Brighton and Hove City Council
Brighton and Hove Black and Racially Minoritised Community and Voluntary Infrastructure Support
Options Appraisal
Independent Report by Ottaway Strategic Management Ltd
April 2023
Contents
Funding for BRM community organisations
Provision of infrastructure support in the city
4 Key findings from Engagement
Is there are need for a separate BRM third sector infrastructure body in Brighton and Hove?
Must this organisation be a Black led organisation?
Is the BRM CVS in the city ready for an infrastructure body to support their development and needs?
What are the needs of the BRM CVS in the city?
What is your vision for the Black CVS in the future in the city?
Funding and support for the development of the BRM CVS in the city
5 Emerging Options and Options Appraisal
Option Two: Distribute the available funding to organisations in the BRM CVS
Glossary of terms
BMECP: Black and Minority Ethnic Community Partnership
BMEYPP: Black and Minority Ethnic Young People’s Project
BRM: Black and Racially Minoritised. This is the term Brighton and Hove City Council uses to describe those communities in the city that are from Black, Asian, Mixed and Other ethnic minorities. The definition currently incudes those that are non-white British and hence it would include other white racial groups.
BHCC: Brighton and Hove City Council
CAG Anti-Racist Community Advisory Group
CVS: Community and Voluntary Sector
REAP: Sussex Racial Equality Action Project
RHF: Racial Harassment Forum
1 Introduction
1.2 This report will set out the framework and provide context for the BRM CVS in the city. It will also review the findings of the engagement that has taken place with key organisations in the BRM CVS in Brighton and Hove.
1.3 Critically, the report will review options for the investment of the funding and identify potential ways forward for the council and its partners in the BRM CVS. These options will be considered by the council and the city’s Anti-Racist Community Advisory Group in order to take this important agenda forward.
1.4
2 Approach and Methodology
2.1 The central approach to this report has been to gather baseline ethnicity data about the population of Brighton and Hove and to review the BRM CVS. Support for community and voluntary organisations, including the provision of grant funding, is a priority for the council and there are current funding programmes that support the voluntary sector to deliver services and activities, support community development and build the local community and voluntary sector for the benefit of the city’s population. This report will assess the extent to which this funding is being driven through BRM CVS organisations, as well as to examine the outcomes and assess who the beneficiaries of this funding are, in terms of their racial profile.
2.2 The methodology for this work has taken a three phased approach; firstly, to establish data and baselines for the BRM community and third sector funding in the city, secondly to engage with the BRM CVS to identify their priorities and thirdly to report the findings of the engagement and to develop plausible options for a way forward.
2.3 To set this baseline there has been an examination of the city’s:
· Racial profile.
· Nationality profile.
· Profile of the Black and racially minoritised community and voluntary sector (BRM CVS).
· Current voluntary sector funding programmes and the extent to which they have benefited the BRM CVS and BRM populations of the city.
· Existing voluntary and community sector infrastructure and support bodies.
2.4 The community engagement approach that this review has undertaken has been agreed with the city council and with the Anti-Racist Community Advisory Group (CAG). It included in-depth interviews with over 20 of the leading BRM CVS organisations in the city and engagement with current infrastructure providers in the wider CVS.
2.5 There are some key issues that needed to be considered in the development of this report and the formulation of the investment options.
2.6 What is meant by Black and racially minoritised organisations? It was important to establish whether reference to Black and racially minoritised groups referred to Black, Asian, mixed and other ethnic populations in the city i.e. non-white or whether it refers to a wider definition of those which are described as ethnic minorities i.e. those which are not white British. Each of these encapsulate different populations of the city. It is critical to this assessment and in particular its scope that this is clarified at the start of this work. What was agreed was that the report should initially adopt the wider definition of ethnic minority population. Therefore, aside from Black, Asian, mixed and other populations, it would also include other white populations including white Irish, white European, gypsy and traveller populations and those from other white backgrounds, who come from other parts of the world. It is, however, important that this is a question that is put to those we are engaging and also to consider within the options whether there is a need for a ‘Black led’ organisation to take on this targeted work with these populations, who tend to be non-white.
2.7 What is meant by infrastructure support? It is important to establish whether this means support for community and voluntary organisations to develop and grow as organisations, to become more sustainable and robust entities or whether this means support for these organisations to deliver services and activities. Typically, infrastructure support for the CVS is best described as work that supports, builds and develops the organisation itself and in particular targets the needs of third sector entities including funding support, capacity and capability, governance, training, leadership development, policies and practices. These services are offered through ‘infrastructure support’ to ensure that organisations are best placed to survive and flourish in a very competitive voluntary sector environment. This report will seek to identify the needs of the smaller organisations in the BRM CVS and to incorporate through the interview process the perceptions of BRM CVS organisations regarding their development and support needs.
