Development trusts boost local democracy

November 4, 2009

As our representative democracy become ever less popular with voters, other forms of democracy – more participative in nature – seems to be on the rise. New research published by Carnegie UK points to the rapid growth of rural development trusts and suggests that this could be the saving of our ailing representative structures

Author: Rosie Niven

Rural development trusts are short of cash, but provide a flourishing participatory form of democracy, research published this week has revealed.

The Carnegie UK Trust’s manifesto for rural communities finds development trusts punching above their weight when it comes to promoting local democracy as traditional representative structures struggling to attract voters.

The evidence gathered through a collaboration with the Big Lottery Fund and 44 frontline organisations reveals that that while rural and semi-rural development trusts are increasing in number, they are much smaller than their urban counterparts.

The research suggests that many are struggling financially with limited access to assets and earned income, both key indicators of sustainability. This means that many trusts are not achieving as great an impact in their communities as they might.

The report explores in detail ten characteristics of the resilient community of the future. It suggests that dynamic, vibrant and sustainable communities need creative people working together, assets to support their aspirations and agencies, and local people collaborating to an agreed plan.

Development trusts and representative structures each have distinctive and complementary roles, the report notes. It suggests that a local council or community council could commission a local plan and the development trust deliver the actions.

‘A positive relationship with the town or parish council is a strong enabling factor for effective community partnership. Efforts by external bodies to isolate community partnerships from their local council are counterproductive, although a degree of independence is positive,’ the report says.

The experiences of pioneering rural communities in championing sustainable lifestyles can inspire neighbourhoods everywhere, it adds. It builds upon the vision provided by the trust its 2007 charter for rural communities, but acknowledges the accelerating pace of economic, environmental and social change.

Kate Braithwaite, director of Carnegie’s rural programme said: ‘Although this report draws on innovative ideas from rural communities, it is relevant to neighbourhoods everywhere. All communities are increasingly faced with radical change where there are no existing solutions. We need new structures and new thinking to achieve our vision for the future.’

Briefings

Key funder at risk

Since being set up in 1985, Lloyds TSB Foundation for Scotland has made some 12,000 awards (£84 million) to our sector. But now the future of the Foundation, which was set up by an Act of Parliament, is threatened by the actions of  Lloyds Banking Group (43% owned by the taxpayer) . A petition calling on Gordon Brown PM to intervene has been launched

A petition calling on Prime Minister Gordon Brown to “save” the Lloyds TSB Foundation for Scotland has attracted 1,540 signatures.

The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations set up the petition on the 10 Downing Street website on 27 October.

Click here to sign the petition.

The petition calls on Brown to intervene to save the foundation, which has said it will suspend its grant-making in less than two months after rejecting a funding proposal from the Lloyds Banking Group.

The group offered the foundation £25m of bridging funds over four years. But the offer was conditional on the foundation accepting a cut in the amount it receives from the group in future from 1 per cent to 0.5 per cent of pre-tax profits, the placing of senior bank staff on its board and the ceding to the bank of decisions about where money is spent.

Mary Craig, chief executive of the Lloyds TSB Foundation for Scotland, said the proposal would make the foundation into a marketing arm of the group.

Lucy McTernan, deputy chief executive of the SCVO, said: “Over the past year the Lloyds Banking Group has received billions in government bailout.”

“It is now 43 per cent owned by the taxpayer. The SCVO calls on Gordon Brown to step in to ensure that the Lloyds Banking Group commits to retaining the existing terms and conditions of the Lloyds TSB Foundation”

Since it was established in 1985, over 12,000 awards have been made to charities working with disadvantaged communities and people across Scotland. Although existing commitments will be honoured, communities across Scotland will be hard hit by the closure of the foundation which has provided over £84 million since it started. The Foundation’s ability to continue to support good causes is now under threat, as it relies on a percentage of pre-tax profits from Lloyds Banking Group for its funds. As the Bank has announced that it will make no profit this year, the future of the Foundation is at risk. In these tough economic times, charities, community groups, voluntary organisations and social enterprises need the support of organisations like the Lloyds TSB Foundation more than ever.

Briefings

What happens once the ring fencing goes?

The regeneration of our most deprived communities has always involved a certain amount of targeted resources - most recently the Fairer Scotland Fund, a ring-fenced cash allocation to Councils. From April next year,ring fenced restrictions become a thing of the past.  With the all the other pressures on public finances, there's a lot concern as to how this will impact on front line services.  Govt and COSLA have published a new joint statement to clarify their respective positions

For decades, there have been areas in Scotland where a variety of complex, interrelated factors such as economic decline, unemployment, low levels of educational attainment, and poor health have combined to create concentrated multiple deprivation and significant challenges for the people living there.

These are our most disadvantaged communities, and for the past thirty years a series of national programmes have attempted to accelerate improved living conditions, opportunities and outcomes in local areas. By targeting ring-fenced investment, government at national and local level has been trying to reduce the socio-economic inequality that exists between these communities and the rest of Scotland.

Despite the best efforts of these community regeneration programmes, stark inequalities between geographical communities persist. There are still too many communities in Scotland experiencing very high levels of multiple deprivation relative to their neighbours. Release of the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation 2009 (SIMD 09) demonstrates this once again.

Download document here

Briefings

Politicians discourage local leadership

In a recent article in the Guardian, Simon Jenkins says that British politicians hate the idea of strong local leadership –  for fear that it dilutes their own power base. He says that in the absence of accountable local leadership,  the police are increasingly being forced into representing community authority

Author: Simon Jenkins

Reaction to the Pilkington deaths was predictable in a nation where social activities are deterred and civic leadership is extinct

The prime minister yesterday announced that “feral Britain” is to be fought with more police and asbos. In an eerie echo of John Major’s dying call for Victorian values, Gordon Brown said the country needed tighter discipline, more parental regulation and a boost to antisocial behaviour orders. After a decade of toughness on the causes of crime, this is the best we can do. It is like trying to bring peace to Afghanistan with more bullets.

Monday’s Leicestershire jury verdict on the Pilkington deaths was typical of British public opinion. It blamed the police and local officials for “contributing” to their tragic end. This was converted by the press into “letting it happen”. Apologies were demanded from the chief of Leicestershire police, who duly gave them. An inquiry was launched by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. Asbos are to be strengthened and “50,000 most chaotic families” identified in some giant Domesday survey for compulsory treatment. This is the state in all its splendour. As after the Soham and Croxteth murders or the Doncaster child assaults, government must be seen to do something instant, and preferably to electoral advantage.

There is not another country in the free world where the sole representative of community authority is the chief of police. There is not another country where, whenever some antisocial activity or even family failure takes place, everyone turns to the law. Such is modern Britain, where social policy is reduced to surveillance cameras and databases, where citizens are casually thrown in jail for petty fraud, sex under 16, drug possession and not paying BBC licence fees.

Where is civic leadership in Leicestershire? It is as invisible this week as when Fiona Pilkington was suffering her torment. Her parish councillor would not even reveal his name. Accountable local leaders have all but departed the political landscape in Britain. We have almost no elected mayors, no figureheads to express the regret or anger of town or city – let alone to take curative action. There are only introverted oligarchies. Councillors owe loyalty to party, rather than neighbourhood, and remain largely unknown to their communities.

Instead, in each recent case of high-profile neighbourhood breakdown, local leadership is presented to the world through a uniform. Even teachers and youth workers, former partners in upholding communal discipline, are so hidebound by regulation as to have largely fled. Soon friends and neighbours will also be deterred from social activities considered second nature in any normal community, under the lash of the Criminal Records Bureau and Ofsted. Ministers do nothing about it.

In a rare case when a politician appears over the parapet, it is a Westminster one. Only when Fiona Pilkington wrote to her MP did the police even begin to respond to her plight. But in such cases MPs cannot assume the function of a de facto mayor as they have no executive power. They are mere lobbyists.

British citizens now regard their police as a one-stop shop for rectifying the nuances of antisocial behaviour. The constabulary is saddled not just with law enforcement but with community mediation, counselling, social disruption and family and marital breakdown. This role as social prefect is an intolerable burden.

Meanwhile local democracy is regarded by Westminster politicians and commentators as a joke. Its informal disciplines were dismissed by the home secretary, Alan Johnson, yesterday as those of an implausible golden age. Those disciplines went out with Labour nationalisation, reinforced by the dynamic centralism of Margaret Thatcher’s war on local councils. Macho political science became Westminster political science. Localism was for nerds and conference speechwriters.

In the Pilkingon case, the jury turned not to an accountable executive but to an unreadable 104-page Whitehall document with the title, “Hate Crime: Delivering a Quality Service (Good Practice and Tactical Guidance)”. Among a mass of Blairite drivel it opines that it is “a mark of civilisation” that “the state protects the vulnerable”. That state is central government with local as its agent. Nobody is really responsible.

