’s not as bad as maybe some of the other studios thought or the things that were stopping people. It would be a wasted opportunity if we didn’t and the partnership isn’t common in the rest of country, so it makes sense to create a power base and these are quite vulnerable times.

Joint ventures, particularly in terms of funding opportunities and promoting the partnership, were welcomed by many of the staff members I interviewed: Any new ideas for funding, or new ideas to bring to the studio, sharing a generic artist between all the studios…

A lot of promotion between the studios, and getting our name out, and getting our name out on social media and promoting the partnership.

Developing the partnership to be a learning environment was also important to many of the staff at the partnership organisations which related strongly to funding opportunities: I would like it to become an environment where we learn and others learn from us more. We sing from the same hymn sheet, in terms of working with mental health service users, we all share the same anti-stigma ethos. And we have similar core values so maybe developing mutual policies and procedures. We could together as a unit make ourselves tender-ready.

Have a strong foundation all of us can use.

Similar strategic and funding goals were reiterated by other staff members: Something as a model as something you can present and the ability to gather quantitative data so if you’re thinking about making an application quants are useful, which comes out of evaluation process. You can gather the case studies and you can gather that yourself, but the numbers are something you can build the cost/benefit on. Like if you’re trying to get 11

public health funding, or from personalisation and individual budgets, we would be able to go to other agencies and other funding streams.

Geography was raised a number of times, which led many staff members to consider the future of the partnership being more digitally focused: Because of the geographical issues, I think the partnership should engage more in digital media and have an online presence.

Increasing partnership visibility was a key concern for many staff members: Being able to make these projects much more visible. There are projects like this happening but they happen in isolation and so we have events that bring us together.

For others it was important that the partnership would provide interpersonal support: It would be lovely to pick up phone and e-mail, have a good working relationship with other members of partnership, we’re doing this really, and it’s good that more and more it feels like a natural thing.

The above responses were very positive but it was important to explore the challenges staff members felt might be facing developing the NEASP in the future. One of the main challenges was how to overcome the different sizes and capacities of the partner organisations: if we’re working together, we need something to work together on but a lot of what has been said in the past is that no one has any capacity and different organisations have competing interests, it’s how to overcome that.

Related to the relatively different sizes of organisations in the NEASP were the different concerns in terms of funding, having time to apply for funding, and how the NEASP might increase visibility of work: Different organisations and sizes and times, there’s a lot to juggle in a small studio. The idea you go for project funding, then go for another project but you have to account for project you just delivered and have to steer the project, you don’t just get it and move on to apply for another lot of funding. So there’s a time barrier, in terms of being able to go to meetings and get out there. Like the CCGs, I know routes they can be accessed, but in terms of time and resources, it’s quite time intensive. When you have day to day running it’s difficult to do that.

Thinking about the partnership to have visible events, biennale, which might go into local press, to have that visibility cuts out a lot of stages.

A similar point was made by another staff member in terms of the different structures of the organisations and the varying needs they cater for: One which is a barrier but is also about what can work are the different personalities and different structures in organisations, and different structures within the funding environment they exist in. And also the different membership of studios like we’re looking at a service providing opportunities for who have low level needs compared with high level needs, or learning disabilities.

12

Both having the time to devote to NEASP activities along with the geographical distance was mentioned by most studios. Once again a staff member did raise the viability of having a NEASP coordinator as they didn’t always have time to think about the partnership in the day to day running of the individual organisations: Sometimes we just don’t have time, we have been happy for Rachael to do it and really happy in how it’s been administered. But time is the main barrier, a co-ordinator would be good, at the moment communicating by e-mail is best, time is the main barrier.

3.3 Thinking about the ‘Lifelines’ project When I interviewed staff during my first visit to each studio I was interested in how the partners felt the Lifelines project was shaping up in its initial stages. In turn, I expected that these discussions would provide some practical indication of what works well and not so well in the current partnership.

Most staff members I spoke to at the time felt that generally speaking the Lifelines project was going well, particularly in terms of the positive impact the project had the studios’ members. The following interview quotes illustrate this: Very good, the work I’ve seen is excellent but it would be better if it was to run for longer.

Garry is a vibrant and energetic character and he is fun and interesting. He brings a different perspective and you can tell he is driven by the arts rather than the client groups’ needs and I think that’s complimentary.

So far the log book I think is excellent. The idea behind it sounds excellent.

It’s been generally well received from the responses from the members. They’ve said it was really good particularly the chewing gum artwork, it was small but had a good impact and it’s really nice to see the log books.

There were a few less positive comments relating to communication: Because Garry is subcontracting I feel like things are getting lost in communication And some concerns as to whether the project would actually bring the partner organisations closer together: Concern is connecting people, we might have a glossy thing at the end, but if studio users don’t feel connections are being made, is that the responsibility of the artist?

There was also further consideration in terms of communication within the NEASP itself: Rachael has been taking the lead and it’s been organised really well, like in the selection process for the artist, we all had different ideas when we were scoring, but came up with the same ideas.

In terms of partnership, even though the admin is time consuming, to be fair, Rachael is understanding and she really understands the different operational levels so that problem is mitigated and supported.

13

Others, once again, recognised the importance of having someone or an organisation to co-ordinate and lead projects: It is important for there to be a co-ordinator, we need someone with dedicated time to steer it, and it’s good to have that and to provide the prompts.

Finally, many of the staff members I spoke to highlighted that because the Lifelines project was a NEASP venture they felt able to ‘do something different’ which is what many comments from the interviews suggested: Taking a risk and being able to do that, none of us individually would be able to do this resource-wise and bring in such a range of artists and a completely different approach.

3.4 Summary of findings It was clear from the initial interviews with staff members from the partner studios that up until the Lifelines project, the main positives of the partnership included informal support that staff from the different studios provide one another. Overall, it seemed that the partners had enjoyed getting to know one another better, and informally sharing ideas. As mentioned in the brief, interviewees felt geography could potentially challenge further development of the partnership, along with the different sizes and different interests, strategic aims, and capacities of the different partner organisations. This is something I kept in mind throughout the remainder of the evaluation.

In terms of future development of the NEASP, many interviewees welcomed the opportunity for further creative opportunities. However, many felt that the partnership needed to be more strategic in terms of funding and that being more digitally focused may circumvent the geography issue. On the whole I certainly got the impression partners were enthusiastic about the NEASP but that partner organisations didn’t always have the capacity to think strategically in terms of the partnership as they were consumed with the day to day running of the individual organisations. A number of interviewees highlighted the fact that it was necessary for the NEASP to be co-ordinated by someone and to be more strategic.

