Blackpool Laa - Burnby Report

THE BLACKPOOL LOCAL AREA AGREEMENT THIRD SECTOR REVIEW Final Report By David Burnby Neighbourhood Renewal Adviser

Blackpool Sustainable Urban Renewal Federation a Company Ltd by Guarantee Registered office: 39 Springfield Road, Blackpool FY1 1PZ Telephone 01253 749657 Fax 01253 753578 Registration no. 5372011 England Charity No. 1116153

www.blackpoolsurf.org

1

Introduction Blackpool SURF would like to thank all those that contributed to the Blackpool Local Area Agreement third sector review. The Review process commenced with the establishment of a task group involving both SURF and CVS members who met between January and March 2007 to plan the process. The task group submitted a request to Government Office North West for Neighbourhood Renewal Adviser support. This was granted and the task group selected David Burnby to carry out the work. Four focus groups were proposed for April 2007 to discuss and analyse in some detail the experience of voluntary and community sector engagement in the LAA and to discover the extent of the knowledge of the LAA that existed. The focus groups were themed according to the ‘blocks’ of the LAA; Children & Young People, Healthier Communities & Older People, Economic Well-being, and Stronger & Safer Communities. Voluntary and community groups on the SURF and Blackpool Council joint database were circulated with a briefing document on the LAA and were invited to attend the most appropriate themed focus group. For those that could not attend a focus group, there was an option to complete a specially designed questionnaire (Appendix One – pg 15). A specially designed questionnaire (Appendix Two – pg 18) was also sent to the public sector officers directly responsible for leading on each ‘block’. The focus groups took place in April and the findings were presented at a Conference held on May 10th at the Blackpool Football Club entitled “What is the LAA – The routes to greater involvement and participation”. Participants at the Conference were encouraged to attend a workshop led by officers from each ‘block’. The workshops strived not only to review the experience of involvement in the LAA to date – but crucially – to look at how that experience might be improved in the future. Each focus group and the Conference were facilitated by David Burnby. The Conference workshops were independently facilitated by people nominated by the Blackpool Local Strategic Partnership. The following report represents a more detailed overview of this process and contains a series of conclusions; observations and recommendations. The report will be fed-back to the third sector via Conference attendees, SURF, CVS , BCVYS and Blackpool4me. It will be formally submitted to the LSP Assembly for consideration. It is intended that it will provide a means for all LSP partners to achieve improved practice in Blackpool regarding voluntary and community engagement in the LAA. Ray Duffill 2

Network Manager June 2007

The Blackpool Local Area Agreement Review of Voluntary and Community Sector Engagement May 2007

v2

This report constitutes an overview of the Voluntary and Community Sector’s (VCS) input to the Blackpool Local Area Agreement (LAA). It was prompted by the publication of the Blackpool LAA Six Month Review and concern from some members of SURF (the Community Empowerment Network for Blackpool) about the lack of VCS engagement in the LAA process and a failure to recognise fully its potential contribution as a key strategic partner. It has not been possible in the scope of the review to conduct an in depth evaluation of the VCS engagement in the LAA process and the conclusions drawn are based on the views and opinions of those VCS organisations who have chosen to attend the focus groups and LAA review conference. Whilst these views are not necessarily representative of the very broad and diverse voluntary and community sector in Blackpool, there was a significant consensus across the process in the views expressed. The author would like to thank SURF, Blackpool, Fylde and Wyre CVS, Blackpool Council and the many voluntary and community sector representatives that took part in the process for their frankness, enthusiasm and patience and also for making his visits to Blackpool so enjoyable and hospitable.

Background and Context Chapter 1:2 of the Six Month Review (‘Partnership’) recognises that: “partner, organisational and stakeholder engagement is an area where there will always be more that we can do”. Specifically, the report indicates: “the involvement of the Community and Voluntary Sector and local people in the LAA requires strengthening” The sentence that follows caused particular consternation amongst VCS representatives, stating: “Unlike some other areas in the UK we do not yet have the benefit of a flourishing third sector. This area has traditionally been challenging for Blackpool.” The Six Month Review goes on to indicate that a Community Engagement Framework is underway, (a draft of which (dated March 2006) was tabled at the LAA Review Conference which took place on May 10th) and recognises the role of SURF in bringing VCS representation to the Local Strategic Partnership (LSP)