2.8 What are the concerns that highlighted the need for the report? There are significant sensitivities within the BRM community as to the level of support (funding and organisational) that they receive. Many of the BRM CVS are small/micro-organisations that have a limited sphere of activity, principally due to resources; many have previously been unsuccessful in accessing funding from the statutory sector. Collectively the BRM CVS feels that it has little influence with the statutory sector and within the wider CVS. The BRM CVS appears to have low levels of capacity and to some extent capability is also limited. There is a suggestion from the statutory sector that for some of the BRM CVS previously in receipt of public funding they have not fulfilled/met the expectations of their grant /funding/commission offer. This may well be the case but equally some of the BRM CVS organisations engaged felt that they lacked support and or guidance to fully meet their funding obligations.
2.9 Some organisations are often seen as not capable of delivering and/or are without the expected human resources, governance, finance and scrutiny functions. Correspondingly the BRM CVS feel that they have been inadequately funded and the expectations placed on them were out of their reach without the appropriate support. This includes a lack of clarity over some of these expectations, which has created a situation where they have been ‘funded to fail’. Moreover, it is evident that the BRM CVS in the city is not a cohesive whole. Many organisations have competed against each other for what they often feel are insignificant levels of funding.
2.10
These issues will be held close throughout the development of this
report and will be considered in the review of potential options
for the sector going forward.
3 Context for the Black and racially minoritised (BRM) community and the BRM community and voluntary sector in the city.
3.1 This section sets out the context for this report. It reviews the city’s Black and racially minoritised (BRM) population and the nationality profile of the city, as per the 2021 census date recently released.
3.2 To add further context, the report reviews the current range and scope of council funding available to the Community and Voluntary Sector (CVS) through a range of funding and grant initiatives. This includes the Third Sector Commission, the Communities Fund, COVID Support Grants and Young People’s Grants. It reviews the extent to which the BRM CVS is benefiting from these funding programmes and assesses the racial profile of end user beneficiaries.
3.3 More than a quarter of residents (72,272 people, 27%) are from the ‘ethnic minority’ populations (non-white UK/British). This is higher than the South-East (21%) but similar to England (27%). The overall number of residents increased by 1% since the last Census. The number of ‘ethnic minority’ residents increased by over a third (35%, 18,921 people).
Table 1: Brighton and Hove Racial Profile, ONS 2021 Census
|
BHCC Public Health Data analysis - 2021 Census |
Brighton and Hove |
South East |
England |
||||
|
Asian, Asian British: |
13,217 |
4.80% |
7.00% |
9.60% |
|
||
|
Bangladeshi |
1,729 |
0.60% |
0.40% |
1.10% |
|
||
|
Chinese |
3,065 |
1.10% |
0.70% |
0.80% |
|
||
|
Indian |
3,633 |
1.30% |
2.60% |
3.30% |
|
||
|
Pakistani |
929 |
0.30% |
1.60% |
2.80% |
|
||
|
Other Asian |
3,861 |
1.40% |
1.70% |
1.70% |
|
||
|
Black, Black British: |
5,458 |
2.00% |
2.40% |
4.20% |
|
||
|
African |
3,949 |
1.40% |
1.60% |
2.60% |
|
||
|
Caribbean |
988 |
0.40% |
0.50% |
1.10% |
|
||
|
Other Black |
521 |
0.20% |
0.30% |
0.50% |
|
||
|
Mixed or Multiple ethnic: |
13,228 |
4.80% |
2.80% |
3.00% |
|
||
|
White and Asian |
4,198 |
1.50% |
0.90% |
0.80% |
|
||
|
White and Black African |
2,334 |
0.80% |
0.40% |
0.40% |
|
||
|
White and Black Caribbean |
2,410 |
0.90% |
0.70% |
0.90% |
|
||
|
Other Mixed or Multiple |
4,286 |
1.50% |
0.80% |
0.80% |
|
||
|
White: |
236,571 |
85.40% |
86.30% |
81.00% |
|
||
|
UK or British |
204,831 |
73.90% |
78.80% |
73.50% |
|
||
|
Irish |
3,944 |
1.40% |
0.80% |
0.90% |
|
||
|
Gypsy or Irish Traveller |
197 |
0.10% |
0.20% |
0.10% |
|
||
|
Roma |
787 |
0.30% |
0.10% |
0.20% |
|
||
|
Other White |
26,812 |
9.70% |
6.30% |
6.30% |
|
||
|
Other ethnic group |
8,629 |
3.10% |
1.50% |
2.20% |
|
||
|
Arab |
3,049 |
1.10% |
0.30% |
0.60% |
|
||
|
Any other ethnic group |
5,580 |
2.00% |
1.10% |
1.60% |
|
||
|
BRM (non-white UK/British) |
72,272 |
26.10% |
21.20% |
26.50% |
|
||
|
Non White |
40,532 |
14.63% |
13.70% |
19.00% |
|
||
3.4 Taking a deeper dive into this data, more than a third of BRM residents are other white (26,812 people, 37%). Other white residents make up nearly one in ten of all residents (9.7%). The number of other white residents has increased by 7,288 people (37%).
