Issue - items at meetings - Neighbourhood working/community engagement - following 12month review of the Constitution

Report of the Director of Strategy & Governance (copy attached).

RESOLVED –

(1)         That the Committee notes the public engagement work underway, the Framework and plethora of models developed according to community needs and priorities, and agrees to establish a cross-party working group.

(2)         That the Committee notes the formal review of Strengthening Communities Commissioning activity and agree that the Review should provide a way forward in providing recommendations for public engagement in the future. This will test the existing models and examine the need for further community decision making opportunities, (e.g., looking at LATs and how they feed into the Community Safety Forum etc).

(3)         That the outcomes of the review should include:

§         A mapping and overview of the different forms and structures for public engagement that exist in the city, such as neighbourhood groups (e.g. LATS), and citywide representative activity, (such as that developed by the Community and Voluntary Sector Forum).  

§         An analysis of the costs and benefits of community and neighbourhood engagement, including a breakdown of the costs and value of different models.

§         An analysis of the links between the Council’s democratic and constitutional opportunities for engagement and those at grass roots level.

§         A quantative and qualitative analysis and mapping of the various targeted neighbourhood initiatives in the city such as Family Pathfinder, Adult Advancement Centres and Turning the Tide, evaluating what works and determining any fundamental principles for future neighbourhood activity.  Where possible, the review would include partner involvement in this and include Neighbourhood Policing and the PCT’s work on health inequality.

§         An analysis of the value of the Council’s current Discretionary Grants Programme in helping to support public and neighbourhood engagement.

§         To develop new policy and approach in line with the Council’s organisational change processes and the move towards stronger commissioning, creating public value and desire to support local communities and economies and enable co-production of solutions at the local level.

(4)         That the review be completed by September 2010, (in time for the Council’s budget setting processes), and submitted to Governance Committee and Cabinet, (as required by the constitution), for consideration and incorporating into budget approaches for 2011/12.

(5)         That the Committee receive written updates at every meeting between now and September 2010 and, where appropriate, Governance Committee attendance and involvement be requested in key aspects of the Review process.

83.1         The Committee considered a report of the Director of Strategy & Governance concerning community and neighbourhood engagement in the city and the focus of the formal review of Strengthening Communities activity.

83.2         Councillor Mitchell queried how the issues in the report related to the Community Engagement Framework, which had been through the scrutiny process. She was concerned that the intention was to centralise engagement activity and restrict grass roots involvement; she was particularly worried about the future of Local Action Teams (LATs) and the fact that the report did not mention any consultation with community groups. She added that commissioning work appeared to have ceased.

83.3         Councillor Simson gave assurances that there was no intention to undermine the grass roots organisations. The aim was to review how they could be better supported by the council and how they would be funded in the future; there was no desire to change the bottom-up approach that existed in the city.

83.4         Councillor Randall stated that he perceived the aims of the report as an attempt to tidy up the approach to engagement and ensure better use of the funding available. He advised that while there was an overlap between some groups, it would be difficult to interfere with the LATs in any way; they were very well-attended and the council’s partner organisations were supportive of current structures. He added that information sharing between groups could be improved.

83.5         Councillor Elgood praised the network of community groups and the support provided by the council. He hoped that the council would add value to ongoing engagement activity and advised that more needed to be done to promote LATs through the council.

83.6         Councillor Simpson explained that she was concerned there would be a move towards a uniform approach to engagement across the city. She reported that the uniform nature of LATs and Schools Cluster groups had contributed to the disbanding of the Hollingdean Partnership, which had been very valuable for local people in her ward. The support available for the partnership had been diluted by the move towards more formal groups which focussed on specific issues rather than the whole community.

83.7         In response to a query from Councillor Taylor regarding Member involvement in the review of Strengthening Communities activity, the People and Place Co-ordinator explained that the intention was to involve the Members’ Advisory Group (MAG), which had responsibility for allocating grant funding to community groups. She added that ward councillors would be indirectly engaged via their involvement with community groups, who would be consulted during the review.

83.8         Councillor Taylor expressed concern that the MAG would be involved and advised that a separate cross-party working group should be established.

83.9         Councillor Simson explained that the intention was to involve Members through the MAG because it was an established cross-party group with relevant expertise, however, a new working group could be set up if Members felt it appropriate.

83.10    Councillor Oxley moved an amendment to recommendation 2.1 proposing that the Committee agree to establishing a cross-party working group.

83.11    Councillor Mears formally seconded the amendment and opposition Members confirmed their support for the amendment (see 83.14 (1)).

83.12    In response to the comments made by Members the People and Place Co-ordinator made the following remarks:

§         The main function of the Communities Team within the council was to support community groups and work towards strengthening existing engagement arrangements.

§         The Community Engagement Framework was a policy document that had been consulted upon extensively. It set out the principles of community engagement and was designed to enhance understanding.

§         The Strengthening Communities review would consider whether existing arrangement were working and how engagement activity would be funded in the future.

§         There was no intention to impose a uniform approach and the council supported the organic approach that existed in the city, recognising that choice was important.

§         The future of LATs would not be reviewed, however the police planned to review how LATs fed into their Joint Action Groups (JAGs).

§         Extensive consultation would take place as part of the review.

83.13    Councillor Mears advised that the cross-party working group should be set up along similar lines to the MAG.

83.14    RESOLVED –

(1)         That the public engagement work underway, the Framework and plethora of models developed according to community needs and priorities be noted, and a cross-party working group be established.

(2)         That the formal review of Strengthening Communities Commissioning activity be noted and agree that the Review should provide a way forward in providing recommendations for public engagement in the future. This will test the existing models and examine the need for further community decision making opportunities, (e.g., looking at LATs and how they feed into the Community Safety Forum etc).

(3)         That the outcomes of the review should include

§         A mapping and overview of the different forms and structures for public engagement that exist in the city, such as neighbourhood groups (e.g. LATS), and citywide representative activity, (such as that developed by the Community and Voluntary Sector Forum).   

§         An analysis of the costs and benefits of community and neighbourhood engagement, including a breakdown of the costs and value of different models.

§         An analysis of the links between the Council’s democratic and constitutional opportunities for engagement and those at grass roots level.

§         A quantative and qualitative analysis and mapping of the various targeted neighbourhood initiatives in the city such as Family Pathfinder, Adult Advancement Centres and Turning the Tide, evaluating what works and determining any fundamental principles for future neighbourhood activity.  Where possible, the review would include partner involvement in this and include Neighbourhood Policing and the PCT’s work on health inequality.

§         An analysis of the value of the Council’s current Discretionary Grants Programme in helping to support public and neighbourhood engagement.

§         To develop new policy and approach in line with the Council’s organisational change processes and the move towards stronger commissioning, creating public value and desire to support local communities and economies and enable co-production of solutions at the local level.

(4)         That the review be completed by September 2010, (in time for the Council’s budget setting processes), and submitted to Governance Committee and Cabinet, (as required by the constitution), for consideration and incorporating into budget approaches for 2011/12.

(5)         That written updates be provided to the Committee at every meeting between now and September 2010 and, where appropriate, Governance Committee attendance and involvement be requested in key aspects of the Review process.