Author: STIR

Unlocking the Next Economy is about creating access to the physical assets of historical organisations to support local economic change.

Stir To Action’s year-long pilot will explore how these physical assets can be an important part of Community Economic Development (CED), and how unused and underused churches could specifically be a part of this process.

The opportunity?

In the case of the Church of England alone, there are around 16,000 churches in its national network. With recent church reports suggesting that just over 25% of churches have as few as 20 parishioners, it’s been described by Guardian journalist Simon Jenkins as the “nation’s grandest unexploited social resource.”

In terms of the church, a combination of under-use, high maintenance costs, and a lack of income generation has created an “unaffordable architectural legacy” – according to the Arthur Rank Centre church buildings can “become a stifling burden and a drain on energy and resources.” But these vast swathes of church property, as Rachel Laurence of the New Economics Foundation acknowledges, have largely been neglected by those working in Community Economic Development (at least here in the UK).

Alongside this institutional decline has been the significant loss of local services and public utilities in many villages and market towns, where post offices, banks, and food shops have closed. According to the Commission for Rural Communities, “it is estimated that 70% of villages in the UK have no local shop.” And in terms of rural banking services, between 1989 and 2012, 7,500 banks closed in the UK – more than 40% of banks.

In response to this market failure, many communities have worked together to create new initiatives to save shops, halls, and pubs, as well as leisure centres and other vital local assets. There are now more than 350 Community Co-ops in the UK, a model that is viable and effective, with the Plunkett Foundation’s research showing that “97% of the community owned village stores opened over the past 25 years are still open and trading today.”

But is there an institutional appetite within modern churches to uphold their social purpose, meet changing circumstances, and find new ways to engage their communities?

New Purpose

Our research shows that churches are already showing a will to engage in new ways of repurposing buildings and land. Church Care, the property division of the Church of England, claim there are at least 35 sub-post office services being delivered from churches, chapels, halls and centres, ensuring communities are able to access local facilities. Where communities have been missed by the national broadband rollout, spires are being used to broadcast wifi, sometimes as co-ops, but often through private suppliers.

Churches have also become involved in providing local financial services. In response to Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby’s comments on the predatory lending strategies of Wonga, All Saints Church in Murston, Kent, hosted the first community bank to open inside a church. This is a model that could be replicated as a means of localising banking – offering space for regional and local banks – as well as creating new savers and lenders with local investment interests.

With the housing crisis affecting both rural and urban areas, community-led initiatives such as community land trusts have become increasingly relevant. These models often refer to parish territories in their activities, such as community consultations and neighbourhood plans, but without the express involvement of the church and its assets. By co-producing with church groups actively participating from the initial stages, this approach can be replicated through our efforts to unlock church assets for new and existing community initiatives.

There are many positive examples of repurposed churches, but how can CED inform this process so it’s actually based on community need and ensure local people are involved from the start?

Unlocking the Next Economy

Over the last few years we’ve been working with organisations in the creative sector, local authorities, schools, and community groups, exploring how co-operative models can secure local assets, create economic democracy, and ensure these initiatives are based on local needs.

An important part of this process is co-production – based on the work and toolkit of social enterprise Learn to lead – that involves stakeholders in the process from the start. Alongside this, our three pilot communities will be supported by external consultants who are able to encourage local communities, import new ideas, facilitate consensus in an often divisive process, and offer the co-operative model as an option in their CED.

Our process is primarily about unlocking physical assets to support communities to meet their own needs, not to conserve churches. The only way we’re going to save churches, as Simon Jenkins argues, is by giving them away. If churches survive – architecturally and even as places of worship – it will be because they have become a social resource.

Author: Scottish Government

Rural communities will have a stronger voice thanks to funding for the Rural Parliament announced by Environment and Land Reform Secretary Roseanna Cunningham.

The £200,000 funding for Scottish Rural Action (SRA) will support delivery of their 2017–19 Action Plan, which contains five policy areas debated and chosen by rural communities at the 2016 Rural Parliament in Brechin.

Speaking at the Royal Highland Show, Ms Cunningham said:

“The two Scottish Rural Parliament events to date have been successful in giving our rural communities a stronger voice. To help foster this further, I am delighted to be able to demonstrate our continued support by confirming a further £200,000 to Scottish Rural Action.

“This will support the development of an inclusive and sustainable rural movement that is rooted in Scotland’s rural communities and help support the organisation of a third Rural Parliament in 2018.