3.5 Nearly a fifth of BRM residents are of mixed ethnicity (13,228 people, 18%). Residents of mixed ethnicity make up one in twenty of all residents (4.8%). The number of residents of mixed ethnicity has increased by 2,820 people (27%).
3.6
Nearly a fifth of BRM residents are Asian (13,217 people,
18%). Asian residents make up one in twenty of all residents
(4.8%). The number of Asian residents has increased by 1,939
(17%).
3.7 Nearly 8% of BRM residents are Black (5,458 people, 7.5%). Black residents make up one in fiftieth of all residents (2%). The number of Black residents has increased by 1,270 people (30%).
3.8 Almost one in twenty of BRM residents are Arab (3,049 people, 4.2%). Arab residents make up over one in 100 of all residents (1.1%). The number of Arab residents has increased by 911 people (42%).
3.9 The non-white population (previously referred to as BAME) in Brighton is 14.63% of the overall population.
Chart 4: Brighton and Hove Racial Profile, ONS 2021 Census.
3.10 Geographically the city’s non-white British population has been plotted by the council’s Public Health service, taking data from the 2021 Census returns. This shows where there are clusters of BRM population across the city. This analysis is based on Local Super Output Areas (LSOA, which are sub areas of electoral wards). There are 165 LSOAs in Brighton and Hove. The distribution profile shows that there are 2 LSOAs in Brighton & Hove that have over 50% BRM residents, these are around Brighton Station and in Tarner and Albion Hill.
3.11 There are 31 LSOAs (19%) that have over a third (33%) BRM residents, these are predominantly in central and coastal areas. Correspondingly there are 2 LSOAs in Brighton & Hove that have less than 10% BRM residents these are both in North Portslade
Chart 5: Geographical distribution of BRM populations across the city ONS 2021 Census.
3.12 From a nationality perspective there are almost 36,000 residents that have a non UK identity (13.0%), higher than seen in the South East (8.8%) and England (10.1%). More than three out of five (61%) of those with a non UK identity have a European identity, which is greater than in the South East and England.
3.13 Compared to the South East, Brighton & Hove has:
· Higher proportion of residents identifying as American, Caribbean, Antarctician and Oceanian.
· Similar proportion of residents identifying as African and Middle Eastern and Asian.
Table 2: Profile of nationality ONS 2021 Census.
|
|
Brighton and Hove |
South East |
England |
|
|
All usual residents |
277,103 |
|
|
|
|
UK identity |
241,176 |
87.00% |
91.20% |
89.90% |
|
Non-UK identity |
35,927 |
13.00% |
8.80% |
10.10% |
|
European |
22,036 |
8.00% |
5.00% |
5.60% |
|
- EU countries |
15,887 |
5.70% |
4.10% |
4.80% |
|
- Non-EU countries |
6,149 |
2.20% |
0.90% |
0.80% |
|
African |
1,972 |
0.70% |
0.60% |
0.80% |
|
Middle Eastern and Asian |
5,488 |
2.00% |
1.90% |
2.20% |
|
American and Caribbean |
2,052 |
0.70% |
0.40% |
0.50% |
|
Antarctician and Oceanian |
760 |
0.30% |
0.20% |
0.10% |
|
Other |
591 |
0.20% |
0.10% |
0.10% |
3.14 Most non-UK residents were born in:
Table 3: Numbers of the largest non-UK residents by area. ONS Census 2021
|
Europe |
Middle East & Asia |
Africa |
Other |
|
Italy: 2,997 Poland: 2,484 Spain: 2,382 |
India: 1,956 China exc. Hong Kong: 1,433 Iran: 1,176 |
North Africa 2,797 South Africa 1,423 |
USA: 1,655 Australia: 1,237 |
3.15 What is clear from this analysis is that the BRM communities of the city are growing. The BRM community is clearly an established part of the overall population of the city.
3.16 From a nationality perspective the city is also a location where people from around the world have come and settled, adding to the richness of the city’s diversity.
Funding for BRM community organisations
3.17
Analysis of the 2021-2022 Third Sector Commission racial
monitoring data shows that 34.9% of beneficiaries (end users) of
the projects/activities funded have been from Black and racially
minoritised communities in the city. This shows a strong
return on investment from a race equality perspective; this figure
is higher than the 26.10% which is the profile of this population
in the 2021 census. As a pure subsidy per head of beneficiary
this equates to some £693,033.81 being spent on beneficiaries
from the BRM community in the city.
3.18 Correspondingly of the 20 projects funded in this programme there were only two BRM-led groups directly funded. This is a clear level of under representation, however there were also few applications from BRM organisations to the Third Sector Commission in the last round of applications, in 2020.