14

4. Working together and the delivery of ‘Lifelines’ The findings in this section have been collated from my visits to the two studios (NTAS and Phoenix) whilst the Fitzrovia Noir artists were delivering creative workshops. The purpose of these visits was for me to experience the creative delivery and meet some of the artists and members/service users involved in the project. In 4.1 I refer to conversations and e-mail interviews with two of the artists, Tom Chadwin and Matthew Kolakowski, involved with the creative delivery of Lifelines. Empirical material also refers to an e-mail interview with Garry Hunter, the cultural director of Fitzrovia Noir.

The purpose of this process was to ascertain the views and perspectives of stakeholders working with NEASP to identify strengths and weaknesses of the current partnership.

In 4.2 I explore how the individual NEASP partners felt working with the other partner organisations and within NEASP during the delivery of the creative element of the project. To do this I used a photovoice exercise and asked staff members and volunteers at the partner organisations to keep ‘photojournals’. I adapted the idea of a method commonly called ‘photovoice’ where participants in a project are asked to express their points of view by photographing scenes that they think are relevant to the topic. For this project I asked staff at the NEASP organisations to photographically capture their feelings towards NEASP with reference to the collaborative creative project, and also express their thoughts in relation to developing NEASP, particularly in terms of the future direction of the partnership. Each organisation submitted at least two photographs and accompanying 250 word ‘blurb’.

4.1 My experiences of the workshops and feedback from the artists of Fitzrovia Noir I visited both NTAS and Phoenix in October 2015 when the creative delivery of the Lifelines project was underway. At NTAS artist Tom Chadwin was delivering his third workshop using the medium of glass; around 6 members were involved in this session. Tom and the members were in the process of creating an installation that, at the time, had begun to resemble a light fitting; each glass panel had been created by a different member on the subject of ‘journeys’. Members involved in the session seemed to be really enjoying the experience although it seemed that whilst the topic of the installation was ‘journeys’, the concept, at least in the session I attended, was not explained as the focus. This, of course, could be down to the fact it had been explained more thoroughly in previous sessions.

From speaking to the members present during the workshop at NTAS it seemed that they were not using the log books very much. However, a member of staff at NTAS pointed out that other members who were not attending the workshops had really taken to using the log books. NTAS staff mentioned that the workshops had been very good for members because they were working with good material; for NTAS staff, this highlighted strengths in terms of what the partnership could achieve. However, the idea of the ‘stamps’ and members visiting other studios hadn’t taken off and it was reported that other partner organisations were not making use of Facebook and other social media platforms to promote the partnership activities which NTAS staff often found frustrating.

At Phoenix I attended a workshop delivered by artist Matthew Kolakowski . The group were making suitcases which was also a reference to the notion of ‘journeys’. At Phoenix members were using the 15

logbooks more, and the five members that were present whilst I was there were really enjoying the project and one member was creating a digital suitcase on a laptop. It seemed that members were quite happy with the project and didn’t necessarily feel inclined to travel to, or want to travel to, other studios. Adrian from Phoenix did explore this issue and comments that: I had done some fishing into this and it was expressed by three participants that this was their safe space and a health condition that prevented them from visiting other studios and would only travel to other places if we did it as a group. Two participants had tried to visit the exhibitions but were not interested in going to another studio without it being a group visit but did not express this as part of any particular health and social condition.

From attending the above sessions it seemed clear that the impact of Lifelines on the members was very positive. I became aware that perhaps the ‘geography issue’ wasn’t just practical, it seemed members themselves weren’t always interested in travelling to other studios. It was also clear that communication between studios and promotion of the project wasn’t always co-ordinated and this left some partnership organisations feeling a little frustrated. This was something I noted throughout the remainder of the project and something that would be raised at the group evaluation day.

As part of this element of the evaluation I conducted short e-mail interviews with Garry Hunter, along with Matthew and Tom. The artists reported that they had found the experience very rewarding and that the organisations within NEASP were: Amazing organizations which I am convinced make a valuable contribution to improving the lives of vulnerable people and deserve more support and stability. The experience has also given me the opportunity to explore a range of skills and processes, both practical and in terms of engaging with the members of the studio, which I hope to build on.

And that the artists had enjoyed collaborating on the project and working with members: There were many positives for me on the project. Meeting the individuals who attend the centres and workshops was especially nice…All those whom I met were very warm and pleasant people. Working on the project as a concerted and organised whole group was very good. There was a feeling across the project of artists and centre staff working toward a common end in sharing the projects outcomes and this gave it an enriched dynamic.

More specifically in terms of the experience of working across studios, the comments were very positive: I was in the enviable position of sharing this experience with my friend and brother in law David Evans, who conducted the ceramics workshops at Chilli Studios, and we were able to assist each other with practical elements of the process. I feel that this contributed a great deal to my confidence as well as enjoyment of this experience. I was also aware of a very supportive relationship between the studios that I visited, and a mutual appreciation of the work that they do, and I think this also contributes greatly to their successes. I think there is a lot of scope for further partnerships/collaboration between the individual studios both in terms of shared resources/facilities, as well as in promotion/public awareness of both their work and the issues which they help to address.

16

One artist respondent highlighted how even though the studios were of different sizes and constitutions etc., the same or similar project could be a success: The studios were very welcoming, open and supportive. The two studios I worked in were very different. Phoenix in Stockton was a very small affair run by one volunteer with a hardy bunch of regulars. Chilli seemed a much more ambitious institution that had the atmosphere of somewhere that was ambitious and growing. The projects I did seemed to go down well in both places.

As noted by my observations above, it was acknowledged by the some of the artists that the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;stamp ideaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; and the idea that members of different studios would travel to partner studios didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t really take off: I did think the 'stamp' idea on the inside front page of the Logbooks could have promoted more visits between studios to suggest further collaborations, but this may just take time as e.g. both Phoenix Group in Stockton and Chill Studios are planning visits to see their work at the Atrium Shop in Hartlepool and others will wish to visit Chilli/Sanctuary that I hope may trigger further exhibitions by the studios in both locations.

In a similar vein there was the suggestion that: I think more effort could be made to introduce studio users from the smaller studios into experiencing the resources of the two best-equipped studios NTAS and Chilli.

In terms of ideas for taking the partnership further there were a number of ideas: Exploring the possibility of further developing opportunities to exhibit (and possibly sell?/submit for public art commissions etc.) the work produced by the studio members is also something I have considered as a result of conducting the workshops, as I have recently encountered a number of organizations which have done this successfully.