LAA Focus Workshops In order to obtain a detailed view on VCS engagement in the LAA process to date, SURF convened a series of four, independently facilitated themed workshops corresponding to the four blocks of the LAA:

3

• • • •

Children and Young People Economic Well Being Healthy Communities and Older People Safer and Stronger Communities

A total of 17 organisations were represented across the four workshops by a total of 21 individuals (some organisations sent different representatives to more than one workshop). This was by no means a representative sample of VCS organisations in Blackpool and it is difficult to draw firm conclusions from such a small sample. There were however recurrent themes across the four workshops which were echoed in the LAA Review Conference. The workshop format was based on a questionnaire which was drawn up by SURF and modified by the author following consultation with the Blackpool LSP Manager. Awareness of LAAs in general was poor. Only individuals with a direct connection to the Local Strategic Partnership (LSP), either as SURF representatives or through an LSP commissioned project, were aware of the LAA and very few could confess to anything other than a tacit understanding. Attendees at the workshops were invited to indicate on a scale of 1 to 10 their level of knowledge about LAAs (where 1 equals no knowledge at all and 10 equals good knowledge). The graphic below illustrates the response: 1  No knowledge

2 

3 

4

5 

Some knowledge

6 

7 

Reasonable knowledge

8 

9 

10

Good knowledge

62% of the sample declared they had either no knowledge or were limited to “some” knowledge (scoring between 1 and 3 out of 10). Workshop participants were also invited to comment on their understanding of a range of LSP supported projects and initiatives. These were: • • • • • • • • • • • •

Alcohol Harm Reduction Groups Alternate Falls Strategy Groups Operation Counteract Positive Steps into Work Predict and Prevent Reassurance Plus Neighbourhoods Senior Voice Shiver Smoke Free Blackpool Sport Nutrients and Physical Activity Alliance Springboard

Again, knowledge about these groups and initiatives was limited to LSP representatives (who recalled agenda items about some of the groups) and a handful of representatives who had first hand experience (particularly of Reassurance Plus) either as a community representative or as a service providing agency. The majority of participants in the sample had not heard of any on the list.

4

Where there was knowledge of the LAA, there was confusion around the LSP’s thematic partnerships and how these linked into the four blocks of the LAA. Those who were involved in partnerships were sometimes confused about its name (it was unclear if the “Older Peoples Forum” and “Senior Voice” were the same thing, for example. One LSP representative was confused about how the Children’s Trust fits into the Children and Young People’s Block of the LAA). In contrast, general awareness of the existence of the Compact was much higher across the representatives, though many were unclear about its relevance to the LAA and/or unsure of its status as a ‘live’ document. Mention was made of the Compact Plus launch, though participants were unsure of subsequent progress. The statement from the LAA Six Month Review that Blackpool did not have “a flourishing Third Sector” provoked strong reaction from participants as numerous examples of voluntary and community activity and service delivery were cited. Many conceded however that information about VCS activity in Blackpool is limited and uncoordinated and it is therefore difficult to make an accurate assessment about capacity levels. Linked into this discussion was the lack of adequate infrastructure support locally for the sector. Participants were aware of the troubled history between Blackpool, Fylde and Wyre CVS and SURF which had split the sector making it difficult to achieve any kind of coherent and accountable representation. Participants acknowledged the progress that has been made of late in healing old wounds, in particular, the much improved working relationship between VCS and SURF was noted, but it was evident that there are still factions within the sector reluctant to work with others. As long as these divides exist, and disagreements stay in the public domain, then the sector will struggle to gain credibility with statutory sector partners. It was recognised that efficiently disseminating information about the LAA is a challenging task given its inherent complexity. Some participants acknowledged that they’d received information, but disregarded it, as it seemed too dense and irrelevant to day-to-day operations. It became apparent throughout the Review that there were deep-seated and historic tensions between representatives of “voluntary” and “community” organisations. This could be a significant driver of the friction between the Area Forums in particular, and the broader VCS. Many representatives from the Area Forums that sit on the LSP are not necessarily accountable back to bona fide community groups which means that the extent to which information “trickles down” is limited. Similarly, the opportunity to communicate issues and priorities from communities to inform the Community Strategy and the LAA’s local priorities are also limited. Some participants in the workshops were critical of what they described as “the usual suspects” representing the Area Forums on the LSP. Because lines of accountability are unclear, their status as bona-fide representatives is called into question and it is suggested that many bring their own personal views rather a representative view of the communities they represent.