3.19 A review of the Communities Fund in 2020-21 and 2021-22 is set out below. It shows that in 2020-2021 there was £57,811 funded to 31 BRM organisations. This represented 15% of the total funding package. In 2021-22 there were 23 out of 26 successful applications from BRM organisations which represented 17.1% of the total budget allocations.
Table 4: Funding allocated by the Communities Fund 2020-2022 (BHCC)
|
Community Investment Fund annual value of : |
£385,000 |
|
|
2020/21 |
|
|
|
Total number of applications: |
163 |
|
|
Total number grants awarded: |
123 |
|
|
Total number of BRM applications: |
34 |
|
|
Total number of BRM grants awarded : |
31 |
|
|
BRM organisation investment: |
£57,811 |
15.0% |
|
|
|
|
|
2021/22 |
|
|
|
Total number of applications: |
101 |
|
|
Total number of grants awarded: |
83 |
|
|
Total number of BRM applications: |
26 |
|
|
Total number of BRM grants awarded: |
23 |
|
|
BRM organisation investment: |
£65,700 |
17.1% |
3.20 The profile of funding from the government COVID support grants to the CVS 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 are set out below. In summary, the table shows that 17% of the COVID Outbreak Management Funds went to BRM CVS organisations and 21% of Winter and Summer School Holiday grants went to BRM CVS Organisations over this period.
Table 5: COVID Outbreak Management Funds and Winter and Summer School Holiday Funds 2021-22 (BHCC)
|
Covid support grants for community & voluntary sector (CVS) 2020/21 and 2021/22 |
|
|
|
Contain Outbreak Management Funds (central government grant provided to local councils) CVS grants |
|
|
|
Total awards: |
£320,000 |
|
|
BRM groups: |
£54,110 |
(17%) of total value |
|
22% of total bids |
|
|
|
Winter and Summer school holiday grants (central government funding) 2020/21 |
|
|
|
Total awards: |
£270,355 |
|
|
BRM organisation awards: |
£56,355 |
(21%) of value |
|
20% of total bids |
|
|
3.21 In the city’s Young People ‘s Grant programme £1,458,800 was allocated over a 3.5 year programme. Of this, BRM groups received £77,000 which represents 5% of the total budget.
3.22 This high level review of the third sector funding activities shows that there are organisations from the BRM CVS making applications to the council. Their focus was on smaller funding programmes, and few undertook this in partnership with other organisations. They have not made applications to the Third Sector Commission which is the city’s largest third sector funding programme, which requires a partnership approach.
3.23 Some elements of the Third Sector Commission seek to target BRM CVS, in particular via the community engagement and community development themes. These programmes are currently being delivered by established third sector organisations in the city. These are white led organisations that employ staff from the BRM communities of the city. It is important to recognise that these organisations have acknowledged that they are occupying space that potentially should be taken by BRM organisations. In the past this work was nominally the responsibility of the Black and Minority Ethnic Community Partnership (BMECP) in the city, although that organisation decided to focus on its building and prioritised managing their debt. Interview evidence suggests that this is seemingly working.
3.24 It is clear that there are established CVS organisations delivering community development and community engagement activity with the BRM community, sometimes via the BRM CVS, and are fulfilling the requirements of their grant agreements. There is, nonetheless, a sense that this work could be done by a strong BRM CVS, if one were in place, and if the organisations within the BRM CVS worked to build their capacity and capability to deliver this work.
Provision of infrastructure support in the city
3.25 Infrastructure support for the CVS in Brighton and Hove tends to include advice, support, and learning and networking opportunities for voluntary and community organisations across the city. This includes a wide range of activities including but not exclusively:
· Advice, support and development.
· Finding venues and office space.
· Finding equipment, resources and printing services.
· Funding, fundraising and management of finances.
· Governance support (incl. constitutional and trustee support and training).
· Membership, newsletters etc.
· Monitoring and evaluation.
· Networking and partnership brokering.
· Policy development and practice support (HR, ethics, H&S, safeguarding, E&D).
· Recruitment and selection.
· Recruiting, training and working with volunteers, events.
· Sector wide voice and representation.
3.26 The main provider of infrastructure support in the city is Community Works[1], whose mandate is to support and enhance the CVS in Brighton and Hove. Specifically, Community Works:
· Give voluntary and community organisations the support and platform they need to make a difference to local lives and issues.
· Help people who want to volunteer their time to find local opportunities that make the most of their abilities and ambitions.
· Connect local businesses with voluntary and community organisations so they can both benefit.
· Work with the public sector to ensure they can connect with local voluntary and community action.
3.27 Community Works is supported in this arena by the Resource Centre[2] which provides support to the CVS in the city through the provision of equipment for hire, printing, advice and information services that aim to help community organisations to run groups better, find, apply and manage funding and sign post to people and organisations that can help.
3.28 The Trust for Developing Communities[3] has undertaken work that has supported the BRM CVS and in particular has targeted the community engagement of the BRM populations of the city. TDC is a charity tackling inequality in Brighton and Hove through community-led solutions that includes the delivery of community development work, youth work, research and training. TDC are currently working on the development of the ‘Community Voices’, a network of BRM CVS organisations.