The public clearly feels impotent. Whatever Gordon Brown may claim, there is no national framework of law, order and regulation that can handle the subtleties of neighbourhood control. Outside the communist world, such centralised discipline has been attempted nowhere but in modern Britain, a relic of some monarchical prerogative rooted in the genes of the ruling class.

In France or Germany or Italy or Spain, the first recourse in the Pilkington case would have been to the mayor or local councillor, someone who knew the parties concerned, and had sufficient local influence to make informal discipline effective. The knock on the door would come from a neighbourhood politician before a policeman.

A symbol of this is that local politicians are recognised in Germany by about 80% of their populations (against less than 20% in Britain). In France there is an elected official for roughly every 100 voters. This must in part explain the often noted community cohesion in these countries, and a far lower propensity to imprison for petty crimes.

British politicians hate the idea of stronger local institutions. Above all, they hate elected mayors or other such leaders who might develop a constituency base that dilutes their own. The conduits of power reflect this preference. An MP of my acquaintance says that he nowadays phones the police with a problem far more often than he phones his council. Sensing this shift in accountability, the Tories are even proposing to elect police chiefs, but not mayors. They sense a democratic vacuum but dare not fill it with real politics.

The government’s big idea for tackling antisocial behaviour, the asbo, was seen as a short cut to petty crime reduction. Yet the crudeness and bureaucracy associated with asbos have led to a halving of the number used in the last four years, and a poor success rate. Like a dozen other gimmicks introduced by this government, they are not real innovations but pretences to appease rightwing newspapers. It is a measure of the intellectual bankruptcy of British democracy that nobody has any real idea what to do next – except press more powers on the police.

Briefings

Think Tanks offer three big ideas

October 21, 2009

In 2007, SCVO were awarded £8m by the Lottery to run a 5 year programme called Supporting Voluntary Action (SVA) with the aim of improving the quality of support on offer to Scotland’s voluntary sector. The programme is composed of several inter- connected projects and one of these – the SVA Think Tanks – has just come to an end.  Their task was to come up with a shared vision of what was needed. They came up with three big ideas

Three Key Ideas from SVA Think Tanks

As a culmination of all of their thinking and discussions, the Think Tanks members present three key ideas which could enable better collaboration across all areas of the infrastructure – both local and national.

These ideas also support improvements to practice and service delivery. They are ideas the Think Tanks members are confident will encourage further discussion to gain buy-in and further action.

Idea: A Congress for Infrastructure
What is this?

A national Congress of all infrastructure support organisations – CVS, VCs, national intermediaries, national social enterprise support bodies and local networks and LSEPs (estimated to be as many as 140 bodies currently);

The purpose is to provide an environment for working together to deliver the vision for the infrastructure, as outlined by the Think Tanks;

This builds on what has happened through the Think Tanks and continues the thinking and collaboration;

A Congress becomes the leadership home for the infrastructure. It would not be the leadership itself, but the place where leadership happens;

Participants would be expected to sign up to core values, principles and mission for the infrastructure;

All members would also commit to constructively engaging with the Framework (see below).

How does it work?

The Congress involves physical gatherings – once or twice a year. It could be supported by and be populated by working groups, for example, nationals and locals, thematic, specialist/generalist;

It is supported by a shared identity for infrastructure – a ‘badge’;

The Congress creates supports and owns a virtual portal – the ‘Framework’. All Congress members would be part of this portal.

Idea: A Framework for Infrastructure
What is this?

The Framework is a virtual portal aligned to a defined network of local access points. This supports infrastructure is joined up at a national and a local level;

At its heart it is a consolidated ‘portal’ IT system which links together and cross references all existing information, web systems and databases that contribute to the collaborative infrastructure network. It also is set up for easy ‘referral’ across services, with feedback loops for continual improvement;

It has an internal side (‘intranet’) for ‘members (the infrastructure) only’ with infrastructure tools and resources. It also has an external side for the wider sector and the public with information, contacts, relevant databases, etc.;

Importantly, it is also linked to real services. It is seen as a „one-stop-shop‟ that is of a high quality and can be branded. Hence the Framework is linked too (but not dependent on) the ‘badge’;

All members who sign up to the Framework sign up to an agreed process for moving towards maximisation of shared resources. The Framework is about working smarter and working more collaboratively but also ensuring those who access services have a better quality of service;

Importantly, it brings about opportunities for new added value services and systems;

This can be a platform that enables infrastructure to go beyond government expectations. It should be a vehicle or a mechanism which supports wider community engagement and development. As a local or national interface this should support opportunities to get involved with community learning and development, community engagement, etc.

How does it work?

At a local level it is more ‘real’ rather than virtual with high quality effective services in each area. Here it should be beyond a web presence, not just a technical solution, with staff and expertise on the ground to back up the web materials. There could be one ‘interface for the mainframe’ per local authority area – but with multiple access points across the area.

At a national level it is more ‘virtual’ – a portal supported by a real and cohesive support system. It would support national organisations who wish to work at a local level and local organisations who wish to make links nationally.

It needs to be easy to find for those who wish to access infrastructure support services and the expertise on offer.

There is a need to build trust in being part of this and operating through it with clarity around roles and remits within the structure. This might take the form of partnership agreements or memorandums of understanding.

All taking part need to commit to populating it by using a central management information system and knowledge base. They also need to commit to sharing expertise, learning and information and supporting improved service planning.

It needs a regular and robust exchange of communication – linked to quality of service – by ensuring a feedback loop is in place.

The framework/mainframe could also enable further development of shared resources such as a talent pool/consultancy network from staff within the infrastructure or a ‘time bank’ of expertise.

Idea: A Badge and Brand for Infrastructure
What is this?

A ‘badge’ which guarantees a level of quality of service from infrastructure support services active in Scotland.

A brand identity for infrastructure in Scotland (a ‘fair trade’ type brand) which identifies clearly that this organisation is committed to high quality and provides evidence of the infrastructure organisation’s commitment to being part of a collaborative system.

This becomes a collective identity which is distinctive and additional to each organisation’s own identity.

There is mutual benefit in being part of the brand and working towards the ‘badge’.

It encourages organisations to actively engage with the system and not just be passive.

How does it work?

It requires buy in from across the infrastructure to make both brand and badge work.

The brand needs to be accessible and easy to recognise, avoiding jargon and unnecessary hoops to jump through.

The brand identity should be professional (bringing in professional help to produce it).

The badge should enable organisations to move towards a quality system – with acceptable minimum standards to begin with but encouraging working toward higher levels.

It should be flexible and inclusive to be relevant for all infrastructure organisations.

Whilst these three ideas are distinct, they do also link together to provide the overall framework and setting for a collaborative infrastructure.
For a copy of the full report http://www.scvo.org.uk/scvocms/images/SVA/FrameworkforFuture.pdf

Briefings

Voluntary Action Scotland aim high

Although not part of the planned activity of Supporting Voluntary Action, a development which will undoubtedly prove to be of major significance took place earlier this year. The CVS network, a key part of the support infrastructure, voted to break away from SCVO and set up their own organisation. Last week Voluntary Action Scotland held its first conference. They have has set themselves an ambitious programme

Voluntary Action Scotland – Walking Tall (an extract from report- Collaborating for a Better Future, Oct 09)

We aspire to be a strong, national body which promotes, supports, develops and represents member organisations to deliver better outcomes in our local communities. This will take time, but we’re already considering how we can fast-track certain elements of this, other than the move to a wider partnership model – as discussed extensively within this report. As we approach the end of the CVS and VC networks three year funding agreement with the Scottish Government, we need to ensure our members are in a strong position to negotiate continued investment, the kind of investment which will both support the Government’s strategic objectives and our own local priorities to build strong communities in every part of Scotland.

Going forward, we believe there are a number of areas of work where VAS could be concerned. The list below is an early indication of where we think VAS could go. As we continue to develop, we will be engaging with our members to ensure we’re doing the things that matter and that make a difference to our members.