The LAA Questionnaire A questionnaire drawn up by SURF and modified by the NRA following consultation with the Blackpool LSP Manager was circulated to those SURF members who had expressed an interest in the Focus Groups, but were unable to attend. Unfortunately, responses to the questionnaire were poor with only 13 being returned representing just 7 organisations, three of which were also represented at the workshops. Responses to the questionnaires

5

were consistent with the issues raised in the themed workshops, but represented too small a sample to draw any firm conclusions.

The Block Leads Questionnaire To help inform the review process, six questionnaires were sent to the Block Leads for the LAA covering the four main block themes with Healthier Communities & Older People and Children & Young People split into separate block leads. Three questionnaires were returned: Health, Children and Older People. The three Block Leads were positive about how the LAA is working. The Children Block Lead cited key areas of success in reductions in teenage pregnancy rates, improved educational attainment at Key Stage 3, improvements in social care core assessments completed within timescales and improvements in school attendance. It was recognised by the Health lead that further work is still needed on funding priorities and streams. The Health lead cited the greatest level of VCS engagement through subgroups of the Health Inequalities Partnership including representation and stakeholder events. These included: • • • • • •

Accidents (Age Concern/Consultation with Senior Voice) Tobacco Control (Regular stakeholder days, last stakeholder Day 8 December 2006) Warmer Homes (Advice Link/Operation Counter Attack Launch) Sexual Health LIT (Body Positive, Heal, Drugline/Stakeholder event with Youth Council) Alcohol Harm Reduction Partnership (ADS/Stakeholder event) SNPA Alliance (CVS, Sporting Associations, Residents Association/Consultation Events – youth forum, area forums)

The CVS and PPI on Health Inequalities Officers Group and Partnership were also cited as sources of representation, and the VCS was credited with delivering various services including health trainers, sexual health, sport, activity and nutrition and breast feeding. The Children’s Block Lead explained the commitment to VCS engagement in some detail and stressed Blackpool Council’s commitment through its LAA and Children and Young People’s Plan (C&YPP) to work more effectively with the Voluntary, Community and Faith Sector. It was noted that the VCS was consulted on the Children and Young People’s Plan and that SURF provided “some very useful and comprehensive feedback”, however, the it was noted that VCS were consulted on a draft of the plan and were not involved in its early development. It was explained that the 9 priorities of Blackpool’s Children and Young People’s Plan, and the aligned LAA Children’s Block outcomes are owned by Blackpool Children’s Trust, a subgroup of the LSP. It was noted that there are three VCS agencies linked to the Trust: Barnardos, NSPCC and the CVS and that one of the themes for the Trust meetings has been the engagement of the voluntary sector. The Older People Block Lead cited Services Users and Carers, Age Concern, Senior Voice Forum and the PPI Forum as VCS engagement in the LAA, noting that Age Concern is part of the delivery programme. When asked about the perception of the VCS’s capacity to engage in the LAA process, either as strategic partners or as deliverers of services, only the Children and Young People block responded in any detail. The Lead’s comments are re-produced below:

6

“There is currently a perceived lack of capacity within the VCS to delivery the services that the C&YPD would like to commission and work needs to be done to help grow the sector by increasing activity, finances and membership. Numbers of volunteers in the town are well below the national average, although it is recognised that in Blackpool there is still work to be done on how members of the public who volunteer are counted. There are also not the same numbers of VCS agencies working in Blackpool compared with our neighbours across the North West. While it would be fair to say that the Voluntary community and faith sector is active in Blackpool, there would be benefits form a greater degree of coordination across the sector. The Children’s Trust has undertaken a volunteer involvement questionnaire across services to identify where volunteers are engaged within the statutory sector. The C&YPD has commissioned an audit to establish the capacity of the CVS to deliver services on behalf of the C&YPD and to liaise with the sector to identify the skills required for a full time worker to act as a link/development worker between the sector and the C&YPD. Connexions and the Blackpool Council for Voluntary Youth Services (BCVYS) have taken forward the funding of a post to help build capacity in the CVS to supporting young people Not in Education, Employment or Training (NEET)” The Health Lead shared the perception of VCS lack of capacity. When invited to comment on the challenges faced in dealing with VCS organisations, either as strategic partners, consultees or service providers, again, only the Children and Young People’s Lead responded in any detail (reproduced below): “The recent audit undertaken on behalf of the C&YPD identified the need to work closer with the VCS to enable them to build capacity to enable longer term joint working between the two sectors i.e. voluntary and statutory. The feed back from the VCS, albeit from just over half of the VCS agencies that work with the C&YPD, was fairly positive regarding their experience of joint working but clearly identified some of the barriers to effective working currently in place, these included: •