Other ideas related to joint funding related to new working practices: There is great potential for further co-working and I have suggested to NEASP that further funding applications could be made that introduce new working process to the studios that they have not experienced, e.g. glassmaking at Arts4Wellbeing, that could then accompany the NTAS chandelier in a larger exhibition at e.g.the new library/exhibition space being built in South Shields, or the one recently completed in Hebburn etc.

Other new working practices or ideas for future working included: Encouraging groups to be made up of 2-3 participants from each studio, working together at third party locations at e.g. the Glass Centre in Sunderland I asked the respondents in this part of the evaluation about possible improvements to the project and what they would like to see if the project, or similar projects, was delivered again. The artists mentioned more visits between studios and more of an online present as illustrated by the following three quotes:

17

The NEASP blog could have been activated a lot earlier, not just as the Tynemouth show was opening. I also think introducing one or two studio users into each of the other studios as part of the regular people making up the groups, could have been worthwhile.

Coordinated visits between centres.

More use of an online forum within which to exchange images, ideas and views on how the project was developing.

Finally, there was a suggestion that there could be more of a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;social aspectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; to the project. For example: Some form of social gathering to launch and end the project.

Having said this, further feedback suggested that Chilli Studios wished to postpone the April installation but once it was installed Chill Studios were impressed by: Really beautiful work by artists and participants all round. The work has also upped our footfall and visibility, which is such a positive too.

4.2 Staff photovoice: charting a journey As I mentioned in the introduction to this section of the report, the photojournal exercise was an opportunity for the partnership organisations to reflect on the NEASP throughout the process of creative delivery and contemplate the future. A number of entries (photographs and blurbs) have been collated below which best reflect the main and common themes arising from this process.

Title: MAKE THIS STOP!!!!!!!!

18

Although there was no accompanying blurb to this photograph from Bill Quay Arts, it highlights how the demands of a project and the communication necessary to ‘make it work’ can often become overwhelming in the face of day to day duties, particularly when time is limited. Interestingly, an entry from NTAS, a larger studio expressed similar: Title: More meeting time than you could shake a stick at

A great deal of time was put into developing the project at the beginning with the hope/ expectation that the other studios and the artist appointed would assume an active ‘partnership’ role as described in the project brief lessening the time we would need to put in to manage it ourselves. However, we have needed to invest much more time throughout to keep driving the project forward, communicate across the partnership and with the artists than anticipated.

The impact has been felt on capacity – as a full cost recovery model this has been a strain on our resources, and staff time has been stretched across the whole team. The budget allowed for 3 days time to put together documentation in response to consultation with partners for content which has been vastly exceeded, along with delivery support provided by Ellie (not factored in) and both team and one to one meeting time throughout.

Our Operations Manager (Rachael) had primary responsibility for this project, as part of her role which includes many other operationally crucial tasks. The demands on her time has meant that other areas of responsibility have been put under considerable pressure for example producing the Annual Report, developing contact databases……..

The benefits: learning. In developing future projects we will consider more fully the viability of projects being partnership or take on the lead organisation role; have a far greater understanding of the demands of delivering a project and factor in more realistic time and financial capacity as appropriate.

19

Both entries highlight the demands a joint project can have on day to day operations which was/is a common theme throughout this evaluation. That said, a large majority of entries reflected the immensely positive impact of the project on the members/service users of the partner organisations as this entry from The Artrium highlights:

Title: Carole’s festive plate

Hartlepool Art Studio Ltd had a pottery painting session in November. Each member got the chance to paint their own mug, plate or bauble for the festive season with the support from artist Bee Taylor.

One of our members, Carole Gill, had never attempted pottery painting free hand before, but after a few practices on some scrap paper she was confident enough to have a go on the prepared plates ready to be glazed and fired up in the studio. Carole’s forte is watercolours so she is a dab hand at controlling the brush when it comes to painting smaller details. She said “I was nervous and wasn’t sure about taking part to start with but once I got into it I really enjoyed it. Once they were finished and I took them home the staff was very impressed with them and will definitely be using them for the mince pies at Christmas! I enjoyed it that much I want to do some more pottery and try new things in the New Year”.

The positive impact of the Lifelines project on the members was reiterated by most studio participants in the photovoice exercise. Although there isn’t the space to include all of the photojournal entries in this report, all studios felt positively towards the creative delivery of the

20

project and described a powerful impact on their members/service users. As this entry from Phoenix suggests: Title: Great time

We had a great time; we learnt stuff the participants were chuffed by what they achieved. The exhibition is great and the quality shines. The artists we met were dedicated and wanted to make something happen. We will probably contact one of them at least in the future to do other work.

And the Card Board Suit Cases worked particularly well with this group, giving them the freedom to develop something around themselves.

This extract from Arts4Wellbeing also reiterated similar views around the positive impact of the project: Title: in vogue

21

The final session saw the participants turned into magazine front cover images .Again our trusty and dusty pile of discarded magazines came in useful in that collaged elements made up the final piece.

Each of our members/artists collaborated with Gary to create an image representing themselves as a magazine front cover ... one particular member who is often reluctant to create own artworks , found the confidence to take the initiative in creating her own individual piece , in a Sunderland football club theme and was 'over the moon ' with the result .

Indeed this was a common theme across the project, some participants, who seem a little reluctant to work on individual projects were very much bringing their own ideas to the table . The sessions did inspire new ways of working that are still being carried on.

It was a busy, industrious session with everyone actively putting their own stamp on the imagery.

There were some reflections that participants mentioned in their photojournals which related to the Lifelines project and the NEASP which have already been introduced earlier in this report. As this entry from NTAS describes:

I loved the idea of stamps that studio users can collect when visiting the different studios. A great idea to get people out and about, interacting and collecting through their logbooks.

However I think the lack of use this stamp had also highlighted one of the major issues with the project â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the geographical distance between the studios. The reality of getting studio users out on an organised trip or encouraging them to visit themselves was difficult if not impossible for most of the studios due to staffing levels, time and willingness of members to travel. A lack of understanding and 22

interest and with that being able to relate to the other studios, make a connection and find significance in doing so.

The exhibition and the booklets I feel have begun to address this â&#x20AC;&#x201C; if studio members start to feel a connection through the joint shows and publications hopefully this will give them a sense of connection that would make the ides of travelling have more significance.

Many staff/volunteer participants also raised important points for consideration around the partnership working and their role in the partnership. An entry from Phoenix captures this: Title: Shaky Ground

This was taken while we were doing the workshops and it was a reflection of where I see Phoenix Art Group within this organism called the consortium. What have I done with them (the other groups)?