Key, potential roles for Voluntary Action Scotland:

1. Strong, single voice at national level which is made up of local voices and grass roots experience, for example giving evidence in Parliament;

2. The ability to access national, strategic tables and seek an audience with key policy makers/influencers and strategic partners e.g. Scottish Government, COSLA, SOLACE, DInC Forum, Third Sector Task Group, SVA Management Group and National

Intermediaries Network;
3. The national voice will only ever represent the needs of local infrastructure – there can be no conflict of interest because VAS will not deliver services;

4. Key ‘interface’ for Scottish Government departments to allow fast, efficient access to local infrastructure across every part of Scotland;

5. Ability to get intelligence and information about the local picture to national tables quickly, through a single channel to provide early warning of a crisis, communicate the impact of policy decisions and implementation and influence policy development;

6. VAS can promote and co-ordinate collaborative working and compete for national contracts which can be delivered by local infrastructure, a considerably more attractive proposition for national bodies;

7. CPPs are not able to receive monies, so opportunities may exist for VAS to receive monies to distribute through local interfaces;

8. Policy and research co-ordination and facilitation on behalf of members;

9. Commission support services from best provider, achieving economies of scale, overseeing contract performance and ensuring customer satisfaction;

10. National marketing/PR co-ordination for local infrastructure;

11. Facilitating networking, promoting sharing of information and expertise amongst members;

12. Support the membership to adopt quality standards and uphold them;

13. Brand management and promotion;

14. Peer support and mentoring within network;

15. Organising network meetings and conference(s);

16. Facilitate communities of practice;

17. If working according to plan, VAS should be able to procure network support services for less money than currently allocated – any savings should go directly to local interfaces to invest in local service delivery;

18. VAS could ‘own’ things on behalf of local infrastructure and will always allow members to decide what happens with such assets – things like toolkits, websites, databases, nationally-developed learning resources etc.

19. VAS could ‘own’ the infrastructure share of other resources, e.g. SVA products, and ensure they are fit for local need, maintained to continue to meet local need and cannot be changed without agreement of local infrastructure. This presents a simpler, more attractive model for national agencies such as Big Lottery, SCVO etc.;

20. Ensure strategic national relationships are to benefit members, not VAS – because VAS will not deliver services; it cannot compete with its own members – this must be a fundamental principle to ensure support and trust of prospective membership;

21. Members will decide how VAS spends any generated income, including any distribution back to members;

22. There is a role for VAS to promote the move to interfaces and to support organisations to establish the best interface arrangements possible in their area.

We hope the above list gives a good sense of some of the opportunities that lie ahead for VAS, and by definition, our members. VAS’s Directors are excited about these opportunities and we look forward to discussing them with members and partners as we go forward.

Briefings

SOAs – barely a mention of community sector

The CVS network has been handed a key role in the development of the Single Interfaces. The Single Interface has been proposed as the single point of access into Community Planning and the Single Outcome Agreements. A recent search of all SOA’s for any meaningful reference to community empowerment or even community engagement, suggests Single Interfaces are going to have their work cut to satisfy our sector. See what your local SOA has to say

REFERENCES IN SINGLE OUTCOME AGREEMENTS TO COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT AND/OR ENGAGEMENT. COMPARISONS MADE FOR 2008 AND 2009

In summary
•    the majority of SOAs appear to have some reference to community engagement. Most of these references in the commentary refer to how the SOA’s etc have been influenced by local communities through various forms of community engagement.
•    only 5 references of any sort to community empowerment and only one specific local action (Stirling in 2009 which concerns developing the local implementation of the Community Empowerment Action Plan) and a couple of actions requested of the Scottish Government (Scottish Borders: SG to commit to the CEAP; Aberdeenshire: SG to commit to the empowerment of local people)
•    a dozen authorities (Aberdeenshire, Angus, Argyll and Bute, Dumfries and Galloway, Dundee, E Lothian, Fife, N Ayrshire, Perth and Kinross, Shetland, S Ayrshire, Stirling and W Dunbartonshire) have some specific actions regarding improving/increasing community engagement and far fewer (3) that have a specific local outcome about community engagement. Most of these references are from 2008 SOA’s.

ABERDEEN

SOA 2008

“Engaging with local people is also vital to ensure that the plans we develop locally meet the stated need of communities and individuals. National Standards for Community Engagement have been introduced to ensure that involvement in all aspects of local planning is encouraged.”

“We have also agreed a Community Engagement Strategy. This means that partners are committed to supporting community engagement and
involvement in the determination of public service provision in the City.”

“NO11 Context: Community engagement structures have been established and are being further developed at Neighbourhood, City and Communities of Interest levels. Their effectiveness is supported by community capacity building work with geographical communities and communities of interest, carried out by Community Learning and Development and other development staff. An evaluation of the impact on the community of this work was carried out in June 2008, providing a qualitative baseline. “

SOA 2009

“Aberdeen City’s Community Plan states that Aberdeen will be a City with a strong, vibrant local democracy and a sense of civic pride. Community engagement in community planning is enabled by a range of participative community groups including the Civic Forum, a range of Communities of Interest Forums for the equalities communities, 23 out of a possible 31 community councils, a number of neighbourhood networks and a Regeneration Matters forum. Neighbourhood Community Action Plans are in place for each neighbourhood in the City, developed through engagement by partners with the local communities. A high level of actions from the Action Plans will be reported at the end of March 2009.”

ABERDEENSHIRE

SOA 2008

“NO 11 Local Context: Aberdeenshire wishes to be the best council in Scotland, where the community planning framework and joint working with communities, private and voluntary sector partners ensures that people are involved, listened to and empowered and where excellent services are provided for all. Much work has already been undertaken to embed the National Standards for Community Engagement (NSCE) in practice across the community planning partnership. A strategy based on these standards has been produced to engage young people in community planning and services development. This has led to young people participating in numerous consultations in the last year and leading training and workshop sessions for partners at local and national level. This had already had an impact on services planning and delivery.

Action required by Scottish Government: Continued commitment to the empowerment of local people and the concept of community planning”

“This agreement covers all Aberdeenshire Council services, including those delivered by or with Government agencies (NDPBs), other agencies, businesses, the third sector and other partners. It also covers the Council’s, Scottish Government’s, and where appropriate
Community Planning Partners’ duties in relation to community planning, best value, equalities and sustainable development.

This SOA builds on stakeholder consultations and community involvement for the Aberdeenshire community plan and the Council’s Strategic Priorities, including:
• consultation undertaken in developing the Aberdeenshire community plan 2006 – 2010
• the community planning partnership’s quarterly citizens’ panel surveys
• the Council’s regular residents’ survey
• consultation carried out by individual partners in developing their own key strategies and plans.

In the short time available it has not been possible to undertake stakeholder consultations or involve communities directly in the development of the SOA. This will be done as part of the development of the Aberdeenshire SOA in 2009.

The agreement also builds on a number of approved council and partnership plans and strategies, for example the Aberdeenshire community plan and the council’s strategic priorities. In many cases it has been possible to take local outcomes and relevant indicators directly from these plans and strategies, sometimes adding more specific targets. Related key strategies and plans are recorded in the local context section against each national outcome.”

“National Outcome 11: We have strong, resilient and supportive communities where people take responsibility for their own actions and how they affect others.

Local Context: Aberdeenshire wishes to be the best area in Scotland, where the community planning framework and joint working with communities, private and third sector partners ensure that people are involved, listened to and empowered and where excellent services are provided for all. Much work has already been undertaken to embed the National Standards for Community Engagement (NSCE) in practice across the Community Planning Partnership. A strategy based on these standards has been produced to engage young people in community planning and services development. This has led to young people participating in numerous consultations in the last year and leading training and workshop sessions for partners at local and national level. This had already had an impact on services planning and delivery.
Other aspects of this outcome are linked to the work of the Community Safety partnership and the Developing Our Partnerships theme of the Community Plan. The Council of Voluntary Service, , Volunteer Centre Aberdeenshire ,Rural Partnerships and Community Learning and Development are working together to build capacity of communities.”

National Outcome 11: We have strong, resilient and supportive communities where people take responsibility for their own actions and how they affect others.

Local Outcome 11.1: An improved approach to engagement and consultation with actively involved residents and communities.
(relates to Fairer Scotland Fund work)
Local Indicator/s: indicators relating to compliance with NSCE, community councils engagement.

ANGUS

SOA 2008

“Partners are keen to develop community engagement and active citizenship, to complement and inform local and area arrangements.
The Angus Community Planning Partnership will continue to create opportunities and support people’s participation in community life, for example through the local area partnerships. The council’s community learning and development service is working with people to equip them with the skills and knowledge to participate”

“NO 11 Context: Angus is particularly proud of its approach to Community Engagement, there are a full quota of community councils in the county and effective Local Area Partnership arrangements contribute to the local community planning agenda. Angus Council Community Learning and Development works closely with a range of partners to build community capacity and Angus Council and its partners ensure, via the Community Planning Partnership, that the National Community Engagement Standards are followed and that all stakeholders can contribute to decision-making via consultations. Angus Council and its partners work hard to promote and support volunteering.