Short term contracts restricting longer term planning

•

VCS viewed as the poor relation and therefore lack of recognition as to the benefits they can bring

•

Lack of involvement in strategic planning

•

Misinformed perceptions regarding both the Statutory and VCS from both sides

The C&YPD are committed to employing an officer who will work closely with the VCS to help overcome some of the barriers to joint working.” The Health and Older people Block Leads did not identify any challenges, though the Health Lead made the observation that community views often differ from the national evidence (informed by national and international research). In terms of applying the National Compact to the LAA process, of the four options offered: •

1 block lead felt a code should be developed or adapted on sector involvement in the LAA

7

• • •

No one felt the Compact should be clearly linked with the LAA 1 considered that there should be an annual review of LAA involvement in the LAA and 1 supported the appointment of a person with authority on each block theme as a champion for VCS engagement

The LAA Review Conference The LAA Review Conference convened jointly by SURF, Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde CVS and BCVYS (the Blackpool Council for Voluntary Youth Service) took place at the Blackpool Football Club on 10th May 2007 and was attended by 84 people representing 47 organisations. Most of the delegates stayed with the conference for the full day. The conference aimed to both raise general awareness of the LAA and provide an opportunity for statutory sector partners to review the LAA process to date. The morning sessions featured a panel of speakers who participated in a “Question Time” style session, joined by Joel Tagg from GONW, to respond to participants’ questions to conclude the morning session. The speakers were: • • • •

David Burnby (NRA) General Introduction to LAAs Kate Housden (LAA Project Worker, NAVCA) The national experience of VCS engagement in LAAs Annabel Hammond (Blackpool LSP manager) Progress to date with the Blackpool LAA Martin Honeywell (NRA) Experience of developing the Compact in the West Midlands

In the afternoon, there were four independently facilitated workshops mirroring the four block themes of the LAA, each featuring input from the LAA Block Leads (the officers charged with writing the respective themed chapters of the LAA). A fifth workshop facilitated by Annabel Hammond featured an introduction to LAAs for those less experienced in the four themed blocks. Much of the output from the workshops echoed that of the focus groups prior to the conference. Recurrent themes included a lack of trust between the VCS and the Statutory Sector and lack of accessible information about the LAA process including issues around use of language and acronyms. A specific idea that emerged from the Children and Young People workshop was to stage a community/voluntary awards evening for young people and volunteers to celebrate what has been achieved and highlight what the sector can offer. It was suggested such an evening could attract private sector sponsorship. Three conclusions were shared by all the workshops and warmly received during the plenary feedback sessions: • • •

The VCS must speak with a single, united voice Voluntary and Community Sector representation to the LSP and in the LAA process should be co-ordinated through a single Infrastructure Support Organisation that has the confidence of both the wider VCS and statutory sector partners The Compact needs enacting and applied to the LAA process