What mechanisms and procedures have we worked on together? There is this, and that happening but am I really part of it and more importantly is Phoenix Art Group?

The joint exhibition in Tynemouth in December 2015 was an important focus for the staff/volunteers in their photojournal entries. Most entries commented on how great it was that all studio partners were represented and at least one member of staff/volunteer from each studio in the NEASP prioritised attendance, some traveling a greater distance than others. As this entry from NTAS describes:

23

Opening night of ‘Workbook’- Lifelines at the Bridge Gallery, Tynemouth Station.

Fantastic turnout!

Tom and Gary had spent a good chunk of their weekend getting this ready – with the added fun of wrangling enormous Christmas trees blocking the gallery entrance! The work looked lovely in the space especially when lit and due to its position mid station will be seen by thousands of people until it moves in January.

It was lovely that each studio involved in the project came to the event – a long way up for Phoenix and Artrium! There was great atmosphere and the studio users who attended all seemed happy with how their work looked together. The Workbook was a really nice touch and a way of connecting everyone involved – Looking forward to getting the work back on the road in January heading south to be seem by more people and slowly nibbling away at the geographical barrier.

24

Arts4Wellbeing also felt celebratory in their entry relating to the joint exhibition: Title: culmination

The exhibition opening was well attended by our participants, braving the cold night to see the culmination of the project. This was not only a brilliant opportunity for our members to show their own work to a wider audience but is something that gives a sense of pride and esteem building which is central to the ethos of our studio .

This was also fantastic as it gave opportunity to see the other works created, which in turn has inspired new creations and new ideas for future projects both personal and collaborative.

Copies of the programme were proudly taken home to show loved ones.

Overall we feel the project was a success, the projects artists both professional and personable were inspiring and inclusive and many of our members quickly opened up to them and new ways of working and the networking between other studios was invaluable.

Despite the success there continued to be some frustrations around communication in the NEASP, particularly previous to the event as this entry from NTAS emphasises:

25

Title: Rachael’s tumbleweed communications

Communication with the other studios has been difficult and has left me quite frustrated at times. Ie lack of responses and input.

We’ve recently had the opening of the exhibition at Tynemouth Station, and it was absolutely fantastic that all of the studios came and a couple brought their service users. These ‘get togethers’ seem to help make us feel closer. I really don’t want to belittle this great show of support from the studios, but even here, none of them had said they were coming beforehand. It was great that they came, but it would have been even better if they had said they were coming….

I am currently trying to arrange a final project meeting for Feb 16 – my first deadline came and went with no responses to my email asking for availability – I’ve sent a reminder out, but have still only had one response….

The studios appear to have worked really well with the artists – ie the exciting ‘stuff’ happening on the ground in their studios – but that was only one element of this project, aimed to give us 26

something to ‘do’ together to help us strengthen our working practices. I’m not sure if we’ve made much progress in the other things.

There’s so many potentially great things about this partnership, but it’ll never work if the others don’t put any effort into even basic communication and proactive input into the community, without someone constantly nagging and pushing.

There were many entries which considered and reflected on where the NEASP was going. As an entry from Phoenix highlights: Title: Out side looking in

I am not sure where the consortium is I know that there were very different levels of expectation. A lot of stuff sat around capacity and I am finding this is the main issue. Not that people don’t have any capacity but that this is too easy a word to use for stuff you don’t want to do.

There were some very reflective entries on the project as a whole and questions about the future.

As this entry from NTAS also illustrates: Title: where is this going?

27

Supporting and encouraging participation in new things in the studio can be one of our main challenges. People lack confidence and often need to build relationships of trust with people before they get involved with something new. They also generally are involved in ongoing work of their own and will avoid trying new things because they have that as a focus. While this is acceptable on many levels it can also inhibit personal growth and development as people are more comfortable remaining in the ‘known’ whereas we always aim to support people to push their own boundaries – in a safe way – and take risks. People will also not get involved in something if they don’t see or understand what the relevance is to them – or why they should.

Building awareness of the project and trust should have been a cornerstone of the project. There wasn’t enough time or energy invested in this, and that the way the project was designed limited relationship building time and we. The pressure was placed on staff to invest time to raise awareness, understanding and participation.

Opportunities were missed by the artists to help this e.g. 5 hours on a coach with a ‘captive audience’ deliberately identified as a time to introduce the Log Books – a key concept within the project exploring personal journeys, was under utilised. Studio staff were then left with a pile of books and the responsibility of trying to get people on board without much in the way of further direction or support from the artists. The end result being that only a limited number of people got involved – and those harder to reach were essentially excluded because of the lack of support.

(It should be noted that further feedback from Fitzrovia Noir suggests that this was in fact the first time Garry had met with most of the NTAS studio users and took around 30 minutes to carefully explain the concept of the Logbooks to individuals and small groups. Furthermore, Garry visited NTAS shortly afterwards to give a presentation and provide initial guidance on completing the logbooks. It was also suggested that the book is self-explanatory and other studios had already briefed the groups before Garry’s initial visit and were thus more prepared.)

Chilli studios, in particular, focused on the networking and collaboration involved in the Lifelines project and how that translated to their involvement in the partnership: Title: Networking and collaboration

28

The Lifelines project has encouraged and actively supported networking and collaboration between studios.

Chilli Studio staff attended 3 network sessions between studios engaging 6 staff and 15 members in total over sessions. This positive working collaboration has allowed further developments of shared systems and policies; the exploration of future joint funding and collaborative projects such as “Branching out” with Helix Arts; Further Arts council England applications for studios and individual members; Chilli shop exhibition and commercial aspects; and the recovery centre developments at Bamburgh House There were also two exchange visits for members to NEASP studios partnership engaging 12 members and staff. The closest relationship formed has been with North Tyneside Art studios and Atrium: Communication and exchange of support in media and promotion, exhibition arrangements and exchanging of collaborative methods of working, ideas and projects moving forwards. Although staff have had a close partnership previously this was also developed within our members. Although still a little restrictive in capacity of studios, the logbooks had encouraged the journey between venues and these tours developed further creative ideas for the members by being inspired by other studios works and methods as well as developing social skills and confidence outside of familiar surroundings. For example the demonstration of practical woodworking and framing skills and support has been initiated between our studio and NTAS to support skill development in areas where our studio currently does not have the capacity. Chilli Studios will endeavour to expand our reach and collaboration with the wider partnership group.

Chilli Studios attended and supported the set up of one celebration event with 4 staff, board and members for the Tynemouth Station exhibition. This was a fabulous chance to explore alternative exhibition spaces, increase the visibility of the studios and mental health, celebrate and exchange between studio partners and members.