Number of related actions: Provide training for appropriate staff and volunteers involved in community engagement; Introduce new community engagement arrangements in Sidlaw/Newtyle and the Angus Glens;

SOA 2009

“Community Engagement

Community engagement is one of the six key priority areas within the Angus Community Plan 2007-2012. Over the year the Angus Community Planning Partnership considered a report by the group established to progress work in this area.

An Active Citizenship Strategic Statement and action plan has been approved. It is worth highlighting progress against two of the actions in the statement and action plan.

The first of these is a community engagement impact assessment. The first assessment was undertaken in 2008, with an impressive response about the level and depth of community engagement across a range of partner organisations involved in community planning activity. The results of this exercise were reported to the Angus Community Planning Partnership in 2008. A further community engagement impact assessment exercise has been undertaken in 2008, the results of which are now available. It has been agreed that, under the new arrangements for managing performance around the SOA, the Lifelong Learning partnership will take the lead for progressing work in this area. Link to Active Citizenship Strategy Report

The second area of development relates to Better Community Engagement training. Over 100 staff across partner organisations have participated in the training, which builds on the standards for Community Engagement, through the work of Learning Connections Scotland in developing competencies for community engagement activity. An interim evaluation of this training has been undertaken and reported to the Angus Community Planning Partnership in 2008. Link to Better Community Engagement Training Report

In terms of local community planning there are two pilots underway in Kirriemuir and the Glens and the Carnoustie areas of Angus. This work was designed to create better links between the thematic groups and local community engagement. The initial report on the pilot was considered in 2007 for Kirriemuir and the Glens and for Carnoustie. There has been good progress in both areas over the year. A report on the outcome of the pilots, along with recommendations for the further development of local community planning in Angus, was considered by Angus Council’s Strategic Policy Committee in early February 2009.”

ARGYLL AND BUTE

SOA 2008

“Fairer Argyll and Bute Plan objectives: effective community engagement across Argyll and Bute”

“Strengthening Community Capacity

The community regeneration model of community engagement was highlighted by HMIE as an example of good practice. Using this
approach would provide a foundation for strengthening community development, building on the existing structure. This allows us to
address gaps in capacity across Argyll & Bute. There will be a range of methods used to strengthen community engagement: capacity building
through community development posts; developing the community planning infrastructure to involve young people; support for the Public
Health Networks; and developing links with Public Partnership Forums.

There is a need to invest in the development of the Third Sector, which has a key role in building community capacity. Third sector partners
who provide support, advice and guidance to other third sector organisations and groups have been invited to come forward with
proposals to radically change the way support is accessed and provided to all communities across Argyll and Bute.

Initial contact was with the Mull and Iona Community Trust, Argyll and Bute Volunteer Centre, the Argyll and Bute Social Enterprise Network and the three CVSs that operate in Argyll and Bute. These organisations are now working with others to develop proposals by the end of September 2008 to improve the quality of service provided and to ensure that access is equitable. The Council is willing to invest up to £180,000 per annum if the proposals meet the desired outcomes to ensure the long term development of this sector. “

SOA 2009

“In Argyll and Bute, we are working in partnership to minimise risk, improve performance and empower communities through effective
community engagement. This approach will allow us to drive continuous improvement in line with the views of our customers.”

“NO7, The Community Planning Partnership is developing a Community Engagement Strategy that will improve our engagement with previously hard to reach groups.”

“A new Community Planning Partnership Community Engagement Strategy is in draft form. A range of methods will be used to strengthen
community capacity to ensure more effective engagement: community engagement posts; developing the community planning infrastructure
to involve young people; support for the Public Health Networks; clear links in each locality and the annual Community Planning Conference.”

“FAB Plan outcome: Communities are influencing Community Planning process to ensure local needs are met. Action: Coordination of community engagement across all CPP Partners.”

CITY OF EDINBURGH

SOA 2008

“Central to the ethos of the Council is the need to engage effectively with local communities. The Council has established 12 Neighbourhood Partnerships across the city which bring together elected members, health, police, voluntary sector partners and local community representatives to discuss local issues, identify and refine local priorities and make decisions about ways in which to improve these services. As advisory committees, they also enable the Council to be more accountable to the residents of Edinburgh on how well services are
performing and meeting the needs of local residents. Neighbourhood priorities and improvement targets will be set out in neighbourhood plans, reflecting the most appropriate outcomes for each area. These should be in place by the summer of 2008”

SOA 2009

“5. Working in partnership to improve community safety and quality of life in our communities

Neighbourhood Services and Working with Communities

The city’s 12 Neighbourhood Partnerships are the local tier of community planning. Their local plans set out the priorities for these areas and help to focus partnership activity with communities. Improving service quality in neighbourhoods and improving customer services are priorities of the Council’s Achieving Excellence programme. Recent performance as measured by statutory performance indicators has demonstrated that the city is performing well, with a rate of improvement amongst the highest of the urban councils. All city partners are committed to working in partnership with communities and the National Standards for Community Engagement and the Edinburgh Partnership’s Community Engagement Strategy, Listening to Communities to Improve Services xviii, offer the framework for this activity. The Council’s Residents’ Survey is carried out regularly to provide information about residents’ perceptions and on issues including quality of life in the city. Edinburgh is highly regarded as a place to live and satisfaction rates have increased since 2006, to 92%. Areas for improvement suggested by residents include transport, youth facilities, and street cleanliness. An Annual Neighbourhood Survey is also carried out to examine issues in more detail at the local level.”

CLACKMANNANSHIRE

SOA 2008

“With the development of a fuller partnership SOA in future years, there will be greater opportunities for stakeholder input, using a variety of community engagement approaches.”

Description of engagement of partner organisations in development of Fairer Scotland Fund Proposals.

SOA 2009

No references

COMHAIRLE NAN EILEAN SIAR

SOA 2008

“Local outcome 11.2 Empowered and confident communities participating in local decision making”

SOA 2009

“The OHCPP recognises that the approach contained in the new SOA is the start of a revitalised process which will continue over the course of the next 12 months and which is outlined in Section 7 of the SOA – ‘Making it Happen.’ This envisages enhanced community engagement and shared ownership for the delivery of the agreed outcomes.”

“Community involvement
The sustainability of fragile communities in the Outer Hebrides are more than most dependent upon fully engaged and participative citizens. The 2007 Community Appraisals survey found that an overwhelming majority (94%) of respondents were satisfied with life in the islands. The main reasons given were largely concerning the environment and family rather than availability of services or any economic reasons. For communities to be sustainable the active participation of those happy to live in the area is required. A majority of residents are involved in volunteering activity (55%) but conversely relatively small levels participate in classes, clubs or learning activities (26%).”

“Local objectives: improve community engagement”

“Community Engagement
Community engagement is paramount to ensuring that what the partners are delivering is what the people of the Outer Hebrides want and require. Over the next twelve months, the partners will facilitate four key events and related processes to gain the views and ideas of the community. These will be focused on:
• Business, Economy and Population
• Health and Environment
• Education, Training and Skills Development
• Empowering Communities and Delivering Services
To encourage a continuous open dialogue with all sectors of the community, the Outer Hebrides Community Planning Partnership will also hold six open meetings throughout the year. These meetings will enable the communities to get the opportunity to ask questions and offer input at the end of each session after observing the process of debate, discussion and decision making.”

DUMFRIES AND GALLOWAY

SOA 2008

“Community Engagement

Our Community Engagement activities are conducted in numerous ways and include Quality of Service questionnaires, consultation days, direct, regular interaction with Community Councils, school liaison and the development of forums such as the ‘Xchange’ forum and ‘Community Voice’ platform. It will be our aim to ensure that our consultation processes are as relevant, focused and effective as possible and that they comply with the National Standards for Community Engagement. We also aim to engage more effectively with the Third Sector in D&G through implementation of the Compact, which was endorsed by the Joint Board in March 2008. Activities during 2008/9 will include agreement of an action plan to implement, monitor and develop the Compact.”

“LO: A place where people feel better connected, secure and at home. LI 3.18 Number of individuals in deprived areas encouraged to become involved within their communities (FSF) Action: Continue rolling programme of community engagement activity to result in an additional 150 individuals from vulnerable circumstances / deprived areas being positively engaged by 2010 with the model being a possible vehicle for ongoing consultation facilitated by external experts.”

SOA 2009

“The consultation programme followed the National Standards for Community Engagement and used a number of different methods of engagement including online surveys, customer service surveys and facilitated discussions and a number of written submissions were also received.”

DUNDEE

SOA 2008

“The importance of community engagement to the Dundee Partnership has been emphasised each year in the Regeneration Outcome Agreement annual report. This has evidenced the good practice in Dundee and the desire to continually improve through better joining up across partners and increasing our reach into communities. This SOA builds on the community engagement which informed both the Community and Council Plans and will continue to be a priority through our work in Local Community Planning Partnerships, community representative organisations, equalities groups and relationships developed within the voluntary sector.”