8

Community Engagement Framework for Blackpool A particular focus has been made on this draft framework, as it is potentially pivotal to future VCS representation in the LAA. The Local Government White Paper published in March 2006 reinforces the importance of community engagement in the Sustainable Community Strategy, the LAA and the Local Development Framework and calls for “... [a] comprehensive engagement strategy which captures the planned community engagement requirements of the individual partners and, where possible, combines activity.”1 Blackpool Council has compiled a community engagement framework, the first draft being published in March 2006. It was authored by the Blackpool Council’s Community Development Unit, and in its rationale states that “..structured community engagement and involvement systems will be at the core of the agreements” The document was tabled at the LAA Review Conference, and it was noticeable that knowledge of the draft was very limited. The document places the lead role of community engagement in the hands of the Council’s Community Development Unit stating, in the proposed terms of reference, that it will “lead on all matters relating to community development and engagement”. There is scant reference to the voluntary and community sector throughout the draft, though there is a proposal included to create a “Triangle Partnership between CVS, CDU and SURF”, one of only two references to SURF or CVS in the strategy (which both appear in the appendices as actions). To date there has been no progress to establish this partnership. The Strategy describes community engagement as a process to be brought into play, triggered by a series of considerations listed as “Criteria for Community Engagement”. In the “Terms of Reference for Community Engagement”, the first phase (“Analyse the Issues”) suggests that a decision should be made whether or not to engage the community following a risk analysis of not doing so. This places the community as a passive player in the policy making process, responding from time to time to issues considered of sufficient interest or sensitivity through varying levels of consultation. This is at odds with the philosophy of community empowerment that mainstreams community representation at the heart of the strategic development process as equal partners in developing vision, key outcomes and priorities. The role of the Community Empowerment Network is to facilitate this process, yet the virtual absence of reference to SURF (and CVS) as key partners in the community engagement process is symptomatic of how their role and the role of the VCS appears to have been marginalised. (See conclusions and recommendations)

A Standard for VCS Representation The need to establish a standard for VCS representation has been recognised by Government in the Local Government White Paper (Strong & Prosperous Communities). It states that “We will also work with national third sector umbrella bodies to establish a standard by which local third sector bodies should organise themselves to be effectively represented on LSPs.”2 1 2

Strong and Prosperous Communities, paragraph 5.61, Page 110 (DCLG 2006) Strong and prosperous communities, paragraph 5.20, page 98 (DCLG 2006)

9

Research from the Second Round of LAAs however identified the difficulties: “The VCS is increasingly involved in LAA governance structures, but although many in the VCS are aware of the LAA, understanding of what the LAA means in practice does not seem to run very deep and effective engagement of the VCS is in many locations impeded by the sector’s fragmentation and lack of capacity…this is also, in some cases, used as an excuse for failing to involve them.”3 As a third sector umbrella body, NAVCA is currently working on a national standard for VCS representation and, in laying out some basic principles, suggests that Local Infrastructure Organisations (such as CVS or SURF) should ensure the local VCS: • • • • • • • •

is well informed reflects the diversity of the local community identifies needs and solutions meets and communicates well collaborates is involved planning and policy making contributes to partnerships understands partnership roles & responsibilities

In principle, a national standard should ensure that local statutory sector partners are: • • • • • •

informed about changing needs in the local community aware of the sector’s role, expertise and value able to engage with all communities connected to the most excluded communities prepared to buy-in to a partnership of equals willing to resource the Standard

Overall, NAVCA suggests that the proposed National Standard must: • • • •

be owned by the VCS and deliver real improvements for local communities. enable VCS and statutory partners to meet halfway not become a bureaucratic straightjacket enable wider and deeper community engagement

Conclusions, Observations and Recommendations

3

•

VCS involvement in the design of the LAA has been limited. Where there has been VCS representation through the LSP, it has been fragmented and not necessarily well coordinated or accountable back to the wider sector. The language used in the workshops suggests that the VCS does not see itself as a partner in the renewal of Blackpool, but more a critic of the statutory sector. This suggests that the status of the partnership between the VCS and statutory sector agencies is somewhat tenuous.

•

General awareness of the LAA is very low in the VCS. Whilst this in itself may be inconsequential in terms of the LAA as a technical process, it is important that VCS organisations are aware that they have the opportunity through the sector’s representatives on the Blackpool LSP to influence local priorities and outcomes. A

Source LAA Research: Round 2 Negotiations & Early Progress in Round 1

10

basic “Understanding LAAs” document written in user friendly language would help, featuring a clear “road map” of VCS routes into the process. This should include the routes between various working groups or forums and the LSP thematic partnerships, and in turn, each block of the LAA. It should be clear who the sector’s representatives are, to whom they are accountable and how they can be influenced. •

Fragmentation in the Blackpool VCS and poor standards of representation in the past have damaged the sector’s credibility as a partner in the LSP. Some quarters of the VCS have the capacity to engage as equal partners in the LSP at both a strategic and service delivery level. Others, in the majority, have little capacity and lack the skills, knowledge and experience to engage effectively. The LSP recognises there is a capacity building need, yet the VCS support infrastructure in Blackpool is extremely weak and lacks the resources to deliver.