Chilli Studios arranged one exhibition visit by studio members and staff to Tynemouth bridge exhibition. Engaging in networking, art appreciation and celebrations of 8 members and staff.

On balance there was a great sense of ‘success’ and Chilli Studios capture the inspirational nature of the project in the following entry:

29

Lifelines Project has been a truly inspiring positive project bringing professional high level artists to work in development and support of studio members and staff across NEASP. This has increased creative dynamic, inspired creative process and ideas, developed skill levels and approach and brought a closer working practise of the studios and visibility for mental health awareness.

Chilli Studios looks forward to the bright future of collaborative working that this initiative has supported.

All of the partner studios committed to this part of the evaluations and put a great deal of effort into their entries. It was impossible to use all of the fantastic journal entries in this report. However, all of the entries were analysed to inform the facilitated group work day which is discussed in depth in the following sections of this report.

The final summary of this section is an entry from NTAS. This flows into the next section of this evaluation report which considers in greater depth the challenges NEASP faces and introduces some of the lessons learned from the Lifelines project which began to form the basis of our February group evaluation meeting:

30

The studios and project came through in the end – I think...

I’ve sometimes felt disheartened as to people’s commitment – and belief that the expectation is that we (NTAS) will do all of the work and deliver all the outcomes. But I’ve also had moments of great happiness in the project! E.g. The artist selected was not what I’d originally anticipated – it was a risk. But together, in this project, we were able to take that risk. The creative element wasn’t as thoughtful and responsive (to the studios) as I’d hoped – the artists involved were less experienced and communication with the artists was difficult (they were remote, and seemed to work ‘on the hoof’ which made planning and communicating with our service users difficult). But it turned out well – nice work, some moments of excitement, some different experiences – and all the studios seem happy.

Lack of involvement by the studios in promoting the work – I’ve had to nag to get other studios to represent any of the work or mention the partnership on their Facebook pages for example. I think we were the only ones to put effort in to promoting, to circulate invitations to the event, to send out the press release etc. Everyone was supposed to have a hand in this. But Garry did well here.

Communication and input from the other studios is difficult – I mention the opening event and trying to set up a meeting in my other entry, but also – only one other studio said they would (“probably”) help score artists applications, with another saying they ‘might’. In the end, they all did, but I think it was only because we did extra work to make it as easy for them as possible. It’s difficult to work with that kind of lack of prior commitment.

When we all get together though – it’s lovely!

31

There has been an important response to this element of the evaluation from Phoenix which is important to take into consideration: The anonymity of the other studios here makes this sound like the lead organisation is holding everything together. I would like to make it clear here that I not only scored the artists using the scoring set up for me to use but because I felt that certain questions were not represented I set up a series of scoring marks of my own. I involved three service users going through the scoring as well as my own and the choices made were representative of this work. The proposal set out that there would be a lead organisation and this was always seen by NTAS as being them for many of the right reasons. Maybe I could say any lack of communication and delivery on behalf of Phoenix Art Group would be down to a lack of capacity, being a lone volunteer and only working one day a week, but the evidence of my email archive shows that most of my responses were on any day but a Saturday.

4.3 Summary of findings There were a number of themes arising, some have already been introduced in the brief for the project, are articulated more fully in this evaluation, and arise again in the remainder of this report.

‘Geography’ continued to be an issue despite the ‘stamp idea’ to encourage visits between studios; this didn’t fully take off or wasn’t co-ordinated. However, the other side of this coin is to consider whether members actually want to be visiting other studios. The suggestion in 4.1 that perhaps a small number of members from each studio get together to work on a particular project at different locations may be an idea for a future project.

Capacity of the organisations in the NEASP and communication between the partners seemed somewhat related. There was the suggestion that this could be overcome by more electronic communication and use of social media platforms, but again, this didn’t seem to occur as well as many of the partners hoped.

The positive impact of the Lifelines project on members who took part seemed unequivocal for all partner organisations of the NEASP. It should also be noted that as the journal entries progressed through the project, there was more of a feeling that the NEASP was ‘working together.’ This seemed particularly apparent with comments and photographs relating to the exhibition. It seemed as if the exhibition was visual proof of what the NEASP could achieve. The following section takes these important reflections forward, and which were explored in the final evaluation exercises, in order to think about the future of NEASP and, as an evaluator, make suitable recommendations.

32

5. Reflections and revisiting the outcomes The empirical findings in this section were collated using two methods; an individual e-mail feedback questionnaire sent to all partner organisations and a group work session with all of the NEASP organisations together.

After I received and reviewed the photojournals submitted to me in December 2015 I felt it was important to provide individuals involved in the NEASP an opportunity to feed back on the project individually via e-mail questionnaire. This feedback is summarised in 5.1 and informed the design of the facilitated group work day held in February 2016.

As part of my role I had followed the Lifelines project from the point of recruitment of Fitztrovia Noir.

As a result the design of the group work day which I facilitated took into account all of my findings up until that point. A little more about how I designed the facilitated group work day in relation to the outcomes for the project is discussed in 5.2.

The facilitated group work day involving all of the partner organisations was in two parts. The morning was about reflection on how NEASP worked together to deliver the Lifelines project, the findings from which are discussed in more depth in 5.3. The afternoon was devoted to looking ahead and making plans for the future; the findings from this latter part of the group work are considered in Section 6 of this report.

5.1 Individual reflections on the project and the NEASP Four out of six of the partner organisations returned their post-project e-mail questionnaires and are represented in this part of the evaluation report. The questionnaire was relatively short and asked the following questions emphasised in bold type below and which I have used as subheadings to collate and summarise the findings in this subsection. I have chosen quotes and excerpts from the questionnaires to epitomise common responses and highlight the specific issues which were taken into account when planning the group work session. â&#x20AC;˘ Parts of the project which has been good for you/positive experiences.

The workshops, and access to artists that we would not have been able to get involved with outside of this project - it has been illuminating to see how our users have responded to less conventional artists - particularly Ben Wilson - and how that has opened up their perceptions on what art is / can be and raised their ambition to do more unconventional work, as well as more conventional artforms like the glass workshops. The times when other studios have come together to discuss and plan, as well as celebrate have been really inspirational and given glimpses of the potential of collective working. High points have been the initial planning meetings, working out the recruitment information, the interview day and the exhibition launch, each involving different members of the partnership but enriching the process through their participation.

Networking and the sense of achievementâ&#x20AC;Ś Sense of achievement of studio members participating in the project who gained sense of achievement from working through a project

33

and having work exhibited in an external space outside of the studio environment, and inclusion in brochure.