3.29 Another organisation is the Hangleton and Knoll Project (HKP) which works in partnership with residents to access and develop opportunities and resources and to facilitate positive change as identified by the residents and communities. One of the project’s key aims is to assist and support existing community groups and to work with local residents to set up new groups as they are required by the community.
3.30 Having had discussions with these four organisations, all of which are engaged directly or indirectly in CVS support work, there are mixed views about the use of their services by BRM CVS organisations. Community Works report a low level of service/support take up by BRM CVS organisations. The Resource Centre however reports working with numerous BRM CVS organisations. Both TDC and HKP have focused their work on localities and with the communities in these areas. Their work has in some cases supported BRM CVS organisations to resolve issues of priority and in some cases to help establish small BRM organisations. Nonetheless some of these mainstream organisations feel that, if all things were equal, this work could and should really be delivered by a BRM organisation.
3.31 An interesting example is TDC, which is currently funded as part of the Third Sector Commission to deliver the engagement of the BRM communities. TDC is aware that it is doing work that a resilient BRM organisation could be delivering. History would suggest that BRM organisations were previously asked to undertake this work but that it fell to TDC because the sector was at that time unable to deliver it. TDC are currently looking at developing a body called ‘Community Voices’, an amalgam of BRM CVS organisations, which it is hoped would be taking up more of this work going forward. This development is important, particularly if the outcome achieves solid community engagement accompanied by elevating the BRM CVS to deliver it.
3.32 Community Works is developing a network of BRM staff working in the community and voluntary sector in the city. In discussion they felt it would be supportive if a Black-led organisation took up the mantle for delivering this work.
3.33 Community Works is also developing its mentoring programme which is seeking to target BRM mentors and mentees to work with the community and voluntary sector in the city.
3.34 Indeed, having spoken to many of the larger BRM organisations in the city they have seldom taken up the offer of infrastructure support, although they recognise their need for this support. The next section will examine why this current offer may not be taken up by the BRM CVS, but it will also review the needs that this part of the sector feel they have.
4 Key findings from Engagement
4.1 In completing this appraisal 22 semi structured interviews have been completed with key people and organisations in the BRM CVS, as well as representatives and organisations in the wider CVS and lead council officers.
4.2 A set of core questions were asked in these semi structured interviews and the findings are set out below.
Is there are need for a separate BRM third sector infrastructure body in Brighton and Hove?
4.3 There was an overwhelming sense across the majority of those engaged, including both the City’s established infrastructure bodies and the BRM CVS, that the BRM third sector needed to be better supported to enable its future success. Indeed, Community Works, the organisation currently in place to provide this support recognised that their offer has not often been taken up by BRM CVS organisations.
4.4 From an organisational development perspective organisations like the Trust for Developing Communities, the Resource Centre and the Hangleton and Knoll Project have on many occasions supported smaller BRM CVS organisations particularly with issues of organisational development, governance, HR and policy development, grant applications and printing and equipment, in the case of the Resource Centre.
4.5 Many BRM CVS organisations engaged felt there was a genuine need for separate BRM infrastructure resources in the city as many felt that this would encourage greater usage and provide a service that is more in line with the lived experience of those BRM CVS organisations in the city.
4.6 Through the interviews with infrastructure organisations in the city, it was intimated that smaller CVS organisations often opt for an informal support process. However, the interviewees clarified by suggesting that this informal support often waters down clearly articulated needs-based approaches, which are delivered by the mainstream infrastructure organisations. This could potentially lead to poor infrastructural development practices and outcomes. One interviewee said, ‘as the volume of the groups requiring support grow, it makes sense for their communities to lead the way in providing infrastructural support – it is they who will require the training’.
Must this organisation be a Black led organisation?
4.7 Across the interviews there was strong support for the development of an organisation that could be established to provide a dedicated BRM CVS infrastructure support provision in the city. The overwhelming majority of BRM interviews carried out supported the assertion that the organisation providing this targeted infrastructure support needed to be ‘Black led’. This was a very distinct view that predominantly came from people who were either Black, Asian, mixed or from other ethnic groups.
4.8 There was, from these interviews, an inevitable politicisation of the term ‘Black’ with a clear sense of a shared experience from communities that had been subjected to inequalities, discrimination and racism. Moreover, many of these organisations have taken an anti-racist stance and are campaigning to secure positive outcomes for their communities in an environment where there is still a residual dominance of white privilege.
4.9 One important aspect of whether support should be ‘Black led’ stems from the need to understand the informality within and between BRM organisations. Whilst all agreed the need for strong governance standards, there is a sense that ‘White-led’ organisations do not and could not fully understand the cultural nuances required to implement the relevant and necessary support to BRM CVS organisations.