•

A group of organisations as diverse as the VCS will inevitably have differences of opinion, particularly when organisations are drawn into competition with one another for scare resources. Nevertheless, to retain credibility, the sector must debate differences of opinion constructively with a view to reaching consensus on key issues. Processes must be inclusive and transparent so that representatives are accountable to their peers and can speak authoritatively around the partnership table with a single voice.

•

There is a pressing need for an adequately resourced, Blackpool focussed generic Local Infrastructure Organisation (LIO) which incorporates the existing SURF network as part of a single organisation. The organisation should be owned and managed by the sector itself with a representative governing body elected by its members. Whilst there is likely to be longer term savings on overheads by merging SURF into a new, Blackpool focussed organisation, the driver should not be cost, but the creation of a single, accountable voice for the sector that can speak with authority. NAVCA (National Association of Voluntary and Community Action), the national body for LIOs, publishes a Performance Standard which outlines five core functions: o

The organisation pro-actively identifies needs in the local community and facilitates improvement in service provision to meet those needs

o

The organisation assists local voluntary and community organisations to function more effectively and deliver quality services to their users, members or constituents.

o

The organisation facilitates effective communication or networking and collaboration amongst local voluntary and community groups.

o

The organisation enables the diverse views of the local voluntary and community sector to be represented to external bodies, developing and facilitating structures which promote effective working relationships and two-way communication.

o

The organisation enhances the voluntary and community sector’s role as an integral part of local planning and policy-making.

As a rule of thumb, NAVCA recommends that the minimum core budget for a LIO is £200,000 per annum (which does not include a Community Empowerment Network or Volunteer Centre) which is significantly more than the existing CVS receives to service three local authority districts. Without this level of investment, it is difficult to see how the infrastructure support needs of the sector can be met and its potential realised. It is recommended that any service level agreement negotiated to fund a LIO along these lines should have a requirement that the organisation works

11

towards achieving the NAVCA performance standard (independently audited) within two years. •

Once a generic LIO is in place, VCS representation to the LSP should be drawn exclusively through the Community Empowerment Network to ensure that representatives are accountable back to the broader sector and are properly trained and supported in their role. Given the historic tensions between community groups (represented by volunteers) and voluntary organisations (represented by paid workers) it is legitimate to differentiate between the two when deciding representation across the LSP. Both have their role to play and each brings a different perspective. Paid workers in voluntary organisations work in communities and have specialist skills and knowledge. Volunteers in community groups have first hand experience of their communities as residents or as part of the community of interest they share. It would do no harm to create places across the LSP for both Voluntary and Community representatives, both co-ordinated through the SURF network, to ensure both perspectives are maximised.

•

There are no hard and fast definitions for “voluntary organisations” and “community organisations”. CENs that differentiate between the two for representation purposes will generally ask groups to define their own status when joining the CEN, subject to challenge by the broader membership if it is felt the organisation is misrepresenting its status. As a broad rule of thumb: -

Voluntary organisations will be accountable through formalised voluntary governance, will most likely (though not necessarily) employ paid workers to further its aims and objectives and will typically be involved in service delivery in exchange for grant funding or a contractual arrangement

-

Community Organisations will represent either a geographical community or a community of interest and will tend to be governed on a less formal basis with limited funding. They will be less likely to employ paid workers or be involved in formalised service delivery.

•

A Learning Plan is needed, drawn up by the LSP in partnership with the VCS to identify gaps in skills and knowledge and propose a range of learning opportunities for voluntary and community organisations looking to engage in the LSP and the LAA process. There are models of learning that have developed out of the Government’s “Learning Curve” strategy (first published in 2002) designed to bridge the skills gaps necessary for successful neighbourhood renewal. Many Community Empowerment Networks across the country have commissioned excellent learning programmes such as “How Your City Works” courses covering local governance issues and broadening awareness of the roles and contributions of partner agencies. The capacity within the VCS locally to deliver training should not be underestimated. Council Members and Officers could also benefit from training designed to create a greater awareness of local VCS functions, support needs and potential.