A significant new development which will inform and support the delivery of the single outcome agreement is the formation of Local Community Planning Partnerships. These new groups are based on multi-member electoral wards and will bring elected members, community representatives and partner agencies together. It is inevitable that these local partnerships will influence the shape of the Single Outcome Agreement and will drive the achievement of outcomes at the heart of communities.

SOA 2009

“Local Community Planning Partnerships have been established in each of the eight electoral wards in Dundee. These bring together elected members, community representatives and partner agencies in a new relationship to achieve local outcomes which improve communities. Over the last 9 months each new LCPP has worked within neighbourhoods and with other stakeholders to develop an outcome-based local community plan and action plan.
Extensive community engagement shaped individual local community plans and, when taken together, key issues emerged which influence the wider Partnership agenda and, consequently, the Single Outcome Agreement.”

“The importance of community engagement to the Dundee Partnership was emphasised and acknowledged each year in the Regeneration Outcome Agreement annual reports. These evidenced the good practice in Dundee and the desire to continually improve through better joining up across partners and increasing our reach into communities. The Partnership has built on the community engagement which informed the first SOA and deepened this through the Local Community Planning Partnerships. Over the next year this will be taken further with each LCPP developing its own community engagement framework underpinned by an examination of the key National Standards for Community Engagement.”

Effective Community Engagement Increase levels of participation in local community planning
• Increase levels of community capacity building to support local groups

EAST AYRSHIRE

SOA 2008

“NO11, Action required by local partners:

• continuing to support the two Federations of Community Groups to ensure the systematic engagement of community representatives in the Community Planning process both at strategic level, through the Community Planning Partnership Board, and local level, through the four new Local Community Planning Forums;”

SOA 2009

“In East Ayrshire, Community Planning Partners are committed to supporting communities by:
• providing support to local community and voluntary based organisations to meet their identified needs in order to build community capacity;
• continuing to support the two Federations of Community Groups to ensure the systematic engagement of community representatives in the Community Planning process both at strategic level, through the Community Planning Partnership Board, and local level, through the four new Local Community Planning Forums;
• supporting Federation activity, where appropriate, in their identification, implementation and development of projects linked to Community Planning priorities, which will benefit the local community;

EAST DUNBARTONSHIRE

SOA 2008

The SOA has been informed by community engagement which has been undertaken by both the Council and community planning partners across East Dunbartonshire. Information has been derived from the results of Citizens’ Panel activity, focus groups on specific issues and information from our flagship annual Community Assembly.

We will continue to utilise and to strengthen consultation and engagement structures to assist in delivery of the SOA. Our approach will include engagement with community councils, voluntary sector organisations, youth senate, Equality Advisory Group and local regeneration groups. We will also continue to use our core consultation mechanisms, such as Citizens’ Panel surveys and focus groups activity, adapting these where required to ensure continuous improvement in our engagement methods.”

SOA 2009

“3.5 Community Engagement
Community Engagement is a key principle which underpins the delivery of community planning and best value. Consultation and engagement helps improve the planning and delivery of services in order to ensure that they are responsive to the needs and aspirations of our communities. Our consultation and engagement processes reflect the National Standards for Community Engagement, ensuring that
consultation is effective and meaningful for the people involved and for those using the information. The SOA has been informed by substantial community engagement undertaken by both the Council and community planning partners across East Dunbartonshire. Information has been derived from the results of Citizens’ Panel activity, focus groups on specific issues and information from our flagship annual Community Assembly together with ‘world café’ consultation events on specific issues.

We will continue to utilise and to strengthen consultation and engagement structures to assist in delivery of the SOA. Our approach will include engagement with community councils, voluntary sector organisations, youth senate, Equality Engagement Group and local regeneration groups. We will also continue to use our core consultation mechanisms, such as Citizens’ Panel surveys and focus groups activity, adapting these where required to ensure continuous improvement in our engagement methods.”

EAST LOTHIAN

SOA 2008

NO15

“Action required by local partners:

• Introduce a number of initiatives to extend public engagement/influence in the work of the Council”

“Action required by Scottish Government:

To work with Scottish local government to define and agree a governance and accountability framework for SOAs. This will cover areas such as:
􀂃 Performance management frameworks for community planning partnership SOAs;
􀂃 Sanctions for non-delivery of outcomes; and
􀂃 Community engagement
To improve the co-ordination and alignment of performance management frameworks and outcome-focused planning, monitoring and reporting across agencies and community plan themes.”

SOA 2009

“The Community Planning Partnership has begun restructuring to strengthen partnership working around the SOA, which will continue throughout this year. The Partnership’s has a community engagement strategy and is also investing in a joint funded community engagement post as of this financial year. Local Community Planning is being introduced in two areas of East Lothian to help better address local needs. Community Engagement will also be improved across the Community Planning Partnership with the introduction of VOICE (Visioning Outcomes In Community Engagement). VOICE will help partners understand whether they are effectively engaging with their communities. The 2009 East Lothian Resident’s Survey found that resident’s generally perceived the Council’s services to be efficient (20.4% of respondents”

EAST RENFREWSHIRE

SOA 2008

“NO7 Context:

Building on community engagement through the ROA process, future work will focus on increasing the influence of local people over service design and delivery in disadvantaged and communities and across the wider East Renfrewshire area.”
SOA 2009

FALKIRK

SOA 2008

“We intend to enhance our approach to community engagement as part of the ongoing development of community and corporate planning linked to our Single Outcome Agreement.”

SOA 2009

No reference

FIFE

SOA 2008

“Required Actions/commitment by local partners for these outcomes

Fife Rural Partnership will support rural community volunteering and start –up including engagement, capacity building, skills and ability and access to funding to fulfil aspirations five new rural groups supported in East and two in the West. Increase assets into community ownership. All partners will continue to raise the standard of community engagement by using the National Standards of Community Engagement within their organisations.

Scottish Government required action/commitment to support delivery of local outcome

Provide leadership at National level to encourage and promote community empowerment and to foster a strategic approach amongst local authorities and other public bodies to support change in communities.
Develop a national support programme for community empowerment including support for skills development within the community and public bodies, for evaluating the impact of empowerment and to help networking across Scotland to make sure people learn from each other about what is working.”

SOA 2009

“Fife Partnership values and includes the Third Sector as an equal partner in Community Planning, with CVS Fife representing the interests of the sector on the Partnership. Third Sector Organisations, including voluntary and community groups across a wide variety of activity, charities, development trusts and social enterprises, play a major role in community life as providers of services and advocates on issues of importance to groups and communities. The unique relationship Third Sector Organisations can develop with the clients and communities they serve enables the sector to add value to the CPP in Fife. The sector is supported and encouraged with significant contracting and grant opportunities from the Fife partners, particularly Fife Council (including Social Work, Housing and Community Services) and NHS Fife, and is also proactive in drawing additional resources into Fife via a range of external funding avenues. Many of the most challenging policy areas such as community regeneration, health inequalities, housing, social care and employability benefit enormously from an active third sector which can give those who face particular marginalisation a voice in terms of defining service or local needs and creating solutions. An intended outcome of the Community Plan is community wellbeing resting on, amongst other deliverables, greater participation in community activity. Volunteering is at the heart of the Third Sector and around 22% of Fife’s population give up their time in a voluntary capacity annually, and volunteering is increasingly being recognised as a means of improving health and building employment-related skills as well as a means of contributing to local communities. The Scottish Government is committed to a strong third sector voice within community planning and is driving forward changes to Third Sector infrastructure support as a means of advancing this agenda. Fife Partnership is committed to supporting the agencies concerned (Councils for Voluntary Service, Volunteer Centres and Local Social Economy Partnerships) to ensure that these changes maximise the sector’s contribution to Fife’s communities.