4.10 Another viewpoint that emerged was the sense that the statutory sector often feels that the BRM CVS does not meet the expected standards of the CVS organisations, especially those that are funding recipients. What the research has revealed is that there are currently no defined expectations/standards for the CVS to follow/adopt. Thus, it seems that the BRM CVS may be much maligned for not meeting public sector expectations, however their expectations are not defined in drafted standards.
4.11 To be considered a ‘Black led’ organisation there is a need to meet some basic criteria. This would be that the majority of the group’s core team are Black (trustees and management/staff) and that Black core group members initiated their work and focus and that this is carried into the groups vision, design, delivery and decision making. Indeed, in Brighton and Hove as in many other localities across the country there is an accepted space within the community and voluntary sector for this kind of defined grass roots organisation with a clear focus, direction and vision.
4.12 Contrastingly, there was some disagreement and reticence by some white individuals and white led organisations, which felt that the support for the BRM CVS need not be a ‘Black led’ organisation and that these organisations should utilise the mainstream infrastructure provision available to all organisations.
4.13 This poses an interesting dilemma, as a counter argument from the Black organisations was that organisations supporting the Black CVS should adopt approaches that reflect the lived experiences of the organisation they are working with and that their staff should reflect the cohort they were working with.
4.14 Interestingly a couple of the leaders from the mainstream CVS infrastructure and community development organisations in the city, shared their perceptions that some of their work was occupying a space that a Black organisation would be better placed to deliver.
4.15 At a wider level, some interviewees felt that trustee boards needed to be made up of people who could bring expertise, diligence, scrutiny and governance that need not always have to come from the organisation’s targeted community. Indeed, several interviewees agreed that there is real value in working with allies in all communities to improve organisational growth and to secure positive outcomes for their targeted and priority groups.
Is the BRM CVS in the city ready for an infrastructure body to support their development and needs?
4.16 What was clear through the research is that the city’s BRM CVS is not currently placed to deliver comparable levels of infrastructure support for their community organisations. In short, BRM CVS organisations need time to build their capacity and capability to do this work. There is no short-term fix and if it was agreed there should be an entity to support the BRM CVS then this development would need to be undertaken in a planned way over a longer time span. This would require funding to be allocated to develop the expertise, skills, competencies and delivery capability to ensure that an effective infrastructure response is available to the city’s diverse BRM CVS.
4.17 Moreover, there was a collective awareness that in the course of this development process the BRM CVS would need to work with other organisations in the city (potentially not Black-led) and to utilise their capacity to take the agenda forward.
What are the needs of the BRM CVS in the city?
4.18 The needs of the BRM CVS, are in essence no different from that of all other CVS organisations in the city. The interviews suggested that these needs include all the generic skills and competencies needed by all CVS organisations. These would include:
· Organisational governance, policy
· Financial management
· Fundraising
· IT
· Information governance and data protection
· Operational management
· Standard operational procedures
· Selection and recruitment
· Human resources for staff and volunteers, and training.
4.19 Interviewees felt there is a potential to galvanise the resources of the BRM communities in the city and achieve a BRM CVS which is collectively greater than the sum of its parts. In pure development terms there is an opportunity to harness the skills and capacity of the organisations currently operating in the city, some of which are campaign based, and others which are representative of the diverse population based on the intersect of ethnicity, nationality, faith, culture, heritage.
4.20 There was a strong agreement that for these BRM organisations to be successful they need to be equipped to compete in a competitive CVS environment and to recognise their strengths and weaknesses to enable their future growth and success. For some of the interviewees there is potentially a need to consider the BRM CVS as a whole. Some felt that by addressing the BRM CVS as a whole, there would be more effective collaboration across the BRM CVS to support development, achievement and growth.
4.21 There was a feeling that few organisations from the BRM CVS were able to take on this mantle. Clearly there were one or two of the larger BRM-led organisations that, with additional funding, could be in a position to host staff but their fields of operation are often quite defined, and they would not want this work to detract from their core focus.
4.22 Moreover, for true infrastructure support work to be effectively delivered to this targeted community it needs to be available for the whole spectrum of BRM CVS in the city. It was felt that this support needs to be openly accessible and not based on membership or specific eligibility criteria but available to the plethora of BRM CVS organisations in the city.
4.23 There was a growing sense from the BRM CVS that rather than focus on one specific organisation or indeed to develop a new organisation the process needed to be more organic. Key organisations across the BRM CVS would want to come together to see if they could build a consensus for a way forward and to agree how to establish the best structure for the delivery of infrastructure support. Moreover, there was an agreed sense that this would take time and that the organisational engagement in the first instance needed to create a shared vision and a collective work plan to fulfil this.
4.24 There was a collective agreement that the BRM CVS needed to be supported to develop its capabilities and capacity to enable a truly community led approach to infrastructure. From discussions with CAG members and with specific focus on BRM led organisations it was critically important that this process was facilitated, supported and nurtured to enable real and valuable outcomes for the sector.