•

More innovative ways of disseminating information about the LAA need to be developed which don’t rely exclusively on the written word. Where documents are circulated by SURF, they should feature a précis focussing on the most relevant points and written in accessible language. Where acronyms are used, they should be defined in a glossary of terms. Developing appropriate filtering mechanisms for information on the LAA is a skill SURF needs to develop further. One approach is to ask organisations what level of information they require. Some groups will feel they need to receive detailed information on all aspects of the LAA. Others will only want to see information relevant to their group or sub-sector. The SURF web site is a good resource which could be further developed to provide a more comprehensive data

12

base of information, including the basic “road map” discussed elsewhere in this report. •

The appointment of a senior Councillor as “Champion” for the VCS in Blackpool would help streamline communications between the Council and the VCS, and keep issues on the agenda, perhaps supported by a Senior Officer with a specific brief to support VCS development and community engagement

•

The draft Community Engagement Framework signals a clear intent by Blackpool Council to consult with relevant communities over particular issues, but fails to address some fundamental community empowerment principles. It is suggested that the LSP takes on the task of moving the Framework on to produce a Community Engagement Strategy as proposed in the Local Government White Paper which includes community engagement standards and related indicators embracing the basic principles outlined by NAVCA. The document should address in clear language how communities will engage in the LAA process as equal partners at a strategic and operational level. The task of preparing the first draft in consultation with key stakeholders would fall naturally within SURF’s remit that could be given the lead on behalf of the LSP, thus ensuring VCS ownership from the start of the process.

•

A significant investment has been made in drawing up the Compact, but general awareness and understanding within the VCS appears to be limited, both within the VCS and amongst other partners. The Compact agreement has the potential to harmonise the working relationship between the VCS and statutory sector partners, yet it has failed to achieve buy-in across the sector and many VCS representatives appear ambivalent and, in some cases, hostile towards it. VCS representatives have also complained about lack of progress on implementing and monitoring progress on the Compact since its launch. The Compact needs to become a central feature of the LAA negotiations and delegates have signalled a desire to see the LAA “Compact Proofed”. The production of a Compact Implementation Strategy is recommended. It should be a permanent agenda item on LSP and SURF agendas so it becomes a development agenda rather than a static document. VCS ambivalence and hostility towards the Compact needs to be surfaced, understood and addressed as it requires total buy-in on both sides (voluntary and statutory) to become an effective tool and generate constructive dialogue and improved practice. Progress with the Compact may be assisted by appointing a senior Champion within the LSP to co-ordinate the statutory side of the agreement and liaise directly with the VCS.

David Burnby Neighbourhood Renewal Advisor May 2007

13

Glossary of Acronyms used in the Report ADS

Alcohol and Drugs Service

BCVYS

Blackpool Council for Voluntary Youth Service

C&YPP

Children and Young People’s Plan

C&YPD

Children & Young People’s Department (Blackpool Council)

CDU

Community Development Unit (Blackpool Council)

CEN

Community Empowerment Network

CVS

Council for Voluntary Service

GONW

Government Office for the North West

ISO

Infrastructure Support Organisation

LAA

Local Area Agreement

LIT

Local Implementation Team

LSP

Local Strategic Partnership

NAVCA

National Association of Voluntary and Community Action

NEET

Not In Education, Employment or Training

NRA

Neighbourhood Renewal Advisor

PPI

Patient and Public Involvement

SNPA

Sport Nutrients and Physical Activity (Alliance)

SURF

Sustainable Urban Renewal Federation (the Blackpool CEN)

(Previously the National Association of Councils for Voluntary Service)

Members of a national panel of neighbourhood renewal specialists supported by the government’s Neighbourhood Renewal Unit and available to advise local neighbourhood renewal projects, commissioned by local government offices.

Third Sector Used as an alternative to the VCS as a general term embracing voluntary, community, and faith groups as well as social enterprise VCS

Voluntary and Community Sector

14

Appendix One - Local Area Agreement Review – Questionnaire The purpose of this questionnaire is to seek the view of voluntary, community and faith sector groups in Blackpool (referred to as “The Sector”) about the Blackpool Local Area Agreement (LAA). It is designed to help identify how future revisions of the LAA can best engage The Sector to ensure better outcomes for the people of Blackpool. Comments will not be attributed to individual organisations. References to “Themed Issues” relate to the four themes or ‘block’s of the LAA, i.e.