“It has been encouraging to see the progress that SRA has made since its inception in 2014, and I look forward to hearing about further successes in the future.”

Amanda Burgauer, Chair of Scottish Rural Action, said

“Scottish Rural Action is delighted to receive on-going support from the Scottish Government for our work in empowering rural communities in Scotland.

“It has become clear over the last year that there is a need for SRA to be a proactive influencer in policy and decision-making, with the driving force for this direction coming from both rural communities and wider stakeholders. Our Action Plan for 2017-19 crystalises this shift in focus to being a powerful voice for the people of rural Scotland and focuses on the themes chosen by our members at the Rural Parliament in 2016. These are digital connectivity, local democracy, land, transport and business, enterprise and employment.

“We also see the need to respond positively to the understandable concerns from rural communities about Brexit, and our conference in September this year will be focused on rural development post-2020, and continuing to develop a cohesive vision for rural Scotland.”

Background

The Scottish Government has so far provided a total of £480,000 over the 3 years to support two Rural Parliaments and the delivery of the resultant Action Plans. This does not include today’s announcement.

The funding will help with:

  *   Delivery on the 2017/19 SRA Action Plan

  *   Enabling five priority working groups to take forward targeted actions

  *   The continuation of the Scottish Rural Action voluntary board meetings and continued input to local, national and EC policy

Author: Scottish Government

Community Choices Fund 2017/18

First launched in 2016/17, the Community Choices Fund is a new fund to support participatory budgeting (PB) in Scotland.  PB is recognised internationally as a way for local people to have a direct say in how public funds can be used to address local needs. Targeted particularly at work in deprived areas, the fund aims to build on the support provided by the Scottish Government for PB since 2014 as part of a broader agenda around democratic innovation and engaged citizenship.

Community Choices supports one of the principles of Public Service Reform, that people should have equal opportunity to participate and have their voice heard in decisions shaping their local community and society.  It complements the Scottish Government’s aspirations for the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 which will help give communities more powers to take forward their own ambitions. The PB Scotland website provides more information about community choices events held in 2016/17, policy and resources in Scotland, and profiles examples, pictures and videos of Community Choices in action.

To continue to support the growth of PB in Scotland the Community Choices Fund is available again for 2017/18. 

Fund for Applications – 2017/18

£1.5 million of the Community Choices Fund is available in two categories of £750,000 each. Category one for Public Authorities which includes Local Authorities and other Public Bodies. Category two for Community Organisations and Community Councils. The fund’s aim is to support PB activity which will significantly expand opportunities for more local people to make decisions on local spending priorities and contribute to local participatory democracy. The closing date for applications is midnight 21 July 2017.

For more information and how to apply:

•             Information for Applicants

•             Guidance for Public Authorities

•             Application Form for Public Authorities

•             Guidance for Community Organisations and Community Councils

•             Application Form for Community Organisations and Community Councils

•             Public Authorities, Community Organisations and Community Councils Application Checklist

•             Frequently Asked Questions

Questions

If you have any questions about the fund please email: community.empowerment@gov.scot

Author: Scottish Government

A new enterprise agency will be created to meet the economic needs of communities in the South of Scotland.

The final report from the Enterprise and Skills Review contains a wide range of measures to support business, ensure young people have access to the right skills, and create growth across the Scottish economy.

They include improved access to innovation, enterprise and international support and streamlined skills provision.

Cabinet Secretary for the Economy, Jobs and Fair Work Keith Brown launched the report while meeting with Kite Power Systems – a company that has secured £7m of equity funding for its innovative approach to harnessing wind energy.

He said: “This report shows how we can transform the performance of our economy and enable more businesses to deliver strong, vibrant and inclusive growth at scale.

 “From better co-ordination of our international activity to ensuring young people are equipped with the skills they need to succeed, this review has delivered a package of reforms that will drive change across the country.

 “We have recognised the importance of providing dedicated support to the South of Scotland in the same way we currently do for the Highlands and Islands. A new agency will be established to meet the distinctive economic needs of communities in the South of Scotland.

 “We are putting a greater urgency behind our innovation action plan and joining up the efforts of our skills agencies to help learners and businesses get the training they need. Businesses will benefit from streamlined innovation support through a new digital access point, building on the recent success that has seen Scotland move into the top group of EU nations as regards innovation performance.

 “The fundamentals of Scotland’s economy are strong and – as this report confirms – we are doing all that we can to build upon these further.”