4.25 It was equally agreed by members of the mainstream CVS, in particular those engaged in infrastructure support and community development that the presence of a ‘Black led’ organisation undertaking support to the BRM CVS was not an excuse to let their commitment to becoming anti racist organisations lapse. There is a collective recognition, particularly from the BRM CVS and the leading players in the infrastructure and community development field in the city, to ensure that any processes going forward were planned and supported and that funding was not simply given to BRM organisations without clear expectations for outputs and outcomes that have been properly coproduced by BRM CVS organisations.
What is your vision for the Black CVS in the future in the city?
4.26 What was evident is that there is no clear and agreed vision for the BRM CVS in the city. Alternatively, there was a collective sense that strategically and operationally things needed to be improved for the BRM CVS. The sector needed to galvanise its resources and to grow both collectively and as individual organisations to become more successful and to build their capacity and capability to ensure that the service they offer their respective communities is both vibrant and sustainable.
4.27 Clearly, individual organisations have their own priorities and own goals, and this is perfectly laudable. However, several of those engaged in the BRM CVS felt that there needed to be a bringing together of organisations to ensure that a collective vision is established, and one which views the sector as a whole.
Funding and support for the development of the BRM CVS in the city
4.28 There were a series of key points that were raised through various interviews that focused on the funding issues for the BRM CVS particularly with respect to supporting the development and growth of the BRM CVS as a whole.
· There was a consistent view that the funding that is available to the BRM CVS should not be seen as a short term fix but as a longer term plan to build a solid BRM organisation and or partnership of organisations that can truly represent and deliver effective and meaningful support for the BRM CVS in the city. In effect this would mean that the funding and resources need to be provided over a longer-term period than the resources currently available through the World Reimagined budget.
· In the first instance there needs to be a commitment to resource the BRM CVS to develop a vision for the BRM CVS as a whole.
· Any funding allocated would need to be set against a realistic and deliverable programme of work with defined time specific outputs and outcomes.
5 Emerging Options and Options Appraisal
5.1 In reviewing how the £100,000 should be invested to best effect in strengthening the BRM CVS, a range of options have emerged.
Option One: Do nothing.
Description:
This option is quite clear in that the City Council would not use this funding to directly support the BRM CVS and reutilise this resource in other ways.
Research findings
The research did not see this approach as being of any real and sustainable value to the BRM CVS and collectively this was viewed as a waste of resource.
Risks
This was viewed as a real opportunity lost to the city in general but equally a failure to support the BRM CVS for which this funding was initially meant for. The needs of the BRM CVS would still be present. The opportunity to do something meaningful with this funding would be lost and thus the BRM CVS would be at further risk resulting in the sector being unable to progress, grow and build its capacity and capability.
Priority
It is the view of this assessment that this is not a priority option to progress.
Option Two: Distribute the available funding to organisations in the BRM CVS
Description:
This option proposes to distribute the funding to the BRM CVS through an open grant application process. This resource would be distributed through a one-off grant allocation process. Successful organisations would benefit from this grant. This grant would be administered by the Council’s Communities, Equality and Third Sector Team.
Research findings
There was little support for this approach by those engaged in this research. Respondents felt that this money would have little lasting impact on the BRM CVS as a whole and that in essence the funding would be a short-term, unsustainable fix for the specific organisations thus the benefits would be limited.
Risks
This approach would do little to address the core need of support and advice for the sector and would have no impact on the longer term sustainability and growth of the sector.
Priority
It is the view of this assessment that this is not a priority option to progress.
Description:
This option proposes to distribute the funding to a single BRM CVS organisation in the city, which would be charged with the responsibility of establishing and delivering infrastructure support for the BRM CVS in the city.
It is likely that this approach would be undertaken through an application process. In the first instance the resource would be distributed through a one-off grant allocation process and any ongoing funding would need to be addressed by the city’s core third sector programme including the Third Sector Commission. This approach would be overseen by the Council’s Communities, Equality and Third Sector Team.
Research findings
There was little support for this approach by those engaged in this research. Respondents felt that there were few organisations well placed to take up this responsibility and that a partnership approach was preferable.
It was also felt that by identifying a single organisation, albeit through an application process, this would potentially alienate other BRM CVS organisations from working with this body.
Risks
This approach would place a significant burden on a single organisation. There is the potential to further fracture the BRM CVS. There is also a possibility of forcing a single organisation to take on a burden of risk that may be too great for it to address.
Priority
It is the view of this assessment that this is not a priority option to progress.
Description:
This option would involve the bringing together of a consortium or alliance of BRM CVS organisations in the city. In the first instance this would include the larger BRM CVS organisations. It is proposed that this group would work together to build a vision for the BRM CVS and to agree the terms of reference and operating models for the Consortium to enable and support the delivery of infrastructure support for the wider BRM CVS.