The Fife Community Learning and Development (CLD) Strategy is a key policy driver as is the work of Voluntary Sector Infrastructure support agencies. The CLD Strategy has recently been refreshed to provide a clearer focus on community capacity building which will improve participation in community planning and local democratic processes, improve the capacity of community organisations to access resources, manage and deliver services and improve communities’ capacity to address local issues The Take a Pride in Glenrothes model proved a successful route to engaging communities in a range of practical environmental projects and was an excellent vehicle for local people to take on greater responsibilities for their own actions and the local environment. Fife Partnership continues to drive the use of the National Standards for Community Engagement throughout its planning processes. Fife Council’s Community Engagement Policy identifies 3 strands to effective community engagement – informing & consulting, community capacity building & participation and community empowerment. These will improve engagement with local communities, strengthen local democracy and improve the quality of service delivery. This policy, informed by the National Standards for Community Engagement and linked to the developing local leadership role of Area Committees, will have significant impacts in bringing people and communities together with services to improve service delivery”

GLASGOW

SOA 2008

“Involvement of the local community in planning and delivering public services is fundamental to community planning. In Glasgow a well defined structure has been established to facilitate this by ensuring an influence across public services rather than simply on the use of limited targeted resources through the Fairer Scotland Fund. These structures will continue to evolve over the course of this year and it is anticipated that they will be fully operational by March 2009. Community Reference Groups (CRGs) have been established in each of the ten local community planning partnership areas. These groups consist of nominated or elected individuals from a wide range of community based organisations. They reflect the range of community interests across their area, by ensuring membership from all the neighbourhoods as well as groups of people experiencing inequalities (e.g. in relation to race, gender, disability, sexuality, faith etc). The delivery of a best value focussed community engagement process with strong planning and performance framework will set the foundations for the delivery of high quality improving services”

SOA 2009

“Community Reference Groups (CRGs) have been established in each of the ten local community planning partnership areas. These groups consist of nominated or elected individuals from a wide range of community based organisations. They reflect the range of community interests across their area, by ensuring membership from all the neighbourhoods as well as groups of people experiencing inequalities (e.g. in relation to race, gender, disability, sexuality, faith etc). Indeed, the City’s Health Commission recommends that to tackle health inequalities we need to improve engagement with communities in service planning & budgeting and increase the integration of services.
The delivery of a best value focussed community engagement process with strong planning and performance framework will set the foundations for the delivery of high quality improving services.
Glasgow Community and Safety Services provides the opportunity for a range of services to come together.”

HIGHLAND

SOA 2008

“Community engagement and consultation
To involve residents more in shaping the future of their communities the Council is developing new ways for communities to be engaged in decisions which affect them. Notable achievements are found in:
• the way in which young people are involved;
• the support for up to 152 Community Councils in providing advice, information, training and annual funding (around £200k)
• land use planning consultations development plan and individual planning applications in accordance with the Planning
Scotland Act)

Areas under development include the establishment of new ward forums, further roll out of the standards of community engagement, equalities screening of consultations and the creation of new parent pupil forums.

Public Involvement in shaping service delivery is now day to day practice within the NHS. Across NHS Highland, the Health Voices network (a network of local people interested in being involved in healthcare planning and redesign) is actively involved in a range of service change projects at any one time. Patient groups aligned to local services (e.g. GP practices, maternity services, etc) are also active in shaping service design. In keeping Government guidance, significant service change or redesign involves formal and extensive public consultation exercises.”

SOA 2009

“Engaging others

In 2008-9 new forums for involving other organisations and representative groups have developed. These include:
78
• a Stakeholder Forum for Community Care to bring the views of users and carers into community care planning;
• a new Environment Forum to engage with a wide range of environmental interests and to support the work to develop and deliver environmental outcomes. In 2009-10 this forum will broaden to include further third sector involvement to develop a Climate Change Declaration for the Highlands, to show case good practice in sustainable design and carbon management, to share information about climate change adaptation plans and to develop a community awards scheme for climate change actions.
• a new Highland Economy Forum to bring the interests of business and social enterprise into the partnership to develop and deliver economic outcomes. The business community is brought into the Inverness City Partnership, building on the City Vision work. Further work will be explored in 2009 around the creation of business panels, possibly for each economic sector.”

“Third sector activity is strong in the Highlands, as identified in the area profile. The third sector is engaged in developing and delivering local outcomes through:
• The direct engagement of particular third sector bodies in service delivery and design – mostly this is through a commissioning or contractual relationship and it includes those bodies which are trading organisations. For example the achievement of increasing the housing supply will be agreed between the public sector (notably the Council and Scottish Water) and Housing Associations in the area.
• The direct engagement of particular third sector bodies to influence policy and projects. This may be through a commissioning arrangements, such as advocacy providers (the Highland Community Care Forum is a good example of this) or through involvement in stakeholder forums (such as those listed in paragraph 6.4 above) and in other forums including LEADER partnerships and Community Health Partnerships.”…..

“The way in which communities are involved in decisions about the public services they receive will form part of the review for the seven outcomes prioritised from 2009. Community planning partners have agreed to adopt the standards of community engagement and systems for recording their use will be developed in 2009-10. A range of methods are currently used, whether by theme through various forums or by geographic community through for example Ward Forums described above. Web-based performance information is developing to support better engagement and scrutiny. Active participation by communities in shaping and developing their communities is supported by a 6 year programme of LEADER funding from Europe. “

INVERCLYDE

SOA 2008

“3.5 Community Engagement
Community Engagement is a fundamental principle of Community Planning in order to improve the planning and delivery of services, making them more responsive to the needs and aspirations of communities. The best way to ascertain those needs is through clear, well developed processes which follow the National Standards for Community Engagement:
1. Involvement: we will identify and involve the people and organisations who have an interest in the focus of the engagement
2. Support: we will identify and overcome any barriers to involvement
3. Planning: we will gather evidence of the needs and available resources and use this evidence to agree the purpose, scope and timescale of the engagement and the actions to be taken
4. Methods: we will agree and use methods of engagement that are fit for purpose
5. Working Together: We will agree and use clear procedures that enable the participants to work with one another effectively and efficiently
6. Sharing Information: we will ensure that necessary information is communicated between the participants
7. Working With Others: we will work effectively with others with an interest in the engagement
8. Improvement: we will develop actively the skills, knowledge and confidence of all the participants
9. Feedback: we will feed back the results of the engagement to the wider community and agencies affected
10. Monitoring And Evaluation: we will monitor and evaluate whether the engagement achieves its purposes and meets the national standards for community engagement
This SOA has been informed by community engagement which has taken place across Inverclyde. It strikes a balance between what communities have identified as priorities and what partners have evidenced as priorities using service user and wider statistical information. Partners have set out their priorities in their key operational, business and service plans, and these have been reflected in the development and agreement of the local outcomes detailed in this agreement.

“Drew together all the recent research and community engagement and consultation
reports to set out clearly what the priorities for the communities of Inverclyde are,
distilling these to a list of priorities for the area.

• Organised a community engagement event on working together for the future for
Inverclyde at which the local priority areas were considered and tested and used
to develop the local strategic outcomes. Approximately 100 local residents
attended the event. “

Inverclyde wants:

“Guidance on community empowerment with local autonomy to reflect local
context”

SOA 2009

“Community Engagement is a fundamental principle of Community Planning in
order to improve the planning and delivery of services, making them more
responsive to the needs and aspirations of communities. The best way to
ascertain those needs is through clear, well developed processes
which follow the National Standards for Community Engagement:
1. Involvement: we will identify and involve the people and organisations who
have an interest in the focus of the engagement
2. Support: we will identify and overcome any barriers to involvement
3. Planning: we will gather evidence of the needs and available resources and
use this evidence to agree the purpose, scope and timescale of the engagement
and the actions to be taken
4. Methods: we will agree and use methods of engagement that are fit for
purpose
5. Working Together: We will agree and use clear procedures that enable the
participants to work with one another effectively and efficiently
6. Sharing Information: we will ensure that necessary information is
communicated between the participants
7. Working With Others: we will work effectively with others with an interest in the
engagement
8. Improvement: we will develop actively the skills, knowledge and confidence of
all the participants
9. Feedback: we will feed back the results of the engagement to the wider
community and agencies affected
10. Monitoring And Evaluation: we will monitor and evaluate whether the
engagement achieves its purposes and meets the national standards for
community engagement

This SOA has been informed by community engagement which has taken place
across Inverclyde, facilitated by a wide range of partner organisations. It strikes a
balance between what communities have identified as priorities and what
partners have evidenced as priorities using service user and wider statistical
information. Partners have set out their priorities in their key operational, business
and service plans, and these have been reflected in the development and
agreement of the local strategic outcomes detailed in this agreement.

The Community Engagement Network is developing a joint approach to
community engagement using the VOiCE toolkit in the development and delivery
of engagement, which ensures that the Alliance meets the national standard”

MIDLOTHIAN

SOA 2008

“The SOA will be refreshed annually via the Councils planning and performance management framework and the community engagement strategy and action plan.”