Author: Rebecca Cooney, Third Sector Magazine

Almost 1,500 staff face uncertain futures as the Manchester-based charity closes its doors

The charity’s services have been transferred to Change, Grow, Live for the time being.

The £60m drug and alcohol treatment charity Lifeline Project has collapsed amid concerns about its financial management, leaving almost 1,500 employees facing uncertain futures.

The Manchester-based charity appears to have closed its doors yesterday, although many of its staff and services are being transferred to the health and social care charity Change, Grow, Live for at least the near future.

Staff were informed of the decision to close earlier this week.

The latest available accounts for the charity on the Charity Commission website show the charity had an income of £61.8m in the year to the end of March 2016, an increase of 45 per cent on the year before and more than three times the income it had in 2011/12.

According to the accounts, nearly all of the charity’s income came from government contracts,  including the provision of services in a number of prisons, young offenders institutions and hospitals.

The most recent accounts say: “The majority of Lifeline’s funding derives from statutory sources and as such reductions to funding in this sector represent a major financial risk. Lifeline operates in a competitive commissioning environment and has invested significantly to increase capacity to meet these future challenges.”

The accounts add that year-end cash balances remained “healthy”, with reserves totalling £6.3m.

In 2013, one of the charity’s trustees, Paul Flowers, the disgraced former chair of the Co-operative Bank, resigned amid an investigation into allegations of false expenses claims.

Mike Pattinson, executive director at Change, Grow, Live, told Third Sector that Lifeline Project had approached CGL about taking over its services a number of weeks ago.

“We have been working with Lifeline Project over the past few weeks to see how we can ensure a smooth transition of most of its services, create continuity of service provision, ensure the service users are protected and protect the employment of staff,” he said.

He said service users could expect the same level of treatment and care and referrals would continue as normal.

Pattinson said the transfer would include “most, but certainly not all” of the charity’s services, but was unable to give exact details because CGL was still in communication with the services’ commissioners and prime contractors.

“We’ve agreed most of the service provision and, as part of that, we’ve agreed to take on employment of the staff who are at the centre of the organisation,” he said.

The jobs of staff who were transferred were guaranteed in the short term while the transfer process was under way, he said, but once that was complete CGL would examine the finances to ensure all services could be run “on a stable, sustainable financial footing”.

The Charity Commission declined to confirm reports in the national media that it had opened a case into Lifeline Project shortly before its collapse because of concerns about its finances, but added that it did not have an open statutory inquiry into the charity.

David Holdsworth, chief operating officer at the Charity Commission, said the case highlighted the need for tight financial management and oversight by charity trustees.

“We are sad to hear of the charity’s planned closure, though we note that the trustees have worked to ensure that the majority of its services will continue and the impact on beneficiaries and staff is managed and minimised,” he said.

“In the meantime, we are engaged with the charity and its trustees, both to assess the events that have led to this outcome, and to ensure that trustees fulfil their duties and responsibilities in winding the charity up and passing its services to another charity.”

A spokesman for Lifeline Project declined to comment or confirm that the charity had actually closed, but the charity’s website has been removed and a telephone contact number for the charity listed on the commission website was unavailable.

Author: Scottish Government

Barriers to community engagement in planning: a research study commissioned by Scottish Government.

Undertaken by yellow book ltd

To read Executive Summary:  click here

To read Full Report : click here

Author: Community Enterprise

In the last two weeks of March 2017, funding decisions worth £9,692,000 were announced for groups CE development team had been working actively with.  With imminent funding likely on the back of this success, this has resulted in well over £10m of investment.  Some were revenue and some were capital investments, but all the groups were communities taking control of the things that matter to them.

Not a bad achievement in a fortnight.  Virtual corks popping (well we might have treated ourselves to an extra custard cream or two), and phone calls from happy clients.  Community Enterprise is unique in working long term with groups, really buying into their project and getting to know them. We wait with anticipation for these announcements, because we know that some of the most innovative and creative people in some challenging areas will see things happen.

Big shifts in policy towards community empowerment mean that there is more and more momentum towards communities taking control of buildings and services.  In Stranraer, a new re-vitalised community centre will address the severe impact of the movement of the ferry terminal, creating jobs and activity that will reinvigorate this community.  In Tranent, a 1920s art deco cinema will re-open offering health and well-being services to local people – as well as a completely community owned and controlled cinema again.  In the Broomhouse area of Edinburgh, over 20 years of social care and community support will be re-imagined into a community controlled anchor organisation driving local change.