The partnership and relationships building amongst the studios…Working with professional artists who inspire new methods and approach to work…When studio staff make some time to come together, everybody is lovely and very, very supportive of each other…The quality of the artists in the studios - of particular note was Ben, the Chewing Gum Man. As an individual studio we wouldn't have the knowledge, contacts or resources to have brought Ben up to work here for one day. But his day here was fantastic - he brought tons of personality and distinctiveness to the studio and had our service users captivated for the whole day!

• Parts of the project which has been less good for you/less positive experiences.

Had expected more interaction between studios, with both staff and studios members…Was hoping to meet other participants at the exhibition opening.

Communication between organisation of events and workshop timing; Lead in support with log books and a regular discussion to increase understanding of project; Capacity to visit other studios and fully utilize the partnership angle; Capacity for visits to fully use the log book journal "stamp collecting" element; Change around and promotion of exhibition events and communication of change to also manage expectations of members.

I don't feel I am working with anyone. I feel like I am missing something.

Difficulties in communicating across the partnership and the disproportionate amount of time that had to be put into chasing people for responses to emails before we got agreement for different stages of the project, or responses to requests for help / support or input. Also the ideal aim of this being a 'partnership' in its truest sense with other organisations taking on roles and responsibilities to support the process, whereas most of the time there wasn't the case and NTAS effectively became the lead organisation organising and managing everything. This had repercussions on a full cost delivery basis as the time spent wasn't covered by income from the budget so it has been 'expensive' for NTAS to deliver.

I was hoping for more organic growth of closer working /sharing and other organisations identifying ways they would want to continue to develop partnership working…I was also hoping that there would be developments towards the ability to strengthen evidence of outcomes / benefits, as a larger pool of participants and findings could be massively beneficial across the collective, but there has been little scope to consider this element in addition to the extra work running the project - and lack of communication is not encouraging that this can be achieved on a practical level • How well did you think the studios worked together?

We would relish more interaction, collaboration and discussion between studios and members in future organisation of projects and lay out the needed capacity to allow this; The partnership and relationships have built well in this project but we would relish more; To be 34

able to develop strategically, support policies and organisational learning but also mobility and development of members to events, projects, skill share sessions and exhibitions.

I think the studios like the idea of working together, or working more closely but the demands of day to day operations compromise this and so it ended up being at times very well and at times not at all. The strategic opportunity - the bigger picture of what combined working could do to strengthen us collectively was lost in the day to day. Creatively there has been a feeling of each project working in isolation undertaking its own artistic activities, though the artists and Garry Hunter worked extremely hard to bring it all together. I would have expected more excitement at certain stages e.g. recruiting the artist and planning exhibiting the work, but there was a lack of enthusiasm for both / either - a feeling of indifference. And the 'partner' ethos was weak.

We felt that this was the only less positive outcome, that perhaps more integration would have been a part of the project. Of course this can be viewed as a starting block from which more interactive collaborations could occur, but it seemed that in the creation of the artwork there was little interaction between studios and that it was a coming together of individual projects.

We met up and discussed stuff, we planned what we were going to do and we did not argue or fall out over anything. I think we are where we were, I don't know I just feel like the project is finished and my question is "Am I as a service users able to tap into our work as a consortium?"

There's been a limited amount of working together. On an individual level, everyone is lovely - and all of them seem to have enjoyed the project! But as mentioned, in a very much 'heads down' way, focusing on their own studio, and not prioritising the project amongst their other work. I would say though the staff do enjoy intermittent opportunities to meet up! For the future, I don't think flogging the dead horse of trying to create a strategic peer partnership will work. From the outset, people said they had capacity issues (but they still wanted to do something!), plus there's a lot of variety of priorities and working practices among usâ&#x20AC;ŚI think everyone is project/activity led (hence the sharing, planning and communication failing) but there could be opportunities to involve each other projects on an ad hoc basis in the future. And hopefully everyone feels a little better acquainted, so can ring up if they have a question. â&#x20AC;˘ Please make up to three suggestions on how the project could be done differently if it was to rerun More collaborative learning and strategy between studios; More collaborative strategy between studios; Clearer and effect communication; To discuss the legacy potential of project throughout stages.

More collaboration between staff and members of the participating groups

35

1) one organisation takes on a 'lead' role with clear and agreed roles and responsibilities and a budget allocation to support the delivery; 2) get the blog up and running sooner - this took extraordinary amounts of time and was left wholly to NTAS so couldn't be done as the project developed and unfolded, I think if it had been there earlier it may have been a platform for communication or contribution, which could have started as sharing creative activity but developed to more organisational development sharing, as it is I suspect it's a resource that may just fade away.

NTAS would have been paid much more - to reflect the effort we've put in; Get everyone to sign a 'partnership agreement' with task list?; Whilst there was lots of positives about the way Garry led the creative work, I would still have liked to see the project run with a single lead artist, spending time in the studios and working responsively. 2 The excerpts quoted above from staff at partner organisations speak for themselves and there have been echoes of these themes throughout the evaluation project. The idea behind the facilitated group work day, an integral element of the evaluation project, was begin to think through these operational issues more collaboratively and strategically.

5.2 Revisiting the project outcomes and designing collaborative group work Whilst developing the agenda and exercises for the group work day it was important to revisit the project outcomes: 1) Partnership â&#x20AC;&#x201C; studios and their staff will better understand their value and role in the partnership, plus have the tools, systems and priorities to communicate, share, plan and work together more effectively.

2) Artistic Project â&#x20AC;&#x201C; a closer community of art studios have developed, participated in and celebrated the value of creative activity on their service users wellbeing, through carefully planned activity, individual and collaborative work, which can be shared throughout health and art sectors.

3) Development - the art studios have strengthened their organisations and their shared voice, improving their knowledge of and involvement in national networks and quality frameworks, plus devised priorities for future co-working.

The feedback gathered up until this point and contained in the previous sections of this report, (and as highlighted by some of the comments in 5.1), demonstrates that whilst the artistic project itself (outcome 2) was a success and thus, the outcome met, outcome 1 and 3 were left wanting. It seemed that although most organisations felt they got to know the other organisations in the studio a little better and enjoyed delivering the project together, there remained very little strategy about how to go forward in terms of communication, co-ordination, and future projects. With regards to development, the feedback from the organisations suggested that the studios in the partnership had 2 Further feedback from Fitzrovia Noir suggests that Fitzrovia Noir would also have been paid much more if this project was costed as with previous projects they had done. Additionally, it would have been extremely difficult for one artist to work across all the studios in the timeframe - having six artists working at least two of the studios created interest in what was happening at the others and both Garry and Ben worked at all of the studios which provided the necessary degree of consistency.