SOA 2009

“Community Engagement
The overarching aims of the Community Engagement Strategy are that the Community Planning Partnership works together:

• To ensure that the citizens and other key stakeholders in Midlothian have a voice to
influence the development of policies and strategies that will affect their lives.
• To inform the way in which services in Midlothian are planned and delivered
• To inform the process through which change can be achieved.
Within the Community Planning Partnership there are many examples of engagement activity taking place. While this list may not be exhaustive, it does suggest that there is a range and diversity that gives citizens and other stakeholders an opportunity to express their views to various providers of services.
• Citizens’ panel
• Communities that Care Board
• Multi-agency Partnership Groups including local people
• Social Inclusion Forum
• Tenant’s Forum
• Community Care Forum
• People with Mental Health Forum
• People with Learning Disabilities
• Management Committees of Community Centres
• Youth Platform
• Platform and Voice (older people)
• Midlothian Economic Forum Working Group
• Midlothian’s Children’s Parliament
• Community Health Action Groups
• Community Health Partnership – patient involvement
• Crime Prevention Panels
• Carer’s Groups
• Domestic Abuse Forum
• Feedback Forms
• Elected Members’ Surgeries

One method of community engagement noted above is the Citizen’s Panel. The panel consists of over 1000 residents composed of a representative balance of the adult community in Midlothian who are asked to complete a postal questionnaire. The returns are analysed and a report created to inform Community Planning Partners. A number of indicators noted below are measured using data received through Citizen’s Panel responses. The single outcome agreement has been written within the context of changing demographics within Midlothian and as such. There is a need for this to be reflected in any future service design or redesign. The role for the Community Planning Partnership will be to ensure that services and developments meet the needs of communities.”

MORAY

SOA 2008

“Community Engagement Group ensures that all sectors of the community have an
opportunity to influence the delivery of public services in Moray.”

“Local Context

Supporting Adult Engagement

Moray has a reputation as a supportive community with a strong sense of community and a strong voluntary sector. Moray has 15 operating community councils, a healthy network of village halls with an active Federation of Community halls and Associations. The Community Planning Partnership has local participation networks to bring together a wide range of local Community organisations and individuals.
Supporting Young People’s Engagement

Young people have participated in the development of the Moray Youth Strategy and indicated their desire to have a voice. Moray established a youth participation framework with a Youth Council with a full quota of School Councils and representatives at The Scottish Youth Parliament, supported by the Dialogue Youth Initiative.

Young People are actively using the “What’s on Where” internet site with monthly hits on the site rising from 550 in 2005 to 6,000 in 2007. The site is contributed to by 16 young people who keep the information up to date and relevant. 6,500 young people hold Smartcards and are then eligible to receive local discounts, which have been, built up by the 20 young people volunteers with local businesses. 28 young people have also volunteered over 1,000 hours through the Millennium awards volunteers.

CVS argue their role has been ignored

In a previous Briefing, we complained about the lack of urgency from Scottish Government in taking forward its Community Empowerment Action Plan.  We circulated our draft response to the Plan in which we identified the need for communities to have access to their own resources for capacity building.  A CVS in the Scottish Borders was irked that we had ignored its role as a source of independent support for the sector

The Bridge is a community development organisation and Council for Voluntary Service (CVS) operating in the Scottish Borders. We are a listed supporter of the Local People Leading campaign.

We have read with interest the response by Local People Leading to the Scottish Government’s Community Empowerment Action Plan and welcome your comments in support of wider recognition of the Community Sector. We agree wholeheartedly that the community sector has distinct needs within the wider Third Sector.

However, your paper ignores completely the role of the local CVS and the wider CVS Network in support of communities; paragraph 9 is completely inaccurate, claiming that communities have no access to independent community capacity building resources.

As independent and local community anchors, managed by local people, CVS provide support to the sector and leadership in local networking to share skills and develop the capacity of our local communities. Our fundamental aim is to grow local social capital and in this aim we are both co-ordinated and supported through our CVS Network Scotland Foundation Business Plan 2008-2011: A Thriving and More Connected Voluntary Sector. The stated vision within the Plan is as follows:

CVS (as anchor organisations) enable the Scottish community and voluntary sector to:

•    play a key role in developing thriving communities
•    connect to policy and decision-making, and
•    grow our social economy

Actions to support capacity-building and local community empowerment are identified and implemented by individual CVS in response to local need, within the framework of the national Network Business Plan. This independent development work is supported financially – at least in part – by grant aid from the Scottish Government.

Your case for additional (and much needed) resources to support the community sector is weakened by this fundamental error, and as supporters of your campaign we are extremely disappointed that our role has been completely ignored.

Briefings

Housing Regulator view is flawed

Outside of the high walls of the ‘housing silo,’ the phenomenal achievements of Scotland’s community based housing associations rarely get a mention. Now the future of these organisations is under serious threat. The present Scottish Housing Regulator's views on efficiency, mergers, rationalisation and competition are as depressing as they are poorly evidenced, argues an alliance of housing associations from Easterhouse

Strengthening Fragile Communities: Community Based Housing Associations in Easterhouse
Briefing Paper for Glasgow MSPs
October 2009

Easterhouse Housing and Regeneration Alliance
Briefing Paper for Glasgow MSPs

1. About this Briefing Paper

1.1 The value that community based housing associations (CBHAs) bring to areaslike Easterhouse is recognised within our local communities and by politicians from all of the main political parties. But the current direction of housing and regulation policy in Scotland is placing our future under serious threat.

1.2 CBHAs in Easterhouse want to focus on a positive agenda for the future. Our priority is to make our communities safe, attractive and sustainable places to live. We look to all of Glasgow’s MSPs to help us achieve that, in considering the forthcoming Housing (Scotland) Bill.

2. Community-Based Housing Associations in Easterhouse

2.1 EHRA is an alliance of the eight independent, community-based housing associations (CBHAs) in Greater Easterhouse. We have worked together since 1991, previously as the Greater Easterhouse Community Ownership Forum (GECOF).

2.2 Our members own and manage around 3,000 houses in local neighbourhoods throughout Greater Easterhouse. In the last 15-20 years, CBHAs have transformed the housing and the physical environment of neighbourhoods throughout the area.

2.3 Because we are led by local people, our services have been highly responsive to community needs. Local leadership and control has also ensured that our housing investment has been sustainable, unlike “top down” approaches that have seen major housing investment being followed by demolition and the break-up of communities.

2.4 Easterhouse’s CBHAs have a highly localised, neighbourhood-based approach to housing management. Staying focused on local management and local solutions is critical, because of the deep-rooted disadvantage and social problems that affect our communities. As we show in this paper, all eight CBHAs in Easterhouse have gone beyond their original purpose as housing providers. We are now making a substantial impact in addressing the wider regeneration needs of our local communities.

3. Our Main Concerns for the Future

3.1 We are pleased that Ministers listened to the concerns we expressed earlier this year about Lead Developers and competition for Housing Association Grant (HAG). We hope its proposals for “Investment Reform” will now be re-shaped in a way that allows CBHAs to be directly involved in new house building. For our part, we are investigating how CBHAs in Easterhouse could work together collaboratively for this purpose. But in the meantime, the changes made to HAG subsidy levels in 2008/2009 continue to affect our ability to develop new housing on a financially sustainable basis.

3.2 We have focused in this paper on two more recent policy developments:

The draft Housing (Scotland) Bill published in April 2009, which is due to come before Parliament next year;

Statements by the present Scottish Housing Regulator (SHR), about the need for future restructuring of the Scottish housing association sector.

Taken together, these factors threaten the future of smaller and/or communitybased housing associations, which have proved so successful in disadvantaged communities in Glasgow and beyond.

3.3 Two proposals in the draft Housing (Scotland) Bill give us particular concern:

Registration as a social landlord in Scotland would be opened up a) to profitdistributing bodies, and b) to bodies from outside Scotland.

Existing registered social landlords, such as EHRA’s members, would need to apply for registration with the new Scottish Housing Regulator.

3.4 The Scottish Housing Regulator‘s recent report “Shaping Up for Improvement” sets out its views about the overall performance of Scottish social landlords. The report paints a negative picture, particularly in relation to local authority landlords’ performance.

3.5 We have no problem with the Regulator’s wish to promote continuous improvement in service quality for tenants, although its conclusions are poorly evidenced. Our real concerns are that the Regulator is intent on challenging the continued existence of smaller housing associations, and that in doing so the Regulator is assuming a policy-making role for which it has no proper accountability.

3.6 In “Shaping Up for Improvement”, the Regulator:

States that mergers between housing associations, rationalisation within the housing association sector, and “a more strategic view of how to organise housing management in particular local areas” are all key issues for the future.

Proposes a possible new role for itself in “… encouraging a mixed economy of providers and greater competition in the development and management of social housing as a way of securing improvement”.

States that “Some RSLs need to consider whether a governing body made up primarily or solely of tenants will deliver the sort of governance they need in more challenging times”. And that in relation to mergers and future structures, management committees need to “… think beyond themselves and their organisations for the greater good of the tenants and communities they serve”.