Groups tell us that there are five things that lie behind this fortnight of success:

1.            It takes time and tenacity. One of these projects approached us with their fairly well-formed idea 12 years ago.  It has taken that long to get to this point. While working on these new ideas, community groups are spinning numerous other plates.  They don’t give up – but their tenacity needs support and encouragement.

2.            Failure is OK. All of these groups have had major bids rejected in the past.  A knock back is depressing and daunting but successful projects dust themselves down, use the learning to re-scope things and press on.  But again, they needed encouragement to do that.

3.            Support needs to be specialist. Our clients have had to tap into everything from VAT specialists to bat specialists.  They needed trusted out-sourced services and money to pay for them at the right time.  That too needed support, experience and knowledge.

4.            A joint approach early. Good things happen when funders, support agencies, and local groups talk to each other and work together.  Failure tends to happen when a group fills in a form and sends if off with fingers crossed.

5.            Groups need a long term trusted point of contact. The key to the success of all of these projects has been the sustained input of our development staff – visiting, keeping in touch, signposting, securing, and delivering the right support at the right time.  And that won’t end.  Once the funding is in place and the project is implemented, that encouraging point of contact becomes even more important.

Author: Ninian Stuart

Our community of Falkland is wrestling with the challenge of dealing with increasing numbers of visitors which is partly the result of the popular success of the film Outlander in which Falkland posed as Inverness.

Our dilemma caused by Outlander fans turning up in coaches that struggle to get around the village fountain combined with increased numbers coming to access the land (on an estate that welcomes land reform) has prompted the Community Council to set up a working group on transportation and begin to focus seriously on traffic flows. This in turn led the Chair of the Community Council, someone who is passionate about place and heritage, to invite a remarkable man called Ben Hamilton-Baillie from Bristol to come and advise us for a day. Having walked the streets, and spoken to a range of people, he came and spoke to a packed community hall about:

•          getting rid of white or yellow lines and street signs

•          re-cobbling some of the streets

•          and giving people as much right to be on the streets as cars.

His focus was on challenging and changing behaviour of motorists and pedestrians – and his last slide showed a photo of him lying on the roundabout by the school on the main road. It was pretty radical stuff for a conservative (with small “c”) community. At the end of the meeting the Chair asked Bill Lindsay (who heads up Development Planning for Fife Council) what he thought – and Bill said he would do what he can to support us as a community if we chose to go down this line. The chair then asked for a show of hands in support. A rough count indicated about 2/3 of hands went up. So interesting to see what happens next!

Are there any examples of communities in Scotland that have gone down this line (or perhaps I should say done away with lines) and challenged the dominance of the high way when it rides rough-shod through their communities?

If interested, please contact ninian@centreforstewardship.org.uk

Author: Joe Saxton , Third Sector Magazine

Charities should not campaign during an election. They should save their breath and money for when politicians are listening. There is strong and righteous indignation about the lobbying act and the chilling dampening it has on the likelihood of charities getting their messages across in a general election. It’s never been clear what problem it was trying to tackle, and has only served to demonstrate that there is one law for companies and another for charities.

However, there is a good side to the lobbying act. It might help to save charities from wasting their money on pointless and ineffectual campaigning. When a general election is called politicians are in broadcast and not listening mode. The job of a politician during an election is to come up with policies, ram them down our throats and persuade us that their party is the best one for government.

Charity campaigning during an election is like standing on a railway track in the face of a runaway train and shouting that you’d like to talk about their rail safety record. They’re not listening. They’re not interested. They’re politicians at the point when the annual cycle of politics is about to reach a climax. They might want to do a photo op with you and kiss any babies you have lying about, but don’t mistake that for cast-iron commitments to your policies.

There is another problem with campaigning during an election: most of the candidates are a waste of campaign effort. They aren’t going to be elected. There is absolutely no point in talking to a candidate and getting their promise for anything if they are not going to be an MP.

Indeed, there is little point in talking to an MP, because until it’s clear who forms the government their commitments are worth nothing. As I write this Labour are promising motherhood and apple pie, and one million new homes if elected. Meanwhile, the Tories are promising almost nothing but “strong and stable” leadership. Getting promises from an opposition MP is easy, but getting them from a party in government is something else completely. The Lib Dems’ promises on student fees in the 2010 election are proof of that (and it has made politicians much more reluctant to make those kinds of promises).