36

become closer interpersonally and enjoyed working together creatively, but once again, there was a lack of strategy for the future. Thus, whilst I was designing the group work day which I was facilitating, I had these outcomes in mind. In particular, the group work day was about encouraging the partner organisations to think through these challenges collaboratively so that the NEASP would be in a position to strategize in and for the future.

5.3 Group reflections Reflections on the project had been conducted in relative isolation up until this point and so the morning session of the group work day involved reflecting on the Lifelines project collaboratively.

The purpose of this was for partner organisations to ‘hear’ each other, converse, and attempt to understand the different perspectives of the different NEASP organisations. Thus, the first exercise asked the group to reflect on what they had learned as a result of being a NEASP partner in the Lifelines project. This was discussed and bullet pointed as each reflection was raised and agreed upon:

I then took the five prevailing challenges that had been identified from my evaluation work up until that point;    

Geography; The ‘studio stamp idea’ not taking off; Communication; Capacity and commitment; and 37

ď&#x201A;ˇ

Interaction between studios.

The group were asked to consider these identified challenges and think about, if they were to do the project again, how they would come up with a collaborative solution or two for each challenge. The outcomes of this exercise are captured photographically below:

38

In terms of the Lifelines project, the group were asked what then asked what they thought the relative strengths and weaknesses of the current NEASP were. The representatives from the partner organisations were asked to discuss and come up with collaborative points:

39

5.4 Summary of findings It is clear from the findings in this section that the partner organisations of the NEASP have become more familiar with one another during the creative delivery of the Lifelines project which in turn seems to have strengthened and developed the bonds between the partners from an interpersonal perspective. In terms of the NEASP, this increased familiarity between the partner organisations has certainly been a strength which has grown out of the Lifelines project. However, and as a result of the delivery of the Lifelines project, there seems to be a fresh, very practical and empirical awareness of the amount of work such a collaborative endeavour entails. This was partly evidenced by the lack of use of the blog and a less than smooth co-ordination of publicity, and a lack of communication at times, which some partner organisations found more frustrating than others. There were a number of suggestions such as a closed/private Facebook group for organisations of the NEASP and a Facebook Page to publicise the work of the NEASP which may aid communication. However, the NEASP continues to face a challenge in terms of the capacity of the individual organisations to devote time to NEASP activities. The idea of a co-ordinator whose role it would be to undertake work on behalf of the NEASP and be responsible for communication and planning was an idea introduced by a staff member at one of the partner organisations early on in the evaluation. During discussion on the facilitated day the value of such a role began to materialise collaboratively in answer to some of the developmental and strategic challenges the partnership faces.

The Lifelines project certainly encouraged the partner organisations to acknowledge the depth and breadth of regional knowledge in the NEASP. However, the lack of co-ordination, strategy, and communication (or at least the lack of capacity within the partner organisations which means coordination, strategy, and communication often becomes burdensome and difficult) means that strategizing for the future of the NEASP is still a step the partnership need to make. The exercises conducted on the afternoon of the facilitated group work were intended to begin these conversations.

40

6. Formulating the future and concluding comments This concluding section of the report contains the findings from the final part of the evaluation process which I conducted and delivered during the afternoon session on the facilitated group work day in February 2016. The aim of this part of the evaluation was to encourage the NEASP members to think more about the future and development of the NEASP in a collaborative and strategic way.

Thus, in 6.1 I consider the future of the NEASP as a result of these final exercises. In 6.2 I make some concluding comments about where I consider the NEASP to be in terms of the outcomes for the project. Finally, the findings gathered throughout the evaluation process flow into 6.3 where I make a number of recommendations which the NEASP may consider for the future.

6.1 Thinking about the future together The purpose of the afternoon session was to look forward in terms of what the partnershipâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s next steps may be. To do this I wanted to encourage the members to think through some of the issues which had been articulated as challenges and come together to formulate their next steps. This began by facilitating a group exercise in which I asked the group to start to draft and agree some aims and objectives for the NEASP. Although my role doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t extend to developing a mission statement or value statement for the partnership, this exercise was to prompt the partner organisations to start thinking in this way. The following list on the next page suggests some ideas for drafting a value statement. During discussion I asked participants to underline the key words which may form the basis for a statement of values which would articulate what the NEASP is/does.

41

42

The second exercise of the afternoon was an ‘imagining exercise’ which would help ascertain and plan directions the NEASP may consider for future projects. I asked the group to imagine they, as the NEASP, were bidding for £120,000 of funding from a fictional funding body for any project they agreed on and over any length of time. The five sections of the fictional bid were written on sheets of flipchart paper:     

aims and objectives of the NEASP (the group already had this from the previous exercise but were encouraged to amend and revisit during discussion); outline of the proposed project; roles of the individual partners in the project; breakdown of financial spend; and why the NEASP should win the bid (e.g. what is unique? Why should NEASP be awarded funding over larger charitable organisations or bodies?)

Unfortunately only three of the six studios were represented for the majority of this exercise due to other commitments which I only found out about either on the day or the day before. That said, the group as a whole had already agreed upon the fundamental idea of establishing a co-ordinator role which the imaginary bid revolved around. The following pages contain photographs which serve as a record of the discussion and the salient points raised/made.

43

44

45

The above exercise encouraged more strategic thinking which will be key to successful future projects and operation of the NEASP. The final exercise was another mapping exercise asking what partner organisations would want to see from the partnership in the next year, two years, and three years. Due to half of the studio representative leaving, I conducted the final exercise via e-mail and only two studios responded. The responses are collated below: NEASP in next year: I would like to see the final exercise be carried forward, I believe we would be better suited to designing a structured body for the consortium, I don't think it should be something that raises funds for the individual groups but raises funds to operate in its own right and supports the health and arts groups through centralised policies and procedures, quality assurances and best practice.

More actual ties closer ties.

46

NEASP in two years: In the next two years the consortium will have a central company to relate to. This company will have centralised our paper work and will start to look at research based approaches to developing a platform of evidence of need for the individual groups. It will also be looking at ways of getting the individual groups to focus on a project that pushes the evidence forward, through an arts project that has quality of art at its heart and will draw attention from the Arts Council.

Extend on the connections to include formalised network including regular meetings.

NEASP in three years: We will be designing and delivering a project that hits key issues around health and arts especially for the North East but also connecting mental health and arts across the uk, highlighting our commitment to the celebration of the skills of participant and the benefits of quality arts in the health sector. The company set up will be secure for another five years and they are supporting health and arts groups in the North East to hold good data, use strong argument and become visible in the support of the reduction of engagement with front line health services.