Having engaged the larger BRM CVS through this research, it is critical that these organisations are included in this process and that the consortium builds itself out of these groups with a consensus to support the BRM CVS as a whole, including those organisations that have not been engaged in this research.
Beyond this commitment it is arguable that there is little else that can be progressed, particularly as it is the view of this research that the design and delivery focus of any future consortia would need to be co-produced, negotiated and agreed upon by its membership. This process, however, may need to be facilitated and would require the use of some of the available funding to achieve this.
In the first instance it is suggested that the following organisations are engaged:
Racial Harassment Forum (RHF), Black and Minority Ethnic Community Partnership (BMECP), Sussex Racial Equality Action Project (REAP), Bridging Change, Brighton and Hove Black and Anti-Racism Community Organisation (BARCO), Mosaic, Black and Minority Ethnic Young Peoples Project (BMEYPP), Refugee based organisation (TBC), Network of International Women.
Research findings
There was a strong willingness from the majority of those engaged in this research to take an approach that built a collective alliance of BRM CVS organisations, in particular those that are ‘Black led’ and committed anti racists.
Risks
This approach would not be without its risks. Many of the organisation in the sector have in the past competed against each other, both for resources and for campaign space. Several organisations have histories of discontent with the city.
This history and these concerns would need to be parked and set aside. Indeed, specific work would need to be done to bring this alliance together in a way that ensures that the greater good of the BRM CVS was served rather than the priorities of individual organisations.
Funding of this consortium will need to be over a longer period than the initial allocation of £100,000. This would ensure that the process of developing a viable BRM CVS infrastructure organisation was maintained with clear development targets and goals being met.
Priority
It is the view of this assessment that this is the most viable way forward to address the longer term BRM CVS needs in the city.
6 Recommendations and Actions
6.1
Throughout
the review there was strong confirmation by all parties that the
BRM CVS needed to grow and develop. It was clear that there
needed to be greater levels of capacity and capability within this
sub-sector in the city and this would add immense value to the
third sector as a whole, as indeed it would for the BRM CVS.
6.2 The report has recommended the pursuit of option 4 from the options appraisal. This option has the potential to build a strong foundation for the future success of this sub-sector and thus this option needs to be given support not just for the initiation of this work but also for its continuity to ensure that the care and enablement of this sub-sector be properly fostered. It is estimated that this will be at the very least a 5-year period of development. To this end there is implicit focus in this recommendation for the need for continued financial support for the BRM CVS beyond the initial £100,000 currently available. Indeed, this will need to be maintained for the next few years and beyond that via the next round of the city’s Third Sector Commission programme.
6.3 To secure this approach it is also recommended that a series of short and longer term actions are put in place. Clearly these are indicative actions, and they would need to be reviewed and co-produced by the BRM CVS and ultimately sanctioned by the council and by the city’s Anti-Racism CAG.
· To initiate this work through a series of community leadership workshops (potentially over 2-3 weekends at BMECP) with the BRM CVS organisations facilitated by an independent facilitator to:
· Agree a vision for the BRM CVS.
· Agree terms of reference of a ‘Consortium’ of BRM CVS Organisations.
· Agree a modus operandi for the ‘Consortium.’
· Agree an initial work programme for the ‘Consortium.’
· Agree approaches to the working relationships with the mainstream infrastructure organisation in the city, including the utilisation of their skills and services.
· Agree a host organisation to take on any selection and recruitment and employment responsibilities.
· Agree the representative role the ‘Consortium’ could play and how it would play this on behalf of the BRM CVS in the city.
· Present these agreements to the council and the CAG.
Medium term actions (Years 2-3)
· Recruit and employ staff to take on the agreed work of the ‘Consortium.’
· Engagement with the wider BRM CVS to understand and audit their support needs.
· Deliver against these needs either directly if capacity and capability is available or to refer these organisations to the mainstream infrastructure bodies in the city.
· To develop specific work programmes including those relating to governance, finance and fund raising, administrative support.
Longer term actions (Years 4-5)
· Build capacity of the ‘Consortium’ to address a wider scope of infrastructure skills and capabilities.
· Build capacity to grow the ‘Consortium’ to incorporate external funding from funders both within the city and wider.
Next Steps
6.4 If this recommendation were to be agreed there would be need to set aside a budget to establish the development of BRM CVS workshops. To this end the outline budget for 3 half day workshops to be held at BMECP is set out below:
|
BRM CVS Workshop |
Unit |
Cost |
Total |
|
Planning, Facilitation and reporting |
3 |
£450.00 |
£1,350.00 |
|
Venue Booking 3 sessions |
3 |
£95.00 |
£285.00 |
|
Refreshments |
3 |
£120.00 |
£360.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Ex VAT |
|
|
£1,995.00 |
6.5 Beyond the workshops it is likely that the draw on the available budget would be circa £25,000-£35,000 in the remainder of the financial year although this could be subject to amendment following the outcomes of the workshop. This figure would include the councils project management costs.