My own experience of campaigning during an election was charity election campaigning at its most pointless. During the election of 1987, there was a campaign called Walk for the World. Candidates signed a pledge to be nice to people in poor countries, or something similar. They all walked together for 100 yards, then went off to their next appointments (time has possibly etched away all but my most cynical memories of the campaign).

The perfect time for charities to campaign is when the election is won, the ministers are chosen and a government is forced to start running the country. At that stage ministers are most likely to want to implement some new ideas and quick wins. Maybe at that stage we will hear about the “shared society” from the new government. I think it sounds exciting.

So until about mid-July, charities can take a break from campaigning and focus on all their other priorities. Then they can do some seriously powerful influencing on the new government, when it’s formed and led by Tim Farron!

Joe Saxton is the founder and driver of ideas at the research consultancy nfpSynergy

Author: Duncan Maccann NEF

Last week’s Conservative Party manifesto launch was dominated by social care. But it also included proposals for “Future Britain Funds”, a new approach to capture public revenue for social interests.

Implemented correctly, a sovereign wealth fund could have a hugely positive impact on our economy, as seen in other countries around the world – from improved intergenerational fairness to much needed infrastructure investment.

To be a success in Britain, such a fund would need to follow seven principles:

1. PROVIDE PLANNING AND INVESTMENT FOR THE LONG TERM

It is vital that we start to think long term. Britain has historically not been good at long term investment and planning, and a wealth fund must be geared towards improving the lives of current and future generations.

2. THE FUND SHOULD BE PERMANENT

The principal should always be protected and maintained in line with inflation. Norway, owner of the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund, has a strict rule that a maximum of 4% of the total can be spent in any one year. Checks such as this protect against governments using the fund for short term political gain.

3. THE FUND MUST HAVE A SOCIAL FUNCTION

A wealth fund must come with clear criteria about the societal challenges it is designed to address.

Alaska, for example, uses their fund to tackle inequality, distributing dividends directly to all residents. As a result, it has one of the lowest levels of inequality among US states.

Britain’s fund could tackle collective social problems like adult social care, the housing crisis or climate change, all of which require large quantities of stable and patient capital.

4. THE FUND MUST BE ETHICAL

Investment decisions must be taken using strict ethical guidelines, focusing on the overall impact to society as well as economic returns.

A large scale consultation should be conducted to understand how this should be applied in the UK, similarly to the process followed by Norway. After a multi-year consultation to develop the criteria, the country now has an Ethics Council which decides which industries and companies should be excluded. As a result, the fund avoids companies responsible for human rights abuses and environmental destruction.

5. THE FUND MUST BE TRANSPARENT AND ACCOUNTABLE

Appointments to the board, investment decisions, annual reports should all be transparent in order to ensure accountability.

The board should be a mixture of appointed people with specific skills coupled with citizen representatives, who could be elected. The board would be accountable to us all as collective owners and would be required to act at all times in line with governance structures and rules that had been set up.

6. OWNED BY BRITISH PEOPLE, COLLECTIVELY – NOT BY THE STATE

The fund needs to be owned by those whose interests it has been set up to serve – the British people. This means setting up a new ownership structure outside the traditional public/private dichotomy.

One example of this can again be found in Alaska. Its Permanent Fund has shown remarkable endurance and stability in the face of hostile moves by the state government. The courts there ruled in favour of the people and prevented the state government from accessing the fund. Attempts to close the fund were also rebuffed by a referendum.

7. THE FUND SHOULD MAKE BEST USE OF THE PUBLIC ASSETS WE ALREADY OWN

The UK public sector currently owns about £360billion worth of land and property which is managed sub-optimally and could be actively used to solve our pressing housing crisis. Rather than flogging the land off in a counterproductive firesale – often abandoning valuable assets to big property developers – we could take control of this public land portfolio and use it as the starter investment for a wealth fund.

The Crown Estate provides a useful model for how this can be done. It manages a property portfolio of over £12bn and generates surplus profits of £300million through active management while maximising their total contribution to society and not just their bottom line.

Plans for shale gas funds may follow similar rationale, but it is vital that proceeds are not used simply as part of efforts to encourage local people to tolerate potentially dangerous activity.

Orkney and Shetland have shown it is possible to recoup money from industries for disturbances caused by extracting natural resources. These funds are then best used as part of efforts to mitigate the future impacts of climate change – not simply to offset a continued extraction and burning of fossil fuels, for which we will all eventually pay a heavy price.