Established network inc- information/ skills sharing possible co-ordinator role created.

6.2 The evaluation process and the outcomes In this subsection, and with reference to the findings arising from the evaluation process, I will briefly summarise the progress of the NEASP in relation to each outcome of the project.

1. Partnership It was hoped that by the end of the creative delivery of Lifelines the studios and their staff would better understand their value and role in the partnership. There is certainly much evidence of informal partnership working and reports of closer working relationships from an interpersonal perspective. The findings indicate that staff and volunteers at the organisations find the NEASP and their constituent relationships extremely valuable. There has been realisation, via the process of creative delivery, that being part of the NEASP can be rewarding and useful. However, the aim to have the tools, systems and priorities to communicate, share, plan and work together more effectively doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t seem to have been fully realised as a result of this project. For example, more formal organisation and communication in terms of the partners using a shared online resource and publicising the project on the blog didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t seem to take off. However, what the data in this report emphasises is that day to day running of the individual organisations leaves little capacity for strategic and more formalised work in the NEASP. This evaluation process has identified that staff and volunteers at the partner organisations have collaboratively agreed that sourcing funding for a NEASP co-ordinator is a necessary step to ensure more organised partnership working. Initial thoughts are that a co-ordinator could undertake more formal aspects of the NEASP to promote partnership working, think more strategically, and develop the NEASP (also see outcome 3).

2. Artistic Project 47

The aim in terms of this outcome was that a closer community of art studios would develop to participate in, and celebrate, the value of creative activity and the positive impact on their service user’s/member’s wellbeing. It was hoped this would be realised via planned activity, individual, and collaborative work; all of which could be shared throughout health and art sectors. The evidence suggests that the NEASP excelled at this outcome and that the partner organisations of the NEASP have certainly developed and grown closer. Although I was not evaluating the impact of the Lifelines project on members, the interviews, observations and photojournals all indicate an overwhelming positive response from members. This was down to the work of the studios, but also the co-ordination of Garry Hunter at Fitzrovia Noir and his team of artists who put together the exhibition in Tynemouth Station, produced an exhibition programme for all members to take away, and who have been instrumental in exhibiting the Lifelines exhibition throughout the North East. Garry Hunter and project artist Bee Taylor were recently invited by SLAM (South London And Maudsley) Foundation Trust director Dr David Blazey to present the Lifelines project at The Art of Recovery conference at The Hepworth in Wakefield, where it received a very positive response. Dr Blazey who is a Trustee of Waddington Street Centre in Durham and lives in Newcastle commented that out of the 12 presentations that day that Lifelines 'was the star of the show' and conference organiser Lucy Stephens of The New Economics Foundation said that the Lifelines project stood out to delegates as a fresh and new way of working in the 'art of recovery.' This is evidence of sharing the work of NEASP throughout the health and arts sectors; further promotion will be the responsibility of the NEASP. Invitations were offered to the studios, but none taken up and an email enquiry from was sent the morning of the conference, but not received as that was during the busy set-up of the artworks in the Hepworth foyer.

3. Development It was hoped that by the end of this project the art studios would have strengthened their organisation’s voice and their shared voice. In doing so, the aim was that NEASP would improve their knowledge of, and involvement in, national networks and quality frameworks, including identifying priorities for future co-working. There has certainly been a strengthening of the NEASP, albeit not in quite the strategic and organised way that was first anticipated. However, rather than this been considered in a negative light, it simply highlights the steps that need to be taken in order to strategise and organise the partnership in a way which is then able to go forward and be involved in national networks and pursue bigger opportunities such as Arts Council Funding . In terms of future co-working, the members of the NEASP have unanimously agreed that a co-ordinator for the partnership is the best way forward in order to strategise, explore funding opportunities, and work on shared communications, policies, procedures etc.

6.3 Recommendations for NEASP In this final section I have chosen to make five recommendations to the NEASP as a result of this evaluation process.

1. Improving communication: set up a closed Facebook group for staff at partner organisations so group messages can be easily sent and links can be shared etc. Additionally, set up a Facebook page for the NEASP as a sort of initial ‘holding page’ to publicise Lifelines and the NEASP more generally. The NEASP needs to be established in its own right as a collective and 48

2.

3.

4.

5.

these are the first steps which may aid communication as opposed to the current ‘reply –all e-mail’ which can get lost in the day to day running of the individual studios. The Facebook group can have discussion boards, threads etc, for individuals to browse and engage with at their leisure.

Establishing an identity: The NEASP must think more carefully about what they stand for and what they want to achieve as a collective. To do this they could begin to think about a logo 3 and developing a working mission statement to agree and define priorities of the partnership in terms of what it wants to achieve. I hope that this report will form a foundation for developing and establishing an identity.

Future creative delivery: The NEASP may wish to think about a future creative project to maintain the successful creative element the NEASP has harnessed through the delivery of Lifelines. For example, another studio in the NEASP (other than NTAS) may wish to take a lead in a project where a few members from each partner organisation come together to work together on a piece of work. This would bring members together in a way that they have not been brought together in the NEASP before (in a similar way to the bARTer project delivered by Chilli and NTAS in 2014), i.e. by working together rather than simply exhibiting together.

Sharing resources: In a similar vein to the recommendation above, members from smaller studios could spend a day or two working at the bigger/better resourced studios in the partnership. For example, members from Phoenix could attend a ceramics workshop at Chill Studios. Recommendations 3 and 4 may begin to break down the geographical barriers cited in this report.

Developing the partnership and strategy for the future: It is clear that this project didn’t lead the NEASP to the strategic point it may have first envisaged. Developing a co-ordinator role/post for the NEASP and sourcing funding for this role would enable the NEASP to develop and strategise in a way that current individual organisation’s capacity does not allow for. This would require that a studio or two studios in the NEASP take the lead on developing a clear job description and research funding opportunities to establish such a role.

3 Further feedback from Fitzrovia Noir may be useful here: NEASP already have a logo that Garry used in the Logbook and Workbook and is on the blog. It has been highlighted that the problem with the individual logos of the studios is that they are so diverse in size and legibility. For example, Phoenix is quite difficult to read, NTAS is extremely difficult to read, so much so that Garry’s graphic designer had to put the full name under the logo on inside back pages of Logbook. It was also noted how the 'North East' of NEASP logo gets lost in black and white reproduction, especially in comparison to the immediate recognition of the Esmee Fairbairn, Fitzrovia Noir, Flyte and Big Draw logos.

49