   

Children and Young People Economic Well Being Health and Older People Safer and Stronger Communities

1. Please indicate, by placing a cross along the line below (over the numbers), the level of your knowledge about the Blackpool Local Area Agreement, where 1 equals no knowledge at all and 10 equals good knowledge 1

2

No knowledge

3

4

5

6

Some knowledge

7

8

Reasonable knowledge

9

10

Good knowledge

2. Have you ever received specific information about LAAs from the LSP or SURF? Yes – Good information

Any comments about this?

Yes – Some Information No – No information 3. Does your organisation have experience of, or involvement in any of the four themes that may be of relevance to the LAA? (please indicate all that are relevant) Children and Young People

Economic Well Being

Health and Older People

Safer and Stronger Communities

4. Does your organisation have involvement in any of the following projects? (please indicate all that are relevant) Springboard Reassurance Plus/Neighbourhoods Shiver Operation Counteract Smoke Free Blackpool Senior Voice

Positive Steps into Work Alternate Predict and Prevent Alcohol Harm Reduction Groups Falls Strategy Groups Sport Nutrients and Physical Activity Alliance

15

5. What has been your organisation’s involvement in the LAA theme? (please tick all that apply) I have been consulted at the design/development stage of the LAA I have been consulted in connection with the delivery of the LAA I am a strategic partner in the LAA theme I am a strategic partner in the LSP Assembly, Executive or a thematic partnership* We are delivering services contributing towards LAA outcomes I attended the Blackpool Debate * i.e. Children’s Trust, Stronger Communities Partnership, BSafe, Health Inequalities Partnership, Older Peoples Commissioning Group, Economic Partnership.

6. Please describe any difficulties you have experienced in getting/staying involved in the LAA process or projects

7.

What would help you and/or your organisation get (or stay) involved in the LAA process or projects?

8. Do you feel The Sector needs to change in order to contribute more effectively towards the LAA? And if so, how?

16

9. What are you views on this review of The Sector’s involvement in the LAA? YES / NO / DON’T KNOW



Should it be an annual event?



Should The Sector develop its own strategic action plan covering engagement and service delivery? YES / NO / DON’T KNOW

Any Other Comments

Completed by: Organisation:

Appendix Two - LAA Review – Block Leads Questionnaire 17

The purpose of this questionnaire is to inform workshop discussions at the forthcoming Local Area Agreement Review conference and help to promote constructive voluntary and community sector engagement in the LAA. It is intended that the completed questionnaires are circulated to conference delegates in advance of the conference and it is therefore requested that this is completed and returned to SURF to arrive no later than Monday 30th April 2007. LAA Block Theme Completed By (Block Lead) 1. From your experience and evidence to date, is the LAA working as you anticipated? If not, could you highlight the aspects that have failed to live up to your expectations?

2. What is your experience of Voluntary and Community Sector (VCS) engagement in the LAA to date? Please could you cite specific examples of roles in:

   

Strategic Planning and Design Information provided for the VCS Consultation exercises undertaken with VCS Groups Other forms of VCS participation in the design and/or delivery of the LAA

18

3. What added value (if any) has the VCS brought to your LAA theme?

4. What arrangements (if any) were made to liaise or brief VCS organisations in your Block theme (e.g was specific information sent out to VCS organisations?) In making any arrangements, did you refer to the Compact?

5. Can you approximate the percentage of services delivered (in value terms) by VCS organisations under your themed block of the LAA

%

19

6. Is there a cost of community engagement or community involvement factored into your block? Yes

No

7. What is your perception of the VCS’s capacity to engage in the LAA process, either as strategic partners or as deliverers of services?

8. What challenges do you face in dealing with VCS organisations, either as strategic partners, consultees or service providers?

20

9. Have you any thoughts on what could address the challenges indicated above?

10. The following approaches are recommended in the National Compact in relation to working with VCS organisations. Which (if any) do you think are feasible for Blackpool? (please tick as appropriate)

•

Develop or adapt a code on sector involvement in LAA

•

Link Compact clearly with LAA – ‘Compact proof’ the and ensure it is Compact compliant

•

An annual event to review sector involvement in LAA, using Compact as guiding tool

•

The appointment of a person with authority on each block theme to ‘champion’ sector involvement.

Any other comments?

21

LAA