3.7 80% of Scottish housing associations own less than 2,000 houses each. And tenant-led management committees are associated overwhelmingly with CBHAs. So it is clear to us that organisations such as our own are who the Regulator has in mind, in announcing mergers and restructuring as priorities for the future.

3.8 The draft Housing Bill proposes a new system of social housing regulation, with the stated aim of “improving value for tenants and the taxpayer”. “Shaping Up for Improvement” offers an ambivalent view about how CBHAs measure up:

“We have seen that in some localities the higher management costs of smaller, community based organisations can lead to better housing management outcomes… But this is by no means always the case – community based or tenant-led organisations do not, in themselves, always secure good outcomes for tenants. We have also seen larger group structures emerge over the last ten years that benefit from economies of scale, a more strategic geographical canvass, and a more business-like approach to asset management”.

4. Efficiency and Performance: Some Hard Facts

4.1 The Regulator’s views about the efficiency and performance of CBHAs do notmatch the facts:

The Regulator’s inspection gradings1 show that CBHAs do generally perform significantly better for tenants than other types of landlords.

Our own analysis, provided at Appendix 1 to this Briefing Paper, shows that the overall performance results achieved by CBHAs in Easterhouse are:

−Better than the median results for all Scottish housing associations, on almost all of the measures we examined;

−Substantially better than those of GHA in all of the areas we examined.

4.2 We have also compared our service delivery costs (management and maintenance administration costs per house) on the same basis. To test the Regulator’s assertion that CBHAs have higher management costs than larger, regional housing associations, we included 7 of these organisations in our cost analysis (Cairn, Castle Rock Edinvar, Dunedin Canmore, Home Scotland, Link, Sanctuary Scotland, and West of Scotland). The results are as follows:

4.3 So, in two of the last three years, Easterhouse CBHAs have out-performed both the national average, and the larger types of organisations that the Regulator suggests are more efficient due to economies of scale. And for the whole three years, the median cost for Easterhouse CBHAs has been substantially lower than GHA’s costs.

5. Community Regeneration

5.1 One of the central aims described in the draft Housing (Scotland) Bill is to “improve value for tenants and the taxpayer”. But the draft Bill is based on a very narrow view of what value actually means.

5.2 People living in disadvantaged communities certainly need high quality houses and services that are good value for money. But they need much more besides, to address the root causes of poverty, poor health and lack of opportunity.

5.3 All eight Easterhouse CBHAs have a strong track record in addressing these wider issues, within our own neighbourhoods and by working together. The following table provides an illustration of our members’ involvement in different types of

community regeneration activities:

Supporting individuals to enter training or employment 7

Community safety initiatives (such as CCTV, crime reduction) 7

New/improved community facilities 7

Community capacity building activities 7

Community arts, cultural and recreational events 6

Local access to information/communications technology 6

Affordable local childcare 5

Community education or learning initiatives 5

5.4 In the last three years, these are some of the major outcomes we have achieved:

743 local people supported to enter employability-related training

211 local people supported into paid employment

More than £3 million of additional income generated for local people, through our welfare rights services

82 local childcare places provided.

5.5 Our community regeneration activities have been driven by the vision and leadership of local people. And our success in getting local people to use these services is a direct result of the physical presence we have at neighbourhood level, and the highly personal relationships we have with our tenants.

5.6 CBHAs’ community regeneration work carries immense social and economic value. For example, in improving people’s health and self esteem; improving the future life chances of children and young people; bringing more people into the economic and employment mainstream; and reducing benefit dependency.

5.7 None of these factors feature in the way the draft Housing Bill proposes to measure “value for tenants and the taxpayers”. Nor are they part of how the present Scottish Housing Regulator assesses outcomes and value for money. This needs to be addressed as part of the forthcoming discussions about the Housing Bill. Efficiency and value must be about much more than simple cost cutting.

5.8 We would like to see Glasgow’s politicians supporting the part that CBHAs can play as “anchor” organisations within our communities. We can offer statutory agencies a route to engaging with people who need their services at community level. And in the right circumstances and with the right support from partners, we can play a greater role in delivering community regeneration services.

6. Partnership Working: The Forgotten Factor?

6.1 The Regulator’s big idea for achieving greater efficiency and more strategic approaches to neighbourhood management is to promote mergers and restructuring. Again, this is a very narrow view. It ignores our members’ long and successful track record of working collaboratively with each other and with other agencies, on both strategic and operational issues.

6.2 EHRA works in a unique way. As individual housing associations, we are responsible for the management of our local neighbourhoods and accountable to our local communities. But we do not work in isolation. Through EHRA, we have had a sustained focus on promoting strategic approaches to housing investment and neighbourhood management across Greater Easterhouse. Our work as individual housing associations is very firmly rooted in shared strategic aims and on working together to achieve these.

6.3 Partnership working through EHRA has allowed us to achieve more than we could have as individual housing associations. And it has allowed us to achieve economies of scale, where the circumstances are right. We have provided more information about areas where Easterhouse CBHAs have worked collaboratively at

Appendix 2 to this Briefing Paper.

7. Conclusions

7.1 Some parts of the draft Housing Bill, linked to the present regulatory agenda, are bad news for Glasgow’s CBHAs and for our local communities:

Profit-making bodies and very large UK-wide housing associations could become social landlords in Scotland and receive HAG to build new houses;

CBHAs face a future in which we will have to continually justify our right to existence – instead of focusing on the positive things we can achieve for our tenants and communities;

CBHAs may be placed under pressure by the Regulator to enter into mergers or to “outsource” parts of our services to larger housing associations and/or private sector contractors, with a resulting loss of community focus and control. These are not the priorities of our tenants, who are far more interested in the quality of their homes, services and neighbourhoods.

7.2 We look to MSPs to subject the forthcoming Housing Bill to close scrutiny:

There is no demand from tenants to introduce profit-making bodies to the social housing sector in Scotland.

Entry to the Scottish housing sector is being anticipated by large UK-based housing associations, some of which have already opened offices in Glasgow. The Scottish Government should look to Wales, where recent legislation has restricted eligibility to be a registered social landlord to “Welsh bodies”.

The present Scottish Housing Regulator’s views on efficiency, mergers, rationalisation and competition are as depressing as they are poorly evidenced. It is essential that the Bill brought before Parliament carefully defines the new Regulator’s role in relation to policy-making. Otherwise, the new body will be able to make policy decisions that will affect thousands of tenants, without having any proper accountability to Ministers or to Parliament.

Briefings

Getting community empowerment back on track

Local People Leading is an informal alliance of national and regional networks which work in Scotland’s community sector. Between them they serve over 1400 community based organisations. LPL welcomed the Scottish Government’s Community Empowerment Action Plan as an important first step on the road to greater levels of community empowerment in Scotland. However our view now, seven months after the Plan was launched, is that momentum has slowed and the focus contained in the Plan has drifted. There are six key areas where LPL considers further action by national and local government is required :

1. formally recognise the community sector as a distinct part of the Third Sector by publishing a national strategy designed to nurture its continued development

2. commit to a process of ‘double devolution’ which moves power and decision making away from government and places it at the most appropriate local level.

3. invest in a programme which is designed to increase the flow of assets including land, buildings and the generation of renewable energy into community ownership.

4. recognise that in order to empower themselves, communities need to be able to employ their own workers. This support cannot be delivered effectively by the state.

5. acknowledge that sustained community empowerment cannot take place without the presence of community anchor organisations to provide local leadership.

6. recognise that community led action in the face of climate change is the crucial ‘first step’ in response to this global challenge. Investment programmes need to reflect this.

November ‘09

Page 285 of 341
←
1
...
284
285
286
...
341
→

Development trusts boost local democracy

Key funder at risk

What happens once the ring fencing goes?

Politicians discourage local leadership

Think Tanks offer three big ideas

Voluntary Action Scotland aim high

SOAs – barely a mention of community sector

CVS argue their role has been ignored

Housing Regulator view is flawed

Getting community empowerment back on track

1. formally recognise the community sector as a distinct part of the Third Sector by publishing a national strategy designed to nurture its continued development

2. commit to a process of ‘double devolution’ which moves power and decision making away from government and places it at the most appropriate local level.

3. invest in a programme which is designed to increase the flow of assets including land, buildings and the generation of renewable energy into community ownership.

4. recognise that in order to empower themselves, communities need to be able to employ their own workers. This support cannot be delivered effectively by the state.

5. acknowledge that sustained community empowerment cannot take place without the presence of community anchor organisations to provide local leadership.

6. recognise that community led action in the face of climate change is the crucial ‘first step’ in response to this global challenge. Investment programmes need to reflect this.

November ‘09

Sign up to our